Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-11-30MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1978 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS :: * :: :: I CALL TO ORDER Mayor Mullins called the regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council to order at 7:08 p.rt. in City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE - Mayor Pr-Tempore Jim McPherson III. INVOCATION - Mayor Ed Mullins IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Noel J. Brush Mayor Pro-Tempore James E. McPherson Councilman Alexis D. Newbrander Councilman S. Roy Wilson Mayor Edward D. Mullins Also Present: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services David J. Erwin, City Attorney Paul E. Byers, Director of Finance Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant to the City Manager L. Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. SPECIAL PRESENTATION COMMEMORATING THE CITY'S 5TH ANNIVERSARY. Mr. Paul Williams and Mr. Naning San Pedro presented the Council with a new, permanent City Seal which had been hand - carved in redwood by Mr. San Pedro. Mayor Mullins presented a plaque to Mr. San Pedro for all of the beautiful artworks he had done for the City and its employees. The plaque extended not only appreciation but birthday wishes. Cake and punch was served to the members of the audience as well as Council and Staff. Mr. Bouman noted that the lovely flower arrangement had been sent to the City by the Palm Desert Post and thanked them. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Palm Desert City Council of November 9, 1978. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 79-045 and 79-051. Rec: Approve as presented. C. STATEMENT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS FOR MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1978. Rec: Approve as presented. November 30. 1978 Page 1 D. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY from Mrs. Louis Garfield in the Amount of S110.00. Rec: Deny the claim and instruct the City Clerk to so advise the claimant. E. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Mr. Robin Barrett from the Parks & Recreation Commission. Rec: Accept with regret. F. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE for the BLUE NUN, 73-699 El Paseo, Palm Desert, California. Rec: Receive and file. G. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE for SILLY PRESCILLY'S SALADS & SANDWICHES, 73-890 El Paseo, Palm Desert, California. Rec: Receive and file. H. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE for PALM DESERT LIQUORS, 74-121 Highway 111, Palm Desert, California. Rec: Receive and file. I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of New Contract Price for Street Sweeping Services by the R. F. Dickson Company. Rec: Approve the new contract price of $30.36/hr. J. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT NO. 1017, Street Resur- facing by Matich Company, as complete. Rec: Accept the Contract as completed and instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County of Riverside. Councilman McPherson asked that Item E be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion under Section X, Consent Items Held Over. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented with the exception of Item "E". Motion carried unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONTINUED CASE NOS. C/Z 08-78 AND DP 11-78, WESTERN ALLIED PROPERTIES, APPLICANT: (Continued from the Meeting of November 9, 1978.) Consideration of a Request for Approval of a Change of Zone from 'S' Study to PR-5 (U.A.) and O.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 Southwest 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. Williams reported that the matter had been continued specifically to allow Staff to determine what type of development the County would allow, consideration of an alternative plan submitted by the developer, and the flood control impacts of development of the subject property. He reviewed the Staff report relative to what development would be permitted under County jurisdiction. Staff had learned that the number of dwelling units that could be allowed on the approximate 664 developable acres would range from a minimum of 696 dwelling units to a maximum of 2,378 dwelling units. The higher range, however, was unrealistic as it does not take into consideration the County's Hillside Ordinance which would drastically reduce the number of dwelling units permitted in the Open Space and Planned Development District. Therefore, the range of total number of dwelling units permitted is much the same under both City November 30, 1978 Page 2 and County jurisdiction. Whether Riverside County would lean toward the lower side of the range is a question that Staff cannot determine. With regard to two-story structures, Staff learned that the development under the County might possibly be limited to single -story on the peripheral areas and two-story in the interior of the project. However, there is no guarantee that this would be the case. In reviewing the applicant's alternative proposal, Mr. Williams pointed out that the original request specified a total of 307 developable acres and 373 acres in Open Space. The alternate plan as submitted was reviewed in detail by Staff . This proposal represents an average density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. However, there is a conflict with the original request in terms of total developable acres of 307 (original) versus 333.27 acres as submitted in the alternative plan. Further, the total number of units of 1,073 is less than what the applicant indicated was needed to make the project economically feasible which was 1,200 units. The issued is further confused by the fact that at the end of the hearing, the Mayor asked the applicant to interpret Alternative A and the explanation was that it represented 1,184 dwelling units on 296 acres. Staff has concluded, however, that the applicant's Alternative A does not relate to his request of PR-4 on 296 acres and therefore should not be considered. Mr. Williams also noted for the record that the Planning Commission, at their last meeting, had corrected their minutes to reflect a 4-0-1 vote on the recommendation to Council relative to the Rancho Bella Vista Project. In conclusion, Mr. Williams reviewed correspondence received since the previous meeting which expressed opposition to the project. This correspondence was received from Mrs. Gwen Rizer, Mr. Cockroft, and Mr. and Mrs. Demerel. Mr. Bouman reported that on the day before Thanksgiving, Staff had met in Palm Desert with Mr. John Tettemer who is the City's contract flood control advisor, and in keeping with Council's instructions, they talked about Mr. Tettemer's feelings with regard to the flood control plan that has been presented by the applicant and some of the requirements placed on the applicant by the Coachella Valley County Water District. The main thrust of Mr. Tettemer's comments were that we cannot and must not pass off to another agency our responsibility for flood control and proper drainage not only as it is associated with this project, but additionally looking at the long-range scheme of things to upstream control, a master plan for long-range flood control, and both in the short-term and long-term, looking downstream to adequate protection along the Palm Valley Channel. He stressed very strongly that this is a City responsibility; that any action Council may take here, if it places a piece of property in jeopardy or if it risks a life, injury, or death, we have that to think about now. This is very significant when you consider that the Channel as it is presently aligned and constructed is not adequate to carry major stormwaters. The Channel failed during Tropical Storm Kathleen in September, 1976, primarily at two key places, and there is reason to believe that the intensity of the water flow at that time is something less than what might be expected in the 100-year storm. There are different opinions about that. Mr. Bouman stated that Mr. Tettemer's advice to the City was that we, as a City, must establish the standards to which we want to see the drainage and flood control developed. We can establish those standards in various ways; we can describe them in technical terms which would be the characteristics of the water flow, the flow itself, the size of the channel that might be necessary, the details of construction, design, etc., November 30, 1978 Page 3 or, from a simpler standpoint, since we lack that expertise as a city, we can specify that we want protection from various storms and degrees of intensity. As an example, we might say we want protection from the 50, 100, 200 or the 300-year storm. Based on Mr. Tettemer's advice, when we think in long-range terms for implementation of major flood protection works as recommended in the Bechtel Plan, that we should be thinking of nothing less than the standard project flood and that may be roughly relayed into the 300-year storm. Again, there is a technical disagreement as to exactly what those terms mean. When looking at the immediate or short-range picture, the things we have to worry about the day that this development begins to move earth, Mr. Tettemer advises that we should be looking at nothing less than protection from a 100-year storm. This makes a lot of sense because that is the same protection as the design standard the Federal Government uses to allow insurance — high -coverage, low -premium flood insurance that is obtainable to properties if, in the judgment of their experts, you are protected from the 100-year storm. The further significance of that is that by diverting water from the Rancho Bella Vista Project, which Mr. Lowell Weeks of the CVCWD says he will require, into the Palm Valley Channel, we would be doing it in the face of more than suspicion — of knowledge — that the channel isn't even adequate as it is today, let alone the added amount of water that we would now be diverting into the channel. In dis- cussions with Mr. Weeks, he said that he did not feel that the amount of water that would be diverted thusly would be significant. However, Mr. Bouman stated that he and Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works, had done a number of cal- culations and think that considering the factors that you apply to get flow figures for the 100-year storm that the flow in that channel might be increased by as much as 25-30%, and if we want to use some figures, it would be from something like 4,200 cu. ft. per second to pretty close to 5,400 cu. ft. per second. That is significant. Mr. Bouman continued that the legal risk and moral obliga- tion that the City has is not to further jeopardize the downstream properties and the people along the Palm Valley Channel, and the Staff could thus not, in good conscience, recommend that the Council allow a project like this, as it is contemplated, to divert water into that channel unless there were improvements to the channel all the way to the Whitewater, if necessary, to accommodate the flow. That would mean that Council has some options as to how to accomplish this: 1. Place a requirement on the applicant that, as part of his project and a part of the off -site developments, he be required to make all the necessary improvements that would give the City the assurance that the channel would carry the water flows from the 100-year storm. That requirement would take written certification by the Water District and our own flood control consultant that such indeed was the case — that these contemplated improvements would give us that protection. 2. The applicant either post a cash deposit or bond in an amount estimated to cover the cost of these kinds of improve- ments and that the improvements then could be done piece- meal, but certainly that they would all be in place and again certificated in writing as to their adequacy before any water would be permitted to be diverted into the channel. 3. Simply to place the responsibility with the developer and the CVCWD by saying certain improvements on the property could take place but no improvements, no grading, no con- struction, nothing could happen in that regard if it was at a location on the property that would divert water into the channel until and unless we again had written certification that we had the protection that we required. Mr. Bouman pointed out that Council's condition, if so desired to place such a condition on this development, November 30, 1978 Page 4 could be a - combination of the suggested alternatives. The end product in each case is assurance to our City that we have 100-year storm protection. We would get some tremendous benefits from that. We would get flood insurance protection for several hundred homes, condominiums, two churches, some commercial establishments — all of which are now in a flood hazard zone and do not qualify for that insurance. He stated that he did not minimize the fact that under the plan that has been presented to the City, we do have a golden opportunity to get started on our long range flood control projects which we need very badly. That's commendable. However, those two benefits or advan- tages should not be allowed to offset the fact that we may, simply by saying "yes, put water in the channel", create a far greater risk downstream that we would have to feel a responsibility and perhaps a liability for. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR of the project. MR. RICHARD ROMELLA, Planning Center, Newport Beach, addressed Council, pointing out that there was a dis- crepancy or confusion relative to the amount of acreage involved in the new plan, but it was their intention to request PR-4 on 296 acres. This new plan was submitted in an effort to resolve concerns raised during the public hearing. He stated that he was opposed to four of the Special Con- ditions as follows: - Condition #1, limiting the number of units to 732, made the project totally unfeasible economically. - Condition #5 was felt to be outrageous and prejudice in that no other developer has been required to commit to such a setback. He requested that Council impose the Staff recommended 32' setback. - Condition #7, dealing with development westerly of the proposed drainage channel, should be modified to allow certain phases of development so that costs of the flood control could be offset by development. - Condition #11, dealing with no development within 200' of Section 36, was felt to be the same as #5 with the same objection. MRS. AMANDA McMILLEN, 74-169 Catalina, spoke in favor of the project but in opposition to the developer having to foot the bill for all of the flood control. MRS. RUTH VELOUR, Property Owner in Section 1, spoke in favor and suggested that the property owners be asked to put in flood control, not the developer. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the project, and the following people spoke in objection to high density, concern of wildlife protection, and concern of flood control: DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon Road, Palm Desert MR. JOE CADY, 71,855 Jaguar, Palm Desert MR. HAROLD BARTELL, 71-250 Oasis, Palm Desert MR. PAWL ROMANAK, Palm Desert MRS. ANNE COOPER, 71-750 Cahuilla Way, Palm Desert MR. TOM WARDELL, 71-251 Cholla, Palm Desert MR. ROBERT BIERLING, 44-600 San Rafael, Palm Desert MR. BRUCE ROGERSON, 43-870 Marigold, Palm Desert MR. BRUCE DOWE, 48-200 Painted Canyon Trail, Palm Desert MR. DAVID VELOUR, Palm Desert MR. DAVID SALVATERRA, 48-655 Coyote, Palm Desert Mayor Mullins invited rebuttal, and the following people spoke: MR. RICHARD ROMMER, President, Western Allied Property pointed out that the requirement of 200' setbacks would cost them 42 acres in land not to mention the land they were already giving up for open space and amenities. November 30, 1978 Page 5 He felt that this requirement was discriminatory. He pointed out that it appeared that from the input in the hearing, they were being tagged with creating the flood control problems when they were really being tagged to correct them. Mr. Rommer requested that Special Condition #7 be eliminated as well as #5 and #11. Condition #7 was covered, he felt, amply by #14 and #15 and Condition #11, if not eliminated, should be reduced to 50' setbacks.. He concluded by stating that their request was specific in that they wanted to build 1,184 units on 296 acres with a zone of PR-4. He urged Council to make a decision. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Wilson asked for Staff's clarification on why the Planning Commission had established the 200' setback on Highway 74. Mr. Williams responded that because it would be the first development seen as people were driving south into Palm Desert on Scenic Highway 74, the Planning Commission felt it appropriate. In response to the question about other developments being required to have a 200' setback, Mr. Williams pointed out that Deep Canyon Tennis Club on Highway 74 has a setback of not much less than 200'. The Indian Creek Villas were built under the County. With respect to other annexations receiving PR-5 designations Mr. Williams stated he assumed they were referring to Annexa- tion #5 or Monterey Country Club and pointed out that they had received a zoning of a high of 5 dwelling units per acre to a low of 3 dwelling units per acre. With respect to the property in question, both the Commission and Staff felt that this was the most unique property considered since incorporation and thus were very concerned over high density. Councilman McPherson stated that he could not understand the applicant's request for elimination of Condition #7 inasmuch as his own EIR states that 257 more water will be diverted into the Palm Valley Channel, and in its present condition, the Channel will not now handle it. He stated that he would not be in favor of approving the project without that requirement inasmuch as it would endanger lives. He also pointed out many conditions placed on developments such as Ironwood that had not been the same in nature, but just as costly to the developer and as important to the City. Councilman Brush stated that he was not ready to take any action that would magnify the drainage or flood control problems, and inasmuch as the Water District stated that the Palm Valley Channel has two weak spots presently, this proposed water diversion was definitely a danger. Councilman Wilson moved to amend Special Condition No. 13 to read: Absolutely no diversion of water into the Palm Valley Channel would be permitted until and unless the City has received written certification from the Coachella Valley County Water District and the City's own flood control advisor that, in their opinion, the channel offered full protection from the 100-year storm. Councilman Brush seconded the motion; carried unanimously. Discussion ensued relative to the 200' setback requirement, particularly as it related to Section 36. November 30, 1978 Page 6 Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to amend Special Condition 1o. 11 to read as follows: Development adjacent to Section 36 should have setbacks in a range from 50' to 200'. Flexi- bility within the range is assigned to the Design Review Board Process and should be adjusted to provide compatibility with the large lots and low density development existing in the Cahuilla Hills. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 198, as amended, to second reading. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to certify as complete the Final Environmental Impact Report for Rancho Bella Vista on file with the Department of Environmental Services, together with all comments received from other agencies, organizations, community groups and interested citizens, and the responses to such comments prepared by the City Staff as the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Bella Vista Project. Motion carried unanimously. B. CASE NOS. C/Z 12-78 AND DP 16-78 - SIEGEL ENTERPRISES, APPLI- CANT: Consideration ot a Request for a Change ot Zone from S Study to PR-6 (U.A.), P.C. (2) (U.A.) and P (U.A.) and Approval of a Related Development Plan to Allow a 1,120 Dwelling Unit Golf Course Condominium Project, a District Level Shopping Center, and a Public Use Area on Approximately 320 Acres on the South Side of Country Club Drive, East of Cook Street. Mr. Williams presented a detailed staff report, stating the major issues dealt with by the Planning Commission and explaining their recommendations. He stated that the City's General Plan shows this area appropriate at a range of 5-7 units to the acre, and the applicant's proposal is for 3.61 units to the acre. The Planning Commission did recommend PR-4 to provide for the 3.61 du/acre. Mr. Williams pointed out that the Council had received a letter from the City of Indian Wells that deals with some items that the Commission was concerned with and discussed in their resolution. The Commission realized that this is a somewhat violation of the two cities' sphere of influence. However, in reviewing the area from basically Interstate 10 south to the Whitewater Storm Channel, there is a natural division in terms of ownership along the half -section line with the exception of this parcel and the sewer treatment plant complex. This is an instance where you have one property owner owning basically 160 acres in each sphere of influence. The applicant is trying to build an integrated complex and therefore, it is very hard for him to conceivably develop in the two cities. Thus, in Staff's judgment, he had two options — develop in the County or develop under the City. He has chosen to request to be developing under the City of Palm Desert. The other exception is the Water District's acreage which also violates the sphere of influence. It is unique in that the Sewer Treatment Plant would be in Palm Desert, but the spreading area or basically vacant land would be in Indian Wells. With those two exceptions, there is a line of owner- ship break right at the sphere of influence line. The Com- mission encouraged Staff to contact the City of Indian Wells before the Council considered the matter to get their opinion as to what they thoughtof this possible violation of their sphere of influence. As a result of that contact, the letter was submitted to the City Council in total opposition to the 1) annexation to the City of Palm Desert; 2) the design of the project; and 3) the environmental review of the project. Mr. Williams stated that the first time the Staff was con- tacted by Mr. Siegel, the applicant, with regard to the pos- sible project on this property, the consideration was for an November 30, 1978 Page 7 18-hole golf course with a range of density from 5-7 du/acre and a 15-acre commercial center. Staff then began to review all the environmental analyses that had been done on this property. That started with the applicant submitting the environmental analysis done by the County for 234 acres and a 600 unit mobile home park subidivision that was recently denied on the easterly 234 acres of this property. The County had issued a Negative Declaration on that request. Staff then looked at the General Plan specifically with regard to the District Commercial because that is really a unique land use. There are only 5 places in the City of Palm Desert that provide ultimately for District Commercial so that was adequately, in Staff's judgment, analyzed in the General Plan. Staff also looked at the community facilities aspect and felt that if a 40-acre community facility was developed on a portion of this property which was what was contemplated under the Environmental Impact Report, then there was a substantially more adverse impact than what was being contemplated. Then the Environmental Analysis of Annexation No. 5 was reviewed which is the property between Monterey and Cook Street, south of Country Club and which has a very similar land -use designation as the property under consideration. Staff then suggested to Mr. Siegle that he begin to scale down the project, reduce the commercial center to 9 acres, reduce the density from the range he contemplated of 5-7 which would allow 1,525 units to as high as 2,135 units. In reaction to this environmental analysis, Mr. Siegle began to finalize his plans and reduce impact of the project. Staff also suggested that blowsand was perhaps the biggest problem that dealt with the property beyond the environmental considerations, and he needed to integrate that into the design which he has done. After reviewing all of the environmental documents and reviewing a scaled down project, Staff concluded that the environmental con- cerns of this project had been adequately addressed and therefore did not require further environmental analysis. The City of Indian Wells is objecting to that and feels that the County first of all never considered this project and believes that the City of Palm Desert is responsible for performing additional environmental review. The second concern is that the density of the project being contem- plated is not compatible to the City of Indian Wells' development standards and the unit sizes are considerably smaller than acceptable to the City. The density is below our General Plan designation, however, and the units are in excess of our minimum 1,000 sq. ft. Their last concern was that they would be strongly opposed to a violation of their sphere of influence. They feel it is an unacceptable encroachment. The sphere of influence, or the lines that are created, are proposed by State law as a guide and they are just one element of consideration by LAFCO when they consider annexations, and they are the ones who will decide whether an annexation or a sphere of influence line should be violated. They have to take into consideration other concerns such as is it one ownership? Do they want it to be in one city or two cities? Do they want to annex it all to one city? Staff concluded, in going through the various justifications, that if the property owner wants to annex to Palm Desert, the fact that he owns the parcel as one entity seems an overriding con- cern, particularly since Indian Wells' present city limit line is at the Whitewater Storm Channel which is at least two miles away. Staff felt that it was a better way to go than to tell Mr. Siegel to develop in the County. While Staff understands Indian Wells' protest, it is felt that LAFCO should decide that this is an appropriate annexa- tion to the City of Palm Desert. November 30, 1978 Page 8 In conclusion, Mr. Williams reported that Staff favored the recommendation of the Planning Commission and recommended to the City Council that by Ordinance No. 199, Council approve a Change of Zone, Upon Annexation, of PR-4 on 309 acres, PC-2 on 9 acres, and P on 11 acres of the subject property and subsequently approve a development plan for 1,120 dwelling units subject to conditions. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and invited input in FAVOR of the project. MR. IRWIN SIEGEL, 17501 Corinthian, Encino, California, stated that they had worked long and hard with the Planning Staff and have scaled the project down from the original concept to as it has been presented. He stated his con- currence with all the conditions, standard and special. He called specific attention to the design of the shopping center as shown and stated he completely agreed with the Planning Commission that it should be redesigned subject to Commission and Design Review Board approval. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the project, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman McPherson stated he would like to emphasize Special Condition #7(a) to ensure that the street would not look like row after row of driveways. Councilman Newbrander asked if Staff had responded to Indian Wells' letter, and Mr. Williams advised that he had talked with their Planning Director prior to receipt of their letter. Councilman Newbrander asked if the City of Indian Wells had been consulted with regard to the original presentation of this, and Mr. Williams advised that Mr. Sullivan had been in his office on another matter, but they had discussed this issue. He felt that Indian Wells might go along with it if they had adequate treatment along Eldorado Drive and had indicated he would submit plans on what Indian Wells wanted to do there. However, they elected to oppose the project rather than give direction on what to do on Eldorado Drive. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 199 to second reading. Motion carried on a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Newbrander voting NOE. Councilman Newbrander explained that she didn't like to see that much disagreement between the cities. She felt that this is in their sphere of influence and even though we have lost some property to Rancho Mirage, she didn't like to see the two cities at odds. She would like to see us working more closely with the City of Indian Wells to get their cooperation. C. CASE NO. TT 13008 - COVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY/ APPLICANT: Consideration of a Request tor Approval of a Tentative Tract Map to Create 161 Single -Family Residential Lots on Approxi- mately 64.4 Acres within the R-1-12,000 and R-1-12,000 S.P. (Single -Family Residential, Min. 12,000 Sq. Ft. Lot Area, Scenic Preservation Overlay) Zones Generally Located East of Highway 74, South of Homestead. Mr. Williams presented the Staff Report, indicating that both the Planning Commission and Staff recommended approval of the Tentative Tract Map by Resolution No. 78-145. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open, and invited input in FAVOR of the Tentative Tract Map. MR. ED WRIGHT, 78-106 Avenue 52, LaQuinta, addressed Council stating that this was intended to be a custom home lot project for individual home sites. The lot sizes will vary from 12,000 sq. ft. and up. They had worked very hard with Staff on the drainage which is unique to this area, and as a result, have reduced the amount of water running offonto November 30, 1978 Page 9 Homestead Road. However, they were aware there were several other areas of drainage that had to be resolved with the Public Works Department. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION, and none was offered, He declared the Public Hearing closed. Mr. Bouman asked why there were sidewalks only on one side of Mesa View, and Mr. Wright responded that they would have no objections to putting them on both sides. Mr. Williams pointed out that in a similar case of Portola, Council had elected not to put sidewalks on both sides because of skateboards and bicycles, and this was the primary reason it had not been a condition of approval at the Commission level. Councilman Wilson moved to amend Special Condition #5 to include "except sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of Mesa View Drive". Councilman Brush seconded the motion. Motion carried on a 4,1 vote, with Mayor Mullins voting NOE. Councilman Wilson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-145, approving the Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 13008. Motion carried unanimously, D. CASE NO. TT 13323 - ROGER BOYAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPLICANT: Consideration of a Request for Approval of a Tentative Tract Map to Subdivide 8,41 Acres to Create 4 Lots, the Subject Property Being Located West of Highway 74 within the Kings Point Condominium Project. Mr. Williams gave the Staff Report, pointing out the the original subdivision consisted of two lots. The applicant would like to divide them for bonding purposes. The Commission felt this was appropriate and recommended approval. Councilman Newbrander asked if this property was not very close to the Palm Valley Channel which will undoubtedly be expanded. Mr. Williams responded that it was but that the applicant was being required to reserve 108' for additional widening by the Water District. The widening will not be done in the first phase, although drainage on Hedgehog will be taken care of. The problem will be dealt with in the approval of the second phase. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and invited input in FAVOR. MR. LARRY WILMONT, 17337 Ventura, Encino, California, addressed Council stating that their approval will allow them to develop tennis courts so that they can use it with the first phase of development. Councilman Wilson asked what was taking place there at the present time as it appeared as though they were grading. Mr. Wilmont advised that they had graded and actually taken out 66 permits under the prior approval of a 2-lot subdivision. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to approve the Tentative Tract No. 13323 by waiving further reading and adopting Resolution No. 78-146. Motion carried unanimously. E. REQUEST TO VACATE a Portion of the Old Highway 74 Passing on the Southerly Side of Sambo's Restaurant, Easterly of Highway 74. (Continued Public Hearing from the Meeting of October 26, 1978.) Mr. Beebe gave the Staffs report and indicated that this land.will be used as a parking lot. All legal requirements have been met for this vacation, November 30, 1978 Page 10 Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and invited input in FAVOR. MR. RON ROBERTS, Hughes Investment Company, addressed Council stating that what they intended to do was to remove the existing curb and use the existing right-of- way for parking purposes. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-147, declaring the vacation of a portion of the Former State Highway 74. Motion carried unanimously. F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INPUT RELATIVE TO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS For the Elderly and Handicapped Within the City of Palm Desert, California. Mr. Ortega presented the Staff Report and reviewed the purpose of the hearing. Councilman McPherson asked if it was their determination that there were no unmet transit needs, how did they justify nothing? Mr. Ortega responded that the Council must deter- mine if there are any unmet needs, and if so, if those needs could be met reasonably and economically. Councilman Newbrander stated that it was wasteful to have our City bus making its route with only the driver on it. Mr. Ortega reviewed the figures presented by Sunline which showed that over the past ten months", our bus has transported 12,596 passengers. On that basis, it has $5.84 per person per ride. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and invited input. MR. JOHN PORTER, Parents Association of the Foundation for the Retarded, 469 Camino Del Sur, Palm Springs, stated that he wanted to emphasize the need for trans- portation for the handicapped. He said that the law specifically provided for this, and the handicapped were not being given what was rightfully theirs. He cited an example where a family in Desert Hot Springs, the mother of which was in a wheelchair and the child being retarded, were not being provided transportation for the child to and from school. The father, therefore, drove to Palm Desert and then had to leave his employment early to pick the child up. As a result, he had to work seven days a week. He stated that the cities in the Valley had an obligation to get together to provide this transportation, and he felt that as a joint effort, it could be done economically. Councilman Newbrander asked how many of these children were actually from Palm Desert, and Mr. Porter responded about 5. Mr. Porter pointed out that these children, because of their handicap, were not able to use public transportation. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed. Council directed Staff to conduct further investigation rela- tive to the Foundation for the Retarded and to schedule the item for a future Study Session. No further action was taken. November 30, 1978 Page 11 VII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 78-148 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPA- TION BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, IN THE DEVELOP- MENT OF A COACHELLA VALLEY MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Mr. Williams reviewed the Staff Report and stated that this resolution provided the selection of a consultant in the range of $17-28,000. He pointed out that under Section "2" , the word "allocated" should be changed to "pledged" so that CVAG could move ahead with this. Councilman Brush asked if this assumed that the other cities will do the same and if those conditions are not met, then our pledge would be dropped. Mr. Williams answered that this was correct. Councilman Wilson asked if there was any kind of tax that could be imposed to recover some of this money. Mr. Williams answered that this was being considered. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-148; carried unanimously. B. RESOLTUION NO. 78-149 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AGREEING TO FINANCIALLY PARTICIPATE WITH THE COLLEGE OF THE DESERT IN DEVELOPING NEW PLAYFIELDS FOR THE PUBLIC ON THE CAMPUS BY MEANS OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT. Mr. Bouman reported that about a year ago, the Council had considered a Joint Powers Agreement with C.O.D., but it had fallen through because of Proposition #13. This comes now as an alternate proposal where the City agrees to partici- pate with $20,000 for additional playfield areas. There are about 6 acres of open space which would be provided as green grass playfields. If we can get this much started under a Joint Powers Agreement, both the College and the citizens of our City would benefit. Mr. Bouman pointed out that because of some unresolved problems, the resolu- tion originally submitted to Council had been amended to state that no funds would be dispersed until the Council so authorized it. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-149; motion carried unanimously. C. RESOLUTION NO. 78-150 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICA- TION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE STATE LITTER CONTROL, RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY FUND. Mr. Ortega reported that this grant represented monies available from the dump fees collected. The County of Riverside will implement some type of cleanup program as many people have started dumping trash in the desert rather than pay the dump fee. Given the small amount of money, Staff is recommending that the City participate with the County. If the monies are greater next year, the City may elect to get them and use them on our own. Councilman McPherson stated that this dump fee had been enacted as a result of Proposition #13. We charge a fee because supposedly there is no money, and now we get the money back. People don't want to pay the fee, so they dump in the streets and the desert. Government's answer is to set up a Litter Control Board with a budget of $84,000. It might be a better solution to stop charging the fee in the first place. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-150; motion carried on a 4-1 vote, with Councilman McPherson voting NOE. COUNCILMAN BRUSH ASKED IF COUNCIL COULD NOT MOVE AHEAD ON THE November 30, 1978 Page 12 AGENDA AS IT WAS LATE AND SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO HAD CASES TO BE HEARD HAD BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME. WITH NO OBJECTION, COUNCIL SKIPPED AHEAD ON THE AGENDA TO "OLD BUSINESS". XIII. OLD BUSINESS B. CASE NOS. C/Z 09-78, DP 13-78, AND 144MF, LEWIS HOMES, APPLI- CANT: C/Z 09-78 DP 13-78 144MF A Change of Zone from PR-4, S.P. (Planned Residential Max. 4 dulacre) and P (Public Institutional) to PR-5 (Planned Residential, Max. of 5 du/acre) for Approximately 70.5 Acres of the Subject Property. A Development Plan to Develop the Above Described 70.5 Acres with 315 Dwelling Units and a Six Acre Public Park. Preliminary Design Review to Provide for a 160 Unit Condominium Development and Related Recreational Amenities on the 27.2 Acre Portion of the Subject Property Located in the Proposed PR-5 Zone District. Mr. Williams pointed out that at the Council's October 26, 1978, meeting, they had, by a 3-2 vote, passed Ordinance No. 194 to second reading and referred the matter, with a PR-5 designation, to the Planning Commission for study and report. At the November 15, 1978, meeting of the Planning Commission, the applicant requested a change of zone from P to PR-4 which would allow 282 dwelling units on the subject property. Since this was the Commission's original recommendation, it passed unanimously. As a part of this action, the Commission also recommended a revision to Special Condition No. 11 to reflect the revised request. Staff recommends approval of the new request by Alternative A to Ordinance No. 194. MRS. BETTY WILLIAMS, Representative for Lewis Homes, addressed Council asking why this had to be a first reading of the Ordinance. Dave Erwin explained that the zone designation had been changed; thus it had to have a first reading. Mr. Williams advised that Lewis Homes could, however, proceed with their Tentative Tract Maps. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 194 to second reading; carried unanimously. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 5565-4 and 5565-5, Silver Spur Associates, Applicant. Mr. Beebe stated that these two tracts as well as the next item, Tract No. 5553, were ready for Final Tract Map approval in that their bonds were posted, maps approved, and Subdivi- sion Agreements signed. Staff recommended approval. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolutions No. 78-154, 78-157, and 78-155 approving Tracts No. 5565-4, 5565-5, and 5553, respectively. Motion carried unanimously. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map for Tract No. 5553, Silver Spur Associates, Applicant. Action taken by motion under Item C, OLD BUSINESS. E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Parcel Map 11390, Pasqual Properties, Inc., Applicant: Mr. Beebe explained that this property was located at the southwest corner of CAtalina. The applicant was requesting that 1.21 acres be cut into 3 lots. Tentative Parcel Map was approved by Council on September 29, 1977, and all bonds and agreements are now in and in order. Staff recommended approval. November 30, 1978 Page 13 Mr. Beebe pointed out that this map Ead actually expired prior to the meeting because of the fact that the Council was meeting one week later than normally scheduled. Dave Erwin stated that if all was in order and ready for action for the meeting which should have been held on Thanksgiving, then it was proper for Council to extend the time and take action. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-156; carried unani- mously. COUNCIL RETURNED TO PROPER ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS. VIII. RESOLUTIONS (Continued) D. RESOLUTION NO. 78-151 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN DEEDS FOR PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE CITY IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH THE C.O.D. SPECIFIC PLAN AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAID DEEDS. Mr. Bouman advised that this was a housekeeping matter to accept the deeds for property previously authorized for purchase. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-151. Motion carried unanimously. E. RESOLUTION NO. 78-152 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE 1978/79 BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED COSTS FOR AUDITING. Mr. Bouman advised that this reflected an increase in the auditors' costs. They were being paid more, and they also were being required to spend more time because of the City's workload. It authorized payment of an overage of $139.00. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-152. Motion carried unani- mously. F. RESOLUTION No. 78-153 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO VACATE A 4' WIDE WALKWAY IN DESERT GARDEN HOMESITES TRACT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART 3, DIVISION 9, OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN OR OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED VACATION. Mr. Beebe advised that the City has been requested by this property owner to vacate a 4' walkway that was originally put in as a condition of tract approval. The property owner will then grant the City a 6' easement for drainage purposes. The resolution sets the time and place for hearing. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-153. Motion carried unanimously. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER Councilman McPherson stated that he had asked that Item "E" be discussed since Mr. Robin Barrett had lived around here for 25 years and he felt it appropriate to send him a resolution of appreciation. Staff was so directed. November 30, 1978 Page 14 Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to accept Robin Barrett's letter of resignation with regret. Motion carried unanimously. XII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FROM MR. C. ROBERT HUBBARD, Representative of the Leslie Fund, Inc., Requesting a Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission for the Purpose of Reviewing the Development Pattern Surrounding their 8.28 Acres at the Northeast Corner of Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111. Mr. Bouman stated that this property at one time was con- sidered for a possible donation to the City. Since then, it has been decided by the Leslie Fund to place it on the market, with Mr. Hubbard acting as their agent. Mr. Bouman had advised Mr. Hubbard that this property had very recently been an item of discussion by the Planning Commission. Staff recommended that it be referred to the Planning Com- mission for consideration of alternative designations in the General Plan. Councilman Brush asked why Mr. Hubbard couldn't go directly to the Planning Commission with his request. Mr. Williams stated that the Master Plan of Park & Recreation and the General Plan both showed this land as Hotel Resort. Mr. Hubbard prefers the straight commercial zone, which has been discussed by Council at least 4 times in the past. It was Mr. Hubbard's hope that this could be slipped in as part of the major revision of the North Sphere Area. Councilman Brush stated he felt the Commission would feel that Council was giving some type of direction if it were referred by them. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration of alternative designations in the General Plan. Motion carried on a 3-2 vote, with Councilmen Newbrander and Brush voting NOE. XIII. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSION by Mr. and Mrs. Roger Fuller for a Commercial Building to be Constructed at 73-115 El Paseo. Mr. Bouman pointed out that the previously approved exten- sion had actually gone beyond the 30 days because of the rescheduled Council meeeting. He pointed out that there were mixed emotions about the request; however, he didn't see any harm in granting another 30-day extension. Councilman McPherson stated that he would not be in favor of granting any further extensions, and Mr. Bouman stated that the Fullers were aware of that. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to approve the additional 30-day extension. Motion carried unanimously. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. REQUEST BY PALM DESERT JR. WOMEN'S CLUB to Hang Bob Hope Desert Classic Banners. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to approve the request to hang Classic Banners; carried unanimously. November 30, 1978 Page 15 2. RESOLUTION NO. 78-161 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE RANCHO ROAD PROJECT. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-161; carried unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 78-158 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO PURCHASE LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING RECORDING OF TITLE. Mr. Bouman stated that Council had previously authorized the negotiation of the purchase of this property. Now, however, with a 6 acre park ready for improvement in no less than 5 years and other park sites in the City ready for improvement, there was a question relative to the purchase of this site. Councilman Wilson stated that if the development market was softening, the price of this land might go down. Councilman McPherson stated that the City could always sell the property if it decided not to move ahead with the park improvements, and we still would not lose money. Councilman Brush moved to explore the possibility of purchasing the Lewis property as rapidly as possible. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Ortega pointed out that the owners would like to develop the land if we don't want to purchase it. However, the City has applied for an HCD Grant for improvements to this park site. Councilman Wilson said that he felt that the park sites we had should be developed now; that the money we have should be used for this development. Councilman McPherson moved and Mayor Mullins seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-158. Motion carried on a 3-2 vote, with Councilmen Newbrander and Wilson voting NOE. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 78-159 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MASSEY SAND AND ROCK COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECON- STRUCTING THE MONTEREY AVENUE CROSSING OF THE WHITEWATER RIVER STORM CHANNEL, CITY CONTRACT NO. 1018. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-159; carried unani- mously. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 78-160 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH MASSEY SAND AND ROCK COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STREET RESURFACING. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-160; carried unani- mously. B. CITY ATTORNEY None November 30, 1978 Page 16 C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL None XVI. ADJOURNMENT Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to ajourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mullins adjourned the meeting at 12:50 a.m. fl ARD` D . MULLINS , MAYOR ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, ci 'y Clerk City of Palm Desert, California November 30, 1978 Page 17