April 24, 2025 Planning Commission - City of Rancho Mirage

Transcript text

AI transcript text.

[00:00:10] Hello. Hello. Good afternoon, everyone.
[00:00:12] Um, it's uh 2 o'clock. I want to go
[00:00:15] ahead and call the planning commission
[00:00:17] meeting to order. It's Thursday, April
[00:00:19] 24th uh 2025 at 2 p.m. So, go ahead and
[00:00:24] start with the flag salute. We'll have
[00:00:25] uh uh Commissioner Gray lead us in the
[00:00:28] flag salute. That's his penalty. Murray.
[00:00:30] Thank you.
[00:00:35] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[00:00:38] United States of America and to the
[00:00:41] republic for which it stands, one nation
[00:00:44] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[00:00:47] justice for all.
[00:00:55] So, I'll open it. Turn it over for roll
[00:00:57] call. Commissioner Bryant,
[00:01:01] present. Commissioner Curran, present.
[00:01:03] Commissioner Gray, present. Vice Chair
[00:01:06] Chanter, present. And Chair Agustini,
[00:01:09] present. And we have a quorum. Thank
[00:01:11] you. So, next up is uh Commissioner
[00:01:14] Comments. I'll go from my left all the
[00:01:16] way to the right. Start with
[00:01:17] Commissioner Gray.
[00:01:19] Always love to go first. Welcome
[00:01:21] everybody. We have a relatively small
[00:01:23] group today. We have a couple of our
[00:01:25] noted council members here, but I
[00:01:27] received notice from our clerk Christy
[00:01:30] that I was reappointed effective January
[00:01:32] 1 to this planning commission. Like to
[00:01:34] thank the council for that honor and
[00:01:36] privilege and glad to remain of service.
[00:01:40] Thank
[00:01:43] that's it. Thank you, Commissioner
[00:01:46] Chanter. Uh and uh as with Commissioner
[00:01:48] Gray, thank you very much for reappoint.
[00:01:51] I appreciate it and I'm very honored to
[00:01:53] be part of this organization. I'd just
[00:01:56] like to uh comment and um recognize
[00:02:00] Commissioner Bryant for receiving the
[00:02:02] Senior Inspiration 2025 award. Um he's
[00:02:05] been an inspiration to me personally.
[00:02:07] I've learned a lot just listening to him
[00:02:09] at our meetings and thank you for all
[00:02:11] the service and all the years that
[00:02:13] you've participated and given back to
[00:02:15] the community.
[00:02:18] I have one problem with it though. I
[00:02:20] wish they would drop the senior.
[00:02:23] I've been lying about my age for so many
[00:02:25] years. Now I can't do it anymore.
[00:02:30] Well, congratulations. Thank you,
[00:02:31] Commissioner. Uh yes, and I echo those
[00:02:34] um same comments. I appreciate the the
[00:02:38] privilege to be a member and serving on
[00:02:40] the planning commission and be a part of
[00:02:42] Ranch Mirage. Um it's a great city, a
[00:02:45] great community. So, I'll turn it next
[00:02:47] to Commissioner
[00:02:50] Kieran
[00:02:52] Karen. Anyway, well, I just want to
[00:02:54] thank the staff because they met with me
[00:02:56] once again and supported me so much
[00:02:57] through this last year and I just want
[00:02:59] to thank them. They're amazing here.
[00:03:02] Thank you. And Commissioner Bryant.
[00:03:06] Um, so I too u uh am privileged and
[00:03:10] honored to serve another year on the
[00:03:12] planning commission. This is my uh
[00:03:15] seventh year. I guess I started in 2018
[00:03:18] and um uh I' I've definitely learned a
[00:03:21] lot. Uh and there's much more to learn.
[00:03:24] It's a continuing process. You never
[00:03:26] know it all. It's so complex and again
[00:03:29] it goes to how important it is that we
[00:03:31] have the planning department because
[00:03:33] without them uh we would look pretty
[00:03:36] foolish up here actually.
[00:03:38] Uh
[00:03:40] I also I want to thank uh Ben and Joy
[00:03:42] who uh spent a lot of time with me in
[00:03:45] preparing for this. While there's not
[00:03:46] many people here, there are a lot of
[00:03:48] complex issues and um uh they spent we
[00:03:53] spent a lot of time. I'm only probably
[00:03:55] going to highlight about 10% of what we
[00:03:57] talked about. uh but there were many
[00:03:59] more things that we delved into to help
[00:04:01] me understand uh more in depth about
[00:04:04] even other issues that uh come before
[00:04:07] the city. Also want to thank uh
[00:04:09] Commissioner Gray who um uh gave me some
[00:04:14] inside information
[00:04:16] um that uh Miss Duk, the director
[00:04:20] uh ran to the her window and was
[00:04:24] screaming, "I can't take it anymore."
[00:04:26] Commissioner Bryant
[00:04:28] constantly pounding me to get rid of
[00:04:30] those ugly big jagged rocks that are
[00:04:33] heat sink and ruin plants in
[00:04:35] landscaping. So um and I know you can't
[00:04:38] divulge your sources where you said
[00:04:40] that. Um and
[00:04:44] instead of pounding I would have
[00:04:46] preferred the word advocating.
[00:04:48] Uh, but be that as it may, I think I'm
[00:04:51] making progress. And Mayor, while I you
[00:04:55] know me long enough that I'm an optimist
[00:04:58] being in the promotion, marketing, and
[00:05:00] sales arenas for 50 years, you learn to
[00:05:03] take a lot of nos before you take a yes.
[00:05:06] And I want to assure you, undaunted, I
[00:05:08] am going to continue my quest.
[00:05:10] Um,
[00:05:12] okay. Um, as I often do, I ride around
[00:05:15] the city. I look looking at projects
[00:05:17] that are underway u and I like to see
[00:05:20] the progress what's going on of course
[00:05:23] at Disney Cotina. Um about a month ago,
[00:05:27] I went out, my sister was in town, uh
[00:05:29] from South Carolina, and then a friend
[00:05:31] of mine was here, uh who actually
[00:05:33] markets high-end branded residences, you
[00:05:36] know, the five to$20 million stuff. And
[00:05:39] uh we went out there, I think we right
[00:05:41] there when they opened on at 10:00 and
[00:05:44] went in and um we spent time, uh in
[00:05:49] their sales gallery, which is very
[00:05:51] impressive. Um, and then my sister and
[00:05:55] friend, they went out and toured the
[00:05:56] homes. I stayed in there and listened to
[00:05:59] the uh presentations there to all the
[00:06:01] people come in. They have an incredible
[00:06:05] uh touchscreen interactive map and I was
[00:06:08] able to talk to the sales agents, get a
[00:06:11] good idea for what's selling, what's
[00:06:12] going on. Uh the lake is almost filled,
[00:06:15] construction's booming, and u uh what we
[00:06:20] hope is they will also get a boutique
[00:06:23] hotel and condo hotel units which drive
[00:06:26] toot to the city. Um and one of the
[00:06:29] things is going to be a boon to them is
[00:06:31] across the street is the Shadow Ridge
[00:06:33] Time Share. There are thousands of
[00:06:35] people there every day. Probably have I
[00:06:38] think probably have 800 or 900 keys now.
[00:06:42] Um, and they can literally walk right
[00:06:44] across the street because the entrance
[00:06:46] is going to line up to their entrance
[00:06:48] and those people can walk and bicycle
[00:06:50] over there. So, the uh the commercial
[00:06:53] center is going to be a happening place.
[00:07:00] Uh, and yesterday,
[00:07:03] um, while I was at a doctor's
[00:07:04] appointment, uh, I went over on the, uh,
[00:07:08] the Eisenhower campus for a stop by the
[00:07:11] country club development. We know
[00:07:13] there's three, uh, uh, facilities, the
[00:07:16] memory care, child care administration
[00:07:18] building. They're going licickety split
[00:07:20] over there with the groundwork coming
[00:07:22] along very quickly. I rode through the
[00:07:24] Betty Ford Center. U and uh I forget a
[00:07:28] couple years ago when they came before
[00:07:30] all the changes they were making uh
[00:07:32] building some new buildings. Um one of
[00:07:35] the uh when it came before us the
[00:07:38] neighbors on the south they were
[00:07:40] concerned about the visual aspect and so
[00:07:42] on. So they put in they have very high
[00:07:45] FCAS hedges all along on the south side.
[00:07:48] You can't even see the houses over
[00:07:49] there. They've done a great job of that.
[00:07:52] And uh at their entrance on visit del
[00:07:54] soul uh they put in a very nice wall and
[00:07:58] landscaping
[00:07:59] um to cover because there's still vacant
[00:08:02] land uh between there and the kind of
[00:08:05] the main part of it. Uh so they put in a
[00:08:08] great wall and the landscaping the
[00:08:10] street coming in is curve linear. Um,
[00:08:13] and while at that at the planning
[00:08:15] commission, I was not in favor of an
[00:08:17] entrance over there because I didn't I
[00:08:20] felt that it might interfere with the
[00:08:22] residential area. Um, I think they've
[00:08:25] done a good job of uh of making that not
[00:08:29] so uh uh um anyway, they've done the
[00:08:34] best they can if you're going to have an
[00:08:35] entrance over there, but it looks really
[00:08:37] good.
[00:08:38] Um, and then the other, if anybody has
[00:08:41] been out there recently, the uh the
[00:08:44] cardiology the new cardiology center,
[00:08:47] it's mindboggling how fast they've grown
[00:08:50] up. Uh, I talked to the head valet and
[00:08:52] he had on his calendar they laid they
[00:08:55] brought their first beam on March the
[00:08:57] 15th and literally I think it's about
[00:09:00] topped out now, the iron superructure.
[00:09:03] I've never seen anything go up so fast.
[00:09:05] Um and both that that center is
[00:09:09] desperately needed for the valley uh
[00:09:12] there the existing center is uh
[00:09:15] overloaded and uh both for the current
[00:09:20] population of patients and then the
[00:09:22] future. So it's going to be a great
[00:09:24] facility uh magnificent building and so
[00:09:27] on. So, um, both of those things,
[00:09:30] they're not only a huge benefit to the
[00:09:33] city of Rancho Mirage, but they benefit
[00:09:35] the entire valley also. So, again, as
[00:09:38] I've always said, that's a shining star
[00:09:40] in our Rancho Mirage Galaxy is the the
[00:09:43] Eisenhower campus.
[00:09:47] That's it. Thank you. Thank you,
[00:09:49] Commissioner. So, next on our agenda is
[00:09:52] our non-aggenda public comments.
[00:09:56] Thank you. Thank you. I did not receive
[00:09:57] any speaker cards for non-aggenda. Okay.
[00:10:06] Good afternoon. Brad Anderson. I
[00:10:07] currently live in the city. I thought I
[00:10:09] missed it. Sorry. I would have I would
[00:10:11] have filled out the the slip. Uh why I'm
[00:10:14] here. I just wanted I didn't think I'd
[00:10:15] make today's meeting so sorry. Um I
[00:10:18] wanted to bring up a few items. Um I
[00:10:21] guess uh the main one is uh the
[00:10:23] recording of the minutes. Not that you
[00:10:25] have anything to do with that, but I
[00:10:26] would definitely strongly um advocate
[00:10:29] for you to advocate against the per
[00:10:32] current policy um just because it is a
[00:10:35] sense of censorship against individual
[00:10:38] speakers like myself um when the
[00:10:41] recording minutes are recorded. I mean
[00:10:43] that's a bad way of saying it but uh and
[00:10:45] um and I know uh at prior council
[00:10:48] meetings or prior planning planning
[00:10:50] commission meetings there was talk about
[00:10:53] one of the commissioners spoke about
[00:10:55] people not complaining so everything
[00:10:57] should be okay meaning like the
[00:10:59] porcupine and and in those type of
[00:11:02] developments that all took place in a
[00:11:04] number of years during the co crisis. Uh
[00:11:08] and and I just want to just emphasize
[00:11:11] that just because people don't continue
[00:11:13] to complain doesn't mean that people
[00:11:15] aren't concerned about the matters and
[00:11:17] how it impacts their lives. Like me, I
[00:11:20] don't complain about a lot of stuff.
[00:11:22] Hint hint wink wink. U mainly on on a
[00:11:26] few topics just because it doesn't get
[00:11:28] me anywhere at this pod podium. I will
[00:11:31] definitely advocate later for other
[00:11:33] items or other positions or other I
[00:11:37] guess platforms uh to make my points
[00:11:39] viewed my points and views um as widely
[00:11:45] you know available as possible. Um and
[00:11:48] and why I'm I'm not going to waste all
[00:11:50] your time. I just think you know stuff
[00:11:52] off the top of my head um concerning
[00:11:54] volunteer and the and the investigations
[00:11:56] to people that volunteer. I know a lot
[00:11:59] of people are okay with that. I am to a
[00:12:02] certain aspect. Uh but
[00:12:06] I think it's just an overreach of the
[00:12:07] city because I don't think there's any
[00:12:09] clear set policy. The city manager has
[00:12:12] complete control of that information and
[00:12:15] and and
[00:12:17] I'm just I'm against that mainly because
[00:12:20] of that. There's really no transparency.
[00:12:22] I'm going to use that word a lot. And I
[00:12:24] noticed at the library there's going to
[00:12:26] be a volunteer type avenue for kids to
[00:12:29] serve there. Are they going to go
[00:12:32] through this process of background
[00:12:34] checks to the Department of Defense? Not
[00:12:35] Department of Defense, Department of
[00:12:37] Justice. I doubt it. I hope not. Uh but
[00:12:40] uh if they that should be if if that's
[00:12:43] what the city wants to do and that's all
[00:12:44] I have. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[00:12:48] Is there anyone else who would like to
[00:12:50] speak on something not on today's
[00:12:51] agenda? That was the only speaker. All
[00:12:54] righty. Thank you. So, I'll go ahead and
[00:12:56] close the public comments. Uh, next up
[00:13:00] is approval of the minutes from the
[00:13:01] March 13, 2025 regular meeting.
[00:13:06] I need a motion to approve or
[00:13:09] discussion.
[00:13:11] I'll move to approve the minutes on the
[00:13:12] March 13, 2025 uh, commission meeting.
[00:13:16] Second.
[00:13:18] All right. And let's vote.
[00:13:26] Vice Chair Chanter, can you try yours?
[00:13:28] Thank you.
[00:13:32] Motion carries 4 with Commissioner Gray
[00:13:35] abstained.
[00:13:37] Thank you. Okay, so moving on to our
[00:13:40] action item 5A, journal plan annual
[00:13:43] progress report for 2024.
[00:13:46] Um, I'll go ahead and turn it over to
[00:13:48] staff for our report. I'd like
[00:13:53] Thank you. Uh good afternoon and thank
[00:13:56] you chair Agustinini and um good
[00:13:58] afternoon planning commissioners. Uh for
[00:14:00] your review today is the general plan
[00:14:02] annual progress report for the 2024 uh
[00:14:05] calendar year. Um this report is a
[00:14:08] routine report required by the state
[00:14:10] that summarizes the status of the
[00:14:12] general plan implementation and
[00:14:14] highlights planning activities for the
[00:14:16] 2024 calendar year. Uh staff has not
[00:14:19] received any outside correspondence or
[00:14:22] comments regarding this request and
[00:14:24] staff recommends the planning commission
[00:14:26] approve the 2024 general plan annual
[00:14:29] progress report and forward it to the
[00:14:31] city council to receive and file. This
[00:14:34] concludes my presentation. Thank you.
[00:14:37] Thank you, Joy.
[00:14:39] So, I'll go ahead and open it up to uh
[00:14:41] public comments.
[00:14:43] Thank you. I did not receive any speaker
[00:14:44] cards on this item. Is there anyone who
[00:14:46] would like to speak?
[00:14:48] No speakers. Thank you. So, I'll turn it
[00:14:50] over to Commissioner comments. Going
[00:14:52] left to right. Commissioner Gray,
[00:14:55] I have no comments on this item.
[00:14:58] Commissioner Chanter, it was great
[00:15:00] reading and a reminder of all the work
[00:15:02] that the city does and the city council
[00:15:04] and uh it was impressive. Thank you. Uh
[00:15:08] I I have no comments myself. I'll turn
[00:15:10] it to Commissioner Kieran. No comments,
[00:15:12] no questions. Commissioner Bryant.
[00:15:17] All right. Thank you, Jason.
[00:15:19] Joy, could you bring up the second page
[00:15:21] of this right here, please?
[00:15:24] It's the overview page. Yes. Okay. Could
[00:15:28] you bring that up on the screen, please?
[00:15:30] Yes. Give us one moment. Okay.
[00:15:39] Is it page number 10, Commissioner
[00:15:41] Bryant, on the packet? What is that?
[00:15:44] Page number 10 on the page number 10 on
[00:15:46] the packet. Yeah. So, we can pull that
[00:15:48] up for you.
[00:15:57] There we go. Okay. Um just wanted to
[00:16:00] point out that u there are a lot of
[00:16:03] moving parts and pieces of the the
[00:16:06] general plan. Uh there happens to be 11
[00:16:09] here. Um I'm going to just highlight a
[00:16:11] few of them. And again thank you again
[00:16:14] Ben and Joy for all the time you spent
[00:16:16] with me uh Tuesday uh going through each
[00:16:19] of these uh in uh in detail. Um so the
[00:16:24] first one uh uh in in the land use there
[00:16:28] again they're talking about the cell
[00:16:30] phone study the wireless uh existing and
[00:16:33] planned infrastructure and so on and I
[00:16:35] know we have a an item on that later on
[00:16:38] uh so I'm not going to go into it. One
[00:16:41] uh nifty thing in there is the uh you
[00:16:44] can go to the website, the city website
[00:16:46] now, and you can put your home address
[00:16:49] in there, and it will tell you what, uh
[00:16:53] what carriers service your area and the
[00:16:56] the quality or the amount that you get
[00:16:58] in each area. So, uh that's pretty cool.
[00:17:00] I don't know if that's actually in is
[00:17:02] that up in place and in working now?
[00:17:05] That that's available on our city
[00:17:06] website for every resident to access.
[00:17:08] Okay. All right. So, uh, that's very
[00:17:10] cool. Um, the second one, it was the
[00:17:14] policy 4.2. It was a highway 111
[00:17:17] specific plans, uh, merging the there's
[00:17:20] an east plan, a west plan, and actually
[00:17:23] there are gaps along there that are not
[00:17:24] covered by each. And so, um, uh, uh, the
[00:17:30] goal is to merge those into one plan for
[00:17:33] the entire Highway 111. Uh, and it's
[00:17:36] critical for the long term. uh that we
[00:17:40] develop uh businesses that generate
[00:17:45] recurring revenues to the city like the
[00:17:47] Jessup Auto Plaza. So, we're uh uh uh
[00:17:52] waiting with batty breath for that one
[00:17:54] to come on, but uh most of our
[00:17:56] commercial land left in the city is
[00:17:58] along Highway 111. Obviously, there's
[00:18:00] stuff off Bob Hope out there or there
[00:18:03] all the medical facilities. Um, and so
[00:18:06] later on the economic development study
[00:18:08] I'm going to get into
[00:18:11] um because we we don't have we don't
[00:18:14] have uh lots of land to develop yet. And
[00:18:18] so we got to be careful what we do and
[00:18:20] be be sure that those businesses not
[00:18:22] only are serving the residents and uh
[00:18:25] and the businesses but that it generates
[00:18:27] revenue to the city. Um
[00:18:31] then moving into uh there was a section
[00:18:34] called public services and facilities.
[00:18:37] Um a couple of them were uh 4.1 4.1a
[00:18:45] was going to study the feasibility of
[00:18:47] acquiring and operating an electrical
[00:18:50] time share infrastructure. Um and I know
[00:18:54] it said in there there were going to be
[00:18:57] feasibility studies. I assume that's
[00:18:59] operational and financial and I know the
[00:19:01] city um is well capable of doing that.
[00:19:05] But what was not in there that popped up
[00:19:07] in my mind was the risk and liability
[00:19:09] assessment.
[00:19:11] Um and as a resident obviously and a
[00:19:15] planning commissioner, it threw up huge
[00:19:17] red flags for me. Uh we just got to look
[00:19:21] at the Southern California fires, the
[00:19:23] Paradise fire in 18, Tubs fire I think
[00:19:27] in in 17 uh and the public utilities
[00:19:31] Southern California Edison PG&E and I
[00:19:35] believe the uh the Paradise Fire the
[00:19:37] damages
[00:19:39] were 15 to30 billion dollar and PG&E
[00:19:43] filed bankruptcy
[00:19:45] and uh so uh you know Without far more
[00:19:50] information, I would be against the city
[00:19:52] acquiring ownership of the electrical uh
[00:19:55] transmission things. Obviously, we don't
[00:19:58] have forests where we could have forest
[00:20:00] fires. Uh but about 20 years ago, uh
[00:20:04] there was a southern cal and Edison u
[00:20:08] uh station or something along the street
[00:20:12] just near me and it blew up in the
[00:20:14] middle of the night. and it was like a
[00:20:16] bomb went off. And so while it didn't
[00:20:19] start a fire, if people were near there,
[00:20:21] there's just so much potential
[00:20:22] liability. And so, uh, that was
[00:20:26] something that threw up a red flag for
[00:20:27] me.
[00:20:29] Um,
[00:20:32] the next one in here was the economic
[00:20:34] and fiscal. And one of the goal first
[00:20:37] goal was it says to balance the uh have
[00:20:41] a balanced economic base uh that serves
[00:20:44] the residences, businesses and our
[00:20:46] visitors. And uh uh that I think the
[00:20:49] next step in that is the city to do an
[00:20:52] economic development study. Uh I assume
[00:20:54] that's moving ahead, but it's going to
[00:20:56] build on the u the valleywide studies
[00:21:00] that were done by uh I think Cag and
[00:21:03] some other things. and to build on that.
[00:21:06] So my comment on economic development
[00:21:09] studies uh and I'm sure you've all seen
[00:21:13] uh many of them uh but often time the
[00:21:15] first 50 pages is fluff about uh the
[00:21:19] economics the population and all that
[00:21:22] sort of thing. We all know all that and
[00:21:24] so these studies are very expensive and
[00:21:28] uh what we want to see is coming out
[00:21:30] with specific recommendations
[00:21:33] that can be implemented. They're
[00:21:35] actionable uh and that will help draw
[00:21:38] businesses here and those businesses
[00:21:40] again that generate recurring revenues
[00:21:42] to the city. Um and then a little
[00:21:45] further down it goes in again to the uh
[00:21:48] specific plan highway 111 which I
[00:21:51] previously mentioned. And then the last
[00:21:54] one u the policy 2.7 still in the
[00:21:58] economic fiscal was that the city
[00:22:01] maintain prudent reserves to cover at
[00:22:03] least one year of operating expenses. Um
[00:22:08] and uh the I believe the 2425 fiscal
[00:22:11] budget is about $35 million
[00:22:15] and as of the 63024 end of the year the
[00:22:19] financial statements showed that we have
[00:22:22] uh in there it says $61.7 I assume
[00:22:24] that's not $61.7
[00:22:27] that's 61.7 million. It's million and
[00:22:31] we've uh corrected that typo there. All
[00:22:33] right. uh just in case somebody reads it
[00:22:35] literally. Uh and so that's about 22
[00:22:40] months of coverage and I doubt there's
[00:22:42] more than a handful of cities in the
[00:22:44] entire state of California that have
[00:22:47] reserves at all maybe or certainly not
[00:22:49] coverage like that. And that's important
[00:22:52] as things change. Um and our costs are
[00:22:56] constantly going up. Uh one of the big
[00:22:58] ones are our law enforcement and our
[00:23:00] fire. And that's a always a priority for
[00:23:04] our residents and and the costs go up.
[00:23:07] So, uh again going back to a balanced
[00:23:11] economic base and our uh future
[00:23:14] development, uh we got to make sure it's
[00:23:16] generating enough growing revenues that
[00:23:19] cover our growing expenses of the city.
[00:23:21] But again, kudos to this city. uh very
[00:23:25] few cities have that type of u u uh
[00:23:28] coverage and um and reserves and and
[00:23:31] that are that fiscally sound. So that's
[00:23:34] it. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.
[00:23:40] So now I need a motion and a second. I'd
[00:23:44] like to make a motion that the planning
[00:23:46] commission approve the 2024 general plan
[00:23:48] annual progress report and forward it to
[00:23:50] the city council to receive and file.
[00:23:54] Second. Thank you.
[00:24:02] Motion carries 5.
[00:24:12] All righty. Uh, next on the public
[00:24:15] hearing is uh, extension of time case
[00:24:18] number ET25-00001
[00:24:22] for a one-year time extension for a
[00:24:24] tenative trackm case number TTM
[00:24:28] 22-00003.
[00:24:32] Applicant Phillip Famoter of Foroter
[00:24:36] Engineering.
[00:24:43] Good afternoon again, planning
[00:24:44] commissioners. For your consideration,
[00:24:46] today is an extension time case number
[00:24:49] ET25-00001
[00:24:52] for tenative track map number 38224.
[00:24:55] This is the first extension of time
[00:24:58] request for this map. Uh the applicants
[00:25:01] team has been working on their final
[00:25:03] maps and this time extension will allow
[00:25:06] the project team additional time to
[00:25:08] coordinate with Imperial Irrigation
[00:25:10] District to work on solutions regarding
[00:25:12] the electrical capacity issues in the
[00:25:14] district's service territory and to work
[00:25:17] on fulfilling the remaining final map
[00:25:19] requirements through the city
[00:25:20] engineering division.
[00:25:23] Uh this project site is located in
[00:25:25] section 30 at the northeast corner of
[00:25:28] Via Hosfina and Ginger Rogers Road.
[00:25:32] Uh the tenative map proposes to
[00:25:35] subdivide 4.77 acres into nine single
[00:25:38] family residential lots and common lots
[00:25:41] for the private street and landscape
[00:25:43] retention basins. Uh the city council
[00:25:46] approved this tenative map in February
[00:25:48] of 2023.
[00:25:52] The landscape plan features desert
[00:25:54] appropriate landscaping and will remain
[00:25:56] the same as originally approved. The
[00:25:58] only minor change to this landscape plan
[00:26:00] since its original approval is the
[00:26:02] addition of eight 14t bear um bear trunk
[00:26:07] height date palm trees located between
[00:26:09] the palvery and mulga trees along the
[00:26:11] via hosphina frontage. These trees these
[00:26:14] palm trees were incorporated into the
[00:26:16] landscape plan to better match the
[00:26:18] landscape parkways along the newer
[00:26:19] subdivisions in proximity to the project
[00:26:22] site. Aside from these minor landscape
[00:26:24] changes, the applicant is not proposing
[00:26:27] any changes to the project and simply
[00:26:29] wishes to extend entitlement as it was
[00:26:31] approved.
[00:26:34] As part of this extension request, staff
[00:26:36] is recommending changes to the condition
[00:26:38] approval. First is a revision of
[00:26:40] conditional of approval number three to
[00:26:43] reflect the new approval expiration
[00:26:45] date. The second one is an addition of
[00:26:47] condition of approval number seven uh
[00:26:49] number 11 stating that the grading
[00:26:51] permits shall not be issued prior to
[00:26:53] vertical development entitlements unless
[00:26:55] approved by the public works or
[00:26:57] development services directors.
[00:27:01] Staff has not received any outside
[00:27:03] correspondence or comments regarding
[00:27:04] this request. staff recommends that the
[00:27:07] planning commission recommends to the
[00:27:08] city council one approval of a filing of
[00:27:11] a notice of exemption pursuant to secret
[00:27:13] guidelines section 15162 for subsequent
[00:27:17] ERS and negative declarations and two
[00:27:20] approval of a one-year extension of time
[00:27:23] for tenative track map case number
[00:27:25] TTM22-00003
[00:27:28] subject to the condition of approval and
[00:27:30] based on the content findings in the
[00:27:32] staff report. This concludes my
[00:27:34] presentation. I'd be happy to address
[00:27:36] any questions commissioners may have.
[00:27:38] Thank you. Thank you, Joy. So, I'll open
[00:27:41] it up to uh turn it over to for public
[00:27:45] comment. Thank you. So, I did not
[00:27:47] receive any speaker cards. Is there
[00:27:48] anyone who would like to provide public
[00:27:50] testimony on public hearing item number
[00:27:52] 6A? No speakers. Thank you. Uh, next is
[00:27:56] commissioner comments going left to
[00:27:58] right. Commissioner Gray, picking on you
[00:28:00] today.
[00:28:02] All righty. Uh, on its face, this seems
[00:28:05] to be somewhat of a no-brainer. It's the
[00:28:08] applicant is simply asking for another
[00:28:10] one-year extension. I'm in favor of
[00:28:13] that. Uh I did want to note and make a
[00:28:16] request to both staff and to the city
[00:28:19] council that uh the reason for the for
[00:28:22] this the reason mandating this extension
[00:28:26] appears to be a difficulty in getting
[00:28:30] sufficient
[00:28:32] electric service to this property
[00:28:33] because of IID. I know we've had some
[00:28:36] discussion in the past about
[00:28:38] participating in some way to in the
[00:28:41] construction or encouraging the
[00:28:42] construction of an additional
[00:28:44] substation. I think that's really of
[00:28:46] vital importance to the city, not just
[00:28:48] for this particular project, but also
[00:28:50] for some of the affordable housing
[00:28:52] that's being constructed. I believe it's
[00:28:54] also impacted by the need for power
[00:28:57] provided by IID and may not be available
[00:28:59] at this time. So, I'd like to see that
[00:29:01] we're doing everything possible in order
[00:29:03] to enable the development of section 30
[00:29:06] in particular and any other affected
[00:29:08] property where there's not sufficient
[00:29:10] service from my from available from IID.
[00:29:14] Thank you,
[00:29:16] Commissioner Chanter. Uh, this seems
[00:29:19] like an appropriate request, but I do
[00:29:22] understand that the substation delay is
[00:29:24] a problem and would be a problem for
[00:29:26] other developments. And it makes sense
[00:29:29] because I understand also that these um
[00:29:32] substations can cost between 20 to $30
[00:29:34] million a piece. So, you know, it's
[00:29:37] unfortunate, but it's it's a situation
[00:29:40] and um I would agree. I I think this is
[00:29:43] appropriate
[00:29:45] and I as well it seems reasonable as a
[00:29:48] request and
[00:29:50] certainly the challenges in developing
[00:29:52] and the risks people take in developing
[00:29:54] property. Um, but one of one of the
[00:29:57] major risks throughout the valley, not
[00:29:58] especially with IID, is is power. So,
[00:30:02] but allowing or extending a one-year
[00:30:04] extension seems to be reasonable. So,
[00:30:06] I'll go to my right, Commissioner
[00:30:08] Curran.
[00:30:10] I agree it is certainly reasonable and I
[00:30:13] know all the other issues, but I have no
[00:30:14] more comments to add to what's already
[00:30:16] been said. Thank you. Thank you,
[00:30:18] Commissioner Bryant.
[00:30:20] Yeah. A question for the applicant. Um,
[00:30:24] has IID given you a start and finish
[00:30:27] date for that subdivision when that's
[00:30:30] going to happen?
[00:30:44] Good afternoon commissioners. I'm Philip
[00:30:47] for motor for motor engineering. Thank
[00:30:49] you. Um, so we we don't we don't have a
[00:30:53] timeline with IID. Um, but we do
[00:30:55] understand it'll be more than a year.
[00:30:58] Um, and I guess one of the questions we
[00:31:02] were going to
[00:31:04] uh bring up was request that you'd
[00:31:06] consider a three-year extension rather
[00:31:08] than the one-year extension was it's not
[00:31:10] likely that this would be resolved
[00:31:12] within a year. Um,
[00:31:15] so that's a a request. Do you? And then
[00:31:18] also um
[00:31:21] on the on the on the grading requirement
[00:31:24] um
[00:31:27] that your grading permits can't be
[00:31:28] issued prior to vertical development
[00:31:32] entitlements. um kind of seems like a
[00:31:34] catch 22 that
[00:31:37] you know we to fulfill the conditions of
[00:31:39] the track mat we'd need to grade do
[00:31:41] rough grading to put in streets and
[00:31:44] sewer and water and um
[00:31:49] it would conflict with
[00:31:51] you know we wouldn't have a vertical
[00:31:53] development plan in place at that time
[00:31:56] um so we kind of ask for a modification
[00:31:58] of that requirement
[00:32:02] did I answer your question. I kind of
[00:32:04] added to your question. Sorry. Ben, can
[00:32:07] you address that as far as uh you know
[00:32:09] the catch 22 if they need to do other
[00:32:12] development there? Uh
[00:32:16] uh c can you address that part? Um so
[00:32:19] the condition that he's referencing is
[00:32:21] condition number 11 uh which we've
[00:32:24] applied to other projects as well in the
[00:32:25] past uh which states that grading permit
[00:32:27] shall not be issued prior to vertical
[00:32:29] development titlements unless approved
[00:32:31] by the public works or development
[00:32:32] services director. Um so are there there
[00:32:35] are provisions in there for potential
[00:32:36] modifications if approved by the public
[00:32:39] works or development services director.
[00:32:41] Um but um kind of the purpose of this
[00:32:44] condition is uh to um see progress with
[00:32:48] projects here. That's why we kind of
[00:32:50] have that vertical developments
[00:32:52] entitlements u section here.
[00:32:55] So are are you saying that they can uh
[00:32:58] get they can get approval to do uh uh
[00:33:03] ground work and streets and things like
[00:33:06] that before vertical. So, um, I can let
[00:33:10] Ryan kind of further clarify here.
[00:33:14] Good afternoon everybody. I'm Ryan
[00:33:16] Stendell, um, public works director,
[00:33:17] assistant city manager, um, staff
[00:33:19] member. Um, the answer is could, uh, the
[00:33:22] reason why it's being applied in this
[00:33:23] specific circumstance is we have a known
[00:33:25] deficiency with a utility. The fear on
[00:33:28] our side and why we have applied the
[00:33:30] condition as it's written is because uh
[00:33:32] we don't want to let grading occur until
[00:33:34] we have some sense that the project is
[00:33:37] ready to move forward. IID considers
[00:33:40] entitlement the time when they are able
[00:33:42] to provide power in our conversations
[00:33:45] with them. Um, so from our perspective,
[00:33:48] why would we let equipment hit the
[00:33:50] ground and disturb the the soil unless
[00:33:52] we have utility there, houses designed
[00:33:55] and approved and ready to roll? Um, we
[00:33:58] have a significant amount of calls
[00:34:00] coming in on a daily basis on dust
[00:34:02] mitigation. So, we just don't want to be
[00:34:04] put in a position where um we put the
[00:34:08] city in the position to be getting calls
[00:34:11] on a project that's stalled out, sitting
[00:34:13] there, has been graded, has no power,
[00:34:15] has no homes, and we're stuck getting
[00:34:17] the phone calls cuz it happens. It
[00:34:19] happens daily. So, we're just trying to
[00:34:22] hedge against what we think might happen
[00:34:24] in an area that we know is underserved.
[00:34:26] and leaving the caveat in there of
[00:34:28] either my or mine as approval. If we've
[00:34:30] got all our ducks in a row provides us
[00:34:32] the off-ramp if we need it. So that was
[00:34:34] the intent was just we know we have an
[00:34:36] issue up in section 30. It's not smart
[00:34:38] to issue grading plans without
[00:34:40] everything ready to roll. So we applied
[00:34:42] a condition we've used in the past and
[00:34:43] we think it works in this circumstance.
[00:34:45] And uh once I gives
[00:34:49] a definite start date, would that give
[00:34:53] the city comfort? Yeah. that uh you
[00:34:55] could go ahead and issue so they could
[00:34:57] get a head start. 100%. You know, time
[00:34:59] is money to them. 100%. Okay. And and
[00:35:02] then if I gives you a commitment, are
[00:35:05] they bound to do it? It depends on what
[00:35:07] their letter says. Okay. Sometimes they
[00:35:10] have a condition that's like we might be
[00:35:12] able to provide you power, but if they
[00:35:14] are certain they're at a certain stage,
[00:35:16] they've got their, you know, ducks line.
[00:35:19] Yes, 100%. They are out the door. They
[00:35:21] are moving. Um, we're not saying that
[00:35:23] they can't pull a grading that the
[00:35:25] trigger of entitlements is important
[00:35:27] that we wouldn't stop you from um I'm
[00:35:30] sorry, I want to make sure. We want to
[00:35:32] make sure that the homes are designed,
[00:35:35] the tract is there, the power is there
[00:35:38] before we start issuing grading permits
[00:35:41] currently with the deficiency in power.
[00:35:44] That's the way we think it's appropriate
[00:35:45] for right now. Okay. So if IID says
[00:35:48] we're going to start on this date, then
[00:35:52] uh assuming all the other things were
[00:35:54] there, the city could issue them a
[00:35:57] permit to start doing the grading. Yep.
[00:36:00] So you know that by the time the IID
[00:36:03] says we'll hit this state, they can be
[00:36:05] doing their work. Yes. So they don't
[00:36:07] have to wait until IID is actually
[00:36:10] there. Correct. And then start. Correct.
[00:36:12] And we're shoulder-to-shoulder with IID
[00:36:14] on this issue. Our city manager has
[00:36:15] taken this completely shouldered the
[00:36:17] load on the ranch mirage's uh front of
[00:36:21] uh what's the cost, where's it going to
[00:36:22] go, how are we going to pay for it.
[00:36:24] There has been an agreement already
[00:36:25] approved by the city council to fund in
[00:36:28] seven figures plus. So the commitment is
[00:36:30] there on the city. We're just uh we're
[00:36:32] in line. Every city from Indo West is
[00:36:36] dealing with this with IAD territory.
[00:36:38] We're working on it as quickly as we
[00:36:40] can.
[00:36:42] Um
[00:36:45] are all the other utilities out there is
[00:36:48] the other than the power is the water
[00:36:50] out there. Water and sewer. Yeah. Okay.
[00:36:52] So water and sewer is there. Yeah.
[00:36:54] That's not a hold. So it's the power is
[00:36:55] the hold up. Yeah. That's the big hold
[00:36:57] up. Okay. The long lead item. Yes.
[00:36:59] Because they're they're absolutely
[00:37:00] correct. This isn't going to be solved
[00:37:02] in 12 months. This is going to take a
[00:37:04] while. Um and again your your point uh
[00:37:08] yes I know the city has done incredible
[00:37:12] uh in Isaiah I think he's been one of
[00:37:14] the uh trying to corral everybody. I
[00:37:17] believe the city has uh agreed to put in
[00:37:21] like $5 million
[00:37:23] 19% of the total of 25 or whatever it is
[00:37:27] and they've already made a deposit of
[00:37:29] 1.23 million or something like that. U
[00:37:33] there's some Yes. Yeah. Um and a lot of
[00:37:36] that is it's the the city doing not only
[00:37:40] other development but we have stalled
[00:37:44] affordable housing out there and the
[00:37:46] city has done everything bent over
[00:37:48] backwards to enable affordable housing
[00:37:51] and we've already approved some things
[00:37:52] via veil and some of those other things
[00:37:55] out there. Uh and we want to see that
[00:37:57] affordable housing get built and it
[00:37:58] stalled because of IID also. All right.
[00:38:01] Yep. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, that
[00:38:03] that sheds a lot of light on it. Thank
[00:38:06] you.
[00:38:07] Okay. Thanks so much.
[00:38:17] Is that is that all your com comments,
[00:38:19] Commissioner?
[00:38:22] Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. Okay, that's
[00:38:24] it. Thank you, Chair Agassini. I have a
[00:38:26] couple of more questions that came up if
[00:38:28] that's allowable. Yeah. Uh my first
[00:38:30] question I didn't hear the one thing I
[00:38:32] didn't hear an answer to was the
[00:38:34] applicant's request that the uh
[00:38:36] extension be longer than one year given
[00:38:38] the likelihood that it's going to take
[00:38:40] two or three or more years for this to
[00:38:42] get completed. Is there a response from
[00:38:44] staff as to why restrict this to one
[00:38:47] year and make the applicant come back so
[00:38:50] almost guaranteed?
[00:38:53] So staff's recommending a one-year u
[00:38:55] time extension which is uh typical of
[00:38:58] our other time extensions uh just so
[00:39:00] that we can re reevaluate the situation
[00:39:02] in one year and uh just for
[00:39:04] clarification purposes uh the purpose of
[00:39:06] the time extension is uh for the map um
[00:39:10] and uh for the map to be final and to
[00:39:13] final the map uh they can final it even
[00:39:15] with a pending IID situation
[00:39:19] although the economics of finaling it
[00:39:21] are quite different if there's power if
[00:39:22] there isn't power, right?
[00:39:25] That that may be true, but uh staff's uh
[00:39:28] recommendation is a one-year so that we
[00:39:29] can re-evaluate the situation kind of
[00:39:31] within this area and uh throughout the
[00:39:33] city. Okay. And then my second question,
[00:39:35] maybe this is for planning,
[00:39:38] excuse me, or uh for public works. Uh is
[00:39:42] there any possibility or thought of
[00:39:45] bringing power to these areas from uh
[00:39:48] fromCE
[00:39:50] rather than IID? I'm sure that's very
[00:39:52] ter very territorial, but I I was
[00:39:54] curious whether there's an answer other
[00:39:56] than waiting for IID to um you're an
[00:39:59] attorney. I'll ask you what you think.
[00:40:01] No. Yeah, you're right. It's it's almost
[00:40:03] um the only agencies that I might think
[00:40:05] uh would be worse are school districts,
[00:40:07] but yeah, it's it's a territorial. They
[00:40:09] have I don't even know what the term
[00:40:11] might be, Colin. But yeah, there's I've
[00:40:13] never seen an instance where they would
[00:40:15] play ball together to exchange
[00:40:16] territories willingly. So, I I just
[00:40:18] don't think it's possible.
[00:40:21] Maybe the tribe wants to build a power
[00:40:23] plant. Yeah. Yeah. But stay tuned
[00:40:25] because there's a lot of discussion
[00:40:26] about IAD and their long-term ability to
[00:40:29] deliver power. So there's a bigger
[00:40:31] broader discussion that's happening
[00:40:33] here. This is just one tiny issue. So
[00:40:36] thank you very much. Yeah. My only
[00:40:38] comment for the fellow commissioners is
[00:40:40] I would suggest an amendment if we're
[00:40:42] going to make this motion that we make
[00:40:43] this a two-year period rather than one
[00:40:46] year given all that we've heard.
[00:40:49] Thank you. Thank you. Any other
[00:40:51] commissioner comments?
[00:40:57] All right.
[00:40:58] Um, so I'll open it up to a motion in a
[00:41:02] second. And if you want to add your
[00:41:05] amendment,
[00:41:07] um,
[00:41:09] I'll I'll make the motion and put it in
[00:41:11] that language. So, I'd like to make a
[00:41:13] motion that the planning commission
[00:41:14] recommend to the city council approving
[00:41:17] of the filing of a notice of exemption
[00:41:18] pursuant to the California Environmental
[00:41:21] Qual Quality Act SQUA guideline section
[00:41:25] 15162
[00:41:27] for subject subsequent ES and negative
[00:41:29] declarations closed forens and approval
[00:41:32] of a 2-year extension of time ET25-1
[00:41:38] for the tenative trackm case number
[00:41:40] TTM22 2- Z003 PN TTM 38224 closed PNS
[00:41:46] subject to the conditions of approval
[00:41:48] and based on the continent findings in
[00:41:50] the attached staff report except for the
[00:41:52] 2-year period.
[00:41:55] Colin or may I ask a question, Colin?
[00:41:58] Are we able to do that? Is that a legal
[00:42:01] uh motion that we can do and then vote
[00:42:03] on? Yes, the municipal code does allow
[00:42:05] an extension of up to three years, I
[00:42:07] believe. So, the the recommendation for
[00:42:09] a two-year extension would be within
[00:42:11] your authority.
[00:42:13] All right, I will second the motion.
[00:42:15] Thank you. We'll open up the vote.
[00:42:22] Motion carries. 5-0.
[00:42:35] Thank you. Okay, moving on to our uh
[00:42:38] next agenda item. Uh environmental
[00:42:42] environmental case number EA24-000011
[00:42:46] and general plan text amendment case
[00:42:48] number GPTA24-00001
[00:42:53] assembly bill 2140 safety element update
[00:42:57] applicant city of Ranch Mirage location
[00:42:59] citywide.
[00:43:01] I'll turn it over to Joy.
[00:43:04] Good afternoon, planning commissioners.
[00:43:06] Again, uh for your consideration today,
[00:43:09] the city initiated general plan text
[00:43:11] amendment to amend the city's safety
[00:43:13] element by incorporating the adopted
[00:43:15] local hazard mitigation plan update by
[00:43:18] reference in accordance with assembly
[00:43:20] bill 2140.
[00:43:23] So AB 2140 is an optional state
[00:43:26] incentive to help cities and counties
[00:43:29] become more resilient to natural
[00:43:30] hazards. Uh, compliance with AB 2140
[00:43:34] would make the city eligible for
[00:43:35] additional recovery or part or all of
[00:43:39] its local share costs on eligible public
[00:43:41] assistance funding provided by the state
[00:43:44] through the California Disaster
[00:43:46] Assistance Act in the event of a
[00:43:48] disaster.
[00:43:52] So this step this slide shows steps for
[00:43:55] AB 2140 compliance uh that we have to
[00:43:59] complete before the California
[00:44:00] governor's office of emergency services
[00:44:03] can deem the city in compliance. The
[00:44:06] cities completed the first two steps
[00:44:08] last year uh the 2023 local hazard
[00:44:11] mitigation plan uh which has been
[00:44:13] approved by FEMA and adopted by the city
[00:44:15] council in September. Today's request is
[00:44:19] step number three, which is to amend the
[00:44:21] safety element of the general plan by
[00:44:23] incorporating the adopted local hazard
[00:44:26] mitigation plan by reference and adding
[00:44:29] a link to the plan on the city's
[00:44:31] website.
[00:44:34] This slide here shows page nine of the
[00:44:36] safety element. The proposed text
[00:44:38] amendment is in yellow highlight and the
[00:44:40] excerpt is also included in the staff
[00:44:42] report.
[00:44:45] Staff has not received any outside
[00:44:47] correspondence or comments regarding
[00:44:49] this request. Staff recommends that the
[00:44:51] planning commission adopt resolution
[00:44:53] number next in order recommending that
[00:44:55] the city council adopt resolution number
[00:44:58] next in order for the following. A find
[00:45:00] that the adoption of the updated safety
[00:45:03] element is not subject to SQA percent to
[00:45:05] SQA guidelines section 15061B3
[00:45:10] general rule common sense exemption and
[00:45:13] B to approve the general plan text
[00:45:16] amendment case number GPTA 24-00001
[00:45:21] incorporating by reference the 2023
[00:45:24] local hazard mitigation plan into the
[00:45:26] safety element in the city's general
[00:45:28] plan in accordance with AB 2140. This
[00:45:32] concludes my presentation and staff's
[00:45:34] available for questions. Thank you.
[00:45:36] Thank you. So, uh I'll go ahead and open
[00:45:38] it up to public comment. Thank you. I
[00:45:41] did not receive any speaker cards. Is
[00:45:43] there anyone who would like to provide
[00:45:44] public testimony on public hearing item
[00:45:47] number 6B?
[00:45:49] No speakers. Thank you. So, that closes
[00:45:51] public comment. Moving to commissioner
[00:45:53] comments. Going left to right.
[00:45:56] Commissioner Gray. I don't have any
[00:45:58] comments. This seems very thorough and
[00:46:01] appropriate under the circumstance. And
[00:46:04] I will
[00:46:06] close my comments other than to the
[00:46:07] extent that Murray spurs my brain into
[00:46:11] action once again with his comments or
[00:46:12] questions.
[00:46:15] Yes. Now, Commissioner Chanter,
[00:46:18] that's great. Um, I'd just like to say I
[00:46:20] think any any uh awareness and impact
[00:46:25] regarding safety is important given the
[00:46:27] frequency of earthquakes for example
[00:46:29] that has happened here in Southern
[00:46:30] California. So important to focus on
[00:46:33] that. Thank you.
[00:46:35] And uh I obviously we've experienced
[00:46:38] recent um natural disasters whether in
[00:46:41] our in our local city or other cities in
[00:46:44] parts of the country throughout um so
[00:46:46] the importance of having the ability to
[00:46:47] get funding is important because some
[00:46:49] sometimes these natural hazard disasters
[00:46:51] are are catastrophic.
[00:46:54] Um so maintaining something along these
[00:46:57] lines um is important for for the
[00:47:00] community for for their support um and
[00:47:04] getting and getting life put back
[00:47:06] together. So certainly very valuable. I
[00:47:09] I would just also couple things that we
[00:47:12] deal with here locally. Certainly
[00:47:13] earthquakes. Most most importantly, it
[00:47:15] seems like air quality in in the wind.
[00:47:18] Um uh just continuing to watch and
[00:47:20] monitor the air quality in the desert
[00:47:23] which seems to have deteriorated
[00:47:26] deteriorated over over the last few few
[00:47:28] years since the uh a recent tropical
[00:47:30] storm. So other those are my comments.
[00:47:33] I'll turn it to Commissioner Churn.
[00:47:37] No, I don't have any additional
[00:47:38] comments. Thank Mr. Bryant.
[00:47:42] Ryan, would you mind coming up again? I
[00:47:44] have a question for you for public works
[00:47:50] regarding this area. Yes, Commissioner.
[00:47:53] Um, in the rains we've had last year and
[00:47:56] so on where we closed Frank Sinatra and
[00:47:57] Country Club, I think I read some place
[00:48:00] it cost us three $300,000. I don't
[00:48:03] remember the number. are probably off.
[00:48:05] But each one, what were those costs to
[00:48:08] make the repairs and maintenance for
[00:48:09] those things? Ballpark. Uh,
[00:48:13] in total, Ramon and Bob Hope was the
[00:48:15] worst, but all three, I want to say, was
[00:48:17] just shy of a million dollars. Okay. Uh,
[00:48:20] the Ramon and Bob Hope had some
[00:48:21] significant storm drain uh impacts uh
[00:48:24] that we had to go underground for. The
[00:48:25] other two uh Country Club, Frank
[00:48:27] Sinatra, and I'm Country Club and Frank
[00:48:30] Sinatra lowwater crossings were very
[00:48:32] small potatoes. probably 100,000 between
[00:48:35] the two to replace some asphalt clean up
[00:48:37] and get back open. So, in this motion,
[00:48:41] these changes are coming before um does
[00:48:44] that qualify us, these new changes, did
[00:48:46] we get any FEMA or whatever state money
[00:48:49] to We do and I think what um Joy and
[00:48:51] Brian are are proposing with the changes
[00:48:53] to the LH LHMP is it just makes our
[00:48:55] ability to work with FEMA stronger. If
[00:48:58] you notice that the it was an assembly
[00:48:59] bill or a Senate bill, I can't recall
[00:49:01] was from 2006. This has been around for
[00:49:03] some time. So, just getting these tidied
[00:49:05] up helps us check boxes when we're going
[00:49:08] through these application processes. Um,
[00:49:11] which can be agonizing for staff. And I
[00:49:13] doubt he's listening, but Jeff Benson in
[00:49:15] our office spends innumerable amount of
[00:49:18] hours working on FEMA reimbursement
[00:49:20] documents. Uh, we submitted on the 2019
[00:49:23] Valentine Day flood, which we just got
[00:49:26] reimbursement from in the last year,
[00:49:28] just to tell you how long it takes to
[00:49:29] get. So, we won't see any finality on
[00:49:32] the tropical storm for probably a couple
[00:49:35] years, but the applications are in, the
[00:49:38] routine meetings are happening. The cogs
[00:49:40] are turning. And so, the Frank Sinatra
[00:49:43] and and and Country Club, is it
[00:49:46] foreseeable that we may get some
[00:49:48] reimbursements for those couple
[00:49:49] hundred,000? 100%. Yes. And then um for
[00:49:55] long long time there was a consideration
[00:49:57] to put a bridge across Frank Sinatra and
[00:50:01] that number cost ballooned up to $20
[00:50:04] million. Oh no. Uh 57 57 million without
[00:50:08] any contingencies. Okay. U well you
[00:50:11] always come in on budget so you don't
[00:50:12] have to worry about contingency, right?
[00:50:14] Uh, so, uh, I I'm not sure when it was
[00:50:19] shelved or canned or whatever, but that
[00:50:22] was the right decision. So, you know,
[00:50:24] you have a $50 million project and let's
[00:50:27] say every two years you got to spend
[00:50:30] $400,000.
[00:50:32] What's 5% of $50 million? Yeah. That we
[00:50:36] could invest in interest and get the
[00:50:38] money. Yeah. So, that was the right
[00:50:40] decision. And I've never thought a
[00:50:41] bridge across Frank Sinatra or Bob Hope
[00:50:44] made any sense at all. Every three years
[00:50:47] I'd rather drive around when they close
[00:50:49] it off. No big deal. And spend a few
[00:50:51] hundred,000 a year versus uh investing
[00:50:54] $50 million at if anybody's got a
[00:50:57] calculator. What's 5% of 50 million? Two
[00:50:59] and a.5 million. Correct. A lot. Uh so
[00:51:03] uh you know economically it's way better
[00:51:06] to not build a bridge even if we don't
[00:51:09] get the reimbursement funds. So okay
[00:51:12] great. Um that that's my questions.
[00:51:14] Thank thank you. Thank you commissioner.
[00:51:20] Uh that's it. So I need a open it up for
[00:51:23] a motion and a second.
[00:51:25] I'd like to make the motion that the
[00:51:27] planning commission adopt resolution
[00:51:29] number 2025
[00:51:31] PC next in order recommending that the
[00:51:34] city council take the following action.
[00:51:36] Adopt resolution number 2025 next in
[00:51:39] order for the following actions. A find
[00:51:42] that the adoption of the updated general
[00:51:44] plan safety element is not subject to
[00:51:47] the California Environmental Quality
[00:51:49] Act, SQUA, pursuant to SQA guidelines
[00:51:52] section 15061B3,
[00:51:56] general rule common sense exemption and
[00:51:59] B approved general plan text amendment
[00:52:01] case number GPTa
[00:52:03] 24-00001
[00:52:06] incorporating by reference the 2023
[00:52:09] local hazard mitigation plan into the
[00:52:11] safety element in the city's general
[00:52:14] plan in accordance with assembly bill
[00:52:16] 2140
[00:52:21] and a second. I'll second that.
[00:52:29] Motion carries 5.
[00:52:33] Thank you. So, moving on to item 6 C,
[00:52:36] zoning text amendment case number
[00:52:38] ZTA25-00001,
[00:52:42] applicant, city of Ranch Mirage,
[00:52:45] consideration of an ordinance amending
[00:52:47] section 17.20.040
[00:52:53] development design considerations of
[00:52:55] chapter 17.2 two, General Property and
[00:52:58] Use Standards, repealing and replacing
[00:53:00] chapter 17.32,
[00:53:03] Wireless Communication Facilities,
[00:53:06] amending section 17.34-010,
[00:53:10] Introduction of Chapter 17.34,
[00:53:14] Introduction of Division 4, Permits and
[00:53:17] Review, and amending section 17.48.045,
[00:53:23] minor conditional use permits of chapter
[00:53:25] 17.48 48 conditional use permits of
[00:53:28] title 17 zoning of the ranch mirage
[00:53:32] municipal code location citywide.
[00:53:36] Good afternoon chair and members of the
[00:53:38] planning commission.
[00:53:40] Uh the primary purpose of this ordinance
[00:53:42] is to introduce certain amendments to
[00:53:44] title 17 zoning of the rancher mirage
[00:53:46] municipal code as further detailed in
[00:53:48] the staff report. As part of regular
[00:53:50] municipal code maintenance, updates to
[00:53:52] chapters and sections are occasionally
[00:53:54] required to update um standards and
[00:53:57] ensure that the the municipal code
[00:53:59] complies with new regulations.
[00:54:02] On March 6, 2025, the city council
[00:54:05] received and filed the wireless master
[00:54:07] plan uh which uh contains key data and
[00:54:10] recommendations on how to improve
[00:54:11] cellular coverage within the city. Uh
[00:54:13] the city council directed staff to
[00:54:15] initiate the necessary municipal code
[00:54:17] amendments to streamline uh the
[00:54:19] permitting process and to reduce
[00:54:20] barriers to entitlement for wireless
[00:54:22] communication facilities. Uh the
[00:54:24] proposed revisions to chapter 17.32
[00:54:28] of the municipal code achieve these
[00:54:30] objectives.
[00:54:32] Other amendments are proposed for
[00:54:34] section 17.20.040
[00:54:36] 040 development/design considerations uh
[00:54:40] which clarifies that uh conduit and
[00:54:42] pipes shall not be located along the
[00:54:44] building exterior. Uh section 17.34.010
[00:54:49] introduction modifies a footnote
[00:54:51] regarding the review authority for
[00:54:53] conditional use permits. And uh section
[00:54:56] 17.48.045
[00:54:58] minor conditional use permits clarifies
[00:55:01] the review authority for minor
[00:55:02] conditional use permits.
[00:55:05] With that said, uh staff recommends that
[00:55:07] the planning commission adopt resolution
[00:55:09] number 2025 PC next in order
[00:55:12] recommending that the city council take
[00:55:14] the following actions. uh one find that
[00:55:17] the adoption of the ordinance has been
[00:55:19] reviewed in compliance with the
[00:55:20] provisions of the California
[00:55:21] Environmental Quality Act, SQA and SQA
[00:55:24] guidelines and that the adoption of the
[00:55:26] ordinance is categorically exempt from
[00:55:28] environmental review pursuant to the
[00:55:30] California Environmental Quality Act uh
[00:55:33] guidelines sections 15378
[00:55:36] because uh this is not a project and uh
[00:55:39] 15061B3
[00:55:41] because it can be seen with certainty
[00:55:42] that there is no possibility that the
[00:55:44] activity in
[00:55:45] may have a significant effect on the
[00:55:47] environment because the amendments
[00:55:48] involve general policy and procedure
[00:55:50] making. And two, introduce and adopt
[00:55:53] ordinance number next in order amending
[00:55:55] section 17.20.040
[00:56:00] um development/design considerations of
[00:56:02] chapter 17.20
[00:56:05] general property and uh use standards uh
[00:56:08] repealing and replacing chapter 17.32
[00:56:11] wireless communication facilities. Um
[00:56:15] amending section 17.34.010
[00:56:19] introduction of chapter 17.34
[00:56:22] introduction of division um four permits
[00:56:25] and review and amending section
[00:56:28] 17.48.045
[00:56:30] minor conditional use permits of chapter
[00:56:32] 17.48 48 conditional use permits of
[00:56:35] title 17 of the ranch mirage municipal
[00:56:38] code subject to the addition of
[00:56:39] additional amendments to the municipal
[00:56:41] code uh as may be recommended by staff
[00:56:44] uh which are outside of the purview of
[00:56:46] the planning commission and therefore go
[00:56:47] directly to the city council. Uh that
[00:56:50] concludes staff's presentation and staff
[00:56:52] would like to note that a written public
[00:56:54] comment was received on this item uh
[00:56:56] which was distributed to the planning
[00:56:57] commission meet prior to this meeting.
[00:57:00] Thank you and Seth is available to
[00:57:01] answer any questions. Thank you, Ben.
[00:57:04] So, I'll turn it over to staff to open
[00:57:06] to public comment. Thank you. I received
[00:57:08] one speaker card from Brad Anderson.
[00:57:18] Good afternoon again, Brad Anderson,
[00:57:19] City of Ranch. I did submit some written
[00:57:22] comments stated before. U I'm in
[00:57:25] opposition of this uh and uh there's a
[00:57:29] lot of factors. Uh hopefully people can
[00:57:31] look through my written comments and and
[00:57:35] uh and figure it out. Uh there was a lot
[00:57:38] to this uh a lot of a lot of u
[00:57:42] housekeeping I guess was went along with
[00:57:44] this uh this uh proposed u
[00:57:48] agenda item. Uh I have issues with like
[00:57:54] the
[00:57:55] contest use permits of having the
[00:57:58] director or the city manager probably
[00:58:00] most likely uh be the deciding factor in
[00:58:03] those. I think a lot of that um
[00:58:05] especially near or close to residential
[00:58:08] zones. I know we have a couple of
[00:58:11] uh mobile cell phone type antenna type
[00:58:16] uh in in in residential neighborhoods
[00:58:18] already. Um but they went through the
[00:58:21] proper channels meaning uh city council
[00:58:24] public review uh meaning people like me
[00:58:26] can come up and go wow I don't like that
[00:58:28] my neighborhood or at least know about
[00:58:29] it and and other factors. I know this is
[00:58:32] a streamlining aspect to
[00:58:35] um promote this area and have uh have
[00:58:40] different companies come in and improve
[00:58:42] or or build here uh for cell phone
[00:58:45] coverage. It's not that I'm against that
[00:58:47] and I know the public uh the narrative
[00:58:50] around city council members right to for
[00:58:53] public safety and it could be and is in
[00:58:56] an aspect but not everybody needs to
[00:58:58] have or should have the capability not
[00:59:00] that sounds bad but have the capability
[00:59:02] of being in contact with anybody at any
[00:59:05] time and that's
[00:59:08] I I I'm not saying that's not a bad
[00:59:11] thing but I don't think we should have
[00:59:14] everybody pay for that luxury to have
[00:59:16] everybody have that and and that's what
[00:59:18] the city is doing right now. Um, and
[00:59:21] that's it. I will go ahead and review
[00:59:24] the minutes of this meeting. I don't
[00:59:26] normally watch the meetings, uh, watch
[00:59:28] the videos. Uh, so I have to go, but uh,
[00:59:31] thank you very much for listening to me.
[00:59:33] Thank you.
[00:59:36] Is there anyone else who would like to
[00:59:37] provide public testimony on this item?
[00:59:39] And that was the only speaker. Thank
[00:59:41] you. So, I'll go ahead and close public
[00:59:42] comments and open it up to commissioner
[00:59:44] comments. Um, I'll I'll start take David
[00:59:47] off the hot seat. I do have one question
[00:59:49] regarding
[00:59:52] regarding um if these changes make any
[00:59:54] amendment to the application process and
[00:59:56] approval process to any applicants um uh
[01:00:00] when coming through for like a wireless
[01:00:04] facility or what what what changes are
[01:00:06] are are being implemented.
[01:00:09] Um so um the changes to uh the wireless
[01:00:13] code section are pretty comprehensive.
[01:00:15] Um you know new definitions uh new
[01:00:18] provisions in here but uh in terms of uh
[01:00:20] just a broad overview of uh the
[01:00:23] entitlement process um it does um change
[01:00:28] certain things. Um so for instance on
[01:00:31] page 242 of uh your agenda packet um you
[01:00:35] know kind of details three different u
[01:00:37] approval processes here. Um so one uh
[01:00:41] for a director level review uh for a new
[01:00:44] wireless communication facility
[01:00:46] established on an existing building or
[01:00:47] structure. Uh so for instance um you
[01:00:50] know uh in the past uh I think year or
[01:00:52] two the planning commission uh reviewed
[01:00:55] u um Koopa uh on top of uh uh building
[01:01:01] uh for a dish wireless facility. Um in
[01:01:03] that case this would be something that
[01:01:05] uh staff would review because it would
[01:01:06] be on top of an existing building. Uh
[01:01:09] number two would be a planning
[01:01:10] commission review authority for new
[01:01:12] wireless communication facilities uh
[01:01:15] located uh within a project site that
[01:01:17] already has uh an existing or entitled
[01:01:20] tower. So if there's already a site uh
[01:01:23] for instance like uh Palm Valley School
[01:01:26] that has towers there or the children's
[01:01:28] discovery museum if they want to add an
[01:01:30] additional tower um this would um
[01:01:32] trigger planning commission review only
[01:01:34] instead of city council and then it
[01:01:36] would be city council review for u new
[01:01:38] wireless communication facilities if
[01:01:40] they're on a site that's never had them
[01:01:43] before. Um I would like to note that
[01:01:45] there is a caveat here that um if
[01:01:47] determined otherwise by the director u
[01:01:49] the process could change um based on
[01:01:51] that determination by the director to
[01:01:53] streamline this. And again staff is
[01:01:56] doing this based on um city council
[01:01:59] direction to streamline the um code
[01:02:02] section here for wireless communication
[01:02:04] facilities. And like I did mention in my
[01:02:06] presentation, um the city did um conduct
[01:02:09] a wireless master plan um where um the
[01:02:13] city's consultants mapped out radio
[01:02:15] frequencies driving on every single city
[01:02:17] street um to um get real world data on
[01:02:22] the three cell carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile,
[01:02:24] and Verizon. And uh as part of that
[01:02:26] plan, they um identified um you know um
[01:02:30] recommendations on how to improve cell
[01:02:32] coverage and uh identified also
[01:02:34] preferred locations where these uh cell
[01:02:36] towers um should go as well to um to
[01:02:40] fill in the coverage gaps to um provide
[01:02:42] better coverage for um the city and its
[01:02:44] residents.
[01:02:47] So in regards to timing for the approval
[01:02:50] process, does this make the process
[01:02:51] shorter
[01:02:53] in most cases? Yes, it it would allow
[01:02:56] more flexibility. So, for instance, like
[01:02:58] I mentioned that first example, instead
[01:03:00] of uh you know that dish wireless
[01:03:02] facility that's uh on top of an existing
[01:03:04] building going to planning commission
[01:03:06] and city council for review, which uh
[01:03:08] you know adds months to the um
[01:03:10] entitlement process, it would be a staff
[01:03:11] level review. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So
[01:03:14] yeah, I mean certainly as we move as
[01:03:16] technology advances and the the Murray
[01:03:20] had mentioned the Commissioner Bryant
[01:03:21] mentioned the um the map the the virtual
[01:03:24] map putting in your address and
[01:03:26] determining
[01:03:28] cell phone coverage is is pretty pretty
[01:03:31] handy tool. But um certainly I I'm it
[01:03:35] looks to be
[01:03:37] a a step we need to move forward with as
[01:03:40] far as uh encouraging development and
[01:03:42] streamlining and and making
[01:03:43] communication and and technology and
[01:03:46] kind of moving along. So I'll turn my
[01:03:50] comment or move to Commissioner Gray and
[01:03:56] thank you Chair Agustinini.
[01:03:59] Anyway, um, one of my favorite subjects,
[01:04:01] the really dreadful cell service we have
[01:04:03] throughout one of the finest cities in
[01:04:05] California. I'm glad that we're taking
[01:04:08] significant steps. The city council has
[01:04:11] listened to its constituents, probably
[01:04:13] their own experiences getting cut off
[01:04:15] during an important call, and taken
[01:04:17] significant action already to do what
[01:04:19] they can to improve the service and to
[01:04:22] encourage the people that actually have
[01:04:24] to take action that would result in the
[01:04:26] approval of service to do so. Uh, as you
[01:04:31] noted, commiss chairman rather, uh,
[01:04:35] there's been significant technological
[01:04:36] change. Fewer people have landlines. The
[01:04:40] importance of mobile communication has
[01:04:42] become even greater and anything we can
[01:04:45] do to facilitate that I believe is good.
[01:04:47] I carefully read the uh the comments
[01:04:50] that were submitted. Um I don't think
[01:04:52] these are particularly well taken. I
[01:04:55] think that the uh bringing the current
[01:04:58] code into conformance with uh modern
[01:05:02] technology and streamlining the
[01:05:04] procedures is the least we could do to
[01:05:06] encourage the development of better cell
[01:05:07] service. So um I'm very much in favor of
[01:05:11] what has been proposed.
[01:05:14] Thank you commissioner commissioner
[01:05:15] chanter. Yes. Uh cell service is
[01:05:19] critical. It's very important. And
[01:05:21] earlier we were talking about national
[01:05:24] disasters. Uh we were talking about
[01:05:26] hazard mitigation and it ties in because
[01:05:29] I can tell you during 2017 the tubs fire
[01:05:34] um the county's uh cell phone uh warning
[01:05:38] system did not work. And as a result
[01:05:40] there were of course close to 6,000
[01:05:42] homes burned but there are also a number
[01:05:44] of lives lost and the county was sued
[01:05:48] because of that. Although of course the
[01:05:49] major uh liability was PG&E because the
[01:05:52] winds blew the lines down and started
[01:05:54] the fire. But nonetheless, without the
[01:05:57] proper um cell service, uh if we had a
[01:06:01] situation like that or some other
[01:06:03] national or other um excuse me,
[01:06:06] disaster, it would be critical to have
[01:06:08] good cell service so that we could warn
[01:06:10] everyone that something was coming such
[01:06:12] as a flood or fire. Um and and I'm in
[01:06:16] favor of it.
[01:06:18] Thank you, Commissioner.
[01:06:20] Commissioner Karen.
[01:06:23] Well, I'm just going to agree with all
[01:06:24] the comments that have been made so far
[01:06:25] and yes, you know, I people who work
[01:06:27] remotely like my household, u it can get
[01:06:30] very frustrating at times taking a
[01:06:31] conference call out in the front yard.
[01:06:33] Um, so I am certainly in not just for
[01:06:36] the emergency issues, but business that
[01:06:38] people are trying to conduct.
[01:06:41] Commissioner Bryant.
[01:06:43] Yeah. I I have two questions. The first
[01:06:46] column is for you. Uh while I spent a
[01:06:49] lot of time with Ben and Joy and I read
[01:06:50] through this over and over, I got lost
[01:06:53] with all the different codes and the
[01:06:54] linking transition from one code to
[01:06:56] another code. So my first question is
[01:06:59] has legal gone through this and all of
[01:07:01] the linking of old codes, new codes,
[01:07:04] changes, uh do they all tie together?
[01:07:07] Our office did work uh handinhand with
[01:07:10] staff on this uh to do our best to vet
[01:07:14] out and uh hopefully make sure it's
[01:07:17] internally consistent as well as
[01:07:18] consistent with the rest of the
[01:07:20] municipal code. Okay. All right. Thank
[01:07:22] you. Um my again again I kind of got
[01:07:26] lost in all the things. The bottom
[01:07:29] here's my bottom line question. Uh Ben
[01:07:34] um
[01:07:38] a few years ago
[01:07:40] we had a uh well since the seven years
[01:07:44] or six years I've been here we've
[01:07:46] recommended approval for a fair number
[01:07:48] of uh cell phone towers to the city
[01:07:51] council and
[01:07:54] some number of them have not been built.
[01:07:56] I I don't I forget the number but they
[01:07:59] have not all been built. So um
[01:08:02] uh and and again we're all in favor of
[01:08:05] better cell service. You know you know
[01:08:07] tech a lot of people you say don't have
[01:08:09] land phones and it's critical uh that we
[01:08:13] have uh we sell sales service people
[01:08:15] that work from home so on. Uh so I'm all
[01:08:18] for that. So my bottom line question is
[01:08:21] do all these changes mean that cell new
[01:08:25] cell phone towers or major changes like
[01:08:28] if somebody wants to lower the height or
[01:08:30] raise the height uh uh uh go into a new
[01:08:34] location, do these bypass the planning
[01:08:37] commission and the city council and are
[01:08:39] they able to these decisions made at the
[01:08:42] staff level? That that's my bottom line
[01:08:44] question. Um, so like I mentioned
[01:08:46] earlier on page 242 of the agenda
[01:08:49] packet, it kind of lays out the
[01:08:51] procedures there. So um again there's a
[01:08:55] caveat here that allows the director to
[01:08:57] determine otherwise but um you know it's
[01:09:00] director uh level review authority for a
[01:09:03] new facility that's established within u
[01:09:06] an existing building whether it can be
[01:09:07] like on the rooftop or um on the sides
[01:09:11] of the building like we see kind of at
[01:09:12] Eisenhower where they have antennas on
[01:09:14] on the buildings there. Um but uh for
[01:09:17] planning commission level review um that
[01:09:20] would typically be triggered if it's a a
[01:09:22] new um wireless communication facility
[01:09:26] tower located on a site that already has
[01:09:28] an existing one. So, like I mentioned,
[01:09:29] you know, the Children's Discovery
[01:09:30] Museum has multiple. If somebody were to
[01:09:34] install a new tower there, um after this
[01:09:37] code has been adopted, if uh that's the
[01:09:39] direction that uh this moves forward
[01:09:41] with, um that would be um planning
[01:09:44] commission level review, right? Uh a few
[01:09:47] years ago there was a cell tower
[01:09:49] proposed by at the west the western
[01:09:52] Mission Hills uh the resort over there
[01:09:56] and it was right on it was on the
[01:09:58] western border next to the mission hills
[01:10:01] and homes and so on. Now, uh I I think
[01:10:06] we know either notified a 500 ft or
[01:10:08] 1,000 ft of all the residences, all the
[01:10:10] property owners around there. And we got
[01:10:13] great push back because we had uh
[01:10:16] because it went to a public hearing,
[01:10:18] people were notified and we got great
[01:10:21] push back and after listening through,
[01:10:24] you know, all the issues, I agreed 100%
[01:10:27] it should not go there. And it turned
[01:10:29] out that I could forget the company that
[01:10:32] was looking for it. They did not really
[01:10:35] evaluate all the potential sites. They
[01:10:38] did it and it was moved. Somebody
[01:10:40] correct me if I'm wrong. I think it was
[01:10:41] moved down to the golf course somewhere.
[01:10:44] Is that is that accurate? Uh Ryan, do
[01:10:47] you remember that? Okay. But it was
[01:10:50] moved I I think maybe down towards the
[01:10:53] middle of the go where it doesn't affect
[01:10:54] anybody. Uh and so that's the benefit of
[01:10:58] having these things come through the uh
[01:11:00] planning commission and then to the city
[01:11:02] council. So while I'm 100% in favor of
[01:11:06] better and more selfervice,
[01:11:09] um I'm not in favor of having these
[01:11:12] things bypass the planning commission
[01:11:14] and the city council and made at the
[01:11:16] staff level. If somebody wants there's
[01:11:18] an existing tower and they want to put
[01:11:20] one more aerial on it, that that's fine.
[01:11:24] Uh but if it's a new tower or a change
[01:11:27] to an existing tower or if it's a
[01:11:30] facility near a residential area uh as
[01:11:34] opposed to
[01:11:36] not long ago uh there was a restaurant
[01:11:39] near the Holiday Inn right over here.
[01:11:41] One of those things. Wasn't there
[01:11:43] something stuck up there on the Koopa or
[01:11:45] Copala? Didn't we? Uh there there's cell
[01:11:48] cell towers there as well. So something
[01:11:51] like that. Uh that's pretty
[01:11:53] straightforward and that's okay. But
[01:11:56] again, this this is a complex. So if it
[01:11:59] anyway it it bypasses the planning
[01:12:01] commission or the council for any major
[01:12:04] facility, and I'm not sure what major
[01:12:07] is, certainly any new tower, changes to
[01:12:10] an existing tower or facilities near a
[01:12:13] residential area, I would not be in
[01:12:16] favor of that. But I would want it to
[01:12:17] still come through the planning
[01:12:18] commission and ultimately have the city
[01:12:21] council uh approve it or not approve it
[01:12:24] and be sure there's uh there's the
[01:12:28] public notice is made to the public so
[01:12:30] the public has an opportunity to come in
[01:12:33] and voice their uh you know their
[01:12:36] concerns about it.
[01:12:37] And then if I just may reiterate here um
[01:12:40] you know the code section updates do
[01:12:42] kind of um detail what's director level
[01:12:45] what's planning commission level and
[01:12:46] what's city council level and like I
[01:12:48] mentioned there is a caveat there that
[01:12:50] the director can make a determination
[01:12:52] otherwise um but um you know if we feel
[01:12:54] that it's something that's controversial
[01:12:56] that's not in the right place um we also
[01:13:00] at the per the municipal code the
[01:13:03] director has uh the option to elevate
[01:13:05] things as well too so if it's something
[01:13:06] that's planning commission level. The
[01:13:08] director can elevate it to city council
[01:13:10] level as well too. Um so there's those
[01:13:12] caveats of the municipal code already
[01:13:14] existing um for our permits that um
[01:13:17] things can be um further elevated to an
[01:13:19] additional body if needed. But u again
[01:13:21] with the wireless master plan that the
[01:13:23] city uh filed um recently um we're just
[01:13:27] trying to um streamline the process and
[01:13:30] have provisions in here to allow us to
[01:13:31] streamline. It doesn't mean that we're
[01:13:33] always going to use this here, but it
[01:13:35] gives us the opportunity to be able to
[01:13:37] streamline. So, again, I hate to beat a
[01:13:40] dead horse, uh, but if it if it allows
[01:13:44] discretionary approval of major
[01:13:47] facilities,
[01:13:48] whether they would or the, you know, the
[01:13:50] the staff would or would not do it, if
[01:13:52] it allows discretionary approval of a
[01:13:55] major facility, I'm not in favor of
[01:13:57] that. uh if it's very clear that like
[01:14:00] the Koopo thing or they want to add
[01:14:03] another aerial to an existing tower and
[01:14:06] sometimes you have a tower in place and
[01:14:08] it could be shared by say three
[01:14:10] different carriers. There's two there
[01:14:12] now and we know that maybe in the future
[01:14:14] a third carrier wants to come along.
[01:14:17] That's okay. uh it's not a substantial
[01:14:20] substantive change and then especially
[01:14:24] uh if anything is going in a residential
[01:14:26] area I don't think that should be
[01:14:28] discretionary I think the public should
[01:14:30] be notified and have an opportunity to
[01:14:33] come in like the one at the Weston uh uh
[01:14:37] the hotel it was literally right next to
[01:14:41] the a line of homes at Mission Hills and
[01:14:45] we got massive blowback on that And if
[01:14:48] I'd lived over there, I would I would
[01:14:50] have been one of the people complaining
[01:14:51] against it and they moved to another
[01:14:54] site which worked out just fine. And
[01:14:56] that's the benefit of having a public
[01:14:58] hearing and a public notice. So I guess
[01:15:01] I'm still I'm not totally satisfied
[01:15:04] because I don't understand all the
[01:15:05] linkings and everything else. What
[01:15:07] actually is discretionary? And is it
[01:15:10] crystal clear that any major facility
[01:15:13] must go to the planning commission and
[01:15:16] ultimately of course the city council?
[01:15:18] That that's what I'm I'm looking for
[01:15:20] that assurance. If it's not there then
[01:15:22] I'm not in favor of this. And then I
[01:15:25] would just like to add one more point on
[01:15:27] page 248 of your agenda packets too as a
[01:15:30] part of some of the changes here that
[01:15:32] staff made. um staff uh created a
[01:15:35] section here for additional findings to
[01:15:36] be made um for any type of uh
[01:15:40] entitlement application that deals with
[01:15:42] wireless communication facilities. And
[01:15:44] um I'll just read some of these findings
[01:15:46] out loud here. One of them is that the
[01:15:48] proposed facility is visually compatible
[01:15:50] with the surrounding neighborhood. Um so
[01:15:52] that's something that uh whether it goes
[01:15:54] to uh a direct level review, planning
[01:15:56] commission level review or city council
[01:15:58] level review, it's a finding that has to
[01:16:00] be made. Uh that the facility complies
[01:16:02] with the height, location and design
[01:16:04] standards as provided in this chapter
[01:16:06] and that alternative sites located
[01:16:08] further from a residential um district
[01:16:11] or public park or any sites as may be
[01:16:14] identified by the city as a preferred
[01:16:16] site cannot be feasibly um fulfill the
[01:16:19] coverage needs. uh fulfilled by the
[01:16:21] installation at the proposed site or uh
[01:16:24] the applicant cannot acquire the
[01:16:26] necessary approval. So they have to
[01:16:27] determine that you know they've looked
[01:16:28] at other sites as well too. Um and these
[01:16:31] findings have to um be made if um these
[01:16:34] uh amendments are moved forward with and
[01:16:37] adopted. Right. So I saw in the uh the
[01:16:40] the plan that was done they had a map of
[01:16:42] the city and all the dots all over the
[01:16:44] place where you had good service and bad
[01:16:45] service and so on. And and we can pull
[01:16:47] that up. I have that on my No, let me
[01:16:49] let me finish my thing. Uh so that's all
[01:16:51] well and good. That's the master plan.
[01:16:53] So if the master plan said this area the
[01:16:56] cell phone service is terrible.
[01:16:59] Uh does that allow
[01:17:03] u discretionary approval? Okay. we can
[01:17:06] because the master plan said the service
[01:17:08] is terrible and it happens to be near a
[01:17:11] residential area that uh the uh that
[01:17:15] staff level can approve a new facility
[01:17:17] there. That's the thing that I'm looking
[01:17:20] for. And I hate to beat a dead horse,
[01:17:22] but I'm uncomfortable, especially if
[01:17:24] it's near a residential area and the
[01:17:26] residents don't have the opportunity to
[01:17:29] voice their opinions. And again, has
[01:17:32] nothing to do with we all want better
[01:17:33] cell phone coverage or most places
[01:17:36] because a lot of places it is bad. Um,
[01:17:39] and and we do need that. That's not the
[01:17:41] issue. The issue is and if it came to
[01:17:44] the council like the one at the west of
[01:17:46] Mission Hills, we ended up getting
[01:17:49] coverage to cover the area but it wasn't
[01:17:53] next to the homes at at Mission Hills.
[01:17:56] That's my point. And so I still don't
[01:17:59] understand if you can assure me that any
[01:18:02] major facility that's going in,
[01:18:04] especially into the residential area, uh
[01:18:06] even if the master plan says
[01:18:10] service is terrible,
[01:18:12] uh that shouldn't give us the impetus to
[01:18:15] say, "Okay, we're going to approve it."
[01:18:17] Ryan, you want to let me see if I can
[01:18:19] help in? Yeah. Um, Commissioner Brian, I
[01:18:22] um I think I hear you loud and clear and
[01:18:25] I think every one of us staff members um
[01:18:28] hold that level of public input at the
[01:18:30] highest regard. I mean, we're here to be
[01:18:31] stewards of your community. Um I think
[01:18:33] what we learned as directed by the city
[01:18:35] council through the wire master plan is
[01:18:37] if you have any expectation of improving
[01:18:38] your service, you have to get out of the
[01:18:40] way. Um, and what I mean by that is if
[01:18:44] we continue to put wireless carriers
[01:18:46] through the very rigorous process that
[01:18:48] you're describing, they won't come. And
[01:18:51] they won't come and they haven't been
[01:18:52] coming and they haven't been coming
[01:18:54] before that. The one with uh Weston
[01:18:55] Mission Hills, if I understand
[01:18:57] correctly, is I think almost a decade
[01:18:59] old at this time. We haven't had an
[01:19:01] application for a new cell tower um not
[01:19:04] on a city property. They see city
[01:19:06] properties as kind of low hanging fruit
[01:19:07] because we can work a deal out without a
[01:19:09] whole lot of issues um fairly rapidly.
[01:19:11] But to answer your question directly, if
[01:19:13] there's an area in that master plan that
[01:19:15] has terrible service and it's it's
[01:19:16] telling us to put a tower there, yes, we
[01:19:19] want to approve that. We want to approve
[01:19:20] it as expeditiously as possible. Do I
[01:19:23] want to stick a tower right in your
[01:19:24] backyard? No. Um but I think what Ben is
[01:19:28] trying to assure you, you will not get
[01:19:29] that assurance you're looking for. And
[01:19:31] if that means that you're opposed to the
[01:19:32] changes, that's totally fine. And as a
[01:19:34] commissioner that's you know sometimes
[01:19:36] we disagree. Um but we are trying to
[01:19:38] follow what the master plan says which
[01:19:40] is basically essentially if you have any
[01:19:43] expectation of changing the level of
[01:19:45] service you have right now you have to
[01:19:46] change your regulatory steam scheme and
[01:19:49] stop putting these wireless carriers
[01:19:51] through that exact process. Do they pick
[01:19:53] the right locations? No. Do they? But
[01:19:56] that's what staff's role in that would
[01:19:58] be. Um I know um Miss Duke well enough
[01:20:01] to know she is not going to allow that
[01:20:04] carrier to come in and stick it right in
[01:20:06] that backyard and would have negotiated
[01:20:07] it to the right location. So the long
[01:20:10] story short is you won't find the
[01:20:13] assurance I believe you're looking for
[01:20:14] that every single one of those towers is
[01:20:16] going to come through this hearing as it
[01:20:18] is today. It's intended to do the exact
[01:20:20] opposite which is provide the director
[01:20:23] the ability to approve these towers when
[01:20:25] it makes sense when it meets the
[01:20:26] findings. and when it doesn't, she has
[01:20:28] the ability to elevate it to the
[01:20:31] planning commission andor the city
[01:20:32] council. And I see Ben and Colin might
[01:20:34] want to jump in on this too. U let me
[01:20:37] follow up to um
[01:20:40] so are you is the reason that we're not
[01:20:43] getting applications because of the
[01:20:45] timing it takes to get one or is it
[01:20:48] because they may want one somewhere that
[01:20:51] we may not approve? As I understood it,
[01:20:53] it's the time. So we were described by a
[01:20:56] lot of industry experts who used to work
[01:20:58] in the industry how they kind of think
[01:21:00] right they've got um carrier
[01:21:04] V uh is looking to improve service
[01:21:07] throughout the Southern California
[01:21:08] region and they start looking around.
[01:21:11] They have a dozen sites.
[01:21:14] The person managing the entire region is
[01:21:17] looking at which ones have the the
[01:21:18] highest uh likelihood of success.
[01:21:23] jurisdictions like ours with reg with
[01:21:25] regulatory schemes that have existed
[01:21:26] like this for a very long time go to the
[01:21:28] back of the bus almost immediately. So
[01:21:30] they start working with cities who
[01:21:31] already have the get out of the way
[01:21:33] approach because they want to get a
[01:21:35] tower in and they want to get it active.
[01:21:37] Uh and they know they you know they if
[01:21:39] they apply for a public hearing in a in
[01:21:42] in a city like this that they're going
[01:21:44] to be you know 6 8 9 10 12 months later
[01:21:47] and they might be in a very ligious
[01:21:49] battle with some neighbors too. So they
[01:21:51] that's what we have heard which is these
[01:21:53] old public hearing style uh processes
[01:21:58] are leading to what we have today which
[01:22:01] is poor coverage right so I think I hear
[01:22:06] what you're saying is that uh it's the
[01:22:08] timing these regulations will reduce the
[01:22:11] timing yes so if it go from one year to
[01:22:15] 90 days or something um but along with
[01:22:19] that we have to have faith and our staff
[01:22:22] that if they think it's going to if we
[01:22:24] did go to a public hearing, then there
[01:22:27] would be a lot of blowback that they
[01:22:29] would there would be very cautionary and
[01:22:31] maybe they might bring it to a public
[01:22:33] hearing. Uh or they would take that into
[01:22:37] consideration. Yes. Yeah. Like Ryan
[01:22:40] mentioned, you know, we're we're very um
[01:22:42] careful and um you know, cautious uh
[01:22:45] when we do things as well too. Just a
[01:22:47] quick story. uh when we were uh working
[01:22:49] initially with AT&T for the u cell tower
[01:22:52] next to fire station 50 on that vacant
[01:22:54] lot even before we um started um
[01:22:57] seriously considering it um we
[01:22:59] coordinated with the Thunderbird HOA um
[01:23:02] internally as staff met with them on the
[01:23:04] site showed them preliminary plans with
[01:23:06] AT&T um got a letter of support from
[01:23:09] their HOA and the HOA you know discussed
[01:23:11] it with their homeowners as well too um
[01:23:14] just to ensure that we had that HOA
[01:23:15] support before we started formally
[01:23:17] moving move forward with that uh
[01:23:19] proposed uh project on city- owned
[01:23:21] property and we did that just at the
[01:23:23] staff level.
[01:23:25] That's the level of review that staff
[01:23:27] kind of uh takes um and um you know we
[01:23:31] um look at things very closely. Okay.
[01:23:34] All right. Okay. All right. Thank you.
[01:23:36] And Ryan, thanks a lot. It's good to
[01:23:38] have you know from the trenches uh
[01:23:40] feedback on these type of things too. So
[01:23:42] appreciate it. And and just to add to
[01:23:44] that uh and Ben correct me if I'm wrong,
[01:23:46] but under this ordinance in the
[01:23:48] hypothetical you had given about the
[01:23:49] Mission Hills cell tower, that is still
[01:23:51] something that would have gone to
[01:23:52] council under this ordinance as a new uh
[01:23:56] as the review authority for a new
[01:23:58] wireless communication facility tower.
[01:24:00] So that that would have still processed
[01:24:02] through council through hearings. Also,
[01:24:04] um we did sort of delineate as Ben said,
[01:24:07] uh the review authority for certain
[01:24:09] kinds of facilities. I note there is
[01:24:12] some discretion built in there um
[01:24:14] sometimes to give staff the ability uh
[01:24:17] to implement city council's uh wireless
[01:24:20] master plan but also because the law is
[01:24:22] sort of everchanging and there are sort
[01:24:24] of nuances in the law as the federal
[01:24:26] government FCC issues regulations on
[01:24:28] these things too. So some of the intent
[01:24:30] there is to also help uh give some
[01:24:32] flexibility when um either the law
[01:24:35] changes or there's underlying law that
[01:24:36] might require sort of different things.
[01:24:38] So, uh, as a hypothetical, there are
[01:24:40] certain actions under the, uh, under law
[01:24:42] which might require a public hearing.
[01:24:45] Um, and so we tried to build in
[01:24:46] flexibility to have it delineated what
[01:24:49] the review authority is, but then as we
[01:24:50] stated, give the director the authority
[01:24:52] to bump it up um to a higher authority
[01:24:54] if we need public input, as well as
[01:24:57] there's always the um rights for people
[01:24:59] to appeal decisions um by the city made
[01:25:01] to the next level of review authority.
[01:25:04] So, just for context. Okay. All right.
[01:25:06] Thank you. All
[01:25:09] right, those are my questions. Thank
[01:25:11] you.
[01:25:13] Any other commissioner comments?
[01:25:16] So, uh, thing I want to do point out is
[01:25:19] I know that and you said something about
[01:25:21] not letting the public and I just want
[01:25:23] to tell you that I live where he's
[01:25:24] talking about and this is where I get
[01:25:26] the one bar now that we don't have that
[01:25:28] tire. So, while I think we need to be
[01:25:30] sensitive about what public and being,
[01:25:32] you know, people's residence and stuff
[01:25:34] and and I hear about that the story
[01:25:36] about that being moved, but yet I have
[01:25:39] one bar on a good day and so and I know
[01:25:42] it's very hard to balance deal, but I
[01:25:44] think you'll do a great job at it. So,
[01:25:47] you might need to switch carriers.
[01:25:52] Um, okay. So, concluding commissioner
[01:25:55] comments, I'll go ahead and ask for a
[01:25:57] motion in a second.
[01:26:01] Okay. I'd like to make the motion that
[01:26:02] the planning commission adopt resolution
[01:26:04] number 2025 PC next in order
[01:26:07] recommending that the city council take
[01:26:09] the following actions. One, find that
[01:26:12] the adoption of the ordinance has been
[01:26:14] reviewed in in compliance with the
[01:26:16] provisions of the California
[01:26:18] Environmental Quality Act SQUA and SQUA
[01:26:21] guidelines. in that adoption of the
[01:26:22] ordinance is categorically exempt from
[01:26:25] environmental review under the
[01:26:27] California Environmental Quality Act SQA
[01:26:29] pursuant to SQA guidelines sections
[01:26:33] 15378 because it is not a project and
[01:26:37] 1561B3
[01:26:39] because it can be seen with certainty
[01:26:41] that there is no possibility that the
[01:26:43] activity in question may have a
[01:26:45] significant effect on the environment
[01:26:48] because the amendments involve general
[01:26:50] policy and procedure making and to
[01:26:54] introduce and adopt ordinance number
[01:26:56] next in order amending section 17.20.040
[01:27:01] development design considerations
[01:27:04] of chapter 17.20
[01:27:08] general property and use standards
[01:27:10] repealing and replacing chapter 17.32
[01:27:14] wireless communication facilities
[01:27:16] amending section 17.34.0
[01:27:20] 010 introduction of chapter 17.34
[01:27:25] introduction of division 4 permits and
[01:27:28] review and amending section 17.48.045
[01:27:33] minor conditional use permits of chapter
[01:27:35] 17.48 48 conditional use permits of
[01:27:38] title 17 zoning of the Rancho Mirage
[01:27:42] Municipal Code subject to addition of
[01:27:44] further amendments to the municipal
[01:27:47] municipal code as may be recommended by
[01:27:50] staff which are outside the purview of
[01:27:53] the planning commission and therefore go
[01:27:55] directly to city council. Second.
[01:27:59] Thank you, Jason. Before you Oh, I'm
[01:28:03] sorry. Go ahead. We'll vote. I'm sorry.
[01:28:05] Before
[01:28:07] you close it off, I'd like to make a
[01:28:10] backwards uh commissioner comment before
[01:28:12] you close the hearing. Um and that is um
[01:28:16] for the last few hearings uh they're
[01:28:19] being recorded and hopefully it gets out
[01:28:22] to the public. Uh they're not doing the
[01:28:25] exhausted minutes anymore, which I
[01:28:26] thought that was a good decision. Um,
[01:28:29] but like I don't come to all the city
[01:28:30] council meetings, but I can go watch
[01:28:33] them in the middle of the night if I
[01:28:34] want to. And you can go backwards,
[01:28:37] forwards. If you don't get something
[01:28:39] clearly, you can go back and listen very
[01:28:41] carefully to what everybody's saying.
[01:28:42] So, that's a great benefit. And I don't
[01:28:45] see it as a uh a a less abil uh
[01:28:49] lessening the public's ability to
[01:28:51] understand what's going on. I see it as
[01:28:53] a great improvement in the public's
[01:28:56] ability to see what's going on. on the
[01:28:58] planning commission in the city council.
[01:29:00] And I know there's been people that feel
[01:29:03] the other way. Uh but obviously it saves
[01:29:06] a lot of time and so on from the staff
[01:29:08] writing those exhaustive minutes. Uh but
[01:29:11] it actually improves public access to
[01:29:15] what's going on. So I just wanted that
[01:29:18] in the uh in in in the kind of the
[01:29:21] public record. Thank you, Commissioner.
[01:29:23] Thank you. I'll turn it over to Christie
[01:29:25] for official vote. Thank you.
[01:29:31] Motion carries. 5-0. Fantastic. So,
[01:29:34] looks like we outlasted everybody in the
[01:29:36] audience here today. Um, it's 3:29 and
[01:29:40] I'll go ahead and conclude today's
[01:29:41] commission meeting.