Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0620 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 20, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None it Staff Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 6, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to approve the June 6, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent June 8, 2000 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS i` None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. 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. A. Case No. PP 00-13 - SHERMAN/SHRADER ENTERPRISES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the addition of 1 ,437 square feet to an existing 8,271 square foot commercial building within the Palms to Pines Shopping Center at 72-795 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Alvarez explained that the request was to add 1 ,437 square feet to an existing 8,271 square foot commercial building currently occupied by A.G. Edward's and Sons. He noted that AG Edward's intended to relocate to the southwest corner of Portola and Highway 111 . The building would be reoccupied by Kinko's. The addition would occur at the northwest corner of the building which would extend the existing west elevation 20 feet toward the west drive aisle that runs north and south. The exterior would be finished in a similar slump stone block painted to match the existing building. There were photos given to commission previously showing the location. The addition would take place where the carport structure on the west side currently exists. It was a former drive-thru aisle for a bank. The issue that came up in the review process was the west elevation's lack of a buffer between the drive aisle and the building. Staff added condition nine to require a minimum two-foot planter to address this issue. Staff met with the applicant and today received a revised site plan which included a four-foot planter which Mr. Alvarez felt would be adequate to support the buffer and provide significant landscaping. In terms of architectural review, the case was brought before Planning Commission in order to expedite the case since the July 4 meeting was canceled. Staff would be processing the application before ARC with commission's consent to defer the architectural review items to that board. In terms of access and parking, the access to the shopping 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 center would not be modified or impacted. During the submittal process, staff was informed by the applicant that the center's CC&R's which provide joint access and parking agreements had expired. Without the CC&R's the individual parcels had to rely on stand alone parking. Staff added condition eight to the resolution to encourage the applicant to cooperate with the rest of the center's property owners and reinstate the CC&R's. In terms of parking, a letter from the applicant was given to the commission which addressed the existing intensity of A.G. Edwards which at times could have 20 employees onsite. Kinko's would have eight employees and their turn around was fairly quick--a lot quicker than the current A.G. Edwards. Typically the parking at the center had been semi adequate in the front portion on the north side of the building. It was very underutilized on the back side except in the evenings which was used by the Blue Coyote for some of their valet parking. Staff felt that there would be sufficient parking to accommodate Kinko's less intense use. Staff added condition seven requiring employees to park in the rear or south parking area. This would free up additional parking on the north side for customers. With the less intense use and implementation of condition seven, the center's parking would not be impacted. In terms of zoning ordinance requirements, the project would meet the requirements of the commercial district. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. For CEQA purposes, the project is a Class 3 categorical exemption and no further documentation necessary. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this case. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MEL SHERMAN informed commission that he read the staff report and concurred with the conditions of approval. He felt it was a very good report. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval. She said she was at the current Kinko's location every day and the parking right in front of their building (six to eight parking spaces) in addition to the parking on the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 i opposite side of the drive aisle was adequate. She had never had a parking problem and in the Palms to Pines East center the only time she has ever seen the south parking lot full was when the Chamber had a mixer at the Blue Coyote. Otherwise, there was no one there. She felt this would be a great addition, especially with the four-foot planter. It would really revitalize the center. She moved for approval. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Chairperson Beaty said he was in full agreement and asked for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1995, approving PP 00-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). B. Case No. PP 00-14 - HUGH JORGENSEN for SHOOSHANI DEVELOPERS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a 6,547 square foot retail building on property located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Hovley Lane East. Mr. Alvarez explained that the project was 300 feet north of Avenue of the States on Washington Street in the existing Albertson's shopping center which formerly housed Lucky's. The pad was one of two undeveloped pads within the center. To the south commission approved a Jiffy Lube facility. The center was originally approved by the County of Riverside and was annexed into Palm Desert in 1994. The pad was 2,100 square feet. The proposal was for a 6,547 square foot retail building located in front of the Sav-On drug store and north of the Jiffy Lube facility. The elevations, site plan, material samples board and photographs of the center were on display. The building height would be 18'6" with four towers at heights of 22'6". The building's architecture would incorporate designs and features found within the existing shopping center including Spanish style, decorative detailing tiles along the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 borders and colors. On May 23, 2000, ARC granted preliminary approval of the architecture and conceptual approval of the landscaping. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. In terms of zoning ordinance requirements for height and setbacks, the project would meet all the requirements of the district commercial zone. In terms of access, there were two access points to the center from Washington Street, two from Avenue of the States, and two from Hovley Lane East. As part of the development of the site, 15 parking spaces currently exist in front of the building, but they would be replaced with a 33' wide planter landscaped along the frontage. In terms of overall parking for the center, staff indicated that with the removal of 15 parking spaces, the center would have 713 off street parking spaces with a total of 150,161 square feet of use given a 15% reduction for unusable space. The center had 127,637 square feet of usable space which required 5.5 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet which equaled 702 parking spaces. The center would have 713 spaces which would be sufficient to meet the requirement. The project met all the zoning ordinance requirements. The architectural design and site plan would be compatible with the existing center. In terms of CEQA, this was an infill project which had been previously assessed by the County. Mr. Alvarez recommended approval, subject to the resolution Ir.,. conditions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a specific tenant in mind. Mr. Alvarez wasn't aware of one and suggested asking the applicant. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SHOOSHANI, representing the developer, informed the commission that the tenant they had in mind was Video Depot, which was an existing tenant. They were building a Ralph's shopping center across the street in the County which would have a Blockbuster Video, so they were anxious to get Video Depot in there. Commissioner Campbell asked if Video Depot would be the only tenant. Mr. Shooshani concurred. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 Commissioner Campbell stated that she didn't see any problem with having this retail development on that pad. She felt it would be good exposure for Video Depot and moved for approval. Commissioner Finerty felt this was a very nice looking building and hoped it wouldn't take too long to fill up the current Video Depot space and seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1996, approving PP 00-14, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP 00-08 - WHITE ROCK INVESTMENTS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for four (4) industrial buildings on the east side of Garand Lane (39-750 Garand Lane). Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. He recalled that this was a portion of the Select Properties development on the north side of Country Club. The four buildings in question were subject to the rezoning to Service Industrial and that would be completed once this process was done. The buildings would range in size from 9,000 square feet to approximately 13,000 square feet each. They would take access from Garand Lane as well as a central driveway which connected to the rest of the center. He pointed out the elevations and site plan and explained that the buildings were single story, 22 feet in height and the plans would comply with code standards as outlined on the top of page 2 of the staff report. The plans were before ARC a week ago and were given preliminary approval. The concerns of ARC were that the building sides facing the internal driveway were plain and they wanted it dressed up somewhat. They requested some pilaster detailing at spacing that wasn't specified. Staff had expected to have revised plans to show the commission, but had not received any although he had been tough to get a hold of. That issue had been addressed and would be addressed further by ARC. Findings for the approval of the precise plan were on page three of the staff report. He noted that the Fire Marshal had some concerns with the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 turning radii into certain areas and the applicant was advised to contact the Fire Marshal. The buildings themselves were considered part of the master plan for Desert Country Plaza and were reviewed for environmental purposes at that time when a Negative Declaration was certified. He recommended approval subject to the draft resolution conditions. Commissioner Campbell asked if this project was approved if a condition could be added regarding the additional building detailing. Mr. Smith yes, but stated that it was covered now in that there was a requirement that the project fulfill ARC requirements. He also passed out a material sample board so that commission could see the colors. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on what the west elevation of Building A would look like and the comparison between the buildings. Mr. Ricciardi said that it was the same building flipped. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification on the area of staff's concern. Mr. Smith noted that in a couple of weeks the commission would receive a proposal for development of an adjacent commercial building and carports to the south. i� Commissioner Campbell asked about Buildings B and D and what the detailing would be on those buildings on the south side. Mr. Smith said it would be similar to the north side, and it would face the carports on the adjacent property. Commissioner Campbell noted that there would also be parking and some kind of a berm between the building and Country Club. Mr. Smith also pointed out the location of the driveway. Commissioner Lopez noted that part of the conditions included requiring resubmitted plans to be approved by ARC. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Lopez asked if it was currently a condition of approval. Mr. Smith said yes, it was included in condition four requiring approval from ARC. Chairperson Beaty indicated that Mr. Smith pointed out concerns from the Fire Marshal and the report said that staff would report further on this issue. He asked for any updated information. Mr. Smith said he didn't have new information, but thought that the applicant (Mr. Ricciardi) did. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Smith if he felt that condition four was specific enough to require the improvements addressed in the staff report. Mr. Smith said yes, that ARC was quite adamant about it and stated that it would v happen. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith would be presenting the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 case to ARC himself. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan wanted to insure that the concerns were addressed. Mr. Smith was confident they would be. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on condition nine regarding the Art in Public Places program in Palm Desert and asked what would be provided by this project. Mr. Smith said that at the minimum the applicant would pay the fee although most people chose to place art on their own property so they got some benefit from it. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, the architect, 75-090 St. Charles Place Suite A in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he spoke with the Fire Marshal and he evidently wasn't given the overall plan, therefore he didn't know there was a drive going out. Once he was shown that, he said the project was fine and had no problem with the way the project was designed because the fire trucks could come in and loop out from Garand or Country Club and had complete access. They didn't need any turning radius. The other issue was the carports. He was also the architect on the four buildings to the south of the project that face on Country Club and hoped at the next meeting the commission would have that project for review. He said that the carports planned for that part would abut up against the south property line. Chairperson Beaty commented that Mr. Ricciardi if anyone should know what the commission was looking for and wanted to make sure the buildings looked nice facing Country Club. Mr. Ricciardi said he met with several city council members because in the past ARC began looking at industrial buildings like they would residences. He pointed out that nothing could extend past the property line, so when they discussed pilasters, ARC conditioned that they bring that detail back at the time of working drawings. He pointed out the areas that the staff report called "plain" and explained that if the commission looked at industrial buildings, industrial buildings are plain. They had a seven-foot planter that would screen some of it. He showed on the map the added detailing that would be spaced out on .ri 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 r.. the building. He said the detailing would be about three inches out from the wall and 14-16' on center. The north side would abut an existing building. On another section, they would provide the same detail even though there would be carports adjacent to it. From farther back, the stripes would be seen. He felt the area was pretty well screened and they were proposing to put in the same tilt wall panel all across the wall so it would all tie together. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that there would be planters and then the carports. Mr. Ricciardi said yes. They were waiving the seven- foot planter, but they would have enough room in that area to have an espalier and perhaps some bougainvillea and various vines to grow up the wall, even through there would be adjacent carports. There would be landscaping along the wall. Commissioner Jonathan commented that in terms of industrial buildings, he wanted Mr. Ricciardi to recognize that both ARC and the Planning Commission have had concerns with the "plain" look and wanted more detailing, so he suggested either that Mr. Ricciardi continue with his opinion and receive the ••• same kind of response which was that proposed industrial buildings have been too plain, or he could recognize that industrial buildings could have some type of aesthetic appeal without increasing costs financially. He felt this design seemed to satisfy that. Mr. Ricciardi said they tried to do that with all their industrial buildings with the use of stripes and colors. Whenever he met with the Architectural Review Board, if they asked for something that he felt the applicant could live with, they always acquiesced to that. He never tried to be the bad guy and impose their wishes onto anyone. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he just hoped they could come to an agreement since Mr. Ricciardi seemed to be very busy with work and was bringing in a lot of projects. If they could come to an agreement that industrial buildings can be aesthetically pleasing, then he thought it would be a win-win situation. Mr. Ricciardi reiterated that they have always tried to do that through color, stripes and textures. He noted that with the Kerry Meier building they put on details, as well as the L.V. Investment building. They always tried to do details within the confines of industrial buildings. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan felt that with the concerns of staff being satisfied at the ARC meeting, then this project was appropriate and he was prepared to vote for approval. Commissioner Finerty agreed, but still preferred that ARC give their approval prior to coming before Planning Commission so they could see what the finished project would actually look like. Commissioner Campbell thought that as long as staff was going to be at ARC and knew exactly what the commission wanted, she thought ARC would listen to staff's and Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Campbell stated that if Commissioner Jonathan made the motion, she would second it. Commissioner Lopez said he would agree if staff was going to be involved in the revised plan. He also concurred with Commissioner Jonathan in his .� comments regarding the aesthetics of industrial buildings. He would hate to come back to Palm Desert in 15 years and see something that was before Planning Commission while he was on the commission and be embarrassed because of the aesthetic look of that particular project. He thought it was healthy that the commission try to improve the aesthetic look of these so- called industrial areas because they would have a long term impact on the community. He did think that as long as staff was there to push forward on the changes on this, he was okay with that particular action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1997, approving PP 00-08, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 tow D. Case No. ZOA 00-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings. Mr. Smith indicated that staff would be recommending a continuance of this matter. If there were people here who wished to speak to the matter, the commission should hear from them so that staff could incorporate any comments they might have into the final version. He reported that the council at its meeting of June 8 adopted an urgency ordinance that effectively allowed people on large lots of 40,000 square feet or larger to request such buildings through a conditional use permit process and a couple of those applications had been received that would be coming before the commission on July 18. On lots less than 40,000 square feet, there wouldn't be any more bonus rooms. They might see gazebos or small storage sheds of 100 square feet or less. Staff went back to ZORC last Wednesday and that group heard from some people who were on a 25,000 square foot lot and they made a case for a category for that size, so staff would be reporting back to ZORC on that and following that it would be brought back to commission through another legal noticing process. When it was scheduled, staff thought they had it ready to go, but there appeared to be other categories that they needed to explore. ZORC would be working on that further after their next meeting, which was July 12. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and noted that there was no one in the audience to speak. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case No. ZOA 00-04 indefinitely. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Jonathan strongly concurred with staff's concerns with some of the disallowances, but also liked that there would be some situations where they would be allowed. Mr. Smith stated that staff would be open to any discussion the commission might want to present. Staff was thinking in the range of 12,000 to 15,000 square feet as a break off point and would be open to any other comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would concur as long it was a public hearing process and the neighbors had an opportunity to give input. He thought that would be appropriate. He didn't like to see zoning restrictions that were so absolute that said it wasn't allowed at all 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 because they could very easily have a situation where it was appropriate. Some mechanism in place that would enable it would be appropriate. With a provision for pre approved projects, everyone going in would know about the possibility that there was an allowed structure, whether it got built or not, which would be appropriate. He thought something along those lines would be good to pursue. Mr. Smith said that was the direction staff was taking. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (June 20, 2000) Commissioner Finerty indicated that the committee had a presentation from Hilton with regard to their 250 rooms situated in villas, as well as their convention center. She thought it would be before commission within the next couple of months. They would probably be hearing from Montecito homeowners regarding the proposed parking structure. D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (June 19, 2000) Regarding the regional park, Commissioner Finerty indicated they were looking at 280 homes with the park. The middle school was still uncertain. She said that the Parks and Rec. office would like to relocate to the new regional park. A consultant would be hired for the design of the park soon. She also indicated that Phil Smith shared with the committee a project they were proposing between Fred Waring and Hovley just west of Palm Desert Country Club on 640 acres. He was proposing 650 low density homes similar to Indian Ridge. Chairperson 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 �r Beaty noted that was in the city of Indian Wells. Commissioner Finerty concurred. F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (June 14, 2000) Mr. Smith noted that ZORC handled the accessory structure issue. They were also looking at a zone change to allow moveable copy on certain signs. There was a proposal by a brokerage firm wanting to show the DOW and NASDAQ. They were also looking at a problem that was occurring with short term rental of single family homes that were outside of country club situations. It was fairly common in country clubs but it was now happening in single family areas on the south side and some neighbors were upset so they were discussing a conditional use permit process for that type of use. In talking with the City Attorney, he thought that was a more defendable position than doing prohibition. Commissioner Lopez asked what Mr. Smith v considered short term rental. Mr. Smith replied weekends, 2-3 days. Mr. Smith noted that the city was already collecting TOT so it was all above board. They got business licenses, etc., but it was apparently causing a disturbance. There would be a public hearing before commission on that issue. Mr. Smith said ZORC also talked about a problem similar to the Reyes case where someone wanted to put a carport in his front yard because at some point in the past the garage had been converted. There was some support at ZORC to look at carports differently than garages. And for measurement purposes, suggested perhaps looking at a setback from the curb as opposed to adhering strictly to the setback from the property line. That was something they would be looking at. Lastly, they also looked at communication towers and they told staff to proceed with reducing the height but removing the separation requirement so that they could get the groves of pseudo palm trees. That would be coming back to Planning Commission also. Commissioner Jonathan asked when ZORC expected to address the height and setback concept for the 1 :1 ratio that was going to be placed on their agenda. Mr. Smith said ZORC looked at it several meetings back and chose not to take up the issue. Commissioner Jonathan stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, they asked Mr. Drell where they were in that process because %NW 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 the commission had voted to begin the process of a zoning ordinance amendment regarding height and setbacks for a possible 1 :1 ratio. They addressed it again at their last meeting and asked for an update and status report and he thought Mr. Drell said the next step was ZORC and that it would be on their agenda at either that meeting or the following meeting. Mr. Smith said it had been before ZORC three or four meetings back and it did not receive any support. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was the case, where they would go from there. Mr. Smith said that it would be appropriate, if the commission hadn't already done so, to direct staff to set the matter for hearing. Commissioner Campbell stated that she didn't recall discussing that matter at ZORC. Mr. Smith said he was quite sure they did, but would look into it further. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that when Mr. Smith talked about setting the matter for hearing, if it would be before Planning Commission. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would be appropriate to just proceed to that. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the other commissioners felt about that. Commissioner Finerty and Chairperson s Beaty said they should proceed. Mr. Smith said that if he was in error, he would definitely take it before ZORC. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification on the wireless communication towers. Mr. Smith had said they told staff to look at reducing the height to 65 feet and removing the separation requirement between them. That was the problem they had now. The ordinance allowed them at 85 feet but required 1 ,000 feet of separation between towers. The idea of going with the 85 feet was to encourage co-location, but now co-location seemed to be a stealth situation. Chairperson Beaty noted that there would be the possibility of having two of these towers in a cluster. Mr. Smith concurred. He said that in going back to ZORC he was thinking they would leave it the way it is with the 85 feet and the 1 ,000 feet of separation, but if they wanted to do it at a height of 65 feet or less with a stealth situation, they would entertain that without the separation requirement. H. Commissioner Jonathan reminded the commission that he was on a committee to hire a consultant that would advise the city with regards to updating the city's general plan. He said there was an informal approach taken and they were all given some firms' resumes and a recommendation for selection had been made to city council. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Beaty informed commission that he would not be in attendance on July 18 and there was a good chance he would be absent August 1 . Commissioner Lopez said he would be present July 18, but would be absent for both August meetings. Chairperson Beaty noted that someone might have to fill in as chair. Commissioner Finerty said she would be present for the meetings. Commissioner Campbell also stated that she would be present. Chairperson Beaty thought they would be back on August 1 but wasn't sure since he didn't have the flight scheduled yet. Mr. Smith said there was going to be huge agendas for both meetings, so they didn't want to be in a position of not having a quorum. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith was talking about both meetings in August. Mr. Smith said July 18 and August 1 for sure. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he would not be attending the July meeting either. He would be out of the country. If the cases were significant or controversial or if Mr. Smith thought the full commission needed to be in attendance or at least have more than three members, then they might be issues that could be deferred. He said he would be at the August 1 meeting. Mr. Smith said he would try and make that call and hadn't done the r► legal advertising yet. Commissioner Campbell asked who would be present for the July 18 meeting. Those who said they would be attending were Commissioners Campbell, Finerty and Lopez. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to adjourn the meeting to July 13, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. STE E SMITH, Acting Secretary ST: JA S LOPEZ, Vic C i person tP`sePlanning o m rt ission /tm 15