Loading...
2010 04 13 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 13, 2010 CALL TO ORDER 7:03 P.M. A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Alderson. PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, Weber, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, City Attorney Katherine Jenson, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: It was moved by Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to approve the minutes of March 23, 2010, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Street Name Change 2010-020; a request by Farah Meadows - La Quinta High School Senior Class advisor for consideration of a street name change from Westward Ho Drive to Blackhawk Way for the portion of Westward Ho Drive that is west of Dune Palms Road and east of Adams Street. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Commissioner Weber asked if the City of Indio had any comments on this request. Staff responded that the request had been routed to the City of Indio but no comments had been received. Commissioner Weber asked if a cost estimate had been provided to the applicant. Staff responded the applicant has been made aware of the condition and was put in touch with personnel in the Public Works Department regarding the estimate. Chairman Alderson asked if any other neighbors had come forward with comments. Planning Director Johnson referred him to the letter from Mr. Chank (Attachment 31, a property owner on the north side of the street who was in full support of the change. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Farah Meadows -Senior Class Advisor, La Quinta High School, 79-255 Westward Ho Drive, La Quinta CA -gave the background and relayed to the Commission the reasons for the Senior Class request for the name change. She also explained the school procedures they had to follow to accomplish moving the request forward, including getting approval from the students, faculty, and the DSUSD School Board. She told how every Senior Class comes up with a gift for the school and this year's seniors and the administration were in support of the name change. She explained how excited the seniors were and said their goal was to get everything changed before graduation on June 10, 2010. She said it would definitely improve school spirit. Ms. Brittney Boiko -Senior Class President, 44-750 Seeley Drive, La Quinta CA -said the Senior Class wanted to make a lasting impact on the school and improve school spirit. They wanted to give the school something that would make all the present and future students feel better about going to their school. She added, changing the street name may not seem like much, but it is a matter of student pride to say, "you're on Blackhawk Way." She spoke about filling out scholarship applications and how it would have made her very proud to put Blackhawk Way, instead of Westward Ho Drive. She expressed he pride, as Senior Class President, to look back and know her class made such a huge impact. -2- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2070 Mr. Miles Black -Senior Class Member, 45-390 Desert Fox Drive, La Quinta, CA -explained his high school expectations, what led him to become a member of the Associated Student Body (ASB), and how being involved in their activities made a difference in his perspective. He said knowing that your Senior Class made this important change has a lot of meaning and every time he visits, from college, he will be proud that it was the Class of 2010 that made such an impact. He added that teachers will be able to point out the name change and tell students they can make an impact on future generations. There being no additional questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Barrows to adopt Resolution 2010-010 recommending approval of Street Name Change 2010-020 to the City Council as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. Continued -Conditional Use Permit 2009-124; a request by T-Mobile West Corporation for consideration to allow the placement of a fifty- seven (57) foot tall monopalm tower and equipment enclosure within the Family Heritage Church parking lot located at 78-998 Miles Avenue. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Wilkinson said an a-mail he received stated it would not be possible to co-locate on another tower. He asked for more specifics on the towers and why it was not possible. Staff said there was an explanatory letter included in the packet, but the applicant would be more qualified to answer that question, but staff was told the existing towers were too far south from the area that they are trying to provide service to, on the north. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and. asked if the applicant -would like to speak. -3- . J Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Mr. Jay Greenwood, T-mobile representative, 1594 N. Batavia Street, Orange CA -introduced himself and stated he was taking over for Maryann Harwood, who previously spoke to the Commission. He has taken over the zoning process for this particular site and he was available to answer questions. He then passed around a sample of the bark and palm fronds which were to be used. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant had a maintenance agreement, for the enclosure, with the church. Mr. Greenwood said yes. Chairman Alderson asked about graffiti removal. Mr. Greenwood responded T-mobile has somebody go out to every site, every month for maintenance. Their lease agreement states they do all the irrigation and planting, and the church maintains all the landscaping once it's planted. Chairman Alderson asked about planting rotation and color of the block wall. Mr. Greenwood responded they were planting bougainvillea around the CMU wall. He added that they had not yet selected a color for the block wall; however they would try to match the color palette of the church. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant had read all the conditions and if he had a problem with any of them. Mr. Greenwood said he had read them and had no problem with them. Chairman Alderson then complimented Mr. Greenwood on the lowering of the tower from 70 down to 57 feet. He then asked if the applicant had increased the number of fronds. Mr. Greenwood said yes, they increased the number from 30 to 80. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about re-location of the tower and Mr. Greenwood's engineering credentials. Mr. Greenwood responded T- mobile had their own FR (radio frequency) engineers and they say none of those sites work. Commissioner Wilkinson asked why there were unable to co-locate on a different pole. Mr. Greenwood then responded. by :referring to Attachment 7, and an explanation of service coverage. He pointed out the locations of other carriers' towers and explained they were not in -4- Planning Commission Minutes April 73, 2010 an area that would provide optimum coverage; that to co-locate on those towers would be of no benefit to anyone and would not provide anymore significant coverage than what they have currently. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if they had included all the existing towers in the area, not just La Quinta. Mr. Greenwood said these were all the existing towers that he could find and they were all the existing towers that staff was aware of. Staff responded that was correct. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if there were additional towers in the County or Bermuda Dunes that they were unaware of. Mr. Greenwood said there could be, but he said he checked every other carrier's website and there was nothing listed in Bermuda Dunes. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the adequacy of his own cell service and asked how other companies were able to provide that. Mr. Greenwood said he could not speak for other carriers and pointed out that Commissioner Wilkinson had, ai: one time, indicated he had a radio signal booster which could have helped. Commissioner Wilkinson said he had that before the new tower went into the area and now he does not use it. Mr. Greenwood commented on a tower in a nearby golf course and suggested that might be Commissioner Wilkinson's server. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if he couldn't co-locate on that tower. Mr. Greenwood said they couldn't and referred him to the coverage map; specifically the C-shape of the red zone, showing they would still miss a significant portion of our coverage by co-locating. Commissioner Wilkinson said he thought it would be more appropriate if they could get an agreement to co-lorate with another carrier. Mr. Greenwood then discussed the fact that this had been thoroughly looked into and then gave the Commission information on sites, heights, and coverage. He commented they might be able to get a bit more coverage, but wasn't sure if they would be able to get the height needed. -5- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Commissioner Wilkinson asked if he researched the co-location tower heights and service. Mr. Greenwood said they didn't, but he was referring to another 58 foot monopalm; the same height as the one proposed. He said it would probably have to be at least 80 or 90 feet high to get coverage where they need it and it's in the middle of a residential area so they did not explore that. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if he could check on this and respond back to the Commission. Mr. Greenwood said yes. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the reduction of the tower from 70 feet to 57 feet; vvhich was an 18-1/2% variable and asked Mr. Greenwood to comment on -this variable. Mr. Greenwood commented on the antennas in the area and the height needed to provide their signal. Discussion followed regarding all the previous presentations, the change in height of the cell tower and the photo simulations. Commissioner Barrows commented on moving the cell tower closer to the church and asked if there was a reason why that couldn't be done. Mr. Greenwood said to move it within the site would have an impact on coverage and pointed out where the other grove of palm trees was. He added it wouldn't materially impact the coverage. Planning Director Johnson mentioned if there was a potential relocation they would have to follow the Municipal Code setback requirements for these types of facilities. If the tower would be moved closer to Adams, there may be some potential issues because of proximity to the perimeter of the property. Discussion followed regarding possible relocation sites and setback limitations. Commissioner Weber asked if Mr. Greenwood would now be responsible for this coverage area. Mr. Greenwood said he was for this site, but they were currently looking at other cell sites within La Quinta and he would be representing one or two of them. Commissioner Weber commented he appreciated the height' .adjustment, but asked how that could so readily be done and asked Mr. Greenwood to confirm the height was 57. feet; which he did. He -6- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 also referred to the original submittal showing the 70 foot height and the latest map showing the difference with the reduction. He said when you reduce the height, you reduce the coverage area. He explained how the RF engineers arrived at what height was needed. Commissioner Weber inquired about the screening which included the 30 to 35 foot live palms, maintained by the church. Mr. Greenwood said this would help with the visual massing so it looks more like a natural stand of trees. Commissioner Weber said that was a great idea. Commissioner Weber asked about relocation sites which would be acceptable with the setback requirements. Staff commented on the pros and cons of various sites and discussion followed. Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Greenwood if there was any way that the signal could be increased on one of the surrounding area towers. Mr. Greenwood said no and explained why that could not be done as well as why they were not co-locating this tower. Commissioner Wilkinson asked again about how others could provide service in the same area and T-mobile could not. Mr. Greenwood said the RF engineers have advised him that none of those sites work. He said he could not speak for other carriers, only T-mobile. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Chris McFadden - 42-635 Melanie Place, Suite 102, Palm Desert CA -architect of record and also serves on the board at Family Heritage Church -introduced himself and said the re-location of the tower to the south would not be acceptable to the church. He outlined all the lighting and landscaping work the Church had done as well as their future plans for the site. He added, they worked with T-mobile on the choice of location and it will not affect the future development of the church; which he briefly described. He said he could not speak to the cell coverage issues, only to the aesthetics. Commissioner Weber asked if the alternate location was not adequate due to the proximity to the front. Mr. McFadden said yes, and explained why. -7- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Commissioner Weber asked if there would be any limitations to placing the tower on the actual building, or immediately adjacent. Planning Manager Sawyer said there would be none, other than the structural capacity of the building itself. Mr. McFadden said the main building was a metal building and structurally speaking could not accommodate the tower. The new wings were done under the current code which would cause the tower to be fairly close to Vista Dunes. It was conceivable, but this would create another expense if it was atower-type and attached to one of their buildings. Commissioner Weber asked about the grassy area to the south. Mr. McFadden said that was a future building site and explained the church's development plans. Commissioner Quill asked Mr. McFadden if the wall around the facilities would be done in same slump stone similar to what was already there. Mr. McFadden said yes, with some bougainvillea on it to protect it from graffiti. There being no additional questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber said he still had concerns regarding coverage, the proliferation of cell towers, additional cell tower locations, the sensitivity of the location due to the proximity of the residential neighborhood, as well as additional engineering questions. Commissioner Quill said the property owner had agreed on the location. It is a revenue source for the church and their representative was there to provide answers to the Commission. He did not have any issues with the application; especially since they had lowered the height significantly and added the palm trees for visual blending. Commissioner Wilkinson said he was not satisfied with the answers about existing towers and co-location and he -was not in. support of this. -8- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Commissioner Quill commented that at the last meeting aresident-in- opposition promised there would be additional residents attending the meeting and there were actually no residents in attendance. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if notices went out. Staff responded they followed all requirements for noticing and pointed out that the neighbors that were in attendance, the last time, were informed of the continuance date. Chairman Alderson addressed Mr. Greenwood by asking if there had been any improvements made in the design of these cell towers to soften their appearance. He said he hadn't gotten any answers in the previous meetings so he called the manufacturer and asked him. The bottom line, of the conversation, was there's three things you can do to customize a tower: 1) raise it, 2) lower it; or 3- add more than 50 fronds. He added he still had problems with 1) the appearance, 2) the height, and 3) the reception issue; since others in the area are not experiencing problems. He suggested the applicant should look into how others in the area are receiving clear signals. Commissioner Wilkinson said he was ready to recommend a motion for denial of the application on the grounds of incompatibility with the surrounding uses. Commissioner Quill commented that the application would have to go back through the whole application process if this is denied. He suggested a continuance for the applicant to have time to return with his RF engineer to answer the Commissioners' questions. Commissioner Weber asked for clarification of the procedures and what would be addressed at the continued meeting. Planning Director Johnson explained the procedures and what issues needed to be considered. He referred the Commissioners to look at the resolution that was provided in the packet, on page 7 and encourage them to carefully consider item 4 with regards to the findings in the compatibility of surrounding uses and for that consideration to be given if you actually proceed forward with the motion for denial. Commissioner Wilkinson asked for clarification -9- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 City Attorney Jenson said in other words if you are going to move to deny it; you can have your reasons, but you want to also make a finding that it's not compatible with the neighborhood. That would then be the legal basis for denial. You can then explain that you would be doing that because of lack of information. Commissioner Wilkinson commented he e-mailed his questions to Mr. Greenwood and he felt there had been an adequate amount of time allowed to answer those questions. Chairman Alderson re-opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Greenwood said he couldn't speak for other vendors but they have researched the cell sites there, but he could not respond to the question of why Commissioner Wilkinson is able to get full coverage. According to their RF engineers, they need to have this tower to provide adequate service for their customers. Commissioner Weber commented on the fact that the previous request was fora 70 foot tower and now it is only 57 feet. He .said the applicant should request what they actually needed. It is the role of the Planning Commission to safeguard and properly plan for the community and we require our applicants to come in with factual knowledge. He said it troubled him that their questions were~not answered. He said what should have happened was a radio frequency (RF) expert should have been brought in to answer these questions. Mr. Greenwood said he could bring in the RF expert- but, if that's the basis of your denial, the expert's going to come and tell you it doesn't work for the same reasons that I told you it doesn't work, so just deny my application now. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Weber to adopt Resolution 2010-011 denying Conditional Use Permit 2009-124 due to lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood uses. AYES: Commissioners Wilkinson and Weber NOES: Commissioner Barrows, Quill, and Chairman Alderson. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None. (The motion did not carry.) -10- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Planning Director Johnson recommended the Commissioners identify specifics they would like to see from the applicant; which he paraphrased as 1) why they cannot co-locate on other existing towers in the area as identified on the map, and 21 confirmation that the towers identified in the exhibits are correct. Commissioner Weber added he would like to have the rationale for the height of 57 feet; since it was reduced from 70 feet. Discussion followed as to whether the applicant should be required to answer the question of why other carriers in the area are able deliver service with the present towers. Staff explained the difficulties of obtaining that information and the net result was Commissioner Barrows suggested an RF engineer be in attendance in lieu of the third party. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to continue Conditional Use Permit 2009-124 to the meeting of April 27, 2010, to allow the applicant to return with responses to the Commissioners' requests. Ayes: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, Weber, and Chairman Alderson NOES: Commissioner Wilkinson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None (Note: the Public Hearing remains open) C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2010-100; a request by City of La Quinta for consideration of the following amendments to the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance: Adjust the Guesthouse Provisions in the Table of Permitted Uses (9.409.040-, Adjust the Guesthouse Provisions in the Supplemental Residential Code (9.60.100), Prohibit Single-Family Homes Within the Village Commercial District (9.65.020-, Identify Golf Cart Sales in the Table of Permitted Uses (9.80.0401, Adjust the Permitted Date for Christmas Tree Sales (9.100.0801, Adjust the Used Car Sales Regulations (9.100.300-, Permit the Use of Seasonal Sales Businesses (9.100.3101, Address Multi-Tenant Office Sales Businesses (9.100.310), and Address Multi-Tenant Office Complexes with Interior Tenants in the Sign Code (9.160.0501. Principal Planner Andy Mogensen presented the staff report, a copy of which is on-file in the Planning Department. -11- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no further questions of the staff, and the City being the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no additional questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the sale of Christmas Trees the weekend of Thanksgiving and his concerns about 1) one holiday interfering with another and 2) the problem of the trees drying out and becoming a fire hazard. Planning Director Johnson explained where the trees come from, when they are cut, and their storage and care. He added there was only a four-day difference, which was not significant, and included the fact that the Fire Department had no comments. In addition, he noted that the neighboring jurisdictions were selling trees at that time and there would be no conflict with parking; even on the biggest shopping day of the year. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the location of the Commercial Park Zoning District. Staff pointed out the various locations. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if it was permissible to sell used cars in the Commercial Park Districts. Staff said yes and then explained what was involved in applying for those permits. Commissioner Quill commented that it was a discretionary approval. Staff responded that was correct. Commissioner Wilkinson asked for an explanation of the updated temporary sign code. Staff asked if he was referring to temporary seasonal sales facilities; to which he responded yes. Staff gave an explanation of different types of signs and banners; as well as code requirements in other cities. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about temporary businesses and their effect on permanent businesses; using the example of the previous flea market request. Staff responded this applied to interior. tenants and the Code change would ensure they get a City business license with poin#-of-sales within the City of La Quinta. Staff could not -12- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 comment on the competitiveness of a business-to-business relationship. Planning Director Johnson explained why the change was needed; using the example of a seasonal Halloween costume shop. He said the Municipal Code had not previously addressed a temporary business coming in. This change would now allow a mechanism to address any issues involved with those types of businesses. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to adopt Resolution 2010-011 recommending approval to Council of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2010-100 as submitted. Unanimously approved. D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2010-101; a request by City of La Quinta for consideration of the Following Amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code: Restrict the Placement and Maximum Time Period of Permitted Temporary Signs Within the Public Right-Of-Way; and Revise Table 9-17, to Remove Maximum Sign Size and height Restrictions for Exempt Signs. Planning Director Les Johnson presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no further questions of the staff, and the City being the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no additional questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about 200 foot spacing of signs on private property. Staff responded private property was exempt; unless they had more than four signs. City Attorney Jenson said the changes referred to public right-of-way only. Chairman Alderson commented only private property. Staff responded tha four signs were allowed on t was correct. Five signs, or -13- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 more, would require a Temporary Sign Permit and you would have to post them 200 feet apart. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the number of signs allowed had changed from 50 to 100. Staff said yes. Discussion then followed regarding multiple sign requests, the impact of a proliferation of signs, and the current average number of sign requests Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification of the amendment recently approved by City Council, and if it would be legally possible to limit a candidate's allowance of signs. City Attorney Jenson responded it become problematic if you limit individuals to a certain number of signs. She stated the Planning Commission was free to recommend something else. Discussion followed regarding the number of signs allowed per candidate, the fairness of all candidates having the same number of signs, the current ordinance prohibiting the placement of temporary signs within public right-of-way and public property, the change extension of time period from 45 to 60 days, garage sales signs and the five-foot setback, as well as the removal of the garage sales signs. Commissioner Weber then commented on the City's ability to recoup costs for temporary political signs (5100) which was woefully inadequate considering the staff it took to address the situation. Staff then explained the 50% provision and why staff had requested the percentage versus a dollar amount. Commissioner Weber commented about 1) visual clutter and blight, 21 the adequacy of a 7-day requirement to clean up, 3) a limitation on the number of signs, 4) some type of a cost recovery method for the offenders to bear at least a portion of the burden, 5) 45 days versus 60 days, and 6) signs within site of City limits. Staff gave some history and commented on the reason for inclusion of the language on signs posted. outside of the City's jurisdiction and how the current language-would clarify that. -14- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Commissioner Barrows commented on keeping the 50% deposit and the fairness to all candidates. Staff gave examples of previous situations where the signs had not been removed. Chairman Alderson had some background on these campaign signs and commented on the importance of having those signs available for public viewing. He commented on the number of signs, visual blight, and the burden of the deposit on a potential candidate who is trying to do some good for the community. He did say he would like to see the S100 automatic rebate removed. Commissioner Quill asked about Council's direction on the political signs and the options available to the Cornmission. Discussion followed on the history of the political sign issue before Council and included staff's comments on the Planning Commission's responsibility. Commissioner Weber commented he was in favor of 1) the 7-day removal plan, 2) 50 signs versus 100, 31 including language regarding deposit and refunding the whole deposit, 4) prohibiting that signs in the center median, 5) the setback off the right-of-way, 6) a maximum time period of 45 days, and 7) not increasing the signs to 100 per applicant. Commissioner Barrows said should was supportive of 1) the existing condition that signs are not allowed in the right of way, 2) no increase in maximum time allowed, 3) not allowing more than 50 signs per application, 4) clarification and prevention of signs from being posted outside the City limits, and 5) if all signs are removed the applicant should get their full deposit and if not, only 50%. City Attorney Jenson asked Commissioner Barrows to clarify that she thought there should not be any signs in the right of way. Commissioner Barrows said that was the current code. City Attorney Jenson said under our current code that is what the current law is and you would carry that forward. Commissioner Barrows said yes, that would be her motion. -15- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Discussion followed where Commissioners re-stated their positions and the proposed changes. Planning Director Johnson asked to clarify the changes which referred to item 4 -the clarifying language about the perimeter, item 5 - regarding the deposit; that it be 100% unless code enforcement action is taken. Also that the existing language regarding posting within the public `right-of-way, the number of signs and the duration of time, would remain as currently shown in the Municipal Code. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2010-012 recommending approval to Council of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2010-101 as noted above. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Chairman Alderson's letter regarding the Planners' Institute. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Chairman Alderson commented on his attendance at the April 7, 2010 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee meeting B. Chairman Alderson gave a report on City Council Meeting of April 6, 2010. (A brief summary of the meeting was given followed by discussion of several items.) B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Weber was scheduled to report back on the April 20, 2010, Council meeting. C. Quarterly Attendance Record was provided and commented on. D. Chairman Alderson reported on attendance at the recent Planners' Institute -March 24-26, 2010. (Discussion of some of the sessions, at the Institute, and next year's possible site, followed. IX: -DIRECTOR ITEMS: None -16- Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on April 27, 2010. This regular meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. on April 13, 2010. Respectfully submitted, ~~GG~// GU~ef~!~L Carolyn/Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -17-