Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-08MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1977 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Mullins convened the meeting at 7:07 September 8, 1977, in City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE - Mayor Pro-Tempore Jim McPherson III. INVOCATION - Mayor Ed Mullins IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Brush Councilman McPherson Councilman Newbrander Councilman Wilson Mayor Mullins Also Present: p.m. on Thursday, Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant to the City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services Paul E. Byers, Director of Management Services Hunter T. Cook, City Engineer V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS Mayor Mullins stated that he would like to make a public announce- ment that two Board and/or Commission vacancies existed. The list of vacancies has been posted in the City Clerk's office and include the expired term of George Berkey on the Planning Commission and William Hobbs' unexpired term on the Design Review Board caused by Mr. Hobbs' resignation. Mayor Mullins asked that anyone wishing to serve in either of these positions please con- tact City Hall. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the August 25, 1977, Meeting of the City Council. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand No. 78-022. Rec: Approve as presented. C. CLAIM FROM E. ARNOLD OPPENHEIM, 9777 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Attorney for Southwestern Enter- prises for Flood Related Damages to Their Property in the Amount of $55,000. Rec: Deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so advise the claimant. D. REQUEST FOR REFUND OF DEPOSIT to the Property Owner of Lot 2, Palm Desert Unit No. 7, for Curb and Gutter Advance. Rec: By minute motion, authorize the City Treasurer to September 8, 1977 Page 1 return $1,263 to the depositor from the Curb and Gutter Advance Payment Deposit Fund, Account 24- 2913-004, to cover the deposit for Lot 2, Palm Desert Unit No. 7. E. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF BONDS by the County of Riverside for Tract 5904 for Water and Sewer System Installation Work Only. Rec: Accept the work as complete and direct the City Clerk to release the bonds for Water and Sewer System Instal- lation Work immediately. City Attorney Dave Erwin requested that Item C be amended to include an amended claim which had just been received. It relates to the same item, same problem, and the only difference is the date of the claim which is August 29, 1977, and the amount which is $1,000,000.00. Mr. Erwin stated that the recommendation should remain the same. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and including the amended claim as presented by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST for Approximately 36.5 Acres Located on the North Side of Avenue 44, Between Fairhaven Drive and the Palm Valley Storm Channel from 'S' (Study) to PR-10 (Planned Residential - 10 Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre). Mr. Williams presented the Staff Report (attached as Exhibit "A" and made a part of these minutes per Section 65804(d) of the Government Code). Mr. Williams stated that this property had been zoned 'S' in February, 1976, inasmuch as a compre- hensive COD Specific Plan was being completed, and it was contemplated that a more comprehensive study of the entire COD area would prove beneficial in the final zoning of the area. This Plan is now essentially completed, and the Planning Commission felt it appropriate to review the change of zone. Thus, at a Special Planning Commission Meeting held on August 9, 1977, the Commission did adopt Resolution No. 274 recommending to the City Council a PR-10 (Planned Resi- dential - maximum 10 units per gross acre) zoning designation for the subject property. Mr. Williams cited the Commission's justification for this zoning which included the fact that it would require a development plan for the entire property rather than permitting haphazard, lot -by -lot development. The density of 10 units per gross acre is an intermediate density which would be in keeping with its location in regard to future regional commercial development, and an even higher density would be appropriate for sites closer to the regional commercial center. The PR zone provides a more effective mechanism for implementing uniform design and archi- tectural standards, and the PR zone would permit the proper design for a mixed density development, which would be most appropriate for meeting the goals and objectives of the Palm Desert General Plan. Mr. Williams reviewed alternative designations with Council pointing out that if they so chose to approve another desig- nation, the matter would have to be again referred to the Planning Commission for further review. Mr. Williams con- cluded by pointing out a letter of opposition received from Prelude Development Company who were the developers of the adjoining property on the northeast side of Park View Drive. Mayor Mullins stated that the Council had met in Study Session and discussed this matter as well as all of the Agenda matters, but no decisions had been made. He then declared the Public Hearing open and asked for input in FAVOR of the rezoning. September 8, 1977 Page 2 MR. RICHARD ARNOLD, 38-551 Cactus Lane, Palm Desert, addressed Council as one of the property owners assuring Council that their project would be one that would guarantee the beautifica- tion of the area in question. MR. ROLAND KING, Administrative Director of the Palm Springs Medical Clinic, addressed Council in favor of the rezoning and expressing his hope for Council's future approval of zoning that would allow for approval of a nicely planned medical center in that area. With no further input in FAVOR of the rezoning, Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the rezoning. MR. WILLIAM R. SEIDLER, 44-530 San Carlos, Palm Desert, addressed Council first asking if the Council did, in fact, approve the rezoning, would this include approval of a medi- cal facility also. Mr. Williams advised that it would not and that the medical facility was not an issue in the con- sideration of rezoning. Mr. Seidler expressed opposition to the rezoning in that he felt that no justification had been presented for additional higher density units in that area, and he felt that PR-6 designation which had originally been given was compatible with the General Plan and other decisions made by the City. MR. GORDON BANE, 74-655 Old Prospector Trail, Palm Desert, addressed Council in opposition to the rezoning and supporting the statements made by Mr. Seidler that we should remain in keeping with the General Plan. MR. ROLAND SWEET, 73-535 Pinyon, Palm Desert, addressed Council in opposition to the rezoning only in that it was not a higher density. He stressed the need for lower -cost housing so that the "service" people in the area would have a place to live. He suggested a possible PR-15 zoning. Councilman Wilson stated that he was concerned about this choice parcel, and the purpose of putting it in 'S' zone was to come up with some hard facts about what was best for it. These facts were to come in the form of the COD Specific Plan, yet he had seen very little come out as justification from the Staff. The apartment use is designated, but is there anything in the Speci- fic Plan that says we need it. He stated that he had seen previ- ous increments of the Specific Plan as it was being developed, and one point that was brought out was a study among a number of other colleges who strongly recommended not establishing higher density apartments in college areas in that they tend to become "college ghettos". He concluded by stating that he could live with PR5-6 designation but not 10 to 15 in that the PR5-6 was compatible with others in the area. Mayor Mullins asked about the status of the COD Specfic Plan and Mr. Williams advised that the final draft will be completed by September 16, 1977, and will be sent to the Planning Commission for review. Neighborhood meetings and public hearings on the document will be held in November. Mayor Mullins asked Mr. Williams if the recommendation conflicted with the report. Mr. Williams replied that the recommendation for the rezoning was based primarily on the need for apartments in the community. Councilman Wilson asked Mr. Williams if the Specific Plan con- tained anything which supported or justified high density. Mr. Williams responded that the report indicates that there are a large number of small parcels, but no useable pieces anywhere in the Study zone. It is felt that no apartments or high density should go immediately adjacent to the College but should be allowable in the area. In analyzing the area, it was hard to justify single-family residential on this property. September 8, 1977 Page 3 Councilman Newbrander stated that she disagreed with Mr. Sweet's argument that this would satisfy the requirements of working families in that the size of those apartments would not answer this type of need. They will become apartments for weekenders or single, working people. Mr. Williams agreed that they would probably be high -rent apartments. Councilman Wilson asked Mr. Williams if he saw all of the property owners getting together and developing a Master Plan for that area in PR-10. Mr. Williams indicated that he had already met with owners of all but 12 acres of the land, and that he did feel this could be accomplished. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Wilson moved to refer the matter to the Planning Com- mission and asked them to study the possibility of PR-6 or R-1 zoning designation for that area. Councilman Newbrander seconded the motion. Councilman McPherson stated that he was personally concerned with the PR-6 designation in that he felt it was a continuation of the high-priced, low -density condominiums that we have in town now. He indicated a tendancy to not lean to the PR-15 suggested, but to go along with the Staff recommendation that there is a need for some apartment units in our city, and there is presently very little property remaining for this type of development. In view of the motion, he said that he would like to express his concern to the Planning Commission that they perhaps not only look at PR-6, but also something less than PR-10 but not necessarily as low as PR-6. He expressed his hope that some type of compromise could be worked out so that the City could have some apartments as opposed to some high-priced condominiums in that area. Councilman Brush stated that he was in agreement with Councilman McPherson that there was a definite need for apartments within the City. He pointed out that neighboring cities, including Rancho Mirage, were also recognizing this need. Councilman Wilson amended his motion to refer the matter to the Planning Commission and ask them to study the possibility of either PR designation with lower density or R-1, and that they also consider putting in a Scenic Preservation Overlay designation over the entire area. Councilman Newbrander seconded the amended motion. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 77-95 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAPS FOR TRACTS 5277, 5277-2, and 5277-3, AND APPROVING THE STANDARD SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RELATING THERETO. Mr. Ortega explained that this was a request for final approval of a tract map for Shadow Mountain Resort & Racquet Club, and it conforms to the approved Tentative Tract Map. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-95. Motion carried unanimously B. RESOLUTION NO. 77-96 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT 6671-2, ACCEPTING DEDICATIONS THEREON AND APPROVING THE STANDARD SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RELATING THERETO. Mr. Ortega explained that this request was for approval of a Final Tract Map for Portola•De Sol. This Map has received prior final approval. However, the developer failed to sub- mit the necessary bonds within the designated 60-day period; thus the approval expired. Mr. Ortega assured that everything was now in order, and Staff recommended approval. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-96. Motion carried unanimously. September 8, 1977 Page 4 C. RESOLUTION NO. 77-97 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT 9377-1, AND APPROVING THE STANDARD SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RELATING THERETO. Mr. Ortega explained that this was a request for Final Tract Map approval for Sommerset Development, formerly Mountainback. Everything was in order, and Staff recommended approval. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-97. Motion carried unanimously IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 167 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE OR EXPLOSION, AND ESTABLISHING A BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION AND PROVIDING OFFICERS THEREFOR AND DEFINING THEIR POWERS AND DUTIES. Mr. Ortega pointed out that this was this second reading of the ordinance and that unless Council had questions, he had no further input. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 167. Motion carried unani- mously. X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. CASE NO. 81MF - EAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPLICANT: (Referred to the City Council by the Planning Commission.) Request for determination whether the applicant has sufficient vested rights to continue as an on -going project with the first phase of a 248 unit planned residential development within the P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preser- vation Overlay District) zone, generally located west of Highway 111 and south of Avenue 44. Mr. Williams stated that we have a very unique situation here, to say the least. We have a project approved under the County in 1972, said project located at Avenue 44 and Highway 111. The Planning Commission and the Design Review Board were reluctant to review the matter in that the present zoning on the property is Planned Commercial Resort, and the request that was first acted upon by the County back in 1972 was for Planned Residential Development for condominiums. The position the administrative staff has taken is, as indicated by the applicant's attorney, somewhat contrary to the position taken in 1974 with regards to the fact that a portion of the property along Avenue 44 had a recording tract which was recorded back in 1973. Subsequently, the City reviewed it and extended the total tract in 1974 and 1975, September 11, 1975 to be exact, at which time the Council approved a Final Map on the total property. As of today, the property has a recorded Tract for condominium development, but it would appear it does not have the zoning that would allow for con- struction of the condominiums. The applicant contends that September 8, 1977 Page 5 through his actions on the Tentative Tract and previous work and Council's actions on the extension of the Map in 1975 and final action of recording of the Map in 1975 grants them a finding of substantial construction and therefore, they have the right to construct the development. Mr. Williams pointed out that Council had received in their packets a letter from the applicant's attorney, Mr. Wintrode, which states precisely the history of these actions and their point of view. The total matter rests on the issue of sub- stantial construction. Has there been construction? The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, when they acted on this project, attached a condition to the Conditional Use Permit that said: "This approval shall be used within 3i years after final proceedings before the Board of Supervisors, otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect what- soever. By 'use' is meant recordation of a subdivision map and substantial construction of the development contemplated". Mr. Williams stated that it was Staff's feeling that the Conditional Use Permit, when the Final Map on the phase that was reviewed by the City Council, was in effect because that 3i years was running. The Council determined there was a valid Conditional Use Permit on September 11, 1975. The 3i years expired on September 21, 1975. Further, in reviewing the subdivision, the existing zoning on the property was then residential, R-2-5000, which would have allowed the develop- ment as contemplated. Subsequent to that, in December of 1975, and early 1976, zoning was changed on the property based upon the feeling that this area was appropriate mainly for hotels, which was a concept created in the General Plan and in the Redevelopment Plan that was created for the area. Since in terms of construction of a condominium development, which is an area where people reside in structures known as houses, and since that kind of construction has not occurred, it is the position of the Staff that substantial construction does not exist; that the Conditional Use Permit expired of a natural life in September, 1975, and therefore, Staff recom- mends that by Resolution No. 77-98, the Council assume juris- diction of the Design Review Board case and determine that vested rights do not exist and that, therefore, the project be rejected due to noncompliance with the zoning. This decision would leave the applicant, in Staff's opinion, with the option of applying for a General Plan amendment and rezoning if they still choose to pursue the condominium development as contemplated. Mr. Williams explained that if Council determined that sub- stantial construction does exist, then only one alternative is possible and that is to allow the applicant to apply for building permits. Normally an alternative here would be to perhaps process it through the Design Review Board, but the Design Review Board would be at a loss as to what standards to apply since the plans that were submitted as a part of the Conditional Use Permit were as precise as to show the exact design of the building, the grading, the placement of all the details normally reviewed during the Design Review Board process. So it would be meaningless. Therefore, it would appear that the two alternatives the Council is faced with is the determination of substantial construction or not. Staff recommends the latter. MR. WALTER GAYNOR, 4262 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, Calif., addressed Council on behalf of the developer, Eagle Develop- ment, advising that he was the initiator of the project through the County, receiving all the proper approvals, and proceeding to physically construct over 1/4 of a million dollars worth of improvements on that site. He stated that their position was not one of substantial development but one of a legal issue. He presented slides for Council's viewing on other developments they have constructed which he felt would show the quality they assured. He pointed out September 8, 1977 Page 6 the similarity between Rancho Las Palmas and Sunrise. MR. RALPH WINTRODE, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Attorneys at Law, 660 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, addressed Council representing the property owner, Morgan -Mitsubishi Development Company. He stated that he did not wish to recount his letter to Council (attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part of these minutes), but stated he would mainly like to address the Staff Report and their disagreement to it. He stated that he did not believe that the only issue was substantial construction, even though it was done. The first point mentioned in the Staff Report is the fact that the construction in place related only to the subdivision and not to the Conditional Use Permit. We find it very difficult to make any distinction in that the 3 permits obtained in March of 1972 were all interdependent on one another. There is a Conditional Use Permit for the precise project, a sub- division map which really only makes sense in connection with the Conditional Use Permit, and a variance which made the project work. The improvements made consist in two basic categories: There was some off -site improvements to Painters Path and Avenue 44 which would have been made in any subdivision of the property. In addition to that, there is approximately 1/4 of a million dollars on site in grading, water, sewer, storm drains, not to mention the engineering costs and the costs in litigating the validity of the project with the Concerned Citizens. These particular improvements are designed specifically for the project and for another project would be useless. The other points made in the Staff Report really go to the same point — what types of improvements were they and were they related to this project? Mr. Williams made the comment that in their opinion, the Conditional Use Permit expired in 1975, after the 31 period. This certainly could not have been the case since the 12th ordinance adopted by the City would have revoked the Conditional Use Permit with substan- tial construction not having occurred at that time and this would be back in 1973. The City Council made two findings to the effect that substantial construction had occurred and that the Conditional Use Permit had become permanent in the words of the former City Manager. That is basically the property owner's position, and Mr. Wintrode offered to answer any questions Council might have. Councilman Newbrander inquired about the letter of April 5, 1974 by the City Manager saying that substantial construction had not been started. Why was the substantial construction issue not determined then. Mr. Wintrode responseed that between April and September of 1974, there were a number of meetings and conversations with the City Staff and the City Attorney. This resulted in part in the generation of the September 23, 1974, memo and the finding of the Council that the Map could, in deed, be extended since substantial construction did exist and, in effect, a finding that the Conditional Use Permit had become permanent. In their view, these matters were determined in 1974 and those findings have become final and cannot be changed at this time. MR. EDWARD BENSON, 1106 Sandpiper, Palm Desert, addressed Council stating that he had been Secretary of the Palm Desert Property Owners' Association in 1972 and that the County had asked them to review the project. Among other things, Mr Benson stated that he had pointed out to the developer's representative that this project was very close to the mountain and subject to flooding. He stated that the Association had indicated that subject to the developer getting started on the project within the ensuing 12 months, they would agree with it. He stated that he had seen the pads put in and then watched them erode as they sat for years because of the flow of water. Mr. Gaynor replied that the pads had not really eroded or become lower over the time period in question. September 8, 1977 Page 7 Mr. Wintrode responded to the mention of the delay associated with the development stating that his clients had been in court for quite some time with the Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert and this accounted for the delay, Also, the market conditions changed and that also caused delay. Dave Erwin stated that Mr. Wintrode, in his letter together with attachments, has fairly well reviewed the past history. The Staff Report gives Council the alternatives available to them. He stated that it appeared to him in his review of it, the initial review and extension of a Tentative Map in September, 1975, appears to be a point in time when there may have been a determination that some substantial construc- tion had developed, at least on behalf of the Staff. At that point in time, there was action by the Council to extend the Tentative Map and you could infer from that that it was based on the findings as contained in the letter from the former City Manager. What we are faced with at this time, with the City Council looking at it, is to say that deter- mination was made at that point in time and that is the status of the project. Otherwise, it would appear to be a matter of reviewing the determination of substantial com- pliance at this time which appears to be somewhat light in being accomplished. Mr. Erwin advised that if Council was looking for a recommendation from him, he was not sure he could give one. There are problems on both sides, and it appears there may have been a determination or ratification by the Council at one point in time. Staff takes a different view. Very frankly, Mr. Erwin stated that he had no total recollection of what did occur at that meeting. Councilman Wilson stated that this was a very complex issue. He stated that he tended to favor the Staff's recommendation that Council rule that substantial construction has not taken place over the years on that site. It is definitely not in conformance with our Zoning Map, and he so moved for adoption of Resolution No. 77-98 recommending that Council take authority of this matter and make a finding rejecting the request of the Eagle Development Company for approval of the final con- struction drawings. Mr. Erwin pointed out that obviously the developer is interested in going ahead and that if the Council did decide to reject the case, it will probably result in more litigation. He felt Council should be aware of this. Councilman Wilson reaffirmed his motion and Councilman Brush seconded the motion to adopt Resolution No. 77-98. Councilman McPherson stated that he did not feel the issue was that complex, just a question of did they or didn't they, and he did not feel that they had accomplished substantial construction. He expressed a feeling of confidence in the developers in the City in that they desired to construct projects that both they and the City could be proud of. The City has worked with many developers and has not turned many of them down. Councilman McPherson stated that maybe the next step would be to have the applicant sit down with Staff and work out something mutually acceptable to both. Mr. Gaynor reemphasized his position and strongly urged the Council to reconsider the time, planning, and staggering amounts of money that had already gone into this project. Councilman McPherson told Mr. Gaynor that one of the very reasons that the City had incorporated was that the resi- dents were not happy with what the County was doing with the area. During the past 3i years, the Council has wrestled with the zoning ordinance, the General Plan, etc. Rules have been changed from what the applicant had taken to the County and what we have now. He stated that he September 8, 1977 Page 8 could appreciate what the applicant has done, but the reason for incorporation was so that we can approve what is built in Palm Desert. Mayor Mullins asked for a vote on Councilman Wilson's motion and the following vote was cast: AYES: Brush, McPherson, Newbrander, Wilson & Mullins NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried unanimously. XIII. OLD BUSINESS None XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. RESOLUTION NO. 77-99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR STORM MAINTENANCE. Mr. Ortega stated that funds in the amount of $9,883 are included in the FY 1977-78 budget for storm main - maintenance. To date, expenses for storm protection and cleanup total approximately $28,000, leaving a current deficit of $18,117. In order to make up the deficit and budget additional funds of $6,000 to cover cleanup for upcoming storms, Staff was requesting adoption of this resolution. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-99. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Mr. Ortega reported that the City of Palm Springs was going to contract with the firm of Gordon Beamer & Associates to do a Risk Management Study and had asked other C-VAG cities to participate. All other C-VAG cities and also Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage had agreed, and Staff was requesting that Council authorize the City Manager to spend $715, Palm Desert's share, to be taken from the Insurance Services Account, for our participation. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to authorize the City Manager to spend $715, to be allocated from the Insurance Services Fund, for the purpose of entering into a joint contract with Gordon Beamer & Associates and the C-VAG cities, as well as Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, for a Risk Management Study. Motion carried unanimously. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Mullins asked that everyone note the future meetings listed on the Agenda. September 8, 1977 Page 9 XVI. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to adjourn the meeting to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing possible litigation, said Executive Session to be held immediately following the Redevelopment Agency. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mullins adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Mullins reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. immediately following Executive Session and announced that no action had been taken. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Wilson seconded that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mullins adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:21 p.m. Li I T'ARD D. MULLINS, MAYOR ATTEST: SHHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CI CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA September 8, 1977 Page 10