►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting | April 11, 2018
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
C
E
A
This
time
has
been
set
aside
for
members
of
the
public
to
address
the
Planning
Commission
on
consent,
calendar
and
other
agenda
items
and
items
of
general
interest
within
the
subject
matter:
jurisdiction
of
the
Planning
Commission.
Please
note
that
we
are
prohibited
from
taking
any
action
on
items
that
are
not
opposed,
not
posted
on
this
agenda.
Each
speaker,
speaker,
will
be
limited
to
three
minutes
as
I
look
through
the
agenda
item.
A
2A
is
a
public
hearing
item.
If
you
are
here
on
the
modification
of
this
sine
code,
this
is
a
public
hearing
item
item
3
a
which
is
Planning
Commission
rules
in
item
5a,
which
are
proposed
amendments
to
the
planned
development
districts
are
not
hearing
items.
So,
if
you're
here
to
speak
on
either
of
those,
you
should
speak
during
the
public
comment
period.
Thank
you
either.
A
Members
of
the
public
that
wish
to
speak,
seeing
none
public
comment
period
is
ended
and
we're
going
to
the
consent
calendar
this.
The
consent
calendar
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
of
February
14th
2018
and
February
28th
2018
do
I,
have
a
motion
on
the
consent.
Calendar
moved
by
Commissioner
Hirsch
bond
seconded
by
Commissioner
Hudson,
all
in
favor
aye.
D
A
Six
in
favor,
with
one
absent
the
consent
calendar
is
approved.
Moving
on
to
the
public
hearing
items,
2a
is
the
city
of
Palm
Springs
to
consider
minor
modifications
to
section
93
point
200:
point:
zero:
zero
through
ninety
three
point,
two
0.13
of
the
Palm
Springs
zoning
code
relating
to
the
city's
sign
ordinance.
Can
we
have
a
staff
report?
Please?
Certainly,
madam.
E
Chair
and
members
of
the
Commission,
the
item
that
you
have
before
you
in
this
public
hearing
today
is
relative
to
minor
modifications
to
the
city.
Sign
ordinance.
As
you
may
recall,
the
sign
ordinance
was
most
recently
amended
in
December
of
2017,
and
those
changes
were
primarily
based
on
Supreme
Court
decision
in
2015
relative
to
having
content-neutral
sign
regulations.
E
With
that
we
made
some
changes
to
our
processes,
most
specifically
on
the
approval
process
for
sign
programs.
The
procedures
were
changed
from
having
Planning
Commission
being
the
final,
approving
Authority
for
sign
programs
with
waivers
and
moving
that
to
the
City
Council.
The
City
Council
had
several
applications
come
before
them
over
the
past
several
months.
E
They
have
since
determined
that
they
would
like
to
return
that
approval
Authority
to
the
Planning
Commission,
and
so
that
is
the
primary
change
that
is
being
proposed
today,
and
that
is
a
change
that
is
reflected
on
page
20
of
the
backup
materials
to
your
staff
report.
So
that's
the
significant
change
that
was
requested
by
the
City
Council
in
bringing
us
back
before
you.
E
There
were
also
some
minor
scriveners
errors
in
the
ordinance
that
was
approved
by
City
Council
in
December,
and
so
the
majority
of
those
are
included
in
the
strikeout
underlined
version
that
you
have
before
you.
They
are
not
significant
changes
to
the
ordinance
itself.
There
is
one
change
that
I
did
want
to
call
to
your
attention
with
the
removal
of
content-specific
sign
regulations.
We
removed
the
term
menu
signs
from
the
code
and
we
now
have
those
categorized
as
secondary
signs
in
both
our
commercial
districts
and
in
our
uptown
downtown
districts.
E
One
of
the
things
we
did
in
moving
that
over
to
the
secondary
sign
category
is,
we
inadvertently
reduce
the
size
of
those,
and
so
what
I'm
proposing
to
do
is
return
those
to
what
was
in
existence
prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
new
ordinance
in
December
of
2017.
So
those
are
the
changes
that
are
proposed
with
that
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
have
about
these
modifications,
missioner.
E
B
C
Flynn
I
just
might
need
some
background
information
on
the
whole
thing,
so
the
portable
signs
that
we're
looking
at
that
you
have
highlighted
in
red,
basically
the
Sandwich
signs
and
does
that
also
include
things
like
these
tall
flags,
the
fly
and
things
of
that
nature.
Is
there
a
limitation
to
that.
E
Portable
signs
are
separate
from
other
temporary
signs
that
you
might
see.
Portable
signs
have
their
own
category
in
the
sign
ordinance,
whereas
temporary
banners
and
things
like
that
are
covered
under
the
temporary
sign
portion
of
the
ordinance.
There
are
also
there's
also
a
section
of
prohibited
signs,
so
certain
things
like
inflatables,
etc
are
prohibited
by
the
ordinance.
So.
E
C
C
E
Sign
ordinance
deals
with
signage
on
private
property,
signage
in
public
rights-of-way,
for
example.
The
signage
is,
is
on.
Bus
shelters
is
handled
under
a
separate
agreement
between
our
transit
authority
and
the
City
Council,
so
any
signage
in
the
right-of-way
is
ultimately
the
jurisdiction
of
the
City
Council,
and
it
has
to
be
done
under
a
specific
contract
banners
that
you
see
over
city
streets
again.
Those
are
approved
by
the
city
on
light
poles,
where
we
have
a
banner
program.
There's
a
section
of
our
sign
ordinance
that
deals
with
that.
C
Thank
you,
then,
and
they
just
when
we
do
when
issue
in
a
chrome,
crutch
meant
perfect
permit
for
this.
A
portable
sign
or
sandwich
sign
I
think
we
see
most
of
there.
They
also
give
them
regulations
on
where
that
can
be
placed
I
assume
so
that
they
doesn't
understand
between
the
business
owner
and
what's
happening.
What
they're
allowed
to
do
correct.
E
And
there
was
a
significant
change
to
our
regulations
on
portable
signs,
with
the
adoption
of
new
ordinance
in
December.
What
the
new
language
says
is
that
the
portable
sign
must
be
placed
adjacent
to
the
building,
and
so
that
was
a
significant
change.
Also,
there
was
an
increase
in
the
width
of
the
clear
sidewalk
that
had
to
be
maintained
previous
to
December
of
2017,
that
was
48
inches
meeting
a
DA
requirements.
What
City
Council
approved
in
December
increased
that
to
72
inches.
Thank
you.
D
E
The
72
inch
requirement
applies
anywhere.
There
is
a
portable
sign
in
the
public
right-of-way
on
a
public
sidewalk,
regardless
of
what
the
actual
conditions
may
be.
So
in
certain
cases
it
may
be
that
there
is
an
adequate
width
on
the
sidewalk
to
maintain
that
72
inches
and
the
portable
sign,
and
so
in
those
cases
the
portable
sign
would
not
be
permissible.
I'm.
D
More
worried
about
the
case,
the
other
way
where
a
portable
sign
might
be
would
be
able
to
make
the
72
inches,
but
it
would
still
create
a
bottleneck
because
the
pedestrian
volume
is
so
high
and
a
couple
places
in
downtown
I
mean
downtown
has
been
so
successful.
The
last
few
weekends
that
I'm
not
sure
that
72
inches
is
going
to
cut
it
in
some
of
those
some
of
those
places.
But
the.
A
D
A
E
Of
the
things
that
happened
when
the
amendment
was
approved
by
the
City
Council
in
December
is
the
language
on
portable
signs
was
different
in
the
two
different
sections
of
the
document
that
we
didn't
have
the
same
language
in
both
the
commercial
and
industrial
districts
that
we
had
in
the
downtown
uptown
district.
And
so
this
is
to
correct
that
so
that
the
language
is
the
same
in
all
of
the
commercial
districts
relative
to
the
portable
signs
and.
A
F
Commission
and
city
staff,
first
of
all,
I'd
like
to
think
especially
the
people
that
have
been
on
this
Planning
Commission
for
a
long
time
and
are
possibly
a
sick
of
hearing
about
signs
as
I
am
I,
did
want
to
just
make
some
comments
today.
I
realized
that,
there's
that
nothing
that
I
really
have
to
say
today
will
it
will
change
anything
in
regards
to
the
in
regards
to
the
sign
ordinance
itself.
F
But
I
do
want
to
say
that
some
of
the
wording
in
it,
and
particularly
one
of
the
things
that
you're
changing
today,
which
is
the
three
feet
back
from
the
sidewalk
I,
mean
from
the
curb.
That
is
something
that
led
me
as
president
of
Main
Street
and
also
as
a
merchant
to
believe
that
this
sign
ordinance
something
else.
F
We
did
not
feel
that
being
that
there
were
adjacent
to
the
building
in
the
new
ordinance
actually
meant
that
you
want
us
to
put
it
up
against
our
building,
so
that
then
people
have
to
walk
on
the
sidewalk
like
this.
That
just
doesn't
even
make
any
sense.
So
when
I
found
out,
thankfully
after
meeting
with
your
planning
director,
that
that
is
actually
what
the
intent
was
I
have
to
tell
you,
I
was
shocked.
It
did
not
appear
that
that
is
what
this
sign
ordinance
said.