Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-11-09MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1978 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS * :'r :': :': * !c * :'c * * * :'t * Y * * * * Y k :'c :: * * * . :': •., * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Mullins convened the Regular Meeting of the Palm Desert City Council at 7:15 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE - Mayor Pro-Tempore Jim McPherson III. INVOCATION - Mayor Ed Mullins IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Noel Brush Councilman Jim McPherson Councilman Alexis Newbrander Councilman Roy Wilson Mayor Ed Mullins Also Present: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager Jeff Patterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services Paul E. Byers, Director of Finance L. Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Palm Desert City Council of October 26, 1978. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 79-043 and 79-044. Rec: Approve as presented. C. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF BONDS by Jomo Development, Tract No. 8071. Rec: Accept this tract as complete and instruct the City Clerk to release the bonds. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE NO. C/Z 10-78, MILDA P. BENNETT AND KENNETH BARBIER, APPLICANTS: Request for a Change of Zone from R-1-12,000 (Single Family - 12,000 Sq. Ft. Lots Minimum) to R-2 (Single Family - 4,000 Sq. Ft. Per Dwelling Unit Minimum) Zone Dis- trict on Approximately 1.5 Acres South of Parkview Drive Between Fairhaven and San Juan Drive. (Continued from the November 9, 1978 Page 1 regular City Council Meeting of October 26, 1978.) Mr. Williams advised that the applicant had filed a letter requesting that this item be continued again to the meeting of December 14, 1978. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR of the zone change, and none was offered. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the zone change, and none was offered. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to continue the matter to the meeting of December 14, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. B. ANNEXATION NO. 5 - MONTEREY AVENUE -COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE: Consideration of Any and All Protests Regarding the Pro- posed Annexation to the City of Palm Desert of 1,046 Acres Located Southerly of Country Club Drive Between Monterey Avenue and Cook Street. Mr. Williams reported that this annexation request was initiated in June of 1978 by Resolution No. 78-81 whereby Council instructed the City Clerk to file the application with LAFCO. The annexation was requested by 35% of the property owners in this area. The application was forwarded to LAFCO and based upon its being a logical expansion of our City's boundaries, it was approved by the Commission on September 14, 1978, with direction to the City to com- plete the procedure including holding a public hearing to receive any protests. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and invited input in FAVOR of the annexation. None was offered. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the annexation, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed, noting that no written protests had been received either. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to conclude the Public Hearing on protests and continue the matter to the meeting of December 14, 1978, or 30 days. Motion carried unani- mously. C. CASE NOS. C/Z 08-78, DP 11-78 - WESTERN ALLIED PROPERTIES: Consideration of a Request for Approval of a Change of Zone from 'S' Study to PR-5 (U.A.) and 0.S. (U.A.) on Approximately 680 Acres and a Related Residential Development Plan to Allow 1,428 Dwelling Units and Related Recreational Amenities and Open Space, the Site Being Generally Located 3 Miles South- west of the Intersection of Highways 111 and 74 Adjacent to the Southerly Boundary of the City of Palm Desert on the West Side of Highway 74 and Certification of the Related EIR as Complete. Mr. Paul Williams reviewed the Staff Report in detail (original on file with the City Clerk's Office as Official Record). In addition, he reviewed each letter individually which had been received relative to the case. He reported that the Planning Commission had held 2 public hearings on this case and dealt with the major concerns of density from 'S', mitigation of traffic, negative scenic impacts, and impact on services. After much deliberation, it was their recommendation to the City Council to recommend a zoning of PR-3, S.P. (U.A.), limiting the number of units to 732 on 244 acres; no structure within 200 feet of Highway 74 to address the noise element of the development; dedication of all land and wild life preserves as part of the first phase of the development; no construction within 200 feet of Section 36; no apartments to be allowed; imposing of conditions as set forth by the Coachella Valley County Water District; and no two story structures permitted any- where in the development. November 9, 1978 Page 2 He pointed out that this recommendation had carried on a 3-1-1 vote, with Commissioner Kelly voting NOE and Commis- sioner Berkey abstaining. Mr. Williams also reviewed a letter from Mr. John Tettemer, the City's Flood Control Consultant, which expressed concern over the development and the important issues with regards to this project in the area of flood control. He recommended that the Council withhold any approval until the City is satisfied that the work downstream is going to be adequate to receive the pro- posed diversion of waters or until the request of this diver- sion is fully disclosed. Secondly, prior to approval, the Council should ascertain the proposed Qs and debris control facilities are appropriate and negotiate maintenance con- siderations to be met to the satisfaction of the City to ensure they are integratable into the plans for regional flood control works. Thirdly, the maintenance of these facilities should be supported financially by the sub- divider and carried out by a responsible governmental agency; and fourthly, the City should indicate the need for mitigation of the diversion and increase in runoff proposed. Mayor Mullin s declared the Public Hearing open and invited input in FAVOR of the project. MR. RICHARD ROMMELLA, Planning Center, Newport Beach, California, addressed Council as representative of Western Allied Properties. He elaborated on the development plan indicating that the intent and purpose of their plan was to be creative and imaginative in design. He felt that it met all the requirements of the City relative to density and amenities. However, it was not a detailed plan but gives two parts - prezoning (U.A.) and the development plan report. This plan is consistent, in his opinion, with the City's plans and policies as he thought was pointed out in the first Planning Commission report. Mr. Rommella continued that the centers of the plan include a mixture of densities; densities graduating away from Highway 74; preservation of land to make the land use ele- ment of the General Plan; solution to flood control problems as it is in general alignment with the Bechtel Report; particular attention to the Scenic Highway and preservation of the desert. There are 16-17 parcels of land involved in this; promotes solutions to drainage and flood control; provides land for Dead Indian Park; ensures preservation of approximately 345 acres of open space; wildlife preserve; creates a continuing review process throughout the life of the project; provides ideal terminus for the area. He pointed out that one of the specific issues discussed at the Planning Commission level was that of the effect on schools. He passed out a letter from the Desert Sands Unified School District (on file as Official Record in the City Clerk's Department) which indicated that there was an actual decrease in students at the present time, and their first phase would generate 10-20 students. He pointed out that Highway 74 is currently being widened and whereas it is currently designed to handle 11,000 trips per day, it will handle 19,000 trips per day when completed. Concern was also expressed that their area would drain into the Cahuilla Hills, and he did not feel that was correct. A little of that area will, but it will increase the amount of runoff by only 4.1%. Mr. Rommella expressed objection to the following recommen- dations: - Felt it impractical to remove 36 acres from the plan just because 11 acres drain into the Cahuilla Hills. - The apartment area was originally proposed to the Commis- sion at a reduction in density to 10.1/du. Although that was low, his firm agreed to it. It was also suggested that it be limited to single story. Under the existing County zoning, 35' and 2-1/2 story buildings are allowed. As an alternative, he suggested that no more than 5070 November 9, 1978 Page 3 of the units should be 2 story and 100-150' setbacks from the highway. There are design review procedures that allow the City to veto two-story plans if they won't work. - The EIR addressed the wildlife habitat, although it was expressed that the 29 acre area was not a critical habitat area. - The issue of the low density, even single-family estates, was discussed, but he felt that to abandon any growth at all would be to back away from the City and develop in the County. They were concerned about annexing this land to the City; however, they felt it should be in the City. - He did not feel that the acreage figures were consistent between the Zoning Map and the development plan. - The proposed change of zone would be compatible in that the General Plan shows 3-5 units per acre. - It is impossible to make this project work at the density prescribed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rommella expressed opposition to the following Special Conditions: 1. The restricted number of dwelling units (732) makes the project impractical. 5. This condition has never been imposed on any other developer and he felt it discriminatory. He reviewed the surrounding development to show that they did not have 200' setbacks. He suggested that if the City felt there was justification for 200' setbacks, that they should outline them for all developments. 7. No one knows where the drainage channel will occur. A lot of planning needs to be done by all of the engineers; however, imposing no development westerly is premature. 12. Apartments are a form of ownership; they are the same as condominiums. 18. Two-story structures are allowed under the existing zoning of the County. Mr. Rommella presented an alternative plan which proposed PR-4 or a total of about 1,200 units. He reviewed the plan in detail noting that it did include apartments but that it met the design criteria established by the City. The total area in the request was 337 acres. Mr. Williams pointed out that there was some type of discrepancy here in that the original application had dealt with only 307 acres. Mr. Rommella stated that this plan was drummed up in response to the Planning Commission and concerns heard during the hearings. It is not one unit per acre, but it is a facility consistent with Planned Residential requirements. Councilman Wilson asked what the applicant's reasoning was in finding Special Condition #7 unacceptable inasmuch as it seemed very necessary to him to protect existing and surrounding development. MR. RICHARD ROEMER, 115 LaCerra Drive, Rancho Mirage, addressed Council as President of Western Allied Properties. He stated that before Council contemplated any further, they should ask themselves: 1. Do you want this land annexed? 2. Do you want to go a long way in expediting a solution to flood control problems that now exist and will continue to exist unless development is allowed under the super- vision of the C.V. Water District? November 9, 1978 Page 4 He pointed out that, while it looks very valuable, the property consists of 15 different parcels of property with numerous property owners. This will be the City's last chance to consider it as developable in one unit. It can be developed in fragmented pieces, but it will not give engineering to the flood problem. The flood conditions the City is imposing will cost over 1/2 million dollars, and the property owners will be paying for it. He felt that the negative comments received from the residents of the Cahuilla Hills were of an emotional nature. His firm was presenting the City the best possibility and maybe the only possibility of developing the land as one project. He stated that they felt discriminated against inasmuch as he felt every other annexation has at least received a PR-4 designation, par- ticularly pointing out the Monterey Country Club annexation. He continued that this piece of property is being singled out with PR-3 with numerous unreasonable conditions. He stated that they are not presenting a give-away program. They have spent a considerable amount of money in master- minding this plan. The County zoning on that property is R-1, not R-1-1, but it can be developed at 7,200 sq. ft. lots and 2-1/2 story buildings. They would have to go back to the County for approval. He concluded by stating that his plans were entirely consistent with the General Plan and he didn't know what else they could do. He requested a decision from Council in that the matter had been dragging out for many months. He requested an adjustment to the zoning to an overall PR-4 with reference to the newly sub- mitted Alternative A. The following other individuals spoke in FAVOR of the project: MR. GEORGE VALEUR, 74-500 Highway 74, Palm Desert, as a Cahuilla Hills property owner and on behalf of Mrs. Ruth Valeur and Mrs. Louise Shilling. MR. HAROLD HOUSLEY, Project Engineer, Palm Desert, outlined in more detail the proposed drainage information indicating that they had to enter into an agreement with the C. V. Water District whereby Bechtel would study their plans for this area, at the developer's cost, and make changes/recommenda- tions before any development could be started. He felt that as a result of a letter he had received from Mr. Leon Berg, Federal Flood Insurance, that the flood insurance rates in the City could be reduced as much as 90% with the implemen- tation of the flood control facilities on this project. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the project, and the following individuals spoke relative to their strong concerns on flood control; extremely high density; and wildlife protection: MR. JOSEPH W. CADY, 71-855 Jaguar Way, Cahuilla Hills MR. HAROLD BARTEL, 71-250 Oasis, Cahuilla Hills MR. STEVE LOSHER, 71-745 Cholla, Cahuilla Hills MR. DAVID SALVATERRA, 48-655 Coyote, Cahuilla Hills MR. DAVID WARDELL, 71-251 Cholla, Cahuilla Hills MRS. ANNE COOPER, 71-750 Cahuilla Way, Cahuilla Hills, on behalf of all signers of the petition submitted to the the Planning Commission. MRS. FAY DAVIS, 1695 Spruce Street, Cahuilla Hills MRS. KATERINE KATIE, 71-855 Jaguar, Cahuilla Hills MRS. ROSA KLINE, 71-795 Jaguar, Cahuilla Hills Mayor Mullins recessed the meeting at 10:10 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m. MR. LOWELL WEEKS, General Manager and Chief Engineer of the Coachella Valley County Water District, addressed Council stating that he was not taking a position for or against the project. He pointed out that the City of Palm Desert has a high -risk flood designation because of two areas - Cat Canyon and Dead Indian/Carizo Canyon. The Water District is now working with Cal Trans to resolve the problem with the Dead Indian Canyon. If the problem at Cat Canyon could be November 9, 1978 Page 5 resolved through this development, with both problems being resolved by October, 1979, then this designation would be lifted. However, under Proposition #13, there are no funds and no solutions as to where to get funds. What the Water District was looking at was working with the developer and trying to get the flood insurance problem off the map for the City, and the District has agreed to work with them providing: 1. They would have to pay Bechtel to do design for the project. 2. They would have to pay for final construction drawings from the Episcopal Church to the southwest corner of Silver Spur, and the cost will be $150-200,000. 3. After that design is out, that portion of the property will have to be dedicated for stormwater purposes. 4. They will have to construct a channel to withstand a 100-year flood to satisfy the Federal Flood Insurance Plan, probably $500-700,000. The District did not agree to anything less than that. Councilman McPherson asked what happened from Rocky Point to Whitewater. Mr. Weeks responded that as far as the Federal Flood Insurance is concerned, the rest is alright for a 100 year storm. The District has no plans to do anything with it. It is adequate. Mayor Mullins invited rebuttal: MR. ROMMELLA addressed Council pointing out that the dis- crepancy stated by Mr. Williams relative to the 337 acres on the revised plan vs. the 307 applied for on the applica- tion was their mistake. He was looking at the overall acreage, but they had no intention of going beyond the 307 acres. He pointed out that most of the input in opposition to the development was to the originally submitted plan and asked Council to consider their newly presented alternative. Mayor Mullins asked how many units would be involved in the new alternative, and Mr. Rommella responded 1,184 units. MR. GEORGE VELEUR spoke in rebuttal pointing out that the opposition received was from individuals outside the City limits and of an emotional nature. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Wilson stated that he personally did not feel that the location of apartments in this area of town was in keeping with the intent of the General Plan which is to develop them near the Core Commercial Area. Both the density and apartment issue have an impact on traffic. He had had the opportunity to hear much of the Planning Commis- sion deliberations and agreed with their lower density recommendation from PR-5 to PR-3. This particular area is a transitional area in that it moves from very low density presently existing to the proposed populated development. He felt the PR-3 achieved a compromise or blend towards moving from one type to another. Mayor Mullins stated that he felt that by the time Council tacked on all of these conditions, the developer was being priced out of the market. Councilman Newbrander stated that it is a very special type of terrain and will take.a very special type of development. She indicated that she had attended the Planning Commission meetings and concurred with their decision that 732 units should be the maximum allowed. November 9, 1978 Page 6 Councilman Brush expressed the following alternatives he felt Council had before them: 1. No growth with R-1/acre. 2. Follow the Planning Commission recommendation which is somewhere between the first alternative. 3. Let the developer build in the County where they can put up 2-1/2 story buildings on as small as 7,200 sq. ft. lots, He indicated he would like to see what the County would per- mit as their past record was no guarantee. He asked if this alternate plan could be sent back to the Planning Commission for review and have Staff work with the developer to see if there is some possible compromise between the Planning Commission recommendation and the new proposal, and also have Staff investigate what the County will permit. Councilman Newbrander stated she felt this was passing the buck again and stated she was ready to support the Planning Commission recommendation with an additional condition that the plans be approved by our flood control consultant. Councilman McPherson stated that he felt this alternative should be sent back to the Planning Commission simply as a matter of courtesy. His prime concern was with the Palm Valley Channel. hen Council had talked with Mr. Tettemer a ways back, he expressed concern about it as it gets to the Sandpiper development. If the developer fixes the upper section and the lower section cannot handle the water, what then? He suggested that before any decision be made, Mr. Tettemer should meet with Council again. Councilman Brush stated that this project is large enough and so vital to the community that it would be foolish to jump in and make a hasty decision. The flood control ques- tion is not answered yet and neither is the issue of what the County will permit. Councilman Brush moved to send the alternate plan back to the Planning Commission to allow them to look at it and give Council their comments; to have the flood control consultant review this and give Council more information; to direct staff to work. with the developer to answer some of his concerns; and to get further information from the County relative to what they would permit. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion. Councilman Wilson stated that the new plan clearly con- tradicted the philosophy of the Planning Commission; it shows apartments and no setbacks while the Commission's position and information was very clear. He indicated he could support additional time to get some answers relative to the Palm Channel., If there was such a con- tinuance, the Planning Commission, in the meantime, could informally discuss the new plan, if they so desired. Councilman McPherson stated that he felt one of the func- tions of the Planning Commission was to review these plans and come up with a mutual compromise. Mr. Bouman stated that he felt that if the matter were sent back to the Planning Commission, they would want the same information Council did. This could extend clear into January. From Staff's standpoint, they would like to get the additional information and be able to present it to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mayor Mullins called for the vote on the motion on the floor. The motion was defeated by a 4-1 vote with Councilman McPherson voting AYE. November 9, 1978 Page 7 Councilman Wilson moved to reopen the Public Hearing and con- tinue the matter to November 30, 1978, directing Staff to: 1) schedule a meeting with the flood control consultant to get a comprehensive report; 2) determine what type of development the County will allow; and 3) work with developer to answer any concerns he may have. Council- man Brush seconded the motion. Motion carried on a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Newbrander casting a NOE vote. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing REOPENED. VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 78-138 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLU- TION NO. 78-79 AND THUS ESTABLISHING A REVISED TABLE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS FOR THE 1978/79 FISCAL YEAR. Mr. Bouman reported that this resolution and the next, No. 78-139, dealt with two minor changes to the Table of Classified positions in the Department of Building and Safety. One change is a downward classification primarily because in the City's recruitment, we were fortunate to recruit someone extremely qualified but lacking one of the requirements of the higher classi- fication; thus the request for the downward change in the Table of Classified Positions. The other request is for a move of a Building Inspector Aid to Inspector I in that this employee has been with the City under CETA funding and has proved so capable that the advancement is well -justified. Also the CETA funding has been can- celled. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-138; carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 78-139 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78-80, SECTION 5, AUTO ALLOWANCES, AND THUS ESTABLISHING A REVISED TABLE OF AUTHORIZED AUTO ALLOWANCES. Mr. Bouman reported that this resolution established the mileage allowances for the positions listed in Resolution No. 78-138. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-139. Motion carried unanimously. C. RESOLUTION NO. 78-140 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE 1978/79 BUDGET TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR REFUND OF PRIOR YEAR'S REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND. Mr. Bouman stated that Staff has no way of knowing how much money we will need in this fund when it is established to refund monies collected for unused applications. This resolution requests an allocation of $4,000 to the fund. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-140; carried unanimously. D. RESOLUTION NO. 78-141 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR CITY ANNEXATION NO. 6 AND INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD THE ATTACHED PLAN FOR SERVICES TO LAFCO. Mr. Williams reported that the Council had previously con- sidered this annexation relative to prezoning on the two parcels. It is now time to consider annexation, and this resolution initiates the annexation proceedings with LAFCO. November 9, 1978 Page 8 Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-141; carried unani- mously. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 197 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 5.04.210 OF THE CODE OF SAID CITY, AND REPEALING CONFLICTING SECTIONS PERTAINING TO PAYMENT AND TERM OF BUSINESS LICENSES IN THE CITY. Mayor Mullins stated that this was the second reading of the ordinance. Mr. Bouman stated there was no additional input. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 197; carried unanimously. B. ORDINANCE NO. 195 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP, BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM 'S' TO PR-5, S.P. (U.A.), PR-5 (U.A.), S.I., S.P. (U.A.) AND S.I. (U.A.) AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 380 D.U. ON AN 80 ACRE PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED EASTERLY OF COOK STREET AND NORTHERLY OF THE PROLONGATION OF 42ND AVENUE. CASE NOS. C/Z 11-78 AND DP 14-78. Mayor Mullins stated that this was the second reading of the ordinance, and there was no further input. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 195; carried unani- mously. X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER - None XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS - None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION of the Citizens' Recrea- tional Advisory Committee on the Recreational Needs That Should Be Pursued By the City. Mr. Bouman stated that the Committee Council had created in July, 1978, had been working since August and has come up with what is felt to be a substantial list of recreational needs in terms of definitions. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 78-143 which adopts these recommendations as policy and refers them to the Parks & Recreation Commission for development of imple- mentation plan with particular emphasis on possible methods of financing. Councilman_ McPherson stated Committee remain in effect to get the money for these They could serve as an arm that he would like to see the to come up with ideas of how projects as well as other things. to the Commission. Mr. Williams responded that the Parks & Recreation Com- mission had discussed this and although they stated that it was Councils.decision, it was definitely their opinion that there might be a conflict between the Commission and the Committee. The Commission commended the Committee for a job well done, but felt that the job was done. Councilman Newbrander agreed that there would be a conflict between the two. November 9, 1978 Page 9 Councilman Wilson stated he felt that the job of identifying the financial sources was still there and needs to be addressed. He felt that the Committee had not finished their job yet. MR. FREDERICK THON, Member of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Park & Recreation Commission, addressed Council and outlined exactly what the Committee had done and how. He indicated that he personally, however, would find it difficult to determine where to get the financing needed to fund these projects, and he felt the rest of the Committee would agree. Councilman Brush stated he felt the continuation of this committee would only create more staff work. Mr. Williams agreed and pointed out that it was the job of Staff to now provide the Parks & Recreation Commission with exper- tise. After further discussion, it was determined that the Committee should be utilized on an on -call basis. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-143; carried unanimously. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM for Approxi- mately 13 Various Streets, of Which the Major One Will Be Monterey Avenue from Highway 111 to 44th Avenue. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to authorize the City Clerk to call for bids for the asphalt concrete overlay of various public streets in the City of Palm Desert. Motion carried unanimously. XIII. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR MASTER STORM DRAIN CONTRACT with Willdan Associates for the Purpose of Planning a Storm Drain Master Plan for the Northerly Area of the Whitewater Wash. Mr. Beebe reported that the purpose of this report will be to act as a guide for drainage considerations in the develop- ment of our northern sphere area. The Council authorized the negotiation of this contract. Mr. Bouman suggested that the resolution be amended to read "Master Storm Drainage Plan for the North Sphere" to eliminate any confusion from the Master Drainage Plan adopted for the whole city. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-142 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. RESOLUTION NO. 78-144 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COACHELLA AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT TO PROVIDE FOR PERSONNEL SERVICES. Mr. Bouman reported that this resolution provided for Mr. Carlos Ortega, Assistant to the City Manager, to serve as Coachella's Acting City Manager for approxi- mately 6 weeks or until they recruit a new Manager. Palm Desert is doing this in an inter -city spirit of cooperation. November 9, 1978 Page 10 Councilman Brush noted that if we were in the same position, he was sure that Coachella would do the same for us. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-144. Motion carried unanimously. B. Mr. Bouman reported that the Save Our Business Organization had requested a response to their letter during the last meeting and Council had indicated that they would discuss it before or during the meeting of November 9th with a response to be prepared shortly thereafter. Staff had prepared a list of alternatives for Council's consideration as the Organization had requested Council reconsider their stand on Resolution No. 78-83 and the sign abatement pro- cedure. They had asked Council's consideration of their alternatives as well. Mr. Bouman requested Council's direc- tion in what kind of letter should be prepared and asked that this direction be in the form of a motion. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to advise the Sign Users' Council and the Save Our Business Organization that Council can see no possibility for any variance from our ordinance and to advise them of the Sign Appeal Board created to hear any extenu- ating circumstances that may exist. Motion carried unanimously. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Councilman Wilson stated that he had been asked by the Athletic Director of C.O.D. to ask Council if they could hold a "Big Macathon". It would start at MacDonalds, con- tinue down El Paseo, turn south on Portola to Ironwood and then return. It is scheduled for December 23, 1978, commencing at 9:00 a.m. The insurance coverage is carried by MacDonalds. Possibly the only thing that might be needed would be signals at Portola, officers, barricades, etc. Discussion followed as to what would be required of Staff including the notification of the El Paseo Merchants' Association who might object to the project that close to the Christmas shopping days. Councilman McPherson moved to approve the parade, directing Staff to administer it as to route, safety, barricades, police, and notification of the El Paseo Merchants' Association. Councilman Brush seconded the motion; carried unanimously. FUTURE MEETINGS: The City Clerk noted the following changes to the published meeting schedule: November 21, 1978 November 27, 1978 November 29, 1978 XVI. ADJOURNMENT 2:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. Design Review Board Meeting Parks & Recreation Commission Mtg City Hall Council Chambers Land Division Committee Meeting Councilman McPherson moved and Counci adjourn the meeting; carried unanimously. the meeting at 11:40 p.m. ATTEST: 2 B sh seconded to llins adjourned . MULLINS , • YOR or McPHERSON, MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE C f C 7-fir z— SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, 9ZY CLERK November 9, 1978 Page 11