Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-13CITY OF PALM DESERT MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Henry B. Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 13, 1975, in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE III. INVOCATION IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilwoman Benson Councilman Brush Councilman McPherson Mayor Clark Others Present: Absent: Councilman Aston Harvey L. Hurlburt, City Manager Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services Dave Erwin, City Attorney V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilwoman Benson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to approve the minutes of the October 23, 1975, meeting as presented; carried unanimously. VI. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS. A. Appointment of Replacement and Additional Members to the Core Area Redevelopment Finance Committee. Councilman McPherson, Chairman of the Core Area Redevelop- ment Finance Committee, recommended that Mr. Edwin Dewey, President of Dew -All Services, Inc., Mr. Howard Bagley, Manager of Security Pacific Bank, and Mr. Carl Sousi, Manager of United California Bank be appointed to this committee. With no objections raised, Mayor Clark appointed the aforementioned individuals to serve on the committee, bringing the total membership to 8. B. Resolution of Commendation of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, for JAMES 0. HARMAN, Recently Resigned Editor of the Palm Desert Post. Mayor Clark asked Mr. Hurlburt to read the Resolution of Commendation wherein Mr. Harman was complimented on his dedication and contributions to the community. In that Mr. Harman is no longer in the community, the Resolu- tion will be forwarded to him by the City Staff. November 13, 1975 Page 1 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR Miscellaneous Communications Councilman Brush requested that Items A and B be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed later in the agenda under Consent Items Held Over, Section XI. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to Receive and File Item C, Letter from Mrs. J. Jaffe relative to changing the name of "Highway 111" to "Palm Canyon Drive"; carried unanimously. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING A. CONTINUED CASE NO. GAP-01-75: Consideration of "Area 2" of the Proposed Changes to the General Plan Land Use Map Consisting of Approximately 85 Acres Lying West of the Palm Valley Channel Along Highway 111, Proposed to be Changed from Core Area Commercial and Medium Density Residential to Planned Commercial Resort (continued from October 23, 1975, meeting). Mayor Clark outlined the procedure of a Public Hearing and declared the Public Hearing open. Paul Williams elaborated on the Staff Report presented indicating the "pros" and "cons" of the proposed rezoning. He stated that it was the Planning Commission's opinion as well as Staff's that there is no convincing evidence that continued expansion and uncontrolled growth of retail commercial has any benefits to the community. He indicated that Planned Commercial Resort would allow for development of hotels/motels, restaurants, and ancillary services. MR. BRUCE ROGERSON, 43-701 Marigold, Palm Desert, addressed Council indicating his feelings that we are now considered just a part of Palm Springs. He felt that the entry to Palm Desert was very attractive and that a commercial shopping area would destroy our entrance. MR. WARD FARREL, Secretary of 111 Associates, addressed Council indicating his concern over the rezoning. He felt that by making it Planned Commercial Resort, he and all the other property owners in that area would lose land value and strongly indicated that he would hold Council responsible for any loss of value in his land. Mr. Farrell present Council with a copy of a Real Estate contract and attached addendum re. conditions that had not been consumated due to the indecision surrounding the allowable development on the land. Mr. Farrell stated that by Council's rezoning this property, they were con- deming its value through administrative procedures and he requested that Council reverse their decision. MRS. VAL LITCHFIELD, 43-155 Portola Avenue, addressed Council as President of the Concerned Citizens Committee. She presented a petition to Council which she had received from Mr. Ed Shea. She further indicated that although her group had not circulated the petition, they did support it. Mayor Clark requested that Mr. Hurlburt read the petition which Mr. Hurlburt did indicating that they were approxi- mately 34 signatures affixed to it. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 73-700 Highway 111, presented a slide presentation to Council indicating the benefits such a proposed shopping center would have for Palm Desert and its entrance. He pointed out Palm Springs' unattractive entrance with less attractive motels and asked Council if they wanted this for Palm Desert. November 13, 1975 Page 2 Mr. Ricciard pointed out that a shopping center of this nature would draw customers from not only Palm Desert but Indian Wells. He further stated that it would not draw from the specialty shops already established in the El Paseo area. MR. RALPH DEMARCO, President of Interstate Shopping Centers, addressed Council stating that their marketing investigations showed that this area was an excellent place for a shopping center and stressed the added revenue the City would obtain. COUNCILMAN BRUSH asked at this point if Mr. DeMarco's corporation did in fact have firm commitments from either Longs Drug Stores or Ralph's Supermarkets. Mr. DeMarco stated that they had no commitments from either firm. MR. ANTHONY KANE, 46-215 Goldenrod, Palm Desert, addressed Council urging that they allow the proposed shopping center in that it would provide additional revenue for the City. He stated that the City would be foolish not to jump at such an opportunity. Mr. Kane referred to a Palm Desert Property Owners' Association Meeting wherein COUNCILWOMAN BENSON had told the property owners that they must enforce their own cleanup procedures in that the City did not have enough money to do so. COUNCILWOMAN BENSON clarified her statement to the Palm Desert Property Owners' Association stating that she had never said the City did not have the money. She had stated that the City Staff did not have the time to enforce the Palm Desert Property Owners' Association's CC i R's. DR. MELVIN KAHN, Covina, addressed Council on behalf of the proposed project in that he owns the land the project would be built on. He questioned parts of the staff report and their accuracy such as increased traffic at Avenue 44, etc. MR. JOHN CODY, 74-215 Highway 111, Palm Desert, addressed Council stating that when the County had zoned that area, they had zoned it for a shopping center because Avenue 44 comes from Indio. MR. BRUCE ROGERSON, 43-701 Marigold, Palm Desert, asked how many acres were involved. Mayor Clark responded 9. Mr. Rogerson indicated that he hoped that Council would not allow run -away building. He felt that Palm Desert should have a quality way of life -- not what Palm Springs offered. Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing closed. COUNCILMAN McPPERSON stated that two years ago, this City had incorporated primarily to stop run -away develop- ment and allow only quality development. He felt the reason the councilmembers had run was to uphold the wishes of those people who voted for them on that type of platform. He further stated that he would not like to see additional revenues or sales taxes for Palm Desert influence the decision of Council. He further stated that he did not agree that this market/shopping center would be supported 100o by the people north of Highway 111. Some of the people will be from the south side of the highway and then they will have to cross Highway 111. He also stated that Mr. Rogerson's statement about the younger generation having to live with our decisions was very true and that since the committees that Council had appointed to make decisions on this type of thing such as the Planning Commission, Citizens' Advisory Committee, etc. had decided to change it to Planned Commercial Resort, then he trusted their opinion and decision that a strip type shopping center was not what we wanted. November 13, 1975 Page 3 COUNCILMAN BRUSH referred to a statement made by Dr. Kahn in that Palm Desert needed something special in the community. This is why we incorporated, to give Palm Desert a clear and separate identity. We want people to know we are here -- not just next to Palm Springs or Indio. Councilman Brush further questioned whether strip commercial would benefit Palm Desert in this desire. COUNCILWOMAN BENSON indicated her concern for beautifica- tion of the entrance to Palm Desert. She stated that at this time, she could not see that a shopping center would add to the attractiveness of the entrance. MAYOR CLARK pointed out that most of us have seen what happens with run -away development and other councils attempts to get revenues such as in Phoenix. He stressed that he didn't think that Palm Desert wanted this to happen to them. Councilman Brush moved to uphold the findings of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 85 and designate the entire "Area 2" as Planned Commercial Resort by City Council Resolution No. 75-113. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried unanimously. B. CASE NO. ZOA 03-75: Consideration of a request by the Planning Commission that the City Council Adopt a New Zoning Ordinance for the City of Palm Desert. Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing Open. Paul Williams stated that a considerable amount of work had gone into the preparation of the New Zoning Ordinance by Staff as well as the Planning Commission. Approximately 100 copies of the first preliminary draft were circulated followed by approximately 15 Study Sessions of the Planning Commission and 2 subsequent public hearings. The Zoning Ordinance is divided into 46 articles with the last article being tied to the Zoning Map. Mr. Williams stated that the first 6 articles delt with intent and purpose, definitions, regulations and what they apply to and the establishment of districts. Under Section 25.2(11), Mayor Clark questioned the limit on size with the new wording deleting the word "motel". He saw no attempt to define the size or number of rooms. Mr. Williams clarified this by stating that the limit of size and rooms will be determined by the density allowed in particular areas. Councilwoman Benson questioned a marquee asking whether it could be free standing. Mr. Williams indicated that it would not be. With no objections, Mayor Clark continued the Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 93 covering Sections 25.1 through 25.6 of the Zoning Ordinance until the November 20, 1975, meeting. Mr. Williams discussed Ordinance No. 94 covering Sections 25.7 through 25.14 of the Zoning Ordinance indicating that these sections dealt with residential zones expressing what was allowed. Councilman McPherson questioned the minimum lot size and lots smaller than 800 square feet. Mr. Williams clarified indicating that all existing lots are con- sidered legal nonconforming lots. November 13, 1975 Page 4 Mayor Clark questioned the allowable home occupation uses such as accupuncture. r.ir. Williams indicated that they would be permitted only if they met all home occupation requirements. Mr. Williams pointed out that the section of Residential Zoning would be well used in Palm Desert in that it recog- nized that condominiums should be in a different zone than single-family dwellings. It is very detailed in its requirements. MR. BEN BARNUM, 74-105 Setting Sun Trail, Palm Desert, questioned lots smaller than the requirement. Mr. Williams pointed out again that existing lots of smaller size were considered legal lots. LIR. HAROLD OWENBY, Joshua Tree Street, Palm Desert, ques- tioned the newly proposed lot sizes and what would happen if a horde was destroyed. Mr. Williams explained that in that it was an existing lot, it would remain the same. MR. DICK KITE, 73-757 Highway 111, Palm Desert, addressed Council with the concern that R-3 zoning would be for apartments only and that he felt Conditional Use Permits should be allowed for other types of buildings such as pro- fessional, etc. He mentioned the corner lot on Larrea and Portola which was being zoned as R-3 and stated that it would be much better suited for offices than apartments in that it was across from the new Security Pacific Bank, the Post Office, and City Hall. Mayor Clark expressed concern at the lack of transitional zoning in the ordinance. Mr. Williams responded that the Planning Commission had tried to make the zoning clear and distinct to prevent residential from extending into commercial. With no objections, Mayor Clark continued the Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 94, Sections 25.7 through 25.14, to the meeting of November 20, 1975, with the understanding that further review would be given to the question raised by Mr. Kite. Mr. Williams went on to describe Sections 25.14 through 25.18, Ordinance No. 95. He indicated that the Approved Development Plan is divided into 4 sections: Specialty Commercial Centers, Resort Centers, District Commercial Centers and Regional Centers. He explained that these had a minimum development size conforming pretty much to the General Plan. MR. DICK KITE, 73-757 Highway 111, Palm Desert, asked whether or not any thought had been given to the parking on the north side of El Paseo and the south side of High- way 111. He indicated that the deed restrictions in his area included parking provisions in the rear of the build- ings for use by everyone and that it worked out very well. Councilman Brush stated that the City was very aware of the parking problems and invited Mr. Kite to participate in one of the Planning Priority Committee meetings the first of December. This committee deals with the commercial area parking problems. With no objections, Mayor Clark continued the Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 95, covering Sections 25.14 through 25.18, to the meeting of November 20, 1975. November 13, 1975 Page 5 Mr. Williams described Sections 25.19 through 25.21 of the Zoning Ordinance covered by Ordinance No, 96. The Proposed Industrial Districts covered in these sections included every industrial and commercial type use needed to support Palm Desert and affects the area on Cook Street and Planned Industrial along Interstate 10. Councilwoman Benson asked whether or not the noise element was covered. Mr. Williams responded that it was not, and Councilwoman Benson stated she felt it should be. Councilman Brush indicated concern over the businessmen now operating in Palm Desert who would have to move as a result of this ordinance. Mr. Williams indicated that each case would be analyzed and a fair time limit enforced. Councilman Brush stated that every effort should be extended to help people relocate. With no objections, Mayor Clark continued the Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 96 covering Sections 25.19 through 25.21 of the Zoning Ordinance until the meeting of November 20, 1975. Mr. Williams described the Public Institutional Districts covered under Ordinance No. 97 indicating there were very minor uses in that area. The Study District under this ordinance was provided to allow adequate study to provide for adequate use of property. He indicated that any prop- erty rezoned to the Study District would be held in this zoning for a period not to exceed one year. Mr. Williams continued with explanation of Open Space, Seismic Hazard Overlay Districts, Natural Factors/ Restricted Development Overlay, Hillside Development Overlay District and concluding with the Scenic Preserva- tion Overlay. He emphasized the Planning Commission's intent in the Hillside Development Overlay District to protect views of homes. With no objections, Mayor Clark continued the Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 97 covering Sections 25.22 through 25.31 of the Zoning Ordinance untilthe meeting of November 20, 1975. Due to the hour and with no objections, Mayor Clark held the remaining two ordinances, Nos. 98 and 99, over to the next meeting of November 20, 1975. C. CONTINUED CASE 26 MF, CASITAS INVESTMENT FUND: Consider- ation of an Appeal of the Requirements of Undergrounding Utilities, Curb & Gutter (cont. from October 23, 1975, mtg. Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing open. )• Mr. Williams explained that this was a request to rescind the conditions of approval #6 and #9 required by the Design Review Board for the approval of a 6-unit apartment project on Candlewood Street and Panorama Drive. He further indi- cated that these requirements have been consistently applied to new developments in the City and no special circumstances exist with this parcel that would justify not applying these requirements to this development. Therefore, Staff recom- mended that the findings of the Design Review Board be upheld by Resolution No. 75-114. MR. BEN BARNUM addressed Council first pointing out that they agreed to installing curb and gutters; secondly he pointed out that the 2 lots are the only 2 vacant lots on the block. Cable and telephone has been there a long time. He felt that the bond suggested by Mr. Williams was simply an additional building fee that the City is charging to build on the lots because never in our generation will undergrounding of this area be accomplished. He also questioned Ordinance No. 38 indicating he did not see where it established these requirements for undergrounding. He indicated November 13, 1975 Page 6 the development was legal, favorable and practical except for the required undergrounding and implied he was being harrassed by the City Staff. Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing Closed. Mayor Clark indicated agreement that obtaining funds for the possible undergrounding in an area that is completely built up does seem unfair. He also felt that requesting a bond that would not be used for 20 years was unfair in that the City would use those funds and it would cost more 20 years from now. Councilman McPherson stated that when the policy was established shortly after incorporation, it was discussed at great length and agreed that problems of this nature would arise. He indicated that he was not in favor of granting a waiver at this time; he did not know what the answer was. Councilman Brush expressed concern over further investigation of the matter in that it was unfair to keep the applicant waiting any longer. He was prepared to move to uphold the findings of the Design Review Board by Resolution No. 75-115. Mayor Clark stated that we should investigate further and not be held to a decision just to expedite a decision. He further indicated his feelings that applicants should not be forced to underground nor post a bond for it if it is going to be a long time before the undergrounding is to be accomplished. After further discussion, Councilman Brush moved to continue the Public Hearing until the meeting of December 11, 1975, with direc- tion to Staff to bring recommendations for Council and for the City Attorney to review the matter and make recommendations. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried unanimously. D. HEARING OF PROTEST on the Requirements of Sidewalk Instal- lation along the North Side of El Paseo between Portola and Sun Lodge Lane (private road). Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing Open. Mr. Hurlburt explained that we have a legal ability to requirE sidewalks in blocks where 50% of more of the block has side- walks and this does exist in the proposed area. He further stated that by law we are required to send -Out -notices to all property owners and then conduct a hearing. Only one written letter has been received and that was not in opposition to the sidewalks but more in question. The letter had been responded to. Under state law, it is also necessary for the City to wait for 60 days from the date of the notices during which time the property owners can install their own sidewalks. After 60 days, the City can install them and if not reimbursed by the property owner, place a lien on the property. If 100% of the property owners agree to have the City complete the work, it could commence right away. The City Staff will communicate with the property owners in an attempt to have the 60 days waived. MRS. ROBIN BARRETT, Lingo Lane, Palm Desert, asked why everything had to be done in time for the Desert Classic. Councilman Brush indicated that in this case it was more at the property owners request than for completion by the time of the Classic. MR. DARWIN STOUT, Bank of America, addressed Council stating that this requirement would be costly to the Bank of America in that they were building a new bank and installation of sidewalks now would merely mean they would have to tear them out later. After considerable discussion, Mr. Stout agreed to present plans to Staff by December 30th to see if plans could not be worked out to eliminate this problem in that the sidewalks would November 13, 1975 Page 7 only have to be built once. Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing Closed. Councilwoman Benson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to overrule all protests and require installation of the sidewalk to City Standards by City Council Resolution No. 75-115. Motion carried unanimously. E. CONTINUED HEARING ON CASE NO. 1C, MARKET BASKET: Con- sideration of the Facts Relative to Compliance of the Conditions of Approval for Expansion of the Market Basket Supermarket Located at 73-601 Highway 111 (continued from meeting of August 28, 1975). Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Williams reported that all work had been completed as required by the City and that Market Basket should be commended for their expedition of the project as well as the final results. With no input from the audience given, Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to adopt Resolution No. 75-116 determining that all conditions have been complied with by Market Basket as specified by all previous City actions and as determined by the Director of Environmental Services. The motion carried unanimously. F. CONTINUED HEARING FOR SOUTHWESTERN ENTERPRISES for the Abatement of Nuisances on Properties Owned by Said Company (continued from meeting of October 23, 1975). Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing Open. Mr. Hurlburt reported that this was another routine proce- dure where the City had cleaned the applicant's lot and that the applicant was qustioning the cost of the abatement. Councilman Aston had been requested at the October 23, 1975, meeting to inspect the property and give a report. In his absence, Mr. Hurlburt read his written report indicating his feelings that the lot was large, that Southwestern Enterprises had been given more than ample notice (during which time they had made no attempt to contact the City Staff) and that he supported the findings of the Code Enforcement Supervisor with a waiver of the penalty charges. MR. ED WRIGHT, Representative for Southwestern Enterprises, addressed Council again questioning the amount of time the City contractor had spent. He admitted that his company had been remiss in not contacting the City Staff indicating the letter had been overlooked. Councilman McPherson indicated that he would abstain from discussion or voting in this matter in that he was absent at the October 23, 1975, meeting. Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Brush moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded to uphold the original findings of the Code Enforcement Division with the understanding that the penalty charges would be waived if the applicant chose to pay the bill now. Motion carried with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BENSON, BRUSH, CLARK None ASTON McPHERSON November 13, 1975 Page 8 IX. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 75-111 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, A"LENDING THE 1975-76 BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE OVERLAYING OF PRICKLY PEAR LANE AS A PART OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET UNDER THE 2106 GAS TAX FUND SECTION. Mr. Hurlburt explained that the proposed overlaying of Prickly Pear Lane was to be in the 1976-77 budget. How- ever, with the construction of the Security Pacific Bank the City could now have it done for $2,200 vs the $3,520 required in the next budget. He stressed, however, that in order to do this, cuts may have to be made in the 2106 Fund. However, Staff was recommending going ahead with this in view of the savings and the fact that it would be accomplished within the next week or so. Councilman Brush moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded the adoption of Resolution No. 75-111 with the understanding that possible cuts in the present budget resulting from this action would be con- sidered as a Study Session item. The motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 75-112 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CLAI?.IS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY. :,Mr. Hurlburt elaborated on the major expenditures of the demands included in this resolution. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded the adoption of Resolution No. 75-111; carried unanimously. X. ORDINANCES For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 86 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, Ai.1ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 39, RELATING TO DOGS. Mr. Hurlburt indicated that considerable review had been given to this ordinance at previous meetings and that all requested changes had been made including the dropping of the $1.00 fee for Senior Citizens. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 86; carried unanimously. B. ORDINANCE NO. 90 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING MUNICI- PAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE CONTROL. Mr. Hurlburt indicated that the proposed change from 300 to 350 per registered voter had been made and that since it had been reviewed at a previous meeting, he had no further explanation on it. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 90; motion carried unanimously. November 13, 1975 Page 9 C. ORDINANCE NO. 92 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING POLITICAL SIGNS. Mr. Hurlburt pointed out that at the request of Council, the ordinance had been amended to allow bumper stickers. Since the ordinance had been previously review at length and provided there were no questions, he had no further comments. Councilwoman Benson moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 92. The motion carried unanimously. XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER A. Letter from Walt Price, Realtor, Relative to Zoning and Automotive Repair and City Manager's Reply. Councilman Brush indicated that his questions had been answered during the discussion of the new Zoning Ordinance. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to receive and file the letter from Mr. Price. Motion carried unanimously. B. Letter from Brian M. Jones, Vice President, Marrakesh Country Club Relative to Reduced Speed Limits on Portola Avenue between Haystack Road and Grapevine Street and City Manager's reply. Councilman Brush indicated that he had had this removed for further discussion on the restriping of Portola that still has not been accomplished as well as to discuss possible correction relative to Mr. Jones' request. Mr. Williams indicated that he would check with the County about the restriping and try to pin them down as to when they would complete it. He recommended that Mr. Jones' problem be directed to the Traffic Committee. Councilman Brush moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded to receive and file the letter from Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Brush moved that Staff direct the Traffic Committee to restudy the problem of Portola and the school area at Washington School. Councilwoman Benson seconded the motion; carried unanimously. XI. NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of a Request to Solicit Proposals from Consulting Engineers to Update the Master Drainage Plan for Palm Desert. Mr. Hurlburt stated that as a part of the City's application in conjunction with the County of Riverside for the Housing and Community Development Grant, the City did include a proposal to update the Master Drainage Plan for the City of Palm Desert in the amount of approximately $15,000. Staff has been notified by the County that unless sub- stantial progress has occurred on these projects by January 15, 1976, the money may be lost by the City. Therefore, in order to begin the procedure to update the Master Drainage Plan, staff is recommending that a call for proposals on the updating by consulting engineers be initiated by the City Council. November 13, 1975 Page 10 Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded that the City Manager be authorized to solicit proposals for the updating of the Master Drainage Plan and to make a recommendation to the City Council as to the appropriate consulting firm to do the work. Motion carried unanimously. XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. ROBIN BARRETT, Lingo Lane, addressed Council expressing concern over the disruption of the natural resources of the desert when cleaning lots declared a public nuisance. He emphasized the fact that by using tractors and scraping the earth's crust, blowsand problems would result. XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. City Manager 1. Mr. Hurlburt reported that a request had been received from Mrs. Marita A. Krienhoff indicating a hardship in her case of a lot abatement. Council had already taken acticn on it and Staff was now requesting a waiver of the 15% administrative fee and requiring payment of $174.45. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive the 15% administrative fee in the case of Mrs. Krienhoff. Motion carried unanimously. B. City Attorney None C. Mayor and City Council 1. Councilwoman Benson asked if further widening of the curve at Highway 111 and Highway 74 could be accomplished in that she still felt it unsafe. Mr. Williams indicated that this would require further dedication of land from the property owner. Staff was directed by Council to further investigate the possibility of this dedication and report to Council the findings. 2. Councilman McPherson expressed concern over security guards at country clubs and their being allowed to carry guns. He questioned what restrictions were placed on this sort of thing. City Attorney, Dave Erwin, advised that restrictions are imposed by State law. XVI. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to adjourn the meeting to November 20, 1975, at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers; motion carried unanimously. Mayor Clark adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m. ATTEST: HA'RVEY LsA/HURL�C1ffT, City Clerk November 13, 1975 Page 11