Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-20MINUTES PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 20, 1975 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Henry Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 20, 1975, in City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE III. INVOCATION IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Aston Councilwoman Benson Councilman Brush Councilman McPherson Mayor Clark Also Present: Harvey L. Hurlburt, City Manager Dave Erwin, City Attorney Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services V. PUBLIC HEARING A. CONTINUED CASE NO. ZOA-03-75: Consideration of a request by the Planning Commission that the City Council Adopt the new Zoning Ordinance for the City of Palm Desert. Mayor Clark explained that this Public Hearing was being continued from the meeting of November 13, 1975, and declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Williams stated that at the previous hearing, about 2/3 of the Zoning Ordinance had been explained. As a result of discussions and investigations made subsequent to the meeting, two changes were being proposed: Article No. 25.21-5.02(10), Page 25.21 (9) Performance Standards: All development within this zoning district shall comply to the standards as specified in Section 25.20-7.16 of this Ordinance. Article No. 25.32-9.03, Page 25.32 (11) Lighting Standards in All Zones: Every development occurring in any zone in the City shall be critically reviewed relative to mitigating any negative impacts from lighting proposed as a part of development. The use of lighted tennis courts and the use of lights in commercial developments will be particularly reviewed. Mr. Williams indicated that the question raised by Mr. Dick Kite regarding two lots on Portola had been heard in a second public hearing by the Planning Commission. November 20, 1975 Page 1 It was their recommendation that the northerly lot on Portola be zoned as C-1 and the southerly lot be zoned R-3. However, this will be included in the Zoning Map and will be brought for Council review sometime in December. Mr. Williams asked if there were any other questions concerning parts of the ordinance already discussed. Council had none and there was no response from the audience. Mr. Williams continued with explanation of Section 25.32-25.38, Ordinance No. 98, outlining various items such as requirements for curbs and gutters, underground- ing, development standards, maintenance, and areas of minimum unit size. Councilwoman Benson asked if the 600 ft. minimum applied to studio and one -bedroom apartments. Mr. Williams indicated it did. Mayor Clark questioned the section outlining height requirements. He asked if there was any section in the ordinance which clearly defined the grade before the lot had fill dirt put on it. Mr. Williams responded that this was a very difficult problem. Some lots have been graded in the past. It was difficult to maintain an accurate lits of lots and their established grade. However, he indicated that a list of this nature had been started. Councilwoman Benson asked if regulation of dumping dirt could not be maintained by requiring people taking out pool permits to indicate where they would be dumping the dirt. Mayor Clark stated that the pools are not the only problem, however. Mr. Williams indicated that further review and investi- gation is continuing on this problem and that it will be brought for Council review the end of January in the Grading and Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Williams proceeded with description of the Special Standards Section covering service stations and take-out restaurants. Councilwoman Benson questioned whether or not service stations would have to have their working area facing away from the street and Mr. Williams indi- cated they would. MR. BILL ELLIOTT, Contractor, Beaumont, addressed Council questioning the minimum lot size. Mr. Williams pointed out that existing lots were considered legal size. Mr. Williams continued with off-street parking and road requirements in terms of changes indicating that we have had limitations in the residential zones relative to trucks, boats, travel trailers, etc. in an attempt to clean up residential areas. In essence, the ordinance requires that vehicles of tis type should be screened from view by a wall or fence 8 ft. in height. Mr. Williams explained that provisions under Permitted Temporary Uses such as Christmas Tree Sales, carnivals, etc. need specific approvals and that Home Occupations under the Home Occupation Section were being controlled with more strict regulations. Mayor Clark asked how the Home Occupation restrictions would affect the Avon ladies and Tupperware ladies. Mr. Williams stated that inasmuch as they were not manufacturing these products in their homes nor were they storing them for any great length of time, they would not be affected. City Attorney Dave Erwin stated that it could prevent them from storing November 20, 1975 Page 2 their products for any length of time, but it should not affect their operations. Mayor Clark indicated that Wilsey & Ham had promised an innovative line of site and questioned whether or not they had provided it. Paul Williams stated that the Planning Commission had felt that they and the City could do a better job on creating one. With no further questions from Council or the audience, Mr. Williams proceeded with Article 25.39-25.45, Ordinance No. 99, Administration. He indicated that the Design Review Board, process, Powers, Authority and Responsibility, rules governing the Planning Commission, Appeals, Conditional Use Permits, Hearings, etc. were covered under this section. MRS. MARJORIE EAGAN, 73-465 Grapevine Street, Palm Desert, addressed Council indicating a discrepancy between Sections 25.39 (20) and 25.44 (1) wherein the first required notification of all property owners within 300 feet of the affected area and the second did not. She felt that provision should be included in both. After considerable discussion, Council agreed. MR. ED WRIGHT, Halgar Road, Rancho Mirage, questioned the proposed requirement of 2-1/2 parking spaces for condominiums. He did not feel that this was applicable or necessary. Councilman Aston indicated that having lived in a condominium for several years with only 1 or 2 spaces provided, he considered the 2-1/2 space require- ment a must in that adequate off-street parking is not provided in these developments. Mayor Clark asked if the same requirements were made of apartment complexes. Mr. Williams explained that this differed in that apartments had adequate off-street parking provided. With no further questions from Council or the audience, Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 93, covering Sections 25.1 through 25.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Brush moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 94, covering Sections 25.7 through 25.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 95, covering Sections 25.15 through 25.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 96, covering Sections 25.19 through 25.21 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the addition=to Section 25.21-5.02 the following: Performance Standards: All development within this zoning district shall comply to the standards as specified in Section 25.20.7.16 of this Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. Councilman Brush moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 97, covering Sections 25.22 through 25.31 of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. November 20, 1975 Page 3 Councilman Brush moved and Councilwoman Beonson seconded to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 98, covering Sections 25.32 through 25.38 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the addition to Section 25.32-9.03 as follows: Lighting Standards in All Zones: Every development occurring in any zone in the City shall be critically reviewed relative to mitigating any negative impacts from lighting proposed as a part of development. The use of lighted tennis courts and the use of lights in commercial developments will be particu- larly reviewed. Section 25.33-2.06: Change six and one-half fee (6-1/2') to eight feet (8'). Motion carried unanimously. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 99 covering Sections 25.39 through 25.45 with the addition of a provision "to notify property owners within 300 ft. of an affected area by mail" in Sections 25.44-2 and 25.44-4. Motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 75-117 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING ASSESS- MENTS ON PROPERTY OWNERS IN SAID CITY FOR THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES. Mayor Clark declared the hearing open. Mr. Hurlburt explained that since the preparation of the the agenda, the property owners of Items 1, 3, 4, and 7 had paid and therefore, these items should be taken off the list leaving Itesm 2, 5, and 6 for action. He fur- ther indicated that this was a routine procedure where tax liens were being placed on properties for lot abate- ment costs. With no participation from the audience, Mayor Clark declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Brush moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 75-117 with the deletion of Items 1, 3, 4, and 7 from Exhibit A. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion. motion carried unanimously. VI. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 75-118 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY. Mr. Hurlburt outlined the major expenditures in Demand No. 10-4 and Demand No. 11-1 totaling $34,235.15. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Aston seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 75-118. The motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 75-121 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING 1975-76 BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSFERS WITHIN THE STATE 1974 PARK BOND ACT FUND WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET. Mr. Hurlburt explained that as a result of Council's approval of an expenditure in the amount of $24,245 for Construction of an entrance road into the community park and their subsequent direction to recommend cuts in the Park budget, he had gone to the Community Park Foundation and upon their recommendation was suggesting the November 20, 1975 Page 4 following cuts: Elimination of Barbeque & Picnic Equipment Reduction in Park Light- ing from $5,000 to $2,000 Reduction in Irrigation System from $1165 to $985 180 $5,115 The total of $5,115 in reductions will cover the amount required since $19,130 was the figure budgeted. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 75-121. The motion carried unanimously. VII. ORDINANCES $1,935 3,000 For Introduction: A. ORDINANCE NO 100 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CHAPTER 15, PALM DESERT ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION CODE. Mr. Hurlburt advised that this ordinance as well as the next one on the agenda, #101, had been published as a public hearing and thus a hearing should be conducted. Mayor Clark declared the public hearing open. Mr. Hill, Building Official, explained to Council that this ordinance will incorporate all administration of construction codes into one chapter. The realization that various codes served different groups of con- tractors with different technologies, materials and methods had prompted the development of one administra- tive section incorporating the above ideas into one distinct chapter. He further explained that the pro- visions are supplemental to existing administrative regulations and in most areas, they clarify intents and provisions of same. Included are fees, permit procedures, plan requirements, alternate materials, right of entry, responsibilities, etc. Mr. Hill pointed out that two of our existing construction codes have no administrative sections, making it necessary for the City to establish one. Mr. Hill concluded stating that the ordinance will clarify gray areas that exist and will strengthen the necessary tools of enforcement. Mayor Clark stated that he felt this ordinance was a good step in that it will allow contractors to take their problems to one source. The Mayor called for response from the audience, and with none, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 100; carried unanimously. B. ORDINANCE NO. 101 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17, PALM DESERT ELECTRICAL CODE. Mayor Clark declared the public hearing open. Mr. Jim Hill, Building Official, advised Council that major concern has been expressed to staff in meetings November 20, 1975 Page 5 with electrical contractors, the Fire Department and property owners regarding inadequate, dangerous and faulty electrical wiring systems and installations within the City of Palm Desert. Present codes provide for minimum systems which may be inefficient, inconven- ient, and inadequate for good service or expansion. The changes outlined were based upon comments and suggestions from various sources involved in electrical systems. Three categories, Additions, Amendments, and Deletions comprise the updating outlined in this ordinance. Additions reflect extensions of existing requirements for clarify and updating. Amendments include revisions to sections restricting smaller sizes of aluminum wire, requiring metallic conduit in commercial buildings and apartment houses, restricting romex or N.M.C. to single-family dwellings, revising and using tables for conduit fill that need not be derated for temperatures. Deletions are used where wire tables reflect sizing of aluminum and copper -clad aluminum wire, which by amendment is deleted. Mr. Hill pointed out that Staff's intent was to meet minimum State require- ments while retaining flexibility of the National Electrical Code. DONALD BOLIS, 73-182 Skyward Way, Palm Desert, addressed Council indicating that he was an attorney and that he was involved in several cases where fire damage had been caused by the use of aluminum wiring. He strongly urged Council to consider a requirement wherein only copper wiring would be allowable. He indicated that many areas, one of which was all of Orange County, had instituted such a requirement. He pointed out that our area was particularly applicable in that we have excessive heat in the summer, air-conditioning systems are run constantly, and with aluminum being an inferior wiring material, in his opinion, he felt something should be done about it. He admitted that copper wiring was more expensive, but still considerably less than replacing a home. Mr. Hill pointed out that copper wiring was being required in anything less than Size #1. JOHN WHITE, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, Palm Desert, addressed Council indicating disagreement with the requirement for use of ground fault interrupters. He stated that he found they were in most cases useless except on swimming pool lines. Mr. White also commented on the extra cost involved in the use of copper wiring of houses. He felt that it would be $500 more for the average house. JOHN BATISTA, Electricial, Rancho Mirage, addressed Council also disagreeing with the requirement for use of ground fault interrupters. After considerable discussion, Mayor Clark moved that the Public Hearing be continued to December 11, with staff directed to investigate the questions raised and advise Council at Study Session. Councilman Brush seconded the motion; carried unanimously. C. ORDINANCE NO. 102 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING AND PROHIBITING USES OF SOUND TRUCKS. Mr. Hurlburt advised that several questions had come up at Study Session that required further research, and that this item should be removed from the Agenda. November 20, 1975 Page 6 D. ORDINANCE NO. 103 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING SOLICIT- ING, HAWKING, AND PEDDLING. Mr. Hurlburt stated that this activity was referred to in our business license ordinance and that this is a follow-up to that. There will be two ordinances in this field, one for peddling and soliciting for commercial activities that is being discussed at this meeting; and one for charitable solicitations to be presented at a future meeting. The present ordinance has been reviewed by the Chamber of Commerce and has been found acceptable by them. The ordinance requires solicitors to file application forms, requires a physical examination to ensure they are not carrying contagious diseases, requires a license, and that the individual soliciting wear an identification card showing he is licensed to solicit. The ordinance is designed to discourage this type of activity in the community. It will not prohibit the Avon ladies or Fuller Brush people, as they are interstate. Councilman Brush questioned the latter statement in that he felt it still placed a hardship on these people. Mr. Hurlburt indicated that it would not. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 103; carried unanimously. XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XII. CONTINUING BUSINESS None XIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Letter from SIDNEY T. WATSON, Pool Contractor, represent- ing HAROLD L. MADDY, 73-517 Haystack Road, Palm Desert, requesting a change in requirements for pool location relative to electric utility lines. Mr. Hill, Building Official, stated that this problem resulted in the fact that per requirements of the National Electrical Code, insufficient distance between the pro- posed pool and the high voltage transmission lines existed. Mr. Hill indicated that a minimum of 10' was required and that approximately 8-1/2' was the distance between the pole and the pool in this case. He pointed out that in some cases, these restrictions did prohibit pool installations in small yards or areas, and in research- ing the problem, he had found that about 50% of the cities he contacted enforced this while the rest (without amend- ment to the code), have chosen to ignore the problem com- pletely. DAVE ERWIN, City Attorney, has ruled that Public Utilities Commission regulations have no bearing on the location of a pool, and, therefore, would not apply. Mr. Hill further pointed out that for safety purposes, should Council desire to reduce the minimum distance of 10' horizontal clearance, it should be in the area of high voltage transmission lines only and not in the area of overhead service drops across pools to service riser brackets or clamps. SIDNEY T. WATSON, pool contractor, addressed Council stat- ing that according to the PUC, power lines were under their jurisdiction. He felt that by demanding more set- back from a public utility line beyond that required November 20, 1975 Page 7 under the Public Utility General Order 95 had the same effect as condemnation without compensation and disallow- ing the property owner full use of his property. Mayor Clark asked how far back the line would be if this were allowed. Mr. Hill advised approximately 9' x 9'. Councilman Br sh expressed concern about the swimming pool cleaners with the long poles and wondered if they would not be in danger of the pole hitting the line. After considerable discussion, Mayor Clark moved and Councilman Brush seconded that this matter be continued to the meeting of December 11, 1975, with Staff directed to come in with further review and report; carried unanimously. E. Request by TAMMY RAYFIELD for a Waiver of the Requirement for Curb and Gutter to Permit the Rebuilding of a Single-family Dwelling Unit Destroyed by Fire and Located at 73-280 Avenue 44 (R-2). Due to the hour, Mayor Clark requested that this item be brought up at this time. Paul Williams explained that the original unit had been a modular single-family residence of approximately 750 square feet with an attached single -car garage. The major difficulty faced by the applicant is the limited amount of cash provided by the insurance policy. The existing and proposed zoning ordinances both require that when an existing structure has been damaged to this extent, the rebuilt unit must comply with all existing ordinances and regulations. The curb and gutter construc- tion would add approximately $650 - $750 to the cost of the dwelling unit. Mr. Williams indicated that Staff was recommending that the City Council deny the request by Resolution 75-120 in that previous decisions of the Council have repeatedly upheld these requirements and that the applicant has not demonstrated the substantial unusual conditions existing to justify the waiver. Mayor Clark asked how much curb is in on the block now and Mr. Williams replied none. The Mayor asked how many vacant lots existed in that area, and there are two. WILLIAM ELLIOTT, Contractor, addressed Council on behalf of Mrs. Rayfield, indicating that she was suffering a hardship with the additional City requirements. Her insurance did not cover complete restoration, nor in any way the new requirements imposed. He stated that Mrs. Rayfield had already agreed to the construction of a two -car garage and off-street parking. However, the curb and gutter requirement he felt was necessary. It would require a 10' setback, which would be the only one on the block and could create a dangerous traffic situation in that the road would widen for only a short space. He stated that Mrs. Rayfield was doing all that she was financially capable of doing, but if the curb and gutter remained a requirement, they would be forced to terminate any work on reconstruction of the home. Councilman McPherson indicated his agreement that it seemed ridiculous to require 60' of curb in an area where no other exists. Councilman Brush questioned whether or not Council would be setting a precedence by allowing this waiver and City Attorney Erwin stated that any decision always does. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to approve the request for a variance from the requirement for curb and gutter; carried unanimously. November 20, 1975 Page 8 B. Request for Approval of Agreement for a Special Census to be Conducted in February, 1976. Mr. Hurlburt reported that the City had reached the due date to sign an agreement for the conducting of a census in February, 1976, and establish questions. The due date for questions to be in to the State Department of Finance is January 1, 1976, and their approval will follow. We have budgeted $8,400 for this census, and at this point, it appears that it will cost approximately $8,000. The first 10 questions are uniform, meeting State require- ments. However, the second set of questions will be tailored to meeting the community requirements. Mr. Hurlburt read a few of the suggested questions. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded to approve the agreement with the State of California, Department of Finance, and authorize the City Manager to sign; carried unanimously. C. Request for Approval of Agreement with the City of Palm Springs for Modification of UMPTA Grant Request to Include Transportation System Equipment for the City of Palm Desert and Establishing Conditions. Mr. Hurlburt explained that for months the City had been working on a program to establish a bus system as a backbone system from Palm Springs to Coachella including Indio. For acceptance of this kind of plan, all of the cities must have an intra city bus system. SB 325 funds were established by a State committee for these systems. The City of Palm Springs has an UMPTA Grant for their bus system, and it has been approved. They are willing to allow the grant request to be revised to allow for the city service for Palm Desert to be budgeted under the Grant along with Palm Springs. Under the arrangement, Palm Desert would pay 20% of the cost of buses and the Grant would pay 80%. The type of bus has a 10-year life and is well constructed. The system which has been developed includes seven buses on the backbone system. Mr. Hurlburt further elaborated on the cost of the system, indicating that it would be receiving revenues and to a small degree helping to pay for itself. In evaluation of the use of these buses, it was felt that about 40% of the patrons would be youth, 30% senior citizens, with the remainder being housewives, workers, etc. Mayor Clark indicated that it was about time we got a system and that it would be wonderful to have transpor- tation for people to Eisenhower, College of the Desert, etc. Councilman McPherson indicated that with the fuel shortage, inflation of gas prices, and pollution, a bus system was very much needed. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Aston seconded that the agreement be approved and the Mayor authorized to sign; carried unanimously. D. Consideration of a Supplemental Agreement with the County of Riverside Relative to the Use of Community Develop- ment Basic Grant Funds. Mr. Hurlburt indicated that this supplemental agreement was merely to clarify areas of County responsibility and those areas wherein the cities will be held responsible. An "Attachment A" must be completed for each of the City November 20, 1975 Page 9 projects falling under the agreement for them to become a part of the supplemental agreement. Completion of this agreement will then result in our receiving monies for the listed projects. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Aston seconded to approve the supplemental Agreement with the County of Riverside and authorize the Mayor to execute; carried unanimously. E. RESOLUTION NO. 75-119 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REAFFIRMING THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO PLACE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY ON UTILIZATION OF $9,520 OF THE CONTINGENCY FUNDS FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF CATALINA WAY, EASTERLY OF SAN PASQUAL, IN THE 1976-77 BUDGET. Mr. Hurlburt explained to the City Council that in order to make the County leave the allotted $9,520 in the Contingency Fund untilthe City starts on the subject it is necessary for the Council to reaffirm the City's position to place the highest priority on the utilization of $9,520 of the funds from the Community Development Grant. On the next year's HUD Block Grant Application, the City will apply for an additional $9520 for the Catalina Way project and with the $9520 carryover this year, a total of $19,040 can be used for a portion of the $45,000 project. If this priority is not placed, the already allotted monies can be lost. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that Resolution No. 75-120 reaffirming the subject priority be adopted; carried unanimously. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. City Manager 1. Mr. Hurlburt reminded Council that thier Statements of Economic Interests must be turned in to the City Clerk no later than November 26. 2. Mr. Hurlburt reported as a matter of interest that Frank Allen, Code Enforcement Supervisor, had driven by the El Paseo Art Gallery and it was vacant. 3. Mr. Hurlburt advised that on November 17, 1975, bids had been received for the construction of the side- walk on Portola Avenue. They were Smith Construction Co., $43,658.60; Massey Sand & Rock, $42,264.00; and J & S Paving, $35,355.50. This is excluding the sidewalk in front of the Sunshine Meat, Fish & Liquor which will be done a time and material basis. Councilman Aston moved and Councilman Brush seconded the approval of the contract with J & S Paving in the amount of $35,355.50 and authorized the Mayor to sign; carried unanimously. 4. Mr. Hurlburt reported that the Deputy City Clerk and he had attended a seminar on elections and that many changes had been made to the State Elections Code. One change requires that anything going to the electorate be bilingual. He indicated that Council should decide whether each candidate would be respon- sible for payment of having his candidate's statement transcribed and printed, or whether the City shoudl pay for it. The cost will run from $50 to $100 per November 20, 1975 Page 10 candidate. Mr. Hurlburt also requested that Council authorize him to contract with the County for con- ducting the March 2, 1976, election. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Aston seconded that the City Manager be authorized to contract with the County of Riverside to conduct in its entirety the March 2, 1976, Councilmanic Election to include machine counting of the ballots in the administrative offices; carried unanimously. Councilman McPherson moved that candidates for the office of City Council be required to pay the total cost of translation and print- ing of their own candidate's statement. Councilman Brush seconded the motion; carried unanimously. B . City Attorney Dave Erwin suggested that Council adopt a resolution approving the Supplemental Agreement with the County of Riverside in that they will require it a resolution. Councilwoman Benson moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to adopt Resolution No. 75-122 approving the Supplemental Agreement with the County of Riverside relative to the use of Community Development Basic Grant Funds; carried unanimously. C. Mayor and City Council Councilman Brush stated that many members of the Council had had comments made to them in opposition to the action they took on the proposed shopping center. He wished to reiterate that the developer himself could not confirm that he had firm commitments from either Ralph's Supermarket or Savon Drugs. In fact, in checking, Council had learned that Savon did not wish to become a part of this proposed complex and Ralph's was 80% sure that they did not want to either. Councilman Brush asked again about the restriping of the streets. Paul Williams advised that the County had started a week ago and would continue until finished. Mayor Clark expressed concern over learning of a meeting held in Indio where the County had considered amendment of their General Plan which would affect all of the Cove communities. Paul Williams replied that he was not aware of such a meeting and that he would check on it. He will also provide copies of agendas for Council. XVI. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Aston moved and Councilman Brush seconded to adjourn the meeting; carried unanimously. Mayor Clark adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. 1NRY B. CL K, MAYOR ATTEST: A VEY LrHUR B , City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California November 20, 1975 Page 11