The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-05 Draft Minutes MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY – AUGUST 5, 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Sonia Campbell, Vice Chair Russ Campbell Connor Limont Members Absent: Mari Schmidt Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Bo Chen, City Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary Chairperson Tanner welcomed Russ Campbell to the Commission. III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Limont led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the July 1, 2008 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner S. Campbell, approving the July 1, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 3- 0-1 (Commissioner R. Campbell abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent July 10 and 24, 2008 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda are on file in the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (760) 346- 0611. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 07-04 – FRANK J. POCINO AND BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment of the southwesterly parcel line of Lot 23 common to Lot 46, more particularly identified as APN’s 771- 211-015 and 711-211-028; 173 Tamit Place. B. Case No. PMW 08-142 – DR. AND MRS. LARRY L. BOSLEY AND BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to add property to accommodate a drive way at 1030 Cahuilla Falls. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt absent). VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 A. Case No. VAR 08-254 – SIGN DESIGNS INC., AND LONGS DRUGS, Applicants Request for approval of a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68 Signs to permit a larger sign than the ordinance allows for Longs Drugs located at 74-527 Highway 111. Mr. Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report. Staff believed that the proposed signage was overwhelming and took away from the architecture, and since Longs Drugs would be easily visible from three public streets, felt the 82 square feet per elevation allowed by code was sufficient. Staff recommended adoption of the findings and adoption of the draft resolution denying the variance request. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant was not present. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSISITION to the proposed sign variance. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments. Commissioner S. Campbell thought that the building already had great exposure, that the signage allowed for the building was adequate, and concurred with staff’s recommendation. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt absent). It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2480, denying Case No. VAR 08-254. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt absent). B. Case Nos. DA 06-02 Amendment #1 and MISC 08-301 – PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY, LP, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to City Council of an amendment to Development Agreement 06-02, University Park (generally located south Gerald Ford Drive, east of Portola Avenue), deleting the Coachella Valley Water District well sites from the scope of the development agreement. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 Mr. Kevin Swartz explained that in 1997, Development Agreement 97-2 was adopted for the Wonder Palms Master Plan which encompassed property in the area of Portola Avenue, Gerald Ford and Cook. On February 8, 2007, Ordinance No. 1132 was passed approving Development Agreement 06-02 that superseded Development Agreement 97-2 and allowed the applicant, Palm Desert Funding, to develop the project contained within the 190-acres of the University Park Master Plan. Mr. Swartz showed the location of the well sites on the displayed map. He stated that the property has two well sites; well site #1 fronting on Portola Avenue and College Drive; well site #2 fronting on Gerald Ford Drive. He further indicated that Development Agreement 06-02 states that the property owner must maintain the well sites for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The property owner has expressed concern about maintaining the well sites. Mr. Swartz stated that it didn’t matter to the City who maintained it, the City just wanted to see a 10-foot wide landscaped parkway off of College Drive and Gerald Ford Drive. Well site #2 at Gerald Ford had a 20-foot landscaped parkway. He explained that the landscaped area would be maintained through a homeowners association. The property owner agreed and was requesting that the City delete the Coachella Valley Water District from the scope of the development agreement. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and the Planning Commission Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Development Agreement 06-02 Amendment #1. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Tanner asked if there was any down side to approving this request. Mr. Swartz said no, not as long as the parkway is landscaped and maintained through a homeowners association. Chairperson Tanner asked for clarification that that had been agreed to. Mr. Swartz said yes. Commissioner Limont asked if staff talked with CVWD and they were fine with the amendment. Ms. Aylaian said yes. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked for any testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the proposed amendment. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt absent). It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2481, recommending to City Council approval of Development Agreement 06-02 Amendment #1 and MISC 08-301. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt absent). C. Case No. TPM 35982 – WILLIAM POPE/JHA ENGINEERING, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 1.16-acre parcel into 13 parcels for condominium sale nd purposes. The property is located at 74-794 42 Avenue. Ms. Missy Grisa reviewed the request and recommended approval of TPM 35982, subject to the conditions. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked for any testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Limont said her concern with something like this is always parking. She missed Dave Tschopp, because he would always jump on that. To her it looked like this project would provide four spaces per 1,000 square feet per parcel and asked if that was correct. Ms. Grisa confirmed that the parking should be sufficient. Commissioner S. Campbell noted that they have approved similar projects and have never had any problems. She was in favor of the proposed project and moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt absent). It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2482, approving 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 Case No. TPM 35982, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt absent). D. Case No. CUP 08-266 – CINGULAR WIRELESS, Applicant Request for approval to construct, operate and maintain a new 75-foot high mono-palm wireless telecommunications tower with a related equipment building located just inside the perimeter wall of Palm Valley Country Club at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Eldorado Drive (76002 Honeysuckle Drive). Mr. Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of Case No. CUP 08-266, subject to conditions. Commissioner Limont asked if telecommunication towers were usually 60 to 65 feet tall; this one seemed taller. Mr. Swartz stated that to the top of the palm it was 75 feet; where the antennas were located was right at 66 feet, but to screen the antennas, the top of the palm would be at 75 feet. Chairperson Tanner asked if there were other mono-palms within Palm Valley Country Club or that area. Mr. Swartz indicated that they were across the street within Indian Ridge Country Club. Commissioner Limont asked how tall the ones were in Indian Ridge or if they were the same height. Chairperson Tanner said they were the same height, basically located at El Dorado and Country Club at the southeast corner. There were no other questions of staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the project to step to the lectern. MR. JESS GILHOLM, 354 Hurst Avenue in Ventura, California, 93301, stated that he was present on behalf of the applicant, Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, also known as AT&T. He felt staff depicted the scope of the project. The project came before the Planning Commission previously and they were proposing the exact same project. It was AT&T’s goal to have the facility built and to start construction in October. He said he was present to answer any questions from the Commission or the public. Chairperson Tanner asked if there had been any questions or concerns from Palm Valley residents. Mr. Gilholm said no. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 Mr. Swartz also said no. There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell indicated that this came before the Planning Commission in 2006 and was approved then; she was in favor of approving it again. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2483, approving Case No. CUP 08-266, subject to conditions (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. HPR/PP 08-259 – BRUCE KUYKENDALL, Applicant Request for approval of a preliminary building site for a 5- acre parcel of land in the Hillside Planned Residential Zone pursuant to the requirements of Section 25.15.130 (Optional Preliminary Approval) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Said request does not qualify as a project under CEQA guidelines; no environmental studies are required at this time. Property is located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel on Upper Way West (APN: 628-130-015). Ms. Renee Schrader explained that approval of this request would recommend an appropriate building site for a single family home on a five- acre lot within the Hillside Planned Residential zone. As background, Ms. Schrader noted that the Planning Commission reviewed potential pad sites for the applicant in an effort to recommend an appropriate building site for a single-family residence. The Commission’s 2-2 vote constituted a no decision action, so the applicant was returning in order to establish a definitive action. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 Two potential sites were identified by staff. Pad #1 was an already graded pad; it was graded in the 1960’s prior to the current ownership in 2003 by the applicant. There was also a smaller pad about 56 feet lower in elevation which was somewhat on the ridge as well. The issues were identified as both access and grading issues. Access to Pad #1 could be made through following contours and accessing toward the rear. As it is, the property currently is traversed by Upper Way West, so access would be directly off of an existing roadway. To access Pad #2, an easement would be required and a roadway would basically be very visible from that portion of the city / valley on that side. It had also been identified that Pad #2, in order to make it developable, would incur a great deal more disturbance to the site requiring coming in along the side and filling on the side. As proposed, Pad #1, although there was no actual project, the applicant would propose to naturalize the slope along the existing ridge which had looked like this since the 1960’s, but a built-up berm could be made in the area. Using a power point presentation, Ms. Schrader showed the proposed pads, the location of fill, and the ridgeline. Staff concluded that developing on Pad #2 would incur a great deal more disturbance. Developing on Pad #1 could, while it would violate the letter of the code, could be more likely able to maintain less visibility and less impact and could be a potential building site. Ms. Schrader also noted that a public notice was sent out to property owners within a 4,000 square foot radius. In response to the July 1, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, a letter was received from the Ironwood Community Association indicating a strong support for maintaining the restrictions stated in the Hillside Ordinance. A letter was also emailed and was distributed in the Commission’s packet which also supported prohibiting development along the ridgeline. A handwritten note was also distributed that requested no development on the ridgeline. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission preliminarily identify proposed Pad #1 as a home site and require that such grading, berming, and naturalization work as necessary be required to obscure the view of the home and improvements from the valley floor as per the Hillside Planned Residential zone section. She asked for any questions. There were no questions of staff. Chairperson Tanner explained that this was a Miscellaneous Agenda Item, so there wasn’t a public hearing, but 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 the Planning Commission had the option to ask the applicant to come forward. He noted that Mr. Kuykendall requested the opportunity to address the Commission and Chairperson Tanner invited him to do so. MR. BRUCE KUYKENDALL, P.O. Box 4737 in Palm Desert, California, addressed the Commission. He stated that as three of the Commissioners were aware, there was a no decision previously. He said they were asking for an exception to the Hillside Ordinance based on some real, very strong points. Those being that they started this process in 2003 and at two different times the City showed interest in purchasing the property for open space easement or open space. Just recently they spoke with Carlos Ortega. Mr. Ortega had them go out and get an appraisal and he had a company he said to use. They used that company and came back with an appraisal. They had a tolling agreement in place at that time with the City submitted to Carlos’ office, and during that time they were negotiating, the final Hillside Ordinance was approved. He explained that this property was graded back in the 60’s as Renee said. They were at the lowest point of the ridgeline. Using the displayed map, Mr. Kuykendall said they had Jan Wood who lives behind them, and she was present and was in favor of what they were doing. They had John McCormick who lives up near there and he was in favor of what they were doing. The people who were not in favor were over in Ironwood and couldn’t see the site from their place. They have no real opposition from anyone within visual sight of this pad. Mr. Kuykendall said they submitted a driveway coming in the back of the property, going around the knob, and coming in with a turnaround. They received Planning Commission approval with a 5- 0 vote for that. Again, they submitted five different times to the City and had some opposition and moved some things around, but the most likely spot to build on this pad, per staff recommendation, was the area that was graded back in the 60’s. There was roughly 1,800 square feet of graded off ridge; it was not an actual ridge, and if the Hillside Ordinance is enforced, that red line running through the property as the definition of the ridge had already been graded and leveled off; it was graded in the 60’s. But if they take that ridgeline and the road they have running through their property, where does that ridgeline end? Where does it stop? So in other words, the Ordinance takes this property from a $2 million appraisal six 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 months ago to unbuildable. They couldn’t use it; they couldn’t develop it. If they did build here, they were looking at a humongous maintenance facility, parking for over 300 cars, the Stone Eagle sales office, and visually coming up Highway 74, they couldn’t see it until passing St. Margaret’s and they get a glimpse, but as soon as they pass it, they see roughly 60% of this property developed. All the natural outcroppings that were there? Demolished. Stone Eagle was mass graded. End of story. They used 60% to 70% of their property right there. They used it and have additional units they are trying to spread out in addition to it, but right across this imaginary property line, they were being treated totally different. They have mass opposition against them and the City Council saying never build there. It has already been graded and they feel they have a right to build there and that their value shouldn’t be taken away. He said if they had any questions, he would like to address them. There were no questions. Chairperson Tanner thanked him and asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. SUSAN PAULL, President of the Monterra Homeowners Association, said she had some information that she would like to know. She wanted to know the elevation of the lot, the elevations of Pad #1 and Pad #2. The property is five acres. She wanted to know the density and what Mr. Kuykendall planned to do with the rest of the acreage. She wanted to know if the total request was just for the two lots, or if he planned on expanding or developing additional lots on the rest of the five acres. The reason she thought they were all so sensitive in this matter is what happened with the Hagadone project and this was something they didn’t want to see happen again. She was sorry this gentleman had to be here at this time and involved in this situation. If that had been handled properly and they had accepted the responsibility of going along with the Commission’s recommendation, they wouldn’t be so on edge for this particular area. She thought the Hillside Ordinance should have teeth, it should be enforced, it has a purpose to protect the beauty of the mountains, not to penalize someone in an area which maybe out of the realm of the hillside development. She thought they needed more information before they could give him approval. She knew these 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 things always went through in the summer. She happened to be here in the summer, so they only have one or two people who happen to be in town at this time to raise questions. She was sorry she wasn’t well informed and didn’t know the answers to these questions, but they have a Hillside Ordinance that needed to be enforced and the integrity of it maintained. It needed to be done responsibility. Mr. Kuykendall, in response to the questions raised by Mrs. Paull, stated that they planned to build only one home; that was what it was zoned for, one home. He said he has been doing hillside grading here in this valley for over 20 years. He built all of Bighorn, other than Hagadone and The Canyons side. He has worked with the Planning Department on those five submittals that he made. To answer her question, the main pad, Pad #1, he was going to drop it 12 feet and leave the outer edge of it up to obscure the view of the house. The driveway that he got approved comes in from the back and comes around the knob and he would tuck in to where even Jan Woods, who was behind him, would have a hard time seeing the house. The only exposure would be toward the Stone Eagle project, but he thought that was only fair. Chairperson Tanner thanked him and asked Ms. Paull if her questions were answered. She said yes. Ms. Aylaian also added that the proposal here was for preliminary identification of a pad site. It was not a complete and developed proposal. When a site is identified, the applicant would be required to come back, go through the public hearing process, have the architecture reviewed and approved, and the entire project would go through a formal review process. At that time they would have greater detail to review and comment upon. They would also go through the same noticing requirements, so if they were within 4,000 square feet, they would get notification. Chairperson Tanner asked is anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the proposal. MS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73237 Somera, stated that she lives within the notification area. Her question was mainly of staff. She was just curious how this case was different from David Nelson’s case. It seemed like there were a lot of similarities, offers of building and berms and so on. She would just like clarity as to how this varies from that one. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 Ms. Aylaian explained that each of the properties on the hillside is different. Some of them have existing pads, some don’t. They have access from different areas. The terrain and topography is distinct for each property. So the recommendation that was made for one would not necessarily be appropriate for another. The recommendation here was based upon the pre-existing pad, the orientation, and the best way to shield views from the valley floor so that the intent of the ordinance, which is to keep the views of our mountains shielded from signs of development, they wanted to optimize this site by minimizing the disturbance to the hill and minimizing the views that would be visible from the valley floor. Ms. Housken said that clearly in terms of the intent, though, the intent would be better met by Pad #2. Ms. Aylaian said that staff disagreed with that. Staff believed that the intent could be better met with Pad #1, not Pad #2. Ms. Housken said she would also disagree with the last speaker as well saying perhaps this person was just unfortunate that this was the time for his project. She noted that a lot of time has passed since 2003, but she happened to be here when Hagadone’s people were here that fateful day at Planning Commission, and she thought that Commissioner Sonia Campbell was perhaps the only remaining person (on the Commission). Everyone was so impressed with how beautiful it was going to look and it was going to blend right in. Her fear was that the Hillside Ordinance was developed because that didn’t turn out the way everyone was led to believe it would. She would recommend looking for a better alternative. Perhaps Pad #2, although it looked very small, that was what she would lean towards. She asked them to stick to their guns. They developed the ordinance and asked them to go forward with it. She thanked them. There was no one else requesting to speak. Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments and then a motion. Commissioner Limont agreed with Mrs. Housken and Mrs. Paull. She believed they have an ordinance that came about honestly that staff worked very hard on and this Commission worked very hard on that the Council did and did for a reason. That was because our hillsides mean so much in this valley. She thought it was also unfortunate that these two pads were not exactly in a perfect world what they would want to build on. One sits directly on a ridgeline. In reading the ordinance, she would say that Pad #1 was definitely out. It flies right in the face of our ordinance. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 There was no reason to have this ordinance if they weren’t going to enforce it. Palm Desert residents were relying on them to enforce the ordinance and she didn’t want to let them down. As difficult as it was, she still thought they needed to stick with the ordinance and take a look at Pad #2. She wasn’t an engineer, but she would say that her recommendation, or leaning, or opinion, was to stick with the ordinance. Commissioner Russ Campbell stated that he had nothing to add. Commissioner Sonia Campbell said that she was not changing her vote from the last meeting. She agreed with staff to have Mr. Kuykendall build on Pad #1. Staff believed that “the applicant could successfully build his home on Pad #1 that would conform with the intent of the HPR zone”. Just because this applicant bought the property, then the Council adopted an Ordinance, she didn’t believe he should be penalized for building his home on Pad #1 and that’s what staff agreed with also. Her vote remained the same. Chairperson Tanner echoed that. His vote hadn’t changed either. It was simply a recommendation. They weren’t approving this, as they well knew; they were suggesting that they take this to Council with their recommendation to potentially build on site Pad #1. They would go through the formal process as they would for a brand new project. What they were trying to do was determine what pad and staff was recommending that the applicant further his investigation on Pad #1. He asked if a motion was needed. Ms. Aylaian said yes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Tanner, to, by minute motion, preliminarily identify Proposed Pad #1 as the home site for the subject parcel, requiring such grading, berming and renaturalization work as is necessary to obscure the view of the home and improvements from the valley floor, per the Hillside Planned Residential zone Section 25.15.130 ‘Optional Preliminary Approval’. Motion failed on a 2-2 vote (Commissioner R. Campbell and Commissioner Limont voting no; Commissioner Schmidt was absent). Chairperson Tanner pointed out that they were at a stalemate. From an earlier discussion with staff, in the event of a tied vote, Chairperson Tanner indicated that a motion should be made to move this up to City Council. He noted that they were stalemated and it was not fair to make Mr. Kuykendall sit through this again. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2008 It was moved by Chairperson Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Limont, to, by minute motion, forward this matter to the City Council. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner S. Campbell stated that they didn’t have a meeting, but the sculptures mentioned under review of Council actions were reported on a few meetings ago. The sculptures were very well diversified and she thought everyone would enjoy them. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont said she would report at the next meeting. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Ms. Aylaian reported that Project Area 4 had not met since the last Planning Commission meeting. D. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner reported that the Parks & Recreation Commission did not meet. XI. COMMENTS The Commission welcomed new Commissioner Russ Campbell. It was also noted that the next meeting on August 19 was canceled. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner S. Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. _______________________________ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: ____________________________ VAN TANNER, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission 14