Planning Commission backs King’s Schools expansion, recommends Council approve zoning change, CUP revision and variance

The Cathedral City Planning Commission on Sept. 3 recommended that City Council approve a zoning amendment, a revision to a conditional use permit and an administrative variance for King’s Schools of the Desert’s campus expansion at 67675 Bolero Road.

City staff said the project would add roughly 36,000 square feet of new construction over two phases for a total campus buildout of about 52,048 square feet but would not increase student enrollment. “The proposed expansion is to provide more space per student, and will not increase the student capacity,” said Dom Camps, associate planner for Cathedral City.

The project site is a 5.26-acre parcel currently occupied by King’s Schools, a private pre‑K through 8 school that has operated at the site since 1994. Staff said the site was rezoned to Resort Residential in 2002, making the school a longstanding nonconforming use; the zoning amendment would add schools as a permitted use in the RR district subject to a conditional use permit.

Under the proposal, phase 1 would demolish approximately 3,000 square feet of existing buildings and add about 9,000 square feet of new construction, a staff parking structure and paving of the private access lane from Cary Road. Phase 2 would demolish about 7,000 square feet of portable buildings and construct the 27,000-square-foot multipurpose building that would include classrooms, administrative space, operations and a roughly 16,000-square-foot gymnasium. The gym portion would reach 28 feet 7 inches in height, exceeding the RR district’s 26-foot limit and prompting the requested administrative variance.

The applicant, Don Dallaire, who identified himself as a founder of King’s Schools, said the expansion would allow specialized classrooms and provide an indoor gym that the school has lacked for 32 years. “I assure you that the enrollment will remain the same,” Dallaire told the commission, describing existing waiting lists and saying the new parking would reduce on‑street parking during events.

Neighbors and other commenters raised concerns about the gym’s height and potential evening or outside rental of the gym. A letter from a resident of the mobile home community to the east asked about an eight‑foot fence along the eastern property line and requested light shields; another commenter asked whether the city would limit enrollment. Staff said the application includes a letter from the school’s headmaster stating enrollment would not increase and an engineer’s memo addressing traffic. Larry Stokes, a resident of El Dorado Palms Estates, asked staff to notify the mobile home community association as well as nearby property owners.

Commissioners debated whether the project’s CEQA consistency memo and the staff analysis, which described the gym as being limited to school activities, should be referenced explicitly in the Commission’s recommendation. Vice Chair Mead proposed adding the CEQA paragraph that states the renovation is intended to provide space for the existing 300‑student population, will not facilitate increased enrollment, and that the gymnasium “will not be available for use by the public or other organizations.” The commission approved that amendment by roll call 4–1 and then approved the overall recommendation to City Council.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council, which has final review and approval authority for the zoning ordinance amendment, conditional use permit revision and administrative variance.

This action does not authorize a change in student capacity; it recommends Council approve the land‑use approvals and the administrative variance so the applicant may complete the two‑phase campus renovation and construct the gymnasium as proposed.

Votes at a glance: The Planning Commission approved the recommendation (including the added CEQA paragraph) in a recorded vote; the motion was made by Commissioner Malacoff and seconded by Commissioner McPhail and the motion carried (approved).