Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-26MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1981 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS **********:ti***********-;; **** ****;; ***:: * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilson called the Regular Meeting of the Palm Desert City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 26, 1981, in City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro-Tempore James E. McPherson III. INVOCATION - Mayor S. Roy Wilson IV. ROLL CALL Present: Note: Mayor Pro-Tem James E. McPherson Councilman Alexis D. Newbrander Councilman Romeo S. Puluqi Councilman Walter H. Snyder Mayor S. Roy Wilson Also Present: Mayor Wilson excused himself from the Meeting after the first Public Hearing. Martin J. Bouman, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager Paul E. Byers, Director of Finance Ramon Diaz, Director of Environmental Services Barry McClellan, Director of Public Works V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MARCH 8-14, 1981, AS "NATIONAL EMPLOY THE OLDER WORKER WEEK". Mayor Wilson read the proclamation which was accept by Mr. Bill Hamilton of the State Department of Employment. B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MARCH 1-7, 1981, AS "KANS FOR KIDS WEEK" FOR THE PALM DESERT YOUTH CENTER. Mayor Wilson read the proclamation which was accepted by Mrs. Carol Yates on behalf of Soroptimist International of Palm Desert. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the City. Council of February 12, 1981. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 81-081 and 81-082. Rec: Approve as presented. C. STATEMENT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS FOR MONTH OF JANUARY, 1981. Rec: Receive and file. D. MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS & CONDEMNATION MEETING Of February 12, 1981. Rec: Receive and file. February 26, 1981 Pave 1 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * :'c * * ;': * :': * * :': * * * * * ;'c * ;: :': * * * * * * VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) E. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE By J. T. K. Corp., 74-155 El Paseo, Palm Desert, for The Fort. Rec: Receive and file. F. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE By Richard Nickel, - 73-468 Palm Desert Drive, Palm Desert, for The Village Bootleggi Rec: Receive and file. G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - MARKESH LINEAR PARK. Rec: Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Contract. H. PETITION FROM PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Requesting the City's Arrangement of an Assessment District to Finance Curbs and Gutters in District "C". Rec: Refer to Staff for processing of the formation of an Assessment District. I. PETITION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS ON LITTLE BEND TRAIL Requesting the City's Arrangement of an Assessment District to Finance Curbs and Gutters in that Area. Rec: Refer to Staff for processing of the formation of an Assessment District. J. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 16873, Thomas E. Trollope, Applicant. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-28, approving Final Map 16873. K. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK ON CONTRACT NO. 1037, STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM. Rec: Accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. L. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK ON FIRE STATION NO. 2, MESA VIEW STATION. Rec: Accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 17104, PHASES 1 THROUGH 16, Lewis Homes of California, Applicant. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-29, approving Final Map 17104 (16 Phases). Councilman Snyder removed Item "G" from the Consent Calendar for discussion under Section XI of the Agenda. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None February 26, 1981 Page 2 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL 1..- TING * is * * * * * * * * * * ,c * * * * X * * * ;'t * k ;'c * * !c * :'c * * * * k .* * * VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80, C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, B. SOLOMON, APPLICANTS. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-5 N, S.P. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, 5 D.U./AC., MAXI- MUM DENSITY NATURAL FACTORS/RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AND SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) (4.6 ACRES) TO C-1 N, S.P. (GENERAL COM- MERCIAL) AND FROM PC (4), S.P. (PLANNED RESORT COMMERCIAL SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) (7.3 ACRES) TO C-1 N, S.P. AND FROM PR-5 N (1.3 ACRES) TO PC (4) N, S.P. AND FROM PR-5, N (.44 ACRES) TO C-1 N, S.P. AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO AND CON- SIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL EIR AS IT PERTAINS THERETO, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 144 UNIT HOTEL, 65 UNIT CONDOMINIUM, A 40,000 SQ. FT. SUPERMARKET, 5,000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT, AND 70,000 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL/FINANCIAL COMPLEX ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. (Continued from the Meeting of February 12, 1981. Note: The Public Hearing was closed on February 12, 1981,E no further public testimony can be received at this time.) Mayor Wilson called on Staff for their report. Mr. Diaz reviewed in detail the response prepared to the issues raised at the February 12th Council meeting by Mr. Charles V. Berwanger, Attorney for Appellants, which dealt with the draft EIR 80-1. He referred also to a letter from Mr. Berwanger dated February 23, 1981, (attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A") which stated the appellants' feeling that the draft EIR had not met the spirit of the law of CEQA. Mr. Diaz stated that the concerns raised by Mr. Berwanger had been mitigated as part of the proposed resolution of approval in that specific conditions had been imposed to provide for specific solutions to these concerns. In addition, Staff had been presented with a letter during Study Session, said letter dated February 26, 1981, from Mr. Thomas F. Winfield III which called out specific addi- tions to the conditions, which, if added, would eliminate the concerns of the appellant (letter attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B"). Mr. Diaz reviewed the proposed additions to the conditions and recommended their inclusion in the proposed resolution of approval. Councilman Snyder stated that with these additions as suggested by the appellant, it would appear that both sides would be satisfied. He moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-10, certifying the EIR. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried unanimously. Mayor Wilson asked for Council's comments relative to the request for Change of Zone. Councilman McPherson stated that it was brought out at the last meeting regarding zone changes that if a city is going to remain vibrant and healthy and full of life, zone changes are a neces- sary process. He said that someone had spoken at the last meeting and said that a neighbor really has no vested interest in someone else's property. Since this community was incorporated, a General Plan and a Zoning Ordinance has been adopted with the idea that this would be on ongoing evolutionary process. Nothing in any city is ever cast in stone as far as the zone changes. If that were true, it it were cast in stone, it was his belief that the city would die from lack of a vibrant, healthy, ongoing evolu- tionary process. Councilman Newbrander stated that possibly no one has a vested interest in someone else's property, but they have a right to live and if someone owning a property -- an adjacent property -- develops in an unsatisfactory way, she felt the person who doesn't have a vested right had a very definite right to complain and ask for help. February 26, 1981 Page 3 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ;c ;ti * * is n * ;: :': n * * :'c * * * :: ;; VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. (Continued) Councilman Snyder stated that he agreed with the purpose of the General Plan, that it is to create zoning and to determine what the City is going to build towards and what the ground use will be. The problem we have in this particular area, in his opinion, was the fact that when our first General Plan was created, that area was listed as "Open Space" because at that time, the city couldn't determine exactly what was wanted there. It was subsequently put into Planned Resort/Commercial. He felt that it was obvious that there would be changes as we went along. He pointed out that the new General Plan amendments that have been put to the public for consideration are to literally change all of the land on 111 to commercial. It will be commercial seemingly from Palm Springs to Indio. Therefore, he said that we must take into consideration as our City grows, whether we want it to grow or not, it will grow. Then it's to all of our interests to see to it that it grows properly. In other words that where commercial must go in, that's where commercial should be. If we can force that commercial to go in properly and to properly protect those who live around it, it seems that that's what we are attempting to do. If, indeed, we are serving both people, both sides of this program to the best of our ability, we must then look at: Do we stop things merely for the purpose of stopping them which would wind us all up in court? or, Do we look at how we do it best and attempt to adjudicate that matter and that philosophy. With these thoughts in mind. he felt that the zone change was the right way to go. Councilman Puluqi stated that he had nothing to add. Mayor Wilson stated that the Council had had an extra two weeks to think about this. We have had almost a year to think about this zone change request. He felt that in all the years he had been associated with the City -- the Council and prior to that the Planning Commission -- this was probably the toughest decision he had had to wrestle with. It was one where there was no right or wrong answer. There are good points and bad points on both sides of the argument. He stated that the aplicant, Mr. Solomon, had pointed out at the last meeting that if the project were approved, the City would stand to gain over a half million dollars of annual revenue which it badly needs for police protection, flood protection, and those kinds of things. It also has something that this property has envisioned for a long time -- a nice hotel development. Mayor Wilson stated that his concern with the request to change the zone was that the land had been zoned for Resort Commercial for a very specific reason. That reason was that we admitted that the highway frontage could not be residential, it had to be commercial, But, it was adjacent to residential property, and there were several reasons why the PC-4 designation was arrived at. It was a good transition from straight residential. Much consideration had gone into the entire General Plan as it was developed and that General Plan showed a great deal of com- mercial to serve the residents of our city. It also indicated that we had enough commercial that we needed to attract tourists to our community to shop in those stores and to develop a revenue for our business people. For that reason, it was decided that the entire area from Deep Canyon to the City limits should be Resort/Commercial. This request asks that we trade that off by making half of the acreage straight commercial when we need more hotel/motel developments in our area. He felt that it was a shame that the development plan didn't come with a hotel unit all the way to the east. Mayor Wilson concluded his comments by stating that various February 26, 1981 Page 4 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * :'c * * * * * * * * * .. * * * * :'c :: * * * * ** * * * * * * :c ;; * VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. (Continued) people had told him that that much motel/hotel development wasn't feasible at this time, that the package before the Council was the one that would sell. He felt that a decision to approve it would be in the best short-range interest of our City, but he honestly felt that the decision to approve it would be the wrong decision in the long-range interests of the City. He stated he would like to see the project come back with hotel/motel development all the way to Deep Canyon. Councilman Puluqi moved to deny the request for a change of zone and Councilman Newbrander seconded the motion. Motion carried on a 3-2 vote with Councilmen McPherson and Snyder voting NO. Mayor Wilson asked the City Attorney if there was any need to take action on the development plan and Mr. Erwin responded that it would have no bearing with the zone change denied. B. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF PER PARCEL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF WEEDS AND OTHER NUISANCES. (Mayor Wilson excused himself from the meeting immediately after action under Item A of the Public Hearings and Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson now chaired the meeting.) Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Bouman stated that these assessments were against property owners who had failed to clean up their property after notice by the City and the City had then had the work done. The cost for such abatement will then, upon approval by Council, be filed as a lien on the property. He noted the following parcels had paid since the original preparation of the resolution and should thus be deleted: 627-071-024-3 627-102-018-3 627-141-003-0 627-053-002-1 627-081-010-1 627-111-012-5 627-041-004-6 Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-30. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. C. CASE NO. C/Z 03-80 AND CUP 17-80, J. CAMERON ALLARD, APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PRE -ANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1, 12,000 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ZONE TO R.M. (UA) (MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AND PC-2 (UA) (DISTRICT COMMERCIAL CENTER) OR OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 646 UNIT MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION AND 13 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES ON 162.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE (EXTENDED) AND FRANK SINATRA DRIVE (EXTENDED). Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz reviewed the Staff report and the justifications for Staff's recommendation for approval of the request. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in FAVOR of the request. February 26, 1981 Page 5 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * :: * * * * * * VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) C. (Continued) Mr. Fred Arbuckle, Ballew Macfarland, addressed Council on behalf of the applicant and stated their concurrence with the Staff's recommendation. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Snyder moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 249 to second reading. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. D. CASE NO. C/Z 04-80 AND CUP 18-80, ABE REIDER, APPLICANT: CON- SIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PRE -ANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1, 12,000 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 12,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE, TO R.M. (MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF AN 874 UNIT MOBILE HOME SUB- DIVISION ON 263 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE (EXTENDED) AND FRANK SINATRA DRIVE (EXTENDED). Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz reviewed the Staff Report and justifications for the recommendation of approval of the request. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in FAVOR of the request. Mr. Fred Arbuckle, Ballew Macfarland, addressed Council on behalf of the applicant and in support of the Staff recom- mendation. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Snyder moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 250 to second reading. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. E. CASE NO. TT 15000 (TIME EXTENSION), PACIFIC COAST BUILDERS, INC., APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN 18 MONTH TIME EXTENSION OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW THE CON- STRUCTION OF 1083 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ON 404 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz reviewed the Staff report and justification for recommendation of approval. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in FAVOR of the request. Mr. Bob Briggs, 1536 East 18th Street, Santa Ana, addressed Council as the applicant and in support of Staff's recommendation Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-33. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. February 26, 1981 Page 6 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL :TING * :: * * * * * * * * .. * .. :' :'c * :'c :t- * :'c * * :; * -* * * :'c * * * :'c * * * VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) F. CASE NO. TT 17401, DAME CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., APPLICANT: CON- SIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO RESUBDIVIDE A PORTION OF TRACT 13881-2 (LOTS 74 THROUGH 103 AND 148) CREATING 29 LOTS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 28 CON- DOMINIUM UNITS AND COMMON AREA WITHIN THE PR-5 (PLANNED RESI- DENTIAL, 5 D.U./ACRE) ZONE LOCATED BETWEEN CAMINO ARROYO PLACE AND CAMISSA LANE. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz reviewed the Staff Report and the justifications for Staff's recommendation for approval. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-31. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. IX. RESOLUTIONS Non e X. ORDINANCES For Introduction: A. ORDINANCE NO. 251 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING, ADOPTING AND DELETING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.88 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SOLICITING, HAWKING AND PEDDLING. Mr. Bouman stated that this ordinance extended the existing City Ordinance relative to soliciting, hawking, and peddling to telephoning. Councilman Puluqi moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 251 to second reading. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 244 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, PERTAINING TO CONDITIONALLY PER- MITTED USES IN THE R-3 (MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) ZONE. CASE NO. ZOA 05-80. Mr. Bouman advised that this was the second reading of the ordinance and that there was no further input from Staff. Councilman Puluqi moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 244. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. B. ORDINANCE NO. 245 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, RELATIVE TO CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN THE R-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) ZONE. CASE NO. ZOA 06-80. Mr. Bouman advised that there was no additional input since first reading. Councilman Puluqi moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 245. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. February 26, 1981 Page 7 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING :: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * :. X. ORDINANCES - For Adoption (Continued) C. ORDINANCE NO. 247 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AND DESIGNATING CHAPTER 17 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE AS THE "PALM DESERT PLUMBING CODE" WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, AND AMENDMENTS, THE RULES, REGULATIONS, PROVISIONS, AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN CODE ENTITLED, "UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1979 EDITION", INCLUDING THE APPENDICES THEREIN CONTAINED, PROMULGATED AND PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS. D. ORDINANCE NO. 248 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AND DESIGNATING CHAPTER 19 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE AS THE "PALM DESERT SWIMMING POOL CODE" WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, AND AMENDMENTS, THE RULES, REGULATIONS, PROVISIONS, AND CON- DITIONS SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN CODE ENTITLED, "UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL CODE, 1979 EDITION", INCLUDING THE APPENDICES THEREIN CONTAINED, PROMULGATED AND PUBLISHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS. Mr. Bouman reported that there had been no further input on either ordinance since their first reading. Councilman Snyder moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinances 247 and 248. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. E. ORDINANCE NO. 252 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTACT AND CONTROL AND ADOPTING ORDINANCE NO. 455 OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AS AMENDED, AND ORDINANCE NO. 534 OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AS AMENDED, RELATING THERETO. Mr. Bouman reported that there had been no further input since first reading of this ordinance. Councilman Puluqi moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 252. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MARRAKESH LINEAR PARK. Mr. Bouman reported that this item had been removed from the Consent Calendar in that it required two different actions approval and adoption of a resolution authorizing a budget amendment. He stated that the change order approved an additional design expense in the amount of $1,143. Councilman Snyder moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to approve the request and to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-34 approving a budget amendment. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. XII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE, NO. 221 AMENDED, RONALD L. SWAIN & SON, APPLICANT. Mr. McClellan reviewed the request and stated that in com- pliance with Ordinance No. 230, the applicant is allowed to request a variance from flood insurance regulations in order to construct a building in conformance with an existing neighborhood. Councilman Snyder moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to waive fur- ther reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-32. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. February 26, 1981 Page 8 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL :TING * * * * * * * * * **- * * * :'t * * ** * * ** 1: * * * :'c * * * * * ** * * XIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS - None XIV. OLD BUSINESS - None XV. ORAL COMMUNCIATIONS - B None XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. Mr. Bouman advised that the legal advertising for bids for Contract No. 1039 had not reached contractors by the Green Sheet in time for them to submit bids. Thus an extension of time to March 17th was requested. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to approve the extension of time for the submission of bids for Contract No. 1039 to March 17, 1981. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 81-35 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ADVANCES OF GENERAL FUND MONIES TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND FOR PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE. Mr. Bouman advised that this was a request for an advance of $21,888 to the district to see the costs through until the first payments come in from the tax assessor's office. Councilman Puluqi moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-35. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 81-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT 13462, AND APPROVING THE AGREE- MENT RELATING THERETO. Mr. Bouman reported that this tract approval request had been submitted late but was needed by the contractor in order to meet deadlines established by the County. He stated that all requirements had been met. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-36. Motion carried unanimously. B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Erwin stated that the Council had adopted Ordinance No. 252 relative to animal control and with that adoption, the agreement between the City. and the County could be approved. Councilman Snyder moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to approve the Agreement with the County of Riverside for Animal Control. Motion carried unanimously. C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Councilman Newbrander stated that the Street Landscaping Committee had presented a report during Study Session and had outlined some actions they felt could be accomplished. She extended the Council's appreciation for their fine efforts. Council directed Mr. Bouman to prepare a letter from the Mayor commending the committee. February 26, 1981 Page 9 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * :'c * :ti * :': * * * * * * * * * * * :'c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS (Continued) C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson asked the status of the "howling wolves". Mr. Erwin responded that the owner had been served, that her attorney had contacted us relative to a 30-day extension which had been denied, and the court was expected to make a decision the following day. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson asked that everyone note the future meetings listed on the agenda. XVII. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Puluqi moved and Councilman Sn deseconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously with -- mambers present. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson adjourned the meeting at 8. 2 11. JAMES . McPHERSON' ATTEST: SHEILA R. E ELIGAN, C CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, IFORNIA February 26, 1981 Page 10 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL . ;TING * * * * * :: * :: * * ;c c :: .. * k :c .. * * .. * ;c * k !c * * * * ;': J. KENNETH BROWN TMOMAS F. WINFIELO III ANTHONY CANZONERI LEE BARKER CI.ARLES V. BERWANGER OAVIO J. ALESHIRE ERIC B RASMUSSEN DIANA P SCOTT HERBERT 0 MEYERS STEVEN ABRAM DAVID F GONOEK THOMAS D GREEN CMERI 5 O'LAVERTY EXHIBIT "A" BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI INCORPORATED ATTORNEYS AT LAW 615 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, SUITE 1201 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 TELEPHONE (213) 624-1001 February 23, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the CITY OF PALM DESERT 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: The Fountains Development: Case Numbers CUP 07-80, DP 07-80 and Environmental Impact Report No. 80-01 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: OF COUNSEL MAX HALF ON A PROrCSSIONAL CORPORATION This letter is being written on behalf of the appellants from the Planning Commission's approval of the above -refer- enced matters. On February 12, 1981, appellants appeared and testified before the City Council, both individually and by their attorneys, Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri by Charles V. Berwanger, Esq. Such testimony identified many of the specific environmental concerns of the appellants and the other residents and property owners of this City, and the legal infirmities of these proceedings, in particular, the Draft E.I.R. dated November, 1980. Such legal infirmities were addressed at some length by Charles Berwanger. At the request of Mr. Ramon Diaz, Director of Environmental Services, Mr. Berwanger's notes entitled, "Presentation by Charles V. Berwanger to the City Council - Palm Desert" dated February 12, 1981, were left with Mr. Diaz to be made a part of the record in this proceeding and to provide the basis for the staff's further analysis in this matter. Appellants once again want to impress upon this City Council the failure of the City to comply with the require- ments of the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.); particularly those requirements set forth in the California Supreme Court's decision in Woodland Hills Residents Association, Inc. v. City Council of the City of Los Angeles (1980) 26 Cal. 3rd 938. There, the Suprcme Court held that the City Council had illegally approved a subdivision. The February 26, 1981 Page 11 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING :'c * * * :': is * * * * * * * * * * * :'c * * * * * * * * * * * * ;: * :'c * * EXHIBIT "A" The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council February 23, 1981 -- Page Two approval was illegal because citizens who were concerned about and affected by the subdivision had not been afforded a fair and timely opportunity to express their views suf- ficiently early in the environmental reporting process to have those views provided even-handed consideration in the draft and revised environmental impact reports. For an environmental impact report to comply with the law, "it is necessary to secure all conflicting views prior to preparation of even a draft E.I.R." (Woodland Hills Residents Association, Inc. v. City Council, supra, 26 Cal. 3rd at page 950. Emphasis added.) The Court explained that, "once a draft has been prepared by persons who have not had full oppor- tunity to be apprised of all conflicting views, it becomes more difficult for those persons to accept at full value new views necessarily critical of the draft. Such contrary views cannot be weighed with the same objective balance had they been considered at the time of initial presentation." (Ibid.) Thus, "all related views whether in favor of or against a specific proposal should be openly and timely solicited by or on behalf of those charged with preparation of the draft." (Ibid.) Appellants and the other concerned and interested citizens who testified on February 12, 1981, were not given the opportunity prior to the preparation of the so-called Draft Environmental Impact Report dated November, 1980 to comment and to present their views and concerns for the benefit of the preparers of the E.I.R. Those views and con- cerns presented to this City Council on February 12, 1981, concern aesthetics, traffic, noise generation, intensity of development and all of the other specific detailed concerns which are now a part of the record before this body but which are not addressed nor responded to either at all or properly in the Draft E.I.R. Ilad the requirements of C.E.Q.A. as enunciated in Woodland Hills Residents Association, Inc. v. City Council, supra, been complied with those views and concerns would have been presented early on prior to the preparation of the Draft E.I.R., could have been discussed and addressed, and the project modified or mitigated where appropriate. That has not happened and the Draft E.I.R. before this City Council suffers from exactly the same infirmities as that which was before the California Supreme Ccurt and which was rejected as inadequate. There was testimony by the project sponsor's represen- tative on February 12, 1981, that there were discussions and conversations with some residents and property owners. Such purported conversations were denied in terms of their depth and scope by contrary testimony. Moreover the preparers of the Draft E.I.R. before this body did not engage in the detailed and extensive solicitation of contrary and conflict- ing views required of preparers of E.I.R.s by the California February 26, 1981 Page 12 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT "A" The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council February 23, 1981 -- Page Three Supreme Court. The Woodland Hills Residents Association, Inc. v. City Council, supra, decision rejects pro forma solicitation of conflicting and contrary views and requires in depth, good faith solicitation and consideration of such views. It is respectfully submitted that the Draft E.I.R. before this City Council is inadequate under the law and has not met the spirit and requirements of C.E.Q.A. It is further respectfully submitted that litigation to correct the short -comings and the failings of the Draft E.I.R. will not serve the interests of any of the interested parties and that the most reasonable and expeditious means of ensuring compliance with C.E.Q.A. and a full and complete sclicita- tion of and consideration of the views and concerns of interested citizens is to remand the matter to the Planning Commission with instructions that it direct the preparers of the Draft E.I.R. to meet the requirements of law and to draft an E.I.R. which complies therewith both relative to the requirements once again identified in this letter and the requirements identified by the testimony of appellants and their counsel on February 12, 1981. Very truly yours, BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI Charles V. Berwaer Attorneys for Appellants CVB:ks cc: Mr. Wayne Barlow Enos Reed, Esq. David Erwin, Esq., City Attorney City of Palm Desert February 26, 1981 Page 13 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * :; * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT "B" BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI Incorporated 615 So. Flower St., Ste. 1201 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 624-1001 February 26, 1981 Mr. Ray Diaz Planning Director City of Palm Desert Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Diaz: Enclosed please find a revised set of the conditions which were attached to Planning Commission Resolution #668. At a meeting today between Wayne Barlow, Gary Goudswaard, Peter Legget, Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Reid and myself, it was agreed that if these revised conditions were imposed on both the CUP and the Development Plan that the environ- mental concerns will be to a great extent resolved. If these conditions are so imposed, Mr. Barlow has authorized me to advise you that his objections to the EIR and concerns regarding the Woodland Hills case are satisfied. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Very truly yours, BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI Thomas F. Winfield I TFW:j Enclosure February 26, 1981 Page 14 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * ;': * * :: * * ;< * * ;'< * * ,. * ;: * * * * * * * * * * * :k * * 1:' * * ;,: EXHIBIT "B" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 SPECIAL CONDITIONS Page Four 1. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director. 2. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm water flows. 3. Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep Canyon Road, adjacent to the property, to coincide with the existing curb, gutter, and paved roadway abutting the subject property to the north. 4. Applicant shall dedicate sufficient parkway to assure that the ultimate improvements of Deep Canyon Road are provided for in manner to coincide and be uniform with existing improvements north of the subject property. 5. There shall be no night deliveries to the supermarket between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 6. All mechanical equipment associated with the development shall be equipped with manufacturer -supplied noise control devices and screened from Hidden Palms both so that the equipment is neither seen= heard from the adjacent property and subject to satisfaction of Design Review Board. 7. Street improve e =s along Highway 111 shall be made as required by the State of California Department of Transportation. 8. Landscape plans submitted for review as a part of the r)esi_n Review process shall include special details related to: a. Preservation of Date Palms. b. Treac'ent along Deep Canyon and Highway 111 relative to mounding and landscape materials. c. Interior perimeter particularly adjacent to the existing condo development in terms of mounding and landscape materials. d. Cozr.ercial center parking lot particularly in terms of the relationship of landscape to lighting. e. On -site water retention. Said plans shall specifically provide that: (i) the 60 foot set -back from the Hidden Palms property line contain at least two rows of date palms parallel to said boundry and at current spacing and shall contain landscaped berms of between 5' and 6' in height so as to maximize the screening effect of said landscaping. (ii) the 35' set -back from Deep Canyon shall contain landscaped berms designed so that screening effect of said landscaping is maximized. February 26, 1981 Page ID MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * .: k * * * * * * :': * * :ti * * * * * * * * ;': * * ;: * * :' ;,: * EXHIBIT "B" 9. The supermarket loading area shall be enclosed by masonry walls and a roof or an equivalent combination of grade differential and masonry walls and a roof as approved by Design Review Board. 10. Parking lot area next to supermarket shall be modified to delete some of the ingress and egress points to diagonal circulation aisle between Deep Canyon Road and new public street from Highway 111; said modification shall be subject to approval by Design. Review Board. 11. Traffic signal at northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111 shall be relocated to satisfaction of Director of Public Works and Environmental Services. within 150' of the therly boundary 12. Anyretail commercial structure s na sG to oL_Tiesigav e / � ls� be so `�les�gned that any wall facing north shall contain no doors, windows, lights, loading/or storage facilities, except as required by ordinance. trash 13. Height of retail shops shall be a maximum of 18 feet. Rear and side elevations of any retail shops shall be subject to Design Review to insure compatibility with any adjacent residential development. 14. The supermarket shall be located no closer to Deep Canyon than 135 feet from east curb line. 15. Appiicant shall 30 days written notice, certified mail, return receipt rec_sested, of any date upon which the Design Review Board will be considering approval of any structure to: 1. e Barlow 20=.9 Century Park East S I:_ ce 870 Lcs Angeles, CA 90067 2. Board of Directors Hiclden Palm Associates P. 0. Box 962 Rancho Mirage. CA 92270 3. Gary Goudswaard 44755 Deep Canyon Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 4. Thomas F. Winfield 615 So. Flower Street Lcs Angeles, CA February 26, 1981 Page 16