RECAP: Planning Commission, October 7, 2025
The Planning Commission encourages gardens, greenhouses, arts, and social events by proposing updated permitting regimes after two study sessions.
Four of five Planning Commissioners attended Tuesday’s meeting, continuing talks on City Code changes for Temporary Use Permits and cooperative gardens. In two study sessions, they debated event permit uses, zoning, primary use definitions, and greenhouse design. Commissioners sought public input and directed staff to draft revisions to City Code on permits, and to continue researching gardens. Tuesday’s meeting finished in under two hours.
Commissioner Jim Krushat had an excused absence. Video of the first eight minutes of the meeting is available here, and our agenda preview of the meeting is available here.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Crystal Wysong—representing Mil-Tree, the veteran engagement nonprofit—kicked off public comment by addressing an error made by Desert Trumpet reporters in the agenda preview for Tuesday’s meeting. The Desert Trumpet had mistakenly stated that the Mil-Tree Community Garden at the Joshua Tree Retreat Center was defunct, when in actuality the garden is still in use, currently as a project by a veteran in partnership with the Mojave Desert Land Trust during the garden’s summer hiatus. The agenda preview has since been corrected with the statement read by Wysong at the meeting. The statement can be read in full at the end of our agenda preview article.
Chair Jessica Cure read part of a letter submitted by Wendy Sundberg, requesting that the Commission comment on the zoning of a commercial property for use to operate a smog facility. Community Development Director Keith Gardner advised that the letter could be addressed as an agenda item at a future Planning Commission meeting.
COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REPORTS OF MEETINGS ATTENDED
Commissioner Max Walker reported that he attended the September 23rd City Council meeting.
Vice Chair Alex Garcia apologized for missing recent meetings. He was not present at the previous two meetings (one of which was off-calendar), and last attended the June 3 meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
None
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR UPDATES
Community Development Director Keith Gardner gave the Commission an idea of what the rest of their calendar year would look like. After Tuesday, the Commission has four more meetings: A hearing on October 21, and meetings scheduled for November 4, and 11, and December 16. The scheduled December 2 meeting was preemptively cancelled.
STUDY SESSION
1. Study Session —Temporary Use Permits
Per the staff report, there has been an increase in permit requests for events that don’t currently fall into the categories outlined for Temporary Use Permits (TUP) in City Code, such as weddings and art events, and in particular at residential properties.
Because permits were also discussed at the September 16 meeting, staff came prepared with recommendations to the Commission, including for commercial properties with a TUP, the cap on events be raised from four to 28 in a calendar year, while keeping the cap for residential properties at four. Staff also recommended rewriting City Code to specify which type of events were allowed in which zoning types under TUPs, and to also reconsider what further permitting process is required for applicants who wish to go over their TUP event cap.
To aid discussion, Gardner displayed and spoke to the types of City permits available to landowners who wish to host events, build, or otherwise change the use of their property. The types of permits the City offers are Conditional Use Permits (CUP), Administrative Use Permits (AUP), and Site Plan Reviews, in addition to TUPs.
Gardner explained that under current City Code, sites that go over their TUP event cap must apply for a CUP. Out of all the permits, a CUP has the most approvals, has to be noticed in a public record, and has the highest processing fees, which staff estimated at around $5,500 for an application.
In public comment on the study session, Caroline Partamian, Executive Director of the local nonprofit Desert Trade, described the performing arts programming as well as housing for visiting artists that the organization provides, all of which is housed on a residentially zoned property.
In discussions, Commissioner Leslie Paahana and Chair Cure identified the need for a formal definition of an event in City Code, which Gardner affirmed:
…the development code does not explicitly say what an event is. So an event could be, for instance, a weekend event that takes up four days. Or it could be a two-week long event. An event could be a week-long sidewalk sale, or a seasonal sales lot of some kind. It could be a seasonal Christmas tree launch, and then in October it’s a pumpkin patch.
During discussion, the Commissioners stressed the need for a definition that didn’t impinge on residents’ abilities to throw private parties without a permit. Gardner summarized the Commission’s wishes to define an “event” as the following:
… If it’s available to the public, if it’s advertised, if there’s a special alcohol permit. Or things are for sale to the general public, and that could qualify as an event.
The Commission agreed on raising the number of events that could take place on commercially zoned properties and keeping the limit on residential properties, but declined to categorize allowable events by residential versus commercial zoning under TUPs. Instead, the current list of acceptable events will be replaced with a general definition and examples of an acceptable event.
Chair Cure seemed to approve of staff’s suggestion to include AUPs as a new mid-tier permitting option, meant for event applicants who host series bigger than accepted under TUPs, but which are still too small to justify paying for a $5,000 CUP.
The study session ended with staff taking direction recommended by the Commission, and the topic will be revisited by the Commission as an amendment to City Code.
2. Study Session—Cooperative (Co-Op) Gardens / Greenhouses
Continuing from last meeting’s discussion on gardens, Gardner reminded the Commission that they were discussing cooperative gardens that are a property’s primary land use. This means excluding gardens on properties with buildings. Staff sought guidance by the Commission on whether City Code should define and regulate cooperative gardens as a land use category. The City Code currently does not mention non-commercial gardens.
Crystal Wysong summarized recent activities done by Mil-Tree at their Joshua Tree Retreat Center Community Garden. At the garden, Wysong said, in addition to regular plot gardening, volunteers have repurposed old containers for three actively maintained composting bins. Wysong also stated that last week Mil-Tree submitted an application to City Manager Stone James to administer a proposed community garden at the City’s Senior Center. While the Commission found the public comment informative, they did note that the proposed Senior Center community garden Wysong spoke about, which would be on City property alongside an existing building, did not fall under the gardens the Commission were discussing, which would be privately owned.
The Commission discussed concerns, which included scenarios such as abandonment or pests, and found that they were already addressed by existing Code Enforcement policies. Gardens, the Commission agreed, didn’t require special treatment and that there was no need to define or regulate gardens in City Code.
They also noted that any garden in the desert would need a greenhouse, which was the second part of the garden study session: Should greenhouses be allowed as a primary land use?
A quick discussion amongst the Commissioners, aided by earlier discussions on permits, resulted in the consensus that yes, the City Code should allow for greenhouses as primary land use. This would refer to properties on which the only or primary building is a greenhouse.
But, when prompted by Gardner for direction on a permitting process for greenhouses, the Commission concluded that it needed further consideration. The Commission considered requiring a Site Plan Review for greenhouses, which staff estimated would cost an applicant around $1,150 in fees. Commissioner Garcia advocated for the choice that is the second least-expensive permit. He emphasized that “accessible food in communities like ours that are lower income is very important.” Commissioner Paahana took issue with the fact that Site Plan Reviews aren’t noticed in public records. She stated, “It’s like we’re hitting one mark, and missing another.”
Gardner concluded the meeting by stating he would bring the topic of greenhouses back to a future Commission meeting.
The next Planning Commission meeting will be a hearing on October 21.
Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Feel free to share this article!
Help us reach our 2025 goal of $10,000 in subscriptions! Upgrade to a paid subscription for just $5 per month or $50 per year.
Would you care to donate more than $100? Our Paypal account is up and running!