Planning commission backs narrow change to allow single-family homes on small RM lots, adds safeguard

CATHEdRAL CITY — The Cathedral City Planning Commission on Wednesday voted to recommend the City Council approve a narrowly drawn amendment to the RM (multiple-family residential) zoning rules and to Specific Plan 87-26c that would allow single‑family dwellings on certain small RM lots, after adding an amendment limiting the change to lots with developed properties on both adjacent sides.

The action grew out of a building permit application for a roughly 9,500-square-foot lot on Olancha Road that staff said could not be developed under current RM standards. Dom Camps, associate planner, told commissioners the amendments “proposed to add single family dwellings as a permitted use in the RM District for lots no greater than 10,000 square feet and that do not have frontage on an arterial highway,” and to amend Specific Plan 87-26c so single‑family dwellings would be allowed where the underlying zoning permits them.

The commission framed the change as a narrow infill fix. Camps said the RM district lists medium density ranges of 4.5–10 dwelling units per acre and includes a 20,000-square-foot minimum lot size for newly created lots; staff found many existing nonconforming lots that are smaller and difficult to develop as multifamily under current code. “We found that this property is one of multiple vacant properties within the RM District that are too small to fully support development as multifamily projects while meeting the density requirements,” Camps said.

Why it matters: the RM district contains 39 lots (staff said), 28 of which are undeveloped; 60 existing RM parcels are nonconforming to the 20,000-square-foot minimum, including 28 under 10,000 square feet. Staff reported 23 RM parcels are 10,000 square feet or smaller and do not front on an arterial; seven of those are currently vacant and therefore would be directly affected by the amendment. Camps recommended the commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt ordinances to amend Chapter 9.18 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code and Specific Plan 87-26c.

Commissioners debated tradeoffs for roughly an hour. Several members said they supported a limited fix to allow the property owner to proceed; others voiced concern that allowing single-family development on those lots could preclude future lot consolidation and higher-density multifamily projects along corridors. “This is a complicated little problem here,” Commissioner Lee said. Commissioner Bedard said, “I think this is great. I think it’s a very positive way that we’re demonstrating, we’re working with the community and what’s actually there.”

Commissioner Mead pressed staff on whether the change would reduce opportunities for multifamily development and whether a development-code update should address the larger question of density and lot consolidation. Mead noted the city is behind on RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) targets and said, “since we have a shortage of housing … why are we not tweaking the code or making an exception in the other direction to allow for slightly more density so we could get more housing?” Staff and other commissioners replied that the proposed amendment is intentionally narrow to avoid spot‑zoning and to solve the immediate problem while the broader development code update proceeds.

Environmental and procedural details: staff said the text amendments are subject to a CEQA common-sense exemption because the changes are text only and do not authorize a specific project; future single-family permits enabled by the change would be ministerial and typically exempt. The Specific Plan amendment required SB 18 tribal consultation; staff transmitted project materials to local and regional tribes on April 2. Four tribal responses were received; only the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested formal consultation and closed that consultation in writing on May 20, 2025. The 90‑day consultation period runs through July 2. The project was noticed under the government code’s 20‑day notice requirement for zoning ordinance amendments affecting permitted uses; staff reported three public inquiries by phone and one written comment in advance.

Public comment: the applicant addressed the commission through a translator and told the commission, “My English is not really well, but I’m going to try to speak to you. First, thank you so much for take the time to to speak about my situation. Thank you very much, and I hope you have a good resolution for me.” No other members of the public spoke during the hearing.

Amendment and vote: after extensive discussion, Commissioner Mead moved — and Commissioner McPhail seconded — to approve staff’s recommendation with an amendment adding a further limitation: the allowance for single‑family dwellings on RM lots 10,000 square feet or smaller would apply only where the subject lot has developed properties on both adjacent sides and does not have arterial frontage. The chair called the motion and the record shows the motion passed.

Next steps: the commission adopted a resolution recommending the City Council adopt ordinances to amend Chapter 9.18 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code and to amend Specific Plan 87-26c subject to the added limitation. The measure now moves to the City Council for consideration.

Clarifying details from staff presentation: the Olancha parcel that prompted the change is about 0.22 acres (≈9,500 square feet); staff said 39 RM parcels exist citywide of which 28 are undeveloped, 60 RM parcels are smaller than the 20,000‑square‑foot minimum for newly created lots and 28 RM parcels are 10,000 square feet or less. Staff identified 23 RM parcels of 10,000 sq. ft. or less without arterial frontage; seven of those are vacant and immediately affected by the proposed amendment. Staff noted some RM parcels with arterial frontage exist but said the amendment was intentionally drafted to avoid creating new single‑family access to arterials such as Date Palm Drive.

Speakers (selected): Dom Camps, associate planner (staff); Chair Malcalf (Planning Commission); Vice Chair Lee (Planning Commission); Commissioner Bedard (Planning Commission); Commissioner Mead (Planning Commission); Commissioner McPhail (Planning Commission); Director Firestein (staff, spoke during Q&A); Applicant (identified in the record but not named; spoke through translator)."