Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0103 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 3, 1995 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ` * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez (arrived after item A) Bob Spiegel Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Joe Gaugush Marshal Rudolph Tonya Monroe Steve Smith '��► IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the December 20, 1994 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the December 20, 1994 meeting minutes by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent December 22, 1994 city council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 94-12 Amendment #1 - GEORGE N. FLESSAS for ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of amendment � to conditions of approval imposed on CUP 94-12, Saint George Orthodox Greek MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 Church expansion and remodel by the �„r planning commission in its Resolution No. 1659 . Mr. Smith stated that the applicants, pursuant to the commission' s action in September, were required to provide their own onsite parking in order to accomplish their expansion. They worked with an adjacent property owner for some time and felt they weren' t proceeding. They then filed the request with staff to amend the conditions as described in their letter. In the interim, from the time the notice was placed in the newspaper and the matter scheduled, he had been advised that the two properties had come to an agreement on the property acquisition, which should therefore make the proceeding moot. He felt the commission should hear from the applicant and proceed accordingly. Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GEORGE N. FLESSAS, a resident of Palm Desert and President of the Parish Council of the Saint George Orthodox Church of the Desert. He stated that they were in the final stages of purchasing the flag lot located south and east of their church property. He indicated � their request was an amendment to certain verbiage of special condition #1 of Resolution 1659 , which read, " . . .to design and construct to city parking lot standards a parking lot providing sufficient parking to comply with city parking standards . . . " He said the reasons for his request were: 1) they had 105 members in their parish, which meant they would require 35 parking spaces for 35 automobiles at 3 people per automobile. They still had parking agreements with their neighbors which provided them with well over 100 parking spaces. They would like to defer the additional expense until they could better afford it, or until the parking agreements were terminated and they needed to provide for their own parking. The flag lot they were purchasing would provide 68 or more parking spaces and could be completed in 30 days, which was the time limit on terminating any of the temporary parking agreements . For those reasons he was requesting favorable consideration of amending that portion of Planning Commission Resolution 1659 . Chairperson Jonathan asked what exact change Mr. Flessas wanted to see on condition #1 . He noted they were in the 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 � process of acquiring the flag lot and that would give them an additional 68 parking spaces which would allow them another 204 members . Mr. Flessas concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked how that would necessitate a change to condition #1 . Mr. Flessas stated that they only had 105 members, which would require 35 automobiles to be parked in the area. They still had their agreements--at the previous meeting the planning commission was concerned that those agreements could be terminated with a 30 day notice. They had incurred additional expense in buying the property, the flag lot, (which they did not originally anticipate) and to add the cost of developing the parking lot at this time would be an undue strain on their budget, so their concern as he understood it was that they could lose those parking spaces at any time. That was true, but if they did they would within 30 days pave the lot and provide the parking spaces . In the meantime, they had more than adequate parking for a structure that would hold 300 people. Chairperson Jonathan clari f ied that they were acquiring the f lag lot, but were not in a position to immediately pave the lot. Mr. Flessas stated that they would prefer not to, because they were a small parish. The reconstruction/remodeling of their church would put a financial strain on the parishioners; now they had the added expense of acquiring the flag lot. To add ` further immediate expense of preparing the space was a concern. They would have the space if they were to lose their temporary parkinq, but they would rather wait until they were in a better financial position before proceeding. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they intended to use that vacant lot for parking; Mr. Flessas replied no, not until it was paved. Chairperson Jonathan asked how many parking spaces were available to the church right now; Mr. Flessas replied 115-120 for 105 members, which they didn't use. Mr. Flessas said they were asking to defer the "design and construct" part of the condition. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the church had any permanent parking spaces; Mr. Flessas replied about 15 . Commissioner Beaty asked if they had written parking agreements; Mr. Flessas replied yes . Commissioner Beaty asked if those were to be terminated, if the city would be notified; Mr. Flessas replied yes . Commissioner Beaty asked if that was in the agreement; Mr. Flessas stated that he believed it was . Commissioner Spiegel felt that the church had done what the commission asked of them; they had temporary parking right now that could be pulled away, but if it was, the church was saying that they would grade and pave the new lot which would provide adequate space. ` 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 Mr. Diaz stated that he did not see a need to change that � condition--it was already being met. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that in September the church was asking permission to add on to the church and the commission' s concern was that before they added on more seating capacity, they needed to insure there was sufficient permanent parking spaces available. They have 68 spaces--the 115-120 temporary spaces of which 15-20 were permanent, and now they had the capacity for 68 more permanent spaces . The permanent parking spaces would allow 204 members . Mr. Diaz stated that the condition placed on the church is that they provide parking either through purchase or long term lease; should that long term lease be terminated, the city would be notified. There was now a situation where the applicant acquired Iand so that if their long term lease was terminated, they could provide parking. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they didn't have a long term lease, it was a short term 30 day lease. Mr. Diaz felt the condition was met just as it was worded. Commissioner Beaty felt there were a couple of words in the condition that Mr. Flessas thought were not pertinent any more. The condition said provide parking either through long term lease or purchase and if it was purchased, then they had to design and construct. Mr. ! Flessas concurred that was their concern. Commissioner Beaty ,� noted that the condition said that if they purchased, then they had to design and construct. Mr. Diaz said that whenever they built the parking spaces, they would have to design and construct through city standards . Chairperson Jonathan explained that what would happen, if commission agreed, is they would clarify that they did not have to design and construct the parking lot at this time; however, the addition of the flag lot would enable them to expand from the present capacity to a maximum capacity of somewhere around 220-240 seats . Mr. Flessas clarified the seating would be for 205-210 . Chairperson Jonathan stated that it could not go beyond that until they acquired on a permanent basis more than the 68 or so parking spaces . Mr. Smith stated that he would clarify the situation. When the applicant pulled the building permit on the church expansion, before staff signed off on the construction when it was complete in the field, staff expected to see the parking that went with the expansion. What Mr. Flessas was requesting was that they would not see that parking there. They would still see a vacant lot. If that was acceptable to planning commission, he did not have a problem. Commissioner Spiegel said it would be that way until the church needed the � 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 �r.► lot. Mr. Smith felt the parking lot should be designed, just not constructed. Chairperson Jonathan felt that was acceptable. Mr. Smith noted that with a 30 day termination situation, the city did not want to be involved in a design that might take 45 days . Mr. Flessas stated that he already discussed that with the architect who said he could lay it out and a civil engineer would have to do the final approval of it to pull the permits to be able to proceed. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Flessas understood that in a worst case scenario, if for some reason the church lost the temporary parking spaces permit and they failed to construct the parking within 30 days, unless there was special permission granted, they would not be able to operate the church until the parking was complete. Mr. Flessas said he understood that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Spiegel felt Resolution No. 1659 Condition No. 1 should be changed that the applicant was required to acquire through purchase or long term lease (eliminate "long term lease" because they were purchasingj property within 300 � feet of the church, to design ( leave out "construct" ) to city parking lot standards a parking lot providing sufficient parking to comply with city parking standards . Add to that at such time this parking was required, that the church construct the parking. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she would second that motion. Mr. Diaz said his concern was that the condition as it was now worded gave the city and the church greater latitude. The intent was that if for some reason the lease spaces went away, the city wanted to make sure the parking spaces would be built and if they had the parking lot designed and the "30 days" in there, if they eliminate the ability of the church to lease the spaces, they would be saying that as soon as they expand, they would have to purchase the property and use that purchased property to provide parking. Right now that parking was leased, although they would be purchasing the property. Commissioner Spiegel noted that was part of the agreement that they would purchase this property, but they did not want to develop it right now. Mr. Diaz indicated the condition the way it was worded allowed them to do that. Mr. Smith felt that the stated revision by Commissioner Spiegel worked and provided the city the latitude it needed. Chairperson Jonathan said the words "long term lease" should remain to give the applicant options . The concern was that rather than make them design �"' S MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 ; and construct, they should just be required to design at this �ii point, but not construct. In the event if it became necessary because of a loss of temporary spaces, then they must construct within a 30 day period. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, by minute motion amending Planning Commission Resolution No. 1659 and eliminating the words "and construct" from Department of Community Development Special Condition No. 1 . Carried 4-0 . (Commissioner Fernandez arrived at this time. ) B. Case No. ZOA 94-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation to city council approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance. Mr. Smith explained that the city council in September asked staff to reconvene the sign task force which was originally � constituted in 1989 . They got together 12 people from the business community and met initially November 7 . At that „�j point in time, members of the task force outlined a series of changes, revisions and proposals they would like to accomplish that would be covered under the city' s sign ordinance. Staff took that list of items and tried to pull it together. Some of the matters as outlined in the report were already permitted and they just needed to get together and do it; other matters did require amendment to the ordinance. That information was brought back to the task force on November 30 . Staff presented the information in a better from at that point and with a few exceptions, the task force unanimously recommended the changes be processed through the city council and planning commission. He explained that commission' s recommendation would be forwarded to the city council . He said the following issues were discussed: 1) The E1 Paseo Business Association requested that they be permitted to install offsite signs directing people to E1 Paseo; that could be done without an amendment to the ordinance. They did need to have them designed and the proposed locations specified. 2 ) The matter of open signs specifically for businesses on E1 Paseo, although it would apply citywide. Several businesses had been putting open signs out within the setback area along E1 Paseo and the ordinance right now did not permit that type of sign. It was �� � 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 �► the feeling of the task force that these types of signs could be acceptable if the design criteria was restrictive enough. In the draft resolution on page 3, section 1 paragraph B was that they would create a section permitting pedestal mounted open signs . A maximum height of 48 inches was stipulated, but staff felt that 54 inches would be acceptable. Staff proposed that the 48 inch height be changed to 54 inches . The signs would have a maximum face area of three square feet. In measuring some of the signs along E1 Paseo, he said they were in the range of 15" by 22" and one was 18" by 18" . The three square foot limit would allow the ones that were there, which were around 2 and 2 1/2 square feet, and three square feet would allow slightly larger open signs . Commissioner Spiegel asked if these could be in windows . Mr. Smith stated that these would be out in the setback area; most buildings along E1 Paseo were five feet back from the property line and then there was a ten foot sidewalk between the curb and the property line. The open sign wouid be placed within that five foot setback area; typically it was placed in the landscaped area right on the corner of the sidewalk. The signs could not impede pedestrian traffic flow and they were not to contain extraneous verbiage advertising the business, specials or sales events . The sign had to be � removed when the business was not open. Even with that criteria the task force discussed extensively whether there should be color control and whether or not the business name and/or logo should be allowed. Some people wanted just the word "open", others wanted the business name. Staff took the position that considering the size of the signs, they did not want to regulate color; if the business community wanted to regulate color, there was an organized business association on E1 Paseo that could through their bylaws procedure create a more restrictive standard if the membership wanted it. He did not feel the city should be enforcing the fact that someone put in blue on white instead of black on white copy. As well, they discussed whether logos should be permitted on the signs . Considering the size, he felt any logo would be very small and they should not control whether someone put a logo on an open sign. He said that commission would receive some discussion on these issues because staff invited the members of the task force to be present to address the commission. 3) The restaurant industry specifically sought permission to identify special events and promote them and it would be done on a group basis . When the task force met the second time it was decided that the chamber would coordinate this effort and that it would be a citywide effort where they would identify various special events that they wished and � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 i would design a special type of welcoming banner. In the � draft ordinance staff suggested that up to four special events could be identified each year and then the chamber would coordinate it--the banners would all be the same size, color and copy. Commissioner Spiegel asked what kinds of events this would cover; Mr. Smith stated that the Bob Hope Classic was mentioned and various golf and tennis matches . Commissioner Spiegel asked if there was a time limit; Mr. Smith said that staff was suggesting that the event signs could be up one week prior to the event, during the time of the event, and one week after the event. Commissioner Spiegel noted that if the event was three months, they could be up all year round. Mr. Smith said that he was not aware of any event that lasted that long. Mr. Smith stated that the Cook Street area businesses suggested a need for directory signs at street entrances from Cook Street, as well as directory signs in front of the multi-tenant buildings in the industrial park. Mr. Smith noted there was already a provision allowing for multi-tenant identification. The provision for directory signs at the street entrances could be accomplished similar to the model ` home tour sign program in that these would be located on the ,� public rights-of-way, so they needed to get together to design a sign and then through an encroachment procedure and the architectural review commission they could accomplish this if that was what was wanted out there, but it would have to be done on a group basis . No amendment to the ordinance would be necessary to accomplish that. Mr. Smith indicated that one of the major issues with the task force was available window signage. Currently there was a five square foot limit. That applied to a business with ten feet of frontage on E1 Paseo and also applied to Cal Spas; Cal Spas was located about 850 feet or more from the street and they had about 200 feet of window area, but they were still Iimited under the current ordinance to five square feet of temporary window signage. They were proposing a major change to that limit. Most of the people that requested the additional window signage were located in commercial centers where businesses were substantial distances from the street. He stated that they did propose to separate out E1 Paseo from other commercial areas . Their first thought was to leave the five square foot limit on E1 Paseo. They changed that position and were now suggesting a ten square foot limit for E1 Paseo. In the remainder of the � 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 �• general commercial areas along Highway 111 specifically, they would increase the five square foot limit to a 20 square foot limit. That would apply to businesses with up to 50 feet of window exposure. With greater than 50 feet of linear window, they would get up to 50 square feet of temporary window signage. Greater than 100 feet of linear window exposure, other than on E1 Paseo, would be entitled up to 75 square feet of temporary window signage. He noted that it sounded like a lot, but in the case of a 100 foot wide window area, typically they were eight feet high and 800 square feet of window glass, then they could have up to 75 square feet of temporary window signage. He said that using Marshall ' s as an example on Town Center Way, they had weekly sales items that came in from corporate that they hoped to be able to advertise in the window. What they did now was hang the signs three feet in back of the glass, which was not deemed a sign under the ordinance. He said that put most of their advertising devices over the shopping carts, which was okay in the mornings, but later in the afternoon when most of the carts were out in the store or parking lot, there were people walking into signs in the store. He stated that they were looking at nine percent of the window area covered with signs . They called it temporary window signage, but in fact it could be fairly permanent. They also tried to take into � consideration distance from the street. They created two sub-categories where if a business was greater than 250 feet from the street, then those businesses based on whatever window exposure they had, they could double their normal allotment--if they were otherwise entitled to 20 square feet of window signage which most of the smaller tenants would fall into that category, if the business was in a center like Marshall 's or Mervyn' s, they would fall into the greater than 250 feet from a public street category and would be able to double their otherwise entitlement. He said there was a third category where if they were greater than 600 feet from a public street, which included the Desert Springs Marketplace center across from the Marriott, the Price Club/Home Base Center, and the Lucky's center on Washington. They were suggesting that those business in those circumstances would be able to triple their basic allotment. Staff was comfortable with the above formula for temporary window signage. He said he looked at many businesses and even with the tripling of the basic entitlement staff didn' t see any situation where 40� of the window area would be exceeded. However, staff was proposing that this whole amendment would have a sunset clause in it. It must be revisited within one year and if it is felt that it is too lenient and the city does not want to continue the program, �.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 then it would close on its own unless specifically (through �11 planning commission and council) extended within that one year. He said that would be in the amendment to the ordinance. It would just be the amendments that were being enacted and the key one was the window signage amendment. He also noted that he did an extensive city survey with two members of the council and this was their way of making sure that the changes weren't taken too far. Commissioner Spiegel clarified that they were looking at three things : the open signs, the restaurant owners special event signs, and the window signs . Mr. Smith concurred, but noted that the special event signs while originating from the restaurant community, would apply to everyone. Mr. Diaz noted that they would have to have' city council affirmation, which would prevent someone from having a year long special event. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. SONIA CAMPBELL, 73-910 E1 Paseo, stated that she was a store owner and president of the E1 Paseo Business Association. As far as the open signs were concerned, � they were in favor of the 54 inch height and the three square foot signage, but they would like to have the name of the business on it also, or if the name was too large, just the word open. She said they would rather have that then any type of logo, or a coffee shop sign depicting a cup of coffee. They would also like to have a clean, uniform sign on the street and as far as she would be concerned, she would not have an open sign. As far as their legislation was concerned, they could not amend their bylaws; their bylaws for the association were to promote and advertise the street, not to go ahead and make any laws, so they depended upon the city and code enforcement to enforce the signage. Commissioner Spiegel asked if Ms . Campbell was suggesting that they don't have any controls that would supersede the city' s . Ms . Campbell replied no, they depended upon code enforcement to be out on the street. Commissioner 5piegel said that whatever was passed for window signage would apply to El Paseo and they would have no way of establishing other ground rules for the businesses on E1 Paseo; Ms . Campbell concurred. Commissioner Spiegel said that if they were to adopt an open sign that didn't require a logo for the rest of 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 '�+ the city, then E1 Paseo could not require that for E1 Paseo; Ms . Campbell said they would like to have the open sign, just a clean open sign for E1 Paseo to have a uniform street, not for the whole city. Commissioner Spiegel asked Mr. Diaz if E1 Paseo could have a separate rule from the rest of the city. Mr. Diaz replied yes . Ms . Campbell said they would also prefer to have the open signs in a standard color, just black on white so that it would be a standard sign for everyone. Commissioner Spiegel asked if Ms . Campbell was speaking for the entire E1 Paseo Business Association, and not just herself; Ms. Campbell said she was speaking for the whole street. Chairperson Jonathan noted that as the resolution exhibit A was written, it did not refer to E1 Paseo; he asked if it was staff' s intent to create open signs for anywhere in the city. Mr. Smith replied that they were looking for a citywide standard, considering the size at three square feet, so the maximum would be 21" by 21" . He did not see the need to create differing standards; the size was very restrictive on its own. Commissioner Spiegel noted that the E1 Paseo merchants were asking for a specific color and way of identifying the merchant. Mr. Smith stated that he heard otherwise at the task force meetings--there were people who '� wanted the choice of color and hoped to have the business name on the sign. He said that whatever way the commission wanted to go was fine with staff. Code would go out and enforce what the city enacted. MR. ROBERT J. LEO, Executive Director of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce and a resident of Palm Desert, stated that �he task force was a study in efficiency and effectiveness . Never had he served on a task force that only had two meetings, that brought such diverse people together who walked away shaking hands and agreeing with everyone at the end of the second meeting. He felt the ordinance with the sunset clause would give the business people the opportunity to test the amendments to see if they worked. Palm Desert was changing and when the ordinance was passed, there wasn' t as much growth or development as right now. He felt that overall the three areas identified as the open signs, special events, and window signage would give them the chance to see if this was the kind of signage that still maintains an aesthetic standard that they want to maintain in Palm Desert. �" 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 Commissioner Spiegel asked if Mr. Leo would have any � objection to a specific time limit on special events, such as one week. Mr. Leo replied no, but he would not limit it to one week. He felt they were probably looking at a 30 day span. Commissioner Spiegel felt that if there was a special event, there should be a time limit on the event so that advertising was not up for long periods of time. Mr. Leo felt the suggestion was one week before, one week during, and one week after--24 to 30 days would work. He said they would like to have the signs down as quickly as possible also. Mr. Smith indicated that the section had a provision where the chamber would propose the special events to the city council, so if there was going to be a special event that would last longer, that was something the council would want to look at. Chairperson Jonathan said in the third category for the additional window signage, as he understood it, was for temporary signs and asked how "temporary" was being defined for this purpose. Mr. Smith replied on-going; the ordinance was not real specific. What code enforcement had been enforcing was that this was a sale sign or special sign for the window. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Leo if the committee addressed the issue of what "temporary" meant for purposes of window signs . Mr. Leo replied no, not specifically. Mr. Diaz said that in other cities he had been ri with, they were by definition a sign painted on the window and thereby considered a temporary sign. There was no time limit placed on that sign and it did not require a permit. He felt otherwise they would be controlling it by size and reminded commission that there was the sunset clause. All the control there was size, 25� of the window in that case. Here there was a maximum of 40$ when they were 600 feet away. In actuality everyone else was talking about 9� . Once they started defining signs on windows and putting time limits on them as window signs, then they would get into problems . Chairperson Jonathan said that he was not objecting to it, but as a point of clarification, when �hey said temporary, it was a different usage for that word. The sign that went on the window within the size limitation could be on year round. Mr. Diaz said that was correct and it might be able to last longer than the outside sign that was described as permanent, but by definition they said the sign inside the window was a temporary sign. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . a � 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 �•• Commissioner Whitlock commended Mr. Smith and the task force for putting the proposal together so concisely. She felt the sunset clause was ideal and whomever deserved the credit for that she commended. Because of the sunset clause she would be prepared to make a motion for approval . Commissioner Spiegel agreed; he said that their objective was to make Palm Desert as successful as possible, not to hurt any of the merchants and with the sunset clause, if there was a lot of abuse to any of the amendments, it would become quite obvious within 12 months . The only thing he wanted to add was the 30 day limit on special events . He would not like to see them go on forever. With that addition he was in favor. Chairperson Jonathan added that he had some significant reservations about some of the sizes, particularly when they could be tripled, but the sunset provision was innovative and he seconded Commissioner Whitlock' s commendations and that was persuasive to him and he was willing to give it a one year try. He asked Commissioner Whitlock if she was willing to amend her recommendation to include the 30 day limit for special event signage. She replied yes . �+ Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1675, recommendinq to city council approval of ZOA 94-3, subject to the amendments . Carried 5-0 . VIII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. ''� 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 XI . COMMENTS � None. XII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 7 :59 p.m. � • RAM N A. DIAZ,• c ry ATTEST• � SABBY JON HAN, Chairperson Palm Deser Planning Commission /tm � � 14