Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-01-20ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 20, 1975 PALM DESERT MIDDLE SCHOOL I. CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Clark at 7:10 P.M. on January 20, 1975 at the Palm Desert Middle School. II. PLEDGE III. INVOCATION IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman CHUCK ASTON; Councilwoman JEAN BENSON; Councilman NOEL BRUSH; Councilman JIM McPHERSON; Mayor HENRY B. CLARK Absent: None Others Present: City Manager - Harvey L. Hurlburt City Attorney - Dave Erwin Dir. of Environmental Services - Paul A. Williams V. PUBLIC HEARING A. Continued Case GENERAL PLAN EIR - Consideration of the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Palm Desert General Plan. Mayor Clark explained the Environmental Impact Report and its connection with the General Plan. Mayor Clark explained the public hearing procedure. The Mayor reopened the hearing. City Manager Hurlburt pointed out that the staff's recommend- ation should read that the final EIR as prepared by staff be certi- fied as being complete. Mr. Williams stated that the draft EIR which included the General Plan was received on November 12 and was circulated to a list of 33 agencies to review the EIR. Their comments came back, the final EIR was prepared and the Planning Commission reviewed it on December 9. The final EIR was forwarded to the City Council by the Planning Commission, Mr. Williams also discussed the letter received from Mr. Tim Burrell at the January 6 hearing on the final EIR. He told the Council that staff had reviewed his letter thoroughly and had pre- pared a response. Mr. Williams summarized this report for the Council. The first response concerned the description of the project. Mr. Burrell indicated that the State Guidelines require certain summary information to be provided as a part of the final EIR. He stated in his letter that the EIR for the General Plan does not contain a thorough economic analysis of the effects that should occur if the plan is implemented. Finally, he indicates that there should be some reference to precise location and boundaries of the General Plan planning area. It was staff's opinion that this General Plan EIR cannot be valuated in terms of its relationship to an Environ- mental Impact Report on the specific development project as pro- posed by Mr. Burrell. The purpose of this section on the descripion 2 of the project, as is implied, is an attempt to require an EIR to begin with the full description of the project involved in terms of setting the stage for the subsequent environmental evaluation of said project. It was staff's opinion that the methology used is in conformance with the State Guidelines in terms of providing an adequate description of the project. Staff commented that it is stressed throughout that the General Plan was created upon the basis of providing adequate public service without a require- ment of a property tax. It should be noted that the EIR on Page E.12 does describe the impact of the General Plan in terms of public services in figure 9-3, which is entitled "Impact on Urban Infrastructure". Mr. Burrell's comment with regard to the EIR having no thorough economic analysis as to the effects would not seem to be appropriate in the description of the project. In addition to the thorough economic analysis not being required by the State Guidelines, it should be noted that Assembly Bill No. 938 which would require such analysis was vetoed by Governor Reagon on September 27, 1974. The second response from Mr. Burrell concerned the description of the environmental setting. He indicated that this section is in violation of the State Guidelines and cites as an example the information presented on the air quality. He states that this City's contribution to such problems as air pollution should be stated. Staff's comment in portion was that the description of the existing environment is an attempt to describe the regional environment and the specific site envir- onment in a reasonably comprehensive manner, in order to give the reader of the EIR a broader perspective in which to view the pro- posed project. The information provided in the EIR with regards to the description of the environmental setting is in relationship to all the elements of the General Plan, and in the Staff's opinion was an adequate description. The third response to Mr. Burrell's letter concerned environmental impacts. Mr. Burrell indicated a concern with regards to the description of the Environmental Impact of the proposed project with regards to the lack of specific facts and figures used to describe the Environmental Impacts. He uses as an example the statement with regards to the increase in humidity in relationship to population and the fact that the Consultants failed to designate an exact figure such as a range of humidity levels in relationship to the population base. He also commented about the levels of air pollutants that are expected with regards to implementation of the General Plan. He also indi- cated a concern with regards to noise. Staff's comment was that the completion and adoption of the General Plan will not have a direct adverse impact upon the environment, because these are simply studies, reports and policy documents designed to guide the future decisions of the City in matters concerning community dev- elopment. Mr. Burrell also stated that the report failed to state the amount of animal and plant life that exists in the various areas of the city. In regards to this comment as to the statement of the amount of animal and plant life existing which would be displaced, as a result of the implementation of the Gen- eral Plan; the plant and animal life were analysed in some detail in the impacts of development with regards to the form of the Plan and was given careful consideration of vegetation and wildlife that appear in the appropriate sections of the General Plan. In rela- tionship to the State Guidelines, it appears that the Flora and Fauna was adequately addressed in the General Plan and the related EIR. However, the City has been provided with three documents on the Philip L. Boyd Deep Canyon Research Center which deal extensively with the Flora and Fauna of the area. They are the annual report 1973-1974, "Bird List for Boyd Center and Deep Canyon Watershed, Oct. 1973". Staff recommends that these documents be included in this final EIR. With regards to Mr. Burrell's concern with regards to air pollutants, the EIR addresses air pollutants in as complete and detailed manner as possible on the basis of studies that have been conducted in the valley. The EIR on page E.8 clearly indicates 3 that there is a need for a regional air pollutant study, and the letter received from the air pollution control district clearly illustrates the need for this study. A more complete analysis of the air pollution problem is a study that would require analysis on the regional basis which was beyond the General Plan. The fourth response to Mr. Burrell concerned the adverse environmental impact effects which cannot be avoided. Mr. Burrell states that without facts or information it is not possible for the City to be aware of the level of various adverse environmental effects of the General Plan. He indicates that the state law requires that the reason for proceeding with the project despite its adverse environmental effects must be stated in the EIR. He states that there seems to be no reasons why the General Plan has been proposed despite its affect of eliminating the small town character of Palm Desert. Finally, he stated that the EIR should indicate the effects on human health to be expected from air pollu- tion, high humidity, increases in noise, and seismic dangers. Staff's comment was that some of the elements of the General Plan could contribute benefits in excess of the adverse impacts that they contribute. As stated at the first public hearing before the Council in the General Plan, the wording in this section seems to be some- what strong, particularly with regards to the view of the night skies. It is impossible to state that they would be eliminated. However, it can be stated that it would be possible to reduce the views of the night skies as a result of the implementation of the General Plan. Staff believes that Mr. Burrell was overly reacting to the wording in the EIR. Staff was of the opinion that the EIR does comply with State Guidelines. The fifth response to Mr. Burrell concerned the mitigation measures. Mr. Burrell in his letter stated that the section on mitigation measures has no mitigation measures that would lesson the adverse environmental effects. Staff's comment to this was that it simply was not true. The EIR clearly states that one of the basic criteria for the General Plan and its associated elements is the mitigation of detrimental environmental impacts. Migitation measures are stressed in each element of the General Plan. The sixth response to Mr. Burrell concerned the alterna- tives. Mr. Burrell in his letter indicated that the EIR does not analyze in detail the various alternatives to the General Plan. Staff's comment to this was that the Final EIR indicated several alternatives that were discussed which Mr. Burrell was not able to review as a part of the final environmental impact report. He was not able to see the alternatives. The state requires a Gen- eral Plan be adopted. It is not possible to delay the project passed the date of June 30, 1975 and the only acceptable alterna- tive, therefor, and the acceptable one is to allow the project. The seventh response to Mr. Burrell concerned the rela- tionship to short term uses and long term productivity. Mr. Burrell stated that the guidelines in the state sections that established the criteria for this section of an EIR is longer than the infor- mation provided within the EIR on the General Plan. Staff's comment was that it was their opinion that the accumulative effect of all the General Plan Elements are that they regulate, eliminate, and shape the development of the community so as to promote the greatest efficiency with the least amount of conflict. The eight response to Mr. Burrell concerned the irreversi- ble environmental changes. Mr. Burrell asked how much of each resource would be necessary for the maintenance of the community as invissioned by the General Plan. Staff's comment was that on page E.18 the EIR clearly indicated that these environmental changes are offset through the acquisition, development and/or maintenance of parks, open space, along with adequate levels of public services which will minimize these adverse changes. The specific analysis of these areas for changes would have to be done on the project basis at which time the specific quantified amounts can be evaluated with regards to each project. An attempt to do this at this stage would not be possible. 4 The ninth response to Mr. Burrell 's letter concerned the inducing impacts. Mr. Burrell stated that by providing improve- ments of public services, the General Plan would encourage growth within the City. He states the effects of this General Plan will be enticing additional development within the City and said that this should be described but is not. Staff's comments were that it must be stated that the growth inducing impacts were discussed in various sections of the General Plan. His statement regarding enticing development cannot be considered true, in that the present adopted General Plan known as the Cove Communities General Plan, in essence is doing the same thing; and it is hoped that the new General Plan as adopted would reduce this element and would be an approvement in terms of planned growth with regards to the City of Palm Desert. The tenth response to Mr. Burrell's letter concerned the organizations and person consulted. Mr. Burrell stated that the City must consult with an agency which would be responsible for providing services within the area covered by the General Plan and he questioned why the various agencies that are affected by this General Plan were not contacted.. Staff commented that the EIR was forwarded to some 33 diferent agencies and their responses have been outlined in the Staff report on the General Plan and the EIR. Therefor, Mr. Burrell's comments to this section do not have merit. The eleventh response to Mr. Burrell concerned the time for review. He stated that State Guidelines indicate that there should be a 90 day review for the EIR and another 30 days for the Final EIR. Staff's comments were that the City Council in their adoption of their Resolution No. 74-14 which is the City's guide- lines did establish specific review periods. Under section 23 of this resolution the time for review of the draft EIR was esta- blished for 20 days. In that the State Guidelines, with regards to review periods, only suggests certain time periods, this time for review does comply with these guidelines. The twelth response to Mr. Burrell's letter concerned the public participation. He stated that the EIR has no replies with regards to the environmental issues raised in the process of the EIR. He further states, that while the City held a public hearing on the plan that the members of the public were limited to only three minutes. Staff's comment was that the Final EIR does contain all this information as required by the City's envir- onmental guidelines. With regards to the public being limited to speaking. The chairman prior to the hearings on both the EIR and on the General Plan requested that statements be limited since there was a great amount of detail with regards to both the EIR and the General Plan. The public was allowed to speak on each element of the General Plan, which would have allowed up to 27 minutes by each person. The thirteenth reponse to Mr. Burrell's letter was on the summary of an environment impact report. He stated that since the EIR is considered inadequate by himself that this would open the General Plan to an act by any land developer who is not entirely pleased with the General Plan and what it does to his property. Staff's comment was that Mr. Burrell's statement does not seem to hold water with regards to the EIR and the General Plan. The State Guidelines establish criteria on which to evaluate the environmental effects of any project that is being considered. The purpose of the Guidelines is to provide public agencies with principals, objectives, criteria, and definitions for the statewide application of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Finally, Staff's comments were summarized by saying that contrary to Mr. Burrell's concern it is not a collection of spec- ific data that describes in every detail the total environmental effects of a project that encompasses 82 square miles; and, infact, is a planning document whose purpose: is to improve the environmental quality of development, that will inform the public decision -makers, the Council, and the General Public of the effects of the project that is proposed. An EIR may not be used as an instrument to rationalize an approval of a project or to indicate 5 adverse impacts and require that major considerations be given to preventing environmental damage, it is recognized that public agencies have obligations to balance other public objectives includ- ing economic and social factors in determining whether and how a project should be approved. Mr. Burrell's approach as to reviewing this document has been typical of a review of a specific, precise project that can be quantifiably evaluated from the standpoint of its envir- onmental effects. Mr. Burrell in reviewing of this project has failed to consider that the General Plan is a planning document which tends to guide the orderly development of the community with particular emphasis placed upon the preservation of the environment, where possible. In addition, the document attempts to evaluate the social and economic factors in relationship to the environment with the result being the optimum community possible under the present planning criteria available to the City. It is on this basis, therefor, the Staff recommends rejection of a majority of Mr. Burrell's comments as not factual and incorrect, with the reasons stated above. After Mr. Williams had reviewed all of the comments from Mr. Burrell's letters and Staff's answers, Mayor Clark asked City Attorney Dave Erwin if he had any comments. Mr. Erwin stated that it was his opinion that the Environmental Impact Report met the State Guidelines along with the City's Guidelines. Then Mayor Clark opened the public hearing. Mr. Ed Peck, 73-610 Buckboard Trail, addressed the Council regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report. He stated that he had not had much time to look over it. He also stated that he would like to see projections of certain air pollutant and noise levels in the plan. He stated that there are instruments to pro- ject such, but it takes time and expertise. He asked if adverse affects on the City would drive people out. He stated that he had received no information that there were going to be changes in the General Plan. He also felt that there had been little of public hearings on the Environmental Impact Report and that public hear- ings on the Environmental Impact Report and that public input was lacking and felt that these conditions should be reviewed a lot more. He asked to have the Council postpone it for an additional two weeks. Mr. Tiger Bryme, 74-242 Abronia Trail, Palm Desert addressed himself to the Council regarding section 14114. He stated that the Environmental Impact Report has to state every given source. He spoke about having a traffic, smog and air analysis in the plan and believed that further consideration and public input should be put in the report. Mr. David Bond, 44-532 San Pascual, addressed the Council and regarded himself to a comment made by Wilsey & Ham about air pollution. He stated that they had said they did not have the ability or the expertise to make an air pollution report. They did not have time to make an air pollution report. They did not have any money to make an air pollution report and the Riverside County Air pollu- tion Board were asked by them to assist but they received a negative answer. Mr. Bond felt that there must be a complete report made. Mr. Lyman Martin, 73-986 Hwy 111, Palm Desert, addressed the Council. He stated that there were six effects on part E.14 that should have been straightened out a long time ago. He stated also that a twenty (20) day review of the magnitude of the creation of the City with this kind of an impact is ridiculous. Mr. Cliff Henderson, P.O. Box 1, Palm Desert, addressed the Council and spoke about being in the city since November 6, 1948 and about dirty tricks being played. He stated that this report cost a lot of money and should be certified by an accountant. Mr. Jack Durnow, 47-046 silver Spur Trail, addressed the Council and spoke about clean air and the amount of smog. He thought 6 that there should be given further study to the plan before it is certified. Mr. Robert Ricciardi, 73-300 Hwy 111, addressed the Council stating that back on November 7, 1974 the Environmental Impact Report was given to the Citizens Advisory Committee. At that time, the Citizens Advisory Committee wanted people to come out but not many citizens did. He also spoke about E.14 in terms of the adverse effects that cannot be avoided. He stated that it was his understanding that there was not such a thing as a no growth policy. Therefor, we have to have growth and we will have to protect to the best of our ability the place where we are living. Mr. Ricciardi also spoke about the tremendous amount of Citizens Advisory time that went into trying to keep the environment as we know it. He would like to have the City Council accept the Environmental Impact Report so we could get on with the main issue. Mr. Red Kenyon, 44-281 San Anita, stood from the audience and asked what does this (the EIR) mean to my kids? Mayor Clark addressed David Bond and said that Section E.8 did show a detailed amount of elements per car. Mr. Bond restated himself that he was only requoting Wilsey & Ham's comments. Mr. Larry Morrison, Wiley & Ham, commented that the air pollution district is set up and Wilsey & Ham did provide a statis- tical idea of what the area will be like. He thought that the plan showed that they had listened to the voice of the people. He said that making a total air pollution study would cost thousands of dollars. Mr. Morrison recommended that in order to enlarge upon the economic analysis, he would recommend that the two supplemental reports prepared in relation to the Sphere of Influence should be included by reference. The Council concurred with this recommendation. Mayor Clark commented that the staff had investigated Mr. Burrell's letter and had made good comments on it. He stated that it had been said that all sources were given in the EIR. Mr. Williams answered that a list of the agencies contacted had been given in the original EIR. That these agencies had been sent the EIR and their comments had been reviewed. Mayor Clark then asked about the comment made about no public hearings being held on the EIR. Staff answered that the EIR had been legally noticed and heard by the Planning Commission on December 9 and City Council on January 6 and tonight. Mr. Ed Peck was out of order when he again requested that the Council postpone the hearing for another two weeks. Councilwoman Benson questioned the reports being adopted by reference when the Council had not seen them. Mr. Williams answered that the reports were on the Philip L. Boyd Research Center and were being included to further elaborate on the Flora & Fauna. Councilwoman Benson stated that she felt there was a lot left out of the EIR and stated that she felt they had gotten what they had paid for when they chose Wilsey & Ham as the consultants. Mayor Clark stated that he thought they had gotten very good consultants after going through thirteen and finally determining to have Wilsey & Ham. Councilman Brush stated that there was no doubt in staff's mind that the EIR was complete and that the planning consultants thought that the EIR was complete. He moved that the Council accept the Final EIR as presented by staff as being certified as complete. Councilman Aston seconded the motion. Some discussion ensued and then the vote was taken. The Final EIR was certified 7 as complete by the vote of 4-1, Councilwoman Benson having the no vote. Meeting recessed for ten minutes. Meeting resumed promptly after ten minute recess. B. Continued Case PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN, DECEMBER 1974 - Consideration of the first General Plan prepared for Palm Desert, covering a planning area of approximately 82 square miles and extending from approximately Inter- state 10 on the north to the San Bernardino National Forest on the south and Bob Hope Drive on the west to Washington Street on the east. Mayor Clark explained that the nine elements to the General Plan would be discussed, one already having been discussed, the Environmenal Impact Report, they would start with element eight - the Implementation Element. It was first discussed that the Resolution No. 75-2 could involve any changes that the Council did make and that these changes could be incorporated in that resolution for approval. Mayor Clark reopened the public hearing. Mr. Williams stated that in October a rough draft of the General Plan was given to the Citizens Advisory Committee and their comments were reviewed. The Planning Commission reviewed it on December 9 and had adopted it. Council had considered it on January 6 and listened to public testimony and four items were referred back to the Planning Commission. A summary of the implementation element was given by Mr. Williams. Council had no comment. Mr. Charles Rutt, 45-860 Ocotillo Dr., wanted to read a letter from the Property Owners Association. Mayor Clark asked Mr. Rutt if he would wait until the land use element was presented on the floor since the letter really dwelt with the land use element. Councilwoman Benson asked why we were having the General Plan before the zoning. Mr. Williams answered that the zoning must follow the General Plan. After the General Plan is complete, then there can be specifics. Being no other questions or comments, Mayor Clark intro- duced Element No. 7, Public Facilities. Mr. Williams summarized Element No. 7 and there was no comment by either Council or the public. Mayor Clark introduced Element No. 6, Environmental Elements. Mr. Williams summarized Element No. 6 and Council had no comment. There was also no comment by the public. Mayor Clark introduced Element No. 5, Circulation. Mr. Williams summarized Element No. 5. Council had no comment. Mr. Lyman Martin asked about the relativity between the General Plan and the ICAP and how they fit together in the General Plan. Mr. Hurlburt said there was a need to resolve problems in the Core Area Plan. There was Element. Mayor Clark introduced Element No. 4, Housing Element. no comment by either Council or the public. Mayor Clark introduced Element No. 3, Population Economics There was no comment by either Council or the public. 8 Mayor Clark introduced Element No. 2, Urban Design Element. There was no comment by either Council or the public. Mayor Clark introduced Element No. 1, Land Use Element. Mr. Williams summarized it. Staff spoke about the Planning Commission recommendations on the Saint Margaret's Church request, Bekins Property Management Co. request, F.T. Kieley request and Dr. Rigby's request plus staff's recommendation on three more letters that had been received from Mr. Whitsed C. Laming, Mr. George Ritter and the Palm Desert Property Owners Association. Staff's recommendation on Mr. Laming's letter would be to note receipt of said letter and to take no action as a result of said letter. to: Staff's recommendation on Mr. Ritter's letter would be 1. Revise the boundaries of said Sand Dune Park to remove the mobile home park from said Sand Dune Park. 2. Show the property in question medium density resi- dential 3-5 on all portions of the property south of the Whitewater Channel. 3. Amend the figure No. 2-3 to show the property south of the wash neighborhood number 3. Staff's recommendation on the Palm Desert Property Owners Association would be to take no action and to implement none of the requested revisions. Mr. Charles Rutt, 48-650 Ocotillo, stated he hoped that it would do some good to have the property owners resolution. Mr. Ed Peck, 76-310 Buckboard Trail, referred to the contents of this report. He thought that it would be terrible to have 300 to 400 hotel rooms west of Highway 74. He thought it would be terrible to have them in such a small area. He could see no need to have any more hotel rooms. He also spoke about not ruling out the big developments. Mr. F.T. Kieley spoke in favor of the staff's recommend- ation on his request. Mr. Lyman Martin, 73-987 Highway 111, asked if all lots would be expected to keep low densities and asked about homestead lots. Mr. George Ritter said that they had made these requests because he wanted his property all tied together and requested that they make these considerations and make it neighborhood No. 3. Mr. K.L. Martin, 44-519 San Jacinto, spoke about the high density 40 acres close to College of the Desert. He wanted to see the high density spread out through town, not just in one area. Mr. Rigby stated that he went along with the staff's recommendations of medium density. He also would like to incor- porate his land all together in a single plan in neighborhood No. 3. Ms. Barbara Murry - 43-340 Marakesh Dr., spoke about keeping the density low in general. Ms. Barbara Dowdry - 74-178 Ave. 44, spoke about the wealthy people in town and the poorer people feeling like they had no voice. Councilman Aston asked to have one point clarrified about the hotel rooms. 9 Mr. Morrison, Wilsey & Ham, answered him that the General Plan would see this in about a thirty to fifty year time span. Councilman McPherson answered Mr. Martin's statement about the need for high density around the College of the Desert by stating that the district goes from Palm Desert to the Salton Sea to Desert Center and that many of the kids going to C.O.D would need places to stay and that the need in the future would even be greater. He also stated that there was only a total of 69 acres of high density in the whole plan. Mayor Clark stated that the density would be lower in the General Plan than it is now. Councilman Aston moved that the City Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation on Dr. Rigby's land making it 5-7 medium density and that Sand Dune Park be deleted from the Mobile Home Park and that the total Rigby property south of the wash be in neighborhood No. 3. Councilman McPherson seconded. The motion was unanimously carried. Meeting recessed for ten minutes. Meeting resumed promptly after ten minutes. After a lengthy discussion, Councilman McPherson moved that the Council have the Kieley property west of Highway 74 now classified as very low density residential be reclassified as low density, that is 3 to 5 units per acre. Councilman Aston seconded and the motion was unanimously carried. Changes to Resolution No. 75-2 of the General Plan were explained by Mr. Williams including items No. 8 and 9. No. 8: Report entitled Supplement to the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Study including economic analysis prepared by Wilsey & Ham, Inc. No. 9: Report entitled Supplemental No. 2 including economic analysis on the Sphere of Influence be adopted by reference. Page 3.P.2. line 9: A regional and community shopping complex to a mini or sub -regional and community shopping complex. Page 3.P.2. line 14: Add after La Quinta the following: the mini or sub -regional shopping uses within the Core Area should be designed to fit into the general atmosphere of Palm Desert. This means that buildings and groups of buildings should relate to the desert environment and to adjacent building and landscaping scale and materials - thus avoiding a monumental scale or appearance. The mini -regional uses should serve a trade area larger but not attempting to replace the functions of regional shopping facilities located in Palm Springs and Indio. Councilman Aston moved that these changes be accepted by Council. Councilwoman seconded the motion and it was unanimously carried. Page 2.G.2.C.: Should show total Rigby property south of the wash in neighborhood No. 3. Page 1.G.1. line 20 and 21: The change was made by Councilwoman Benson that they should change maintain the character of Palm Desert as a low intensity to maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents. 10 Councilwoman Benson moved that these changes be accepted by Council and Councilman McPherson seconded. The motion was unanimsouly carried. Changes on the land use map were: Show total Sun King site north of wash as medium density residential and show the Kieley property west of Highway 74 as low density residential on the area presently shown as very low density. Councilman Aston moved that the General Plan be approved by City Council Resolution No. 75-2 as amended. Councilman Brush seconded the motion. The vote was 4-1 in favor of adopting the General Plan. The negative vote was cast by Councilwoman Benson because she felt the plan had not been given enough study. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None VII. REPORTS & REMARKS A. City Manager - None B. City Attorney The City Attorney remarked that the case on Missionbell was now closed. C. Mayor & City Council - None VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 11:57 P.M., by a motion made by Councilman Aston and seconded by Councilman McPherson. The vote was unanimous. Hogue iS tary