Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-16 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY,JULY 2, 2013–6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 ______________________________________________________________________ I.CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy DeLunacalled the meeting to order at 6:00p.m. II.ROLL CALL Present: CommissionerKen Stendell Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Sonia Campbell Vice Chair Roger Dash Chair Nancy DeLuna Staff Present: Jill Tremblay,City Attorney Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Monica O’Reilly, Administrative Secretary III.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Greenwoodled the Pledge of Allegiance. IV.SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, reported that at the meeting of June 27, the City Council approved the budget for fiscal year 2013- 2014. V.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 VI.CONSENT CALENDAR A.MINUTESof the Planning Commission meeting of June 18, 2013. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. Upon a motion by Campbell, second by Stendell, and a5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII.CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATIONof Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement 04-01 (Palm Desert Country Club, APN 637-020-011) to allow the construction of the permanent maintenance building at a new location on the Palm Desert Golf Course located northwest of Joe Mann Park and north of California Drive.Case No. PP/DA 12-213(PD Golf Operations,LLC, 77-200 California Drive, Palm Desert,CA 92211,Applicant) Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, noted that there were letters received via email,and one letter hand-delivered this morning. Chair DeLuna asked the Planning Commission if they needed a moment to read the letters. The Planning Commission responded they did not. Mr. Bagato reported that the location of maintenance building is in Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC), and displayed photosof the site. He saidthat in 2004 there was a master plan to redo the golf course to add new homes, infill lots, and a permanent maintenance facility. All of the work is complete; however, the previous owner/developer declared bankruptcy before constructing the maintenance facility. Mr. Bagato stated the new owner (currentapplicant) seeks approval for relocating a permanent maintenance facility where the temporary facility is now located. He referred to the phototo show the location of the temporary facility and the approved permanent location, which is approximately 100 yards away. The issue does not have significant impact on the City, but some residents will be visually impacted. He stated that staff wants to gather public input through the public hearing process, then allow the Planning Commission to consider testimony offered, and make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Bagato noted that some property owners that own condominiums on Michigan Drive did not receive a notice due to address errors on the tax rollrecords.He said staff is not comfortable making a recommendation tonight; however, staff recommended a continuance to the meeting of July 16, 2013. 2 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 Mr. Bagato gave a description of the maintenance facility. He said that the project was presented to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and noted that ARC has not approved the project. The ARC had a concern on how much money is put into the design if the location is not approved. He reported that the ARC referred the project to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration of the proposed location. He stated that theproject will go back to ARC to address the design and landscaping. Mr. Bagato stated that the City received emails and a letterin opposition to theproposed temporary location. Staff recommended a continuance after hearing from the public and the applicant. Mr. Bagato offered to answer any questions. Chair DeLuna asked Mr. Bagato how many people were not properly notified. Mr. Bagato responded that in one condominium project there are 24 units in the building, and the residents are saying only two of the addressesare correct and current. Commissioner Sonia Campbell referred to aphoto, and asked if one of the buildings is the clubhouse. Mr. Bagato replied yes. He commented that there is also a playground, a rose garden, and Joe Mann Park. Commissioner Campbell clarified that no homes would face the permanent location. Mr. Bagato replied that is correct. He added that there was a concern with the proximity to the playground. He checked with Riverside County Environmental Health, and there are no distance requirements from Environmental Health or the Fire Department. However, they do regulate the materials stored in the facility. Therefore, the concern with the playground has been alleviated. Commissioner Campbell inquiredabout the road leading to the permanent area, and asked where it would go. Mr. Bagato responded that the road would remain in place, which is the only road into the facility. He noted that if the facility stays in the approved permanent location, the employees would go to the right and away from the home ownersto the left. He stated that the employees currently go to the left, and there have been noise complaints coming from residents on California Drive. Chair DeLuna asked when the current applicant purchased the property, were they aware ofthe permanent location for the facility. Mr. Bagato replied yes. He stated that staff met with the applicant before they purchased the property, and they were informed that a maintenance facility had to be built next to the park. 3 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing openand invited the applicant to address the Commission on this matter, followed by any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. WILF WEINKAUF, Palm Desert Country Club, 77200 California Drive, Palm Desert, California, statedthat they have been looking at building a maintenance facility for the past 20 months. He said that they have talked to the residents regarding the dust, traffic, and the buildings currently in the area. The residents tell them that they would like to seemore flowers, trees, and cleaned up areas. He noted that he has built quite a few maintenance facilities, and he prefers not to build next to a park because they store fertilizer and pesticides under lock and key. He said that the main reason to build on the temporary site is to expand what is already there, and noted that the lake and white compound would remain in the same area. He said they would cover everything so itis nice for the residents. Mr. Weinkauf stated that he does not want to postpone the project. He mentioned that the previous Planner, Missy Nale, recommended the temporary location butshe is no longer with the City. He urged the Commissioners not to stall it because of the mailings;he has already talked to the residents from those units.The residents have been against the project since the beginning, and probably still are only because the residents think that they cannot perform. MR. WEINKAUF noted that the building is going to be lower than the temporary tent. He communicated that the building would be screened, paved, and there would be less dust. He also noted that there would be less noise from their equipment at the temporary location. He added that the fuel and power is next to the temporary location, which is not going to change. If they were to build the facility in the permanent location, they would still have to take their equipment to fueling area then bring it back to the permanent location.He said it is common sense to keep everything in one area. Mr. Weinkauf stated that they are looking at making the area nice, and save money by staying in the temporary location. In addition, they would be paving the area in the temporary location and not at the permanent area. He asked that they need someone to tell them if they need to go in “the hole” (the previously approved location)or stay in the temporary location. He mentioned that they need a green waste area, which they would able to screen in the temporary location and not at the permanent location. He also mentioned that they spent over $700,000 on equipment, which they are wrecking from the area not being paved. Chair DeLuna interjected and asked Mr. Weinkauf if they were aware that when they bought the property, the maintenance facility was designated in the area that abutsthe park. MR. WEINKAUF replied that is correct. He said when he first saw the areahis firstthought was that it is not the proper place for a maintenance facility. Chair DeLuna asked the applicant when they first bought the facility, did they meet with the City to say that the approved area is not the appropriate location or accept the property as it was. 4 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 MR. WEINKAUF responded that they met with the City; however, the maintenance facility was not their main concern. Their main concern was the clubhouse, the golf course, the irrigation, and getting the golf course back into shape to reopen it. Chair DeLuna stated that Mr. Weinkauf’s time for his remarks expired, and asked the Planning Commission if they had questions for the applicant. Commissioner Roger Dash commented that it has been said there is a significant difference in the cost between the two facilities. He asked what the ballpark figure is. MR. WEINKAUF responded approximately $60,000 to $70,000. Commissioner Dash quoted Commissioner McIntosh’s (Architectural Review Commission) statement, “. . . the applicant is trying to shoe horn into a spot that may not accommodate all their needs.” He asked the applicant if he agreed with that statement. MR. WEINKAUF replied that he does not agree with the statement. He said that comment was made because some residents did not want them to take much area so they downsized the visual impact. He noted that the site on the landscape drawing is going to bebigger so it could accommodate what the City is requesting from them. Commissioner Dash clarified if the fuel would still remain in the same area. MR. WEINKAUF replied that is correct. Commissioner Dash asked what the size of the fuel pumping stationis. MR. WEINKAUF answered that he believes is 150feet by 150 feet. He referred to an open area that they would also need for green waste. He noted that their golf course has a disease so they can’t give it away to private companies. They have to store it and pay for Burrtec to take it away. He stated that when they mow and scalp, there is a lot of green waste that cannot behauledaway fast enough. Commissioner John Greenwood stated that there seems to be a sizable difference between the two parcels. He voiced his concernswith the landscape plan: 1) where the heavy equipment is parked; 2)the existing utility area does not fit everything; 3)thetrash enclosures are not shown; and4)there are three parking spaces outside of the facility without pedestrian access.He asked the applicant if they have addressed the items that the ARC requested. MR. WEINKAUF responded that they put a hold on everything after the second ARC meeting. 5 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 Commissioner Greenwood pointed to the area in red (approved location), and asked if it was graded by the previous owner. MR. WEINKAUF replied that he believes so, but he does not know. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the berm could be graded. MR. WEINKAUF said that if they were to grade it they would still have the same visual. He stated they went through different scenarios and cost, and noted that they do not want to be next to a playground. Commissioner Greenwood asked why they do not want to be next to the playground. MR. WEINKAUF responded that there is gas, if there is a spill,it could get in the air. They alsostore pesticides, fertilizer, and nitrogen. He noted that nitrogen is explosive. Commissioner Greenwood asked if there is gasoline at the approved site. MR. WEINKAUF replied that there is gas in the equipment. Chair DeLuna inquired if the applicant would save money if the berm is filled at the approved location. MR. WEINKAUF said possibly yes. Chair DeLuna asked if the green waste is not an issue since it stays where it is regardless of the location. MR. WEINKAUF responded that the resident’s biggest issue is the green waste, and gave details on how they wouldscreen the building and wall. Chair DeLuna asked Mr. Bagato if the bushes at Joe Mann Park could be allowed to grow to a height to mitigatefumes or dust. Mr. Bagato replied that he would have to talk to the Parks Department. He noted that the previous approval had a 20 foot buffer between the wrought iron fence and the new facility. He also noted that the City could require either location to be screened or paved. Commissioner Greenwood asked Mr. Bagato if there has ever been discussion to redesign in the combination of both parcels. Mr. Bagato responded that staff has had discussions with the applicant. He said that it has been taking a little longer since the Planner working on the project resigned. Staff and the applicant have gone back and forth to find the best solution. He stated thatMs. Nale’s conclusion was that some residents is going 6 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 to be adversely impacted no matter where theylocate the facility. He said Ms. Nale recommended the temporary location. However, he is more concerned with the impact for the home owners that have to deal with the workers as they come in and out,and the fueling of the equipment. He also said that there are more requirements from the ARC, and the plan in front of them does not address the parking spaces and trash bins. He commented that it is like a catch 22, the applicant does not want to invest more money because the location is not going to be approved, but it is hard for the City to determine how much square footage is going to be needed to meet all the demands the City is requesting. Lastly, Mr. Bagato highlighted that the property line is the perimeter of the whole golf course and around Joe Mann Park so any of the areas around the golf course could be expanded. Chair DeLuna mentioned that the applicant indicated that if they were allowed to move to the temporary area, they would pave the street. However, they intend to do nothing if they have tobuild facility in the approved location. She asked if the City would require the applicant to pave the area to the permanent location. Mr. Bagato replied that is correct. He said there is an ordinance that requires every driving surface to be paved. Commissioner Ken Stendell asked if there has ever been a comprehensive site or development plan presented to the City by the current applicant for the approved area that will show all the requirements they need to meet. Mr. Bagato replied no. Commissioner Stendell commented that the fuel station is an above ground storage. He asked if it is anchored into one position or could it be moved. Mr. Bagato replied that the City could technically request to move the fueling or power station, but the Coachella Valley Water District would want the well to remain. He noted that the wall would have to remain around the well. Commissioner Stendell stated that the applicant bought the property knowing of the approved area for the facility, and knowing that they own the rest of the property. They could also expand the lake to whatever they need, they could move the golf cart path, and they could do whatever they need to do to accommodate a situation where it is a little less unnoticeable to the bulk of the residents. Hecommented that if the temporary location is approved, the applicant would have to move everything to build the facility. MR. WEINKAUF stated that the tent would stay in place while they are building the facility. Commissioner Stendell asked the applicant if they have ever done a site study, and presented it to the City for review on the approved location. 7 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 MR. WEINKAUF replied no. He said after looking at the hole in the permanent location and below the sewer, he did not entertain going into thatlocation. However, Mr. Bagato advised him today that they are able to raise the grade at the site. He stated that they have done architectural drawings for the building and the landscaping, and he received the requirements back from Ms. Nale before she left. Mr. Weinkauf said that the temporary site could accommodate the facility. At the permanent location it would be very costly to move everything over. He stated that if the City wants them to stay in the approved location, they will move there. However, the demands that the City has given them, as he advised the Planning Commission, the green waste and the compound will have to stay. He mentioned that the Fire Department alsoapproved the temporary location so their trucks could turn around. Commissioner Stendell stated that he was a member of the Architectural Review Commission the first time they reviewed the project. He stated that it was continued because there are some far reaching problems that existed. He commented that there were not near the number of residents in opposition to the project primarily because it is not noticed that they had the ARC meeting. Commissioner Stendell asked staff that if the facility were built on the approved location, what willhappen with the temporary location. Mr. Bagato replied that the well site would remain;there will be new tee boxes, andscreening of the existing well. Chair DeLuna inquired if the lake could be relocated to extend to the northwest, if the applicant needed to from the original location. Mr. Bagato responded that technically anything could be relocated at a cost to the applicant. The Planning Commission had no further questions. Chair DeLuna asked staff and the City Attorney for ruling regarding the issue of continuing the hearing until the City could properly notify the residents that were not notified to give them the opportunity to be present and heard from. Ms. Aylaian said that they have met the legal requirements for notification. Unfortunately, staff believes that notification was not sufficient to meet the intent of the law,and the notice did not get to everyone that they wanted to reach. She reaffirmed staff’srecommendation to continue the issue, to open the Public Hearing, receive testimony tonight, keep the Public Hearing openand continue to the next meeting to give an opportunity to the residents that have not heard of the hearing so they could come to the next meeting and give testimony,then close the Public Hearing and make a decision. She noted that the Planning make a decision tonight because they have met the legal Commissioncould requirements. Staff feels it would be appropriate to continue the meeting since 8 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 there are many residents impacted, and the residents should be given an opportunity to be heard. Ms. Jill Tremblay, City Attorney, agreed with Ms. Aylaian’s comments. Chair DeLuna stated that she received speaker’s cards, and invited Mr. Jeff Davis to address the Planning Commission. MR. JEFF DAVIS, 77725 Michigan Drive, Palm Desert, California, commented that his father is one of the first to own one of the 24 units in PDCC, and there should be no reason why he did not receive a notice. He mentioned that he is the secretary of the 24-unit homeowners’ association, and he is not speaking on behalf of the association but as an individual. He expressed that this is the first time he is seeing what is being proposed. He said he’s sorry that they did not receive a notice, but no one really knows what the proposal is. Mr. Davis stated he’s not in favor of or in oppositionto. He voiced that he would want to know what is being proposed and the ramifications of the proposal. He stated he has a problem with the City and PDCC, which they do not seem to know what is going on. He mentioned that Mr. Bagato did not know which fairways and holes they were referring to. They are No. 4 and No. 5, andnot No. 13 and No. 14. Mr. Davis also voiced that there needs to be better communication from the City and PDCC. He mentioned that several months ago they attended a meeting regarding landscape and lighting districts, which they also did not receive a notice. He said that there are only a few people in the 24 units, and the addresses could be obtained from PDCC association without a problem. MR FRANK TAYLOR, 43565 Texas Avenue, Palm Desert, California, commented that he has been a resident of PDCC for approximately 28 years, and retired from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department after 29 years. He was also the Assistant Chief of Police for the City of Palm Desert for two years during his career. During his civil service timehe’s heard PDCC, the law enforcement sector,the public sector,and by City staff discuss that the area is county area that was annexed, that it is not really Palm Desert, and it also has been discussed as a ghetto. He stated that the Planning Commission has kept up high standards of Palm Desert, and he respectfully requests that the high standard is continued in respect of PDCCwhen they are looking at the maintenance facility project, and future projects as they come forward. Mr. Taylor said that as far as the maintenance facility, he read through the ARC minutes and Commissioner Stendell brought up good points. He said that he is not sure if the temporary site was ever approved to stay there forever. He thought that the temporary tent was placed in that area while theybuild the maintenance facility as a temporary holding area, but then the previous owner went bankrupt. Mr. Taylor said that the property was purchased through foreclosure for what he believes at a price of $1.7 million. He said that the PDCC is trying to get things accomplished but feels that the Planning Commission should review the discussion by the City Council and the home owners about the lack of communication. He thinks the plan from2004 was a good and sound plan and a great idea. The agreement that was put forward was to move the maintenance 9 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 facility so they could build the homes wherethe driving range used to be. He said there was a lot of thought not only from the Planning Commission,but also from the City Council and ARC to be able to do this project. He stated that the best place from what he has researched is to keep it where it is, as it was known to the applicant when they bought the property. He believes it will cause less impact to the residents; however, there might be a little struggle and a money issue attached to the project. He stated that he hopes the Planning Commission denies the project, and have the applicant work on the site they have (permanent?) at the July 16 meeting. MS. JANETTE CHAPMAN, 77775 Michigan Drive, Palm Desert, California, commented that after listening to the proposal and the questions; she’s on the fence. She is not in favor of or opposition to, but that she does have some concerns as a home owner. Shecommunicated that the permanent area is a big noise area because of Joe Mann Park, the dog park, the community pool, and a school. If the hole is filled, it would bring down the berms and the noise will be greater than it is now. If the maintenance facility is moved to the permanent location, that machinery would add to the noise. She stated her concern is having no berm to mitigate the noise. She said she does not know enough on what the applicants wants to do so until she hears a more organized plan, shecannot say she’s in favor of or in opposition to the project. Chair DeLuna asked staff and the City Attorney if it is a good time for the Planning Commission to discuss the continuance. Ms. Aylaian replied yes. The Planning Commission could ask for a motion to continue or have discussion on the issue. Ms. Aylaian asked the City Attorney if they should close the public hearing prior to discussingthe item or reopen the public hearing if they chose to continue the item or leave the public hearing open while they discuss it. Ms. Tremblay said that the public hearing should be closed then reopenedafter their discussion. Chair DeLuna asked if it would be appropriate to continue the item while it is still open prior to the Planning Commission’s discussion and giving the residents that have not been noticed to come in and receiving the benefit of hearing the Commission’s discussion at the end of the public hearing session with all their information, or would it bebetter to close it now then discuss it and reopen it and discuss it again. (Typed mostly verbatim cause so confusing) Ms. Tremblay responded that they should close the public hearing, discuss, and thenreopen. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. 10 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to continue the public hearing to July 16, 2013. The Planning Commission will discuss the item after hearing testimony from the residents that did not receive a notice. Motion was seconded by Stendell and carried by a 5-0 vote. Ms. Aylaian asked Chair DeLuna to reopen the public hearing, and leave open until July 16. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing reopened. Ms. Aylaian stated that for the residents that testified tonight, their testimony is part of the public record and they do not need to attend the next meeting. However, if they choose to attend, they are welcomed to do so. She also clarified that the applicant referred to having an approved project or site plan at the temporary location; however,no location or site plan has been approved for the temporary site.She added that regardless where the facility ends upit will need to go back to the ARC for consideration. MS. SHAWN SHEPHERD, 77725 Michigan Drive#A1, PalmDesert, California, asked ifindividuals are out of town for the meeting of July 16, may they send written comment. Ms. Aylaian replied yes. Any written letters, emails, or phone callsshould be directed to Mr. Bagato. The information will then be passed on to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Commissioner Campbell interjected that they send correspondence in advance, andnot at the last minute. MR. DAVISasked if the residents could be notified within two weeks of the proposed plans. Ms. Aylaian suggested that Mr. David contact Mr. Bagato, Principal Planner. MR. WEINKAUF interjected that he does not want to continue the item to the July 16 meeting, and would like to withdraw his application. Ms. Aylaian stated that if the applicant chooses, and officially notifies the City that they are withdrawing their application, she believes the Planning Commission would need to reopen the public hearing at the next meeting because it was continued. Ms. Aylaian requested a recess so staff could discuss with the City Attorney. MR. WEINKAUF stated that they do not want towaste the City’s time, and they will move into the previously approved site. He will supply Mr. Bagato with the plans for the approved locationso they could move forward. 11 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 Chair DeLuna recessed the meeting at 7:09 p.m. in order to allow staff to receive counsel from the City Attorney. At 7:11 p.m., Ms. Aylaian announced that the public hearing was not closed. It was open and still receiving testimony. She stated if the applicant wishes to step forward and withdraw their application, the Planning Commission could then withdraw the motion to continue the public hearing and the case would be closed. Chair DeLuna asked the applicant if they wish to withdraw the application for the record. MR. WEINKAUF responded that he formally wishes to withdraw the application, and proceed with the approved location With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to withdraw her motion to continue the public hearing to July 16, 2013. Motion was seconded by Stendell and carried by a 5-0 vote. Commissioner Stendell recommended to the applicant that communication is gold in this situation. Not only do they have the people that are immediately surrounding the golf course, but they have the whole PDCC, which has been graciously annexed into the Cityof Palm Desert. He agreed with what Mr. Taylor said, it is a wonderful City. Commissioner Stendell stated that the site is designated for improvement, which they still need to provide and go through the same process such as provide a site plan for review. Chair DeLuna thanked everyone for coming, and thankedeveryone that contributed and participated in the process. The City appreciates everyone’s time and effort, including the applicant. IX.MISCELLANEOUS None X.COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A.ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Stendell commentedthatat the meeting of June 19, the Palm Springs Art Museum reported they had over 20,000 visitors during the first full season in the Palm Desertlocation. He said there is a new self guided garden tour that can be provided to visitors. Thedocent tours for the sculpture garden will be given with the folks on landscaping. He reported that the Palm Springs Art Museum is working with the City of PalmDesert and the El Paseo Merchants Association to reorganize the art walk and create first weekends. He announced a music series on Friday nights in the Eric Johnson Memorial Gardens. He also 12 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 2013 reported that theAfghan Hounds on El Paseo have been sold and replaced with three cats.Last, he said that four finalists willreceive an honorarium to provide proposals to paint the traffic cabinets, and Ms. Schwartz is training the new docents. B.PARKS & RECREATION None XI.COMMENTS Chair DeLuna commented that the City provides a wonderful fireworks display on the Fourth of July. She invited everyone to enjoy what the City offers, it will be a wonderful afternoon and evening. XII.ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Dash, second by Campbell, and a 5-0vote of the Planning Commission, Chair DeLunaadjourned the meeting at 7:16p.m. NANCY DE LUNA, CHAIR ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 13 G:\\Planning\\Monica OReilly\\Planning Commission\\2013\\Minutes\\7-2-13 min.docx