Architectural review panel approves roof screening for Perez Gardens, denies removal of storefront windows

The Cathedral City Architectural Review Committee on June 18 approved corrugated metal screening for rooftop mechanical equipment at the Perez Gardens site but denied the applicant's request to remove four storefront windows from the building's front elevation.

City Associate Planner Dom Camps told the committee the Administrative Design Review (Plan ADR-25-0004) requests two changes to previously approved elevations for the project at the northeastern corner of Perez Road and Summit Drive: (1) add roof screening to hide newly installed air-conditioning units visible from Perez Road, and (2) remove four storefront windows that had been shown on approved elevations. Camps said the original conditional use permit (CUP 18021 A) and the city's design guidelines require roof-mounted equipment be screened from public view. He recommended approval of the corrugated metal screen panels and denial of the window removal, and he recommended reconstruction of the parapet above the art gallery window to match the approved elevation.

The history of the site, Camps said, includes a February 2019 conditional use permit allowing cannabis cultivation and distribution; a March 2019 amendment adding cannabis manufacturing; and an ADR approved in September 2022 that revised the site plan and exterior paint colors. Camps said the applicant enclosed a previously recessed area along Perez Road to add roughly 250 square feet of interior space, and that the planning commission had required two storefront windows be added back into that enclosed area to maintain the building's previous appearance. During a recent inspection, staff found two required windows were not reinstalled and two additional storefront windows shown in the approved elevations had been removed, leaving a blank wall inconsistent with the approved drawings.

Gabriel Lujan, the project architect from GLA Design Group, told the committee he and the owner took over the project midstream. Lujan said repeated break-ins and vandalism during construction led the contractor and owner to close off glazing to deter theft: "you do not know how much money we've lost in break ins because as you know, the homeless were breaking in and and just camping out," he said, adding that windows had been repeatedly broken during the night. He said many cannabis operations ultimately install stronger security measures but argued the owner needed to protect equipment during construction.

Committee members discussed aesthetics versus security. One member said the blanked storefront area "ruins the whole facade" and preferred restoring the approved windows and the parapet. Other members suggested mitigation options such as keeping glazing with solid walls behind it, using higher clerestory glazing above canopies, or placing art in window openings to discourage break-ins. Members agreed that retaining the building's approved appearance supports a better public realm and potential future noncannabis uses.

Committee member Kiefer moved to adopt staff recommendations (approve the proposed corrugated metal roof screening; deny the removal of four storefront windows; require reconstruction of the parapet per the approved elevation) and to clarify that additional storefront doors are not necessary where not shown on the construction drawings. Committee member Haas seconded. The motion passed 3-0 (Kiefer, King, Haas voting yes).

The committee's action requires the applicant to install roof screening painted to match the approved darker gray accent color and to reinstate the storefront windows and parapet consistent with the previously approved elevations; staff will note that doors are unnecessary where not required by the construction plans and that glazing may be used with solid walls behind for security during operations. The applicant may return with revisions if they seek alternative, specific security treatments that preserve the building's approved appearance.

Votes at a glance - Motion to approve special meeting minutes for 03/13/2025, 03/15/2025 (morning), 03/15/2020 at 5 afternoon, and 03/16/2025: moved by Member Kiefer, seconded by Member King; result: passed 3-0. - Motion to approve minutes for 02/19/2025: moved by Member Kiefer, seconded by Member King; result: passed 3-0. - Motion on Plan ADR-25-0004 (Perez Gardens): moved by Member Kiefer, seconded by Member Haas; result: passed 3-0. The motion adopted staff recommendations to approve roof screening and deny removal of four storefront windows, and added clarification that storefront doors are not necessary where not shown on construction drawings.

This action means the Perez Gardens elevations must be brought into conformance with the previously approved plans before final sign-off by staff. The applicant and architect indicated willingness to restore the façade elements if required and to pursue security measures that do not alter the public-facing appearance.