Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-13MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1983 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. H. IV. V. VI. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Puluqi called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro-Tempore Walter H. Snyder INVOCATION - Councilman Phyllis Jackson ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Phyllis Jackson Councilman Dick Kelly Mayor Pro-Tempore Walter Snyder Councilman Roy Wilson Mayor Romeo Puluqi Also Present: David J. Erwin, City Attorney Ramon Diaz, Acting City Manager/Director of Environmental Services Barry D. McClellan, Director of Public Works Paul E. Byers, Director of Finance Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS N one CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Adjourned City Council Meeting of December 16, 1982. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 83-062, 83-063, 83-064, and 83-065. Rec: Approve as presented. C. MINUTES of the November 19, 1982, Meeting of the Advertising & Promotion Committee. Rec: Receive and file. D. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Mario Charles Del Guidice for PIETRO'S, 72-221 Highway 111, Palm Desert, California. Rec: Receive and file. MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * E. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Monterey Bay Company, Inc, 74-154 Parosella, Palm Desert, California. Rec: Receive and file. F. MONTHLY REPORT FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT For the Month of November, 1982. Rec: Receive and file. G. RESOLUTION NO. 83-1 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF FILES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY THAT HAVE BEEN MICROFILMED. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. H. RESOLUTION NO. 83-2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF FILES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE THAT HAVE BEEN MICROFILMED. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. I. REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND For Parcel Map 15723, Palm Desert Town Center. Rec: Approve the request and authorize the reduction of the Faithful Performance Bond to $2,141,000. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Wilson, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Council. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND GRANTING OF FRANCHISES OR PRIVILEGES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND COOPERATION OF CABLE COMMUNICATION, OR CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS AND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING REGULATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THESE FRANCHISES AND THE ACTIVITIES RELATIVE TO THEM. Mayor Puluqi declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz reported that this ordinance was the result of many months of work by the City Attorney and considerable review by the City Council in Study Sessions. He recommended receiving public input and passing the ordinance to second reading. Mayor Puluqi invited public input, and the following was offered: MR. DEAN COLE, Board of Realtors, asked for clarification on what the ordinance would do. Mr. Erwin explained that it would govern any cable television company that came into Palm Desert. With no further input offered, Mayor Puluqi declared the Public Hearing closed. -2- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Wilson asked about the following and Mr. Erwin advised the necessary corrections: Page 8 1982 should be 1983. Page 40 Section 5.A.9 should be 14.01.090(4) Page 40 upoon should be upon. Page 42 blanks should be filled in with $500. Page 51 blanks should be filled in with $500. Councilman Wilson asked Mr. Smith of Coachella Valley Television whether or not interconnect as mentioned on Page 56 was now required. Mr. Smith responded that while it was not required, it was being provided. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Wilson, Ordinance No. 318 was passed to second reading by unanimous vote of the Council. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN), ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONCERNING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND STANDARDS FOR THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY THE PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AND THE WESTERN CITY LIMITS. CASE NOS. GPA 03-82, ZOA 11-82 and C/Z 08-82. Mr. Diaz reported that the the West Hillside Specific Plan culminates a 12 month effort beginning in January 1982. In December 1981, Mr. George Fox, owner of 97 acres of hillside property, approached the city with the desire to submit a proposed development plan for hearing. It was noted that Mr. Fox's proposal would not be permitted under existing city hillside development regulations. On January 28, 1982 an oral report was given to the city council concerning city hillside policy and the inquiry by Mr. Fox. On February 25, 1982, a staff report with an attached hillside development ordinance implementing the Palm Valley Specific Plan was given to the city council. A joint study session was held with the planning commission on March 16, 1982. At that session a hillside ordinance review committee was established composed of Planning Commissioners Buford Crites, George Kryder, Councilman Jim McPherson and Mayor Roy Wilson. On March 25, 1982, the committee recommended to the council a reexamination of the Hillside Specific Plan, after consultation with the city attorney. That recommendation was based on: 1. Concerns that the present plan no longer reflected the long range goals and objectives of the city; 2. concerns raised throughout the region relating to hillside development; 3. the impact of the Palm Valley Channel on hillside development. The Council accepted the committee report and instructed staff to prepare a new specific plan retaining the subcommittee to review the plan as it developed. From April through September staff and the committee met periodically to develop a plan which would indeed be consistent with the city's long range objective in terms of the hillside area. During that period the committee also met with various owners and their representatives to discuss the mutual concerns for the hillside. In late September, a meeting was held with staff and hillside property owners; at that time the proposed revised plan and its ramifications were presented in an informal discussion type meeting. On November 8th, a -3- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * public hearing before the planning commission was held and initial public testimony and staff report accepted by the commission. That hearing was subsequently continued to December 7, 1982, at which time the Planning Commission adopted a series of resolutions recommending to the City Council adoption of the plan, and enactment of the ordinances before you this evening. The main objective of the proposal is to balance the environmental and aesthetic concerns with private development rights in this sensitive area. The overall impact of the plan would be to permit approximately S4 of the units which could have been developed under the previously adopted specific plan, but increasing the number of units which can be developed over the city's hillside development ordinance. In summary, the present zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the presently adopted plan because it is impossible to implement said plan under current regulations. This situation is not in concert with the State Planning Act which requires zoning to be consistent with adopted plans. The solution is to either amend plans or draft appropriate legislation: The West Hills Specific Plan is a combination of these alternatives: OPTION 1: Slope Density Formula Slope Density AC/DU 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36 OPTION 2: .66 1 1.25 1.66 2.5 5 Owners of parcels at the toe of slope may separate areas adjacent to valley floors, use slope formula and if the average slope is less than 10% these areas are not subject to hillside overlay regulations and will be permitted a density of 3 d.u./acre. If the remaining area of a 5 acre parcel exceeds 4 acres, an additional unit may be developed in the hillside. On any parcel larger than 5 acres density will be determined through Option 1 or Option 3. OPTION 3: Instead of requiring density determination based on the average slope as computed for the entire parcel, the owner has the option of identifying specific dwelling building sites of a minimum area of Y2 acre whose slopes are 20% or less. Overall parcel density may not exceed 1 d.u./acre. Grading shall be minimum and grading for building pad shall be limited to a maximum 10,000 square foot area. OPTION 4: Lot Consolidation If a person owns at least 10 acres in the area designated as the preferred development area (shown on map) the density shall be computed to permit on 10-19 acre sites to have a density of 2 d.u./ 5 acres and sites of 20 acres of greater 3 d.u./5 acres. This option is absolute and cannot be used in conjunction with other development options. -4- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Under the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan, approximately 720 units could have been developed within the planning area. The proposed West Hills Plan would permit a maximum 433 units; if one owner were to acquire all of the hillside area and avail himself of Option 4. The action before council this evening would be to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 83-3, rescinding all policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and adopt the West Hills Specific Plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact therefore. 2. Introduce and pass to second reading Ordinance Nos. 322 and 323. At this point, he reviewed some of the issues, and clarified some of the legal points raised during the planning process. 1. What did the Palm Valley Channel permit? The plan by itself did not permit any type of land use or activity. It is totally incorrect to say "the plan permitted". The plan did identify certain residential densities, but the ordinances were never revised to permit the development of those densities. 2. Hotel development. Much has been said about the potential for hotel development. It should be clarified that a hotel was never allowed in the area as a matter of right; it required a conditional use permit. It was determined that in the hillside overlay area a hotel's density would be equal to the residential density. During the discussions on the plan it was determined that because such a provision would make hotel development totally impractical, it should be excluded from the plan. 3. Density --Why the reduction? When one speaks of density reduction, it is a reduction of those densities called for in the adopted specific plan not that which has been permitted since 1975. In actuality, what this plan calls for and provides for is an increase in the allowable development despite a reduction in the residential density recommended in the specific plan. 4. Why weren't the ordinances revised to implement the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan? Because it was determined that the plan did not reflect the long range goals and objectives of the city relating to hillside development. The city determined that the data base and assumption on which the Palm Valley Plan was based were in error. He concluded by noting a letter from Mrs. B. Virginia Black Purves in support of "not too restrictive zoning" (said letter attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A"). Mayor Puluqi noted that during the year this matter was studied, interested parties had contacted the Council in favor and against the proposal. He then invited input in FAVOR of the plan, and the following people spoke for low density development on the hillside: -5- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MR. GEORGE SMITH, Palm Desert Community Church Board of Directors. Mr. GEORGE SWEET, 46-370 Ocotillo for Desert Peoples United. MRS. MARIAN HENDERSON, 73-597 Pinyon, Palm Desert, for Desert Beautiful. MR. LAWRENCE PREY, 73-385 Joshua Tree, Palm Desert, on behalf of St. Margaret's Church Board of Directors. MR. HENRY B. CLARK, 73-183 Willow Street, Palm Desert. MR. GEORGE RITTER, 73-345 Juniper, Palm Desert, for Palm Desert Property Owners' Association. Mayor Puluqi invited input in Opposition to the plan, and the following spoke: MS. KAY CRAIG, 73-922 Belair, Palm Desert, spoke against any development of the hillsides. MR. EUGENE KAY, 73-020 Homestead, Palm Desert, spoke against any development of the hillsides. MR. DEAN COLE, 72-740 Carab Court, Palm Desert, against any development and suggesting the decision should be made by the voters. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, architect on behalf of a developer, opposed the plan in that he felt it did not provide enough density. He additionally suggested many specific revisions to the proposed plan and the hiring of an outside professional planning team to analyze the hillside development. MR. JIM PAUL, Pasadena, against any development of the hillside. MR. GEORGE FOX, Chicago, Illinois, spoke against the plan in that it did not provide for commercial development of his property which he felt most suitable for a hotel complex. He presented a plan and pictures for Council's review (on file and of public record in the City Clerk's Office). MR. TOM ESSEN, engineer for Mr. George Fox, displayed charts showing the terrain of the hillside of Mr. Fox's development for the benefit of the audience and Council. MAYOR PULUQI CALLED A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 9:07 P.M. HE RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 9:20 P.M. MR. GREG LARSON, 72-554 Beavertail, Palm Desert, spoke against the plan in that no one seemed to fully understand it. He asked for more study and report to the public. MRS. ELAINE BROERMAN, 249 S. Beckley, Pasadena, spoke against the plan as it was too restrictive. MR. LEROY KIRKPATRICK, Dana Point, spoke against the plan as it was too restrictive. MRS. DORI CREE, Long Beach, felt the plan too restrictive. MRS. MARY BEYE, Lake Arrowhead, felt the plan too restrictive. With no further input offered, Mayor Puluqi declared the Public Hearing closed. -6- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Jackson stated there was much confusion about the options presented. She stated she favored hiring an outside planning firm to study it and make recommendations. She also stated she felt the property owned by Mr. Fox should be considered separately in that she felt it desirable for a hotel development as it had direct access to Highway 111. She also felt hillside development could be very prestigious. She concluded by stating more study should be made. Councilman Kelly stated he felt Staff had done a good job resolving a difficult problem. Councilman Wilson stated the City was one of the few if not the only city in the State with a general plan approved by its citizens. He noted that during the referendum on the plan, one of the major issues was line of sight and hillside development. The citizens were against their views being obstructed and hillside development. He could not justify changing that now, and he agreed there was substantial confusion over the plan. With respect to reviewing one portion of the hillside differently from the others such as Mr. Fox's property, he felt that in so doing, a precedent would be set that would have to be followed for all others. Councilman Snyder said that he could not believe that an outside planning firm, unfamiliar with our city and its people, could do any better a job than our own staff. However, disallowing any development would mean the City would have to find the money to purchase the property, and he found that difficult to justify. He suggested the formation of a subcommittee to review all the input received in the hopes that this group could come up with a resolution satisfactory to most. Mayor Pulqui suggested an option that would allow a hotel on property with more than 50-60 acres accumulated. He too felt there was confusion that should be clarified before action on this issue. Councilman Jackson moved to continue the item to the meeting of February 10, 1983, with the appointment of a subcommittee to review input and suggest alternative methods of resolution. Councilman Snyder seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. Mayor Puluqi appointed Councilmen Snyder and Kelly to the newly formed subcommittee along with two member of the Planning Commission to be determined by its Chairman. MAYOR PULUQI CALLED A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 10:20 P.M. HE RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 10:40 P.M. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CASE NO. ANNEXATION NO. 14 - LAFCO FILE NO. 82-33- 4. D. RREQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CASE NO. ANNEXATION NO. 15 - LAFCO FILE NO. 82-34-4. Mayor Puluqi declared the Public Hearing open for both Annexation 14 and and Annexation 15 and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz reported that the annexations had been approved by LAFCo and that this was the last step in their finalization. He noted a letter from Bob and Jo Fraser, 2422 Biola Avenue, San Diego, California, in favor of Annexation 14 (attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B"). -7- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Puluqi invited input in FAVOR of either annexation. None was offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to either annexation, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Jackson, Resolution Nos. 83-4 and 83-5 were adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. IX. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 83-6 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO CREATE AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO FINANCE THE MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPED MEDIAN STRIPS. Mr. Diaz reported that this was the first step in establishing a maintenance district for the medians on Country Club and Cook Street, presently being installed. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 83-6 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. B. RESOLUTION NO. 83-7 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A POLICY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR CONFERENCE OR FUNCTION ATTENDANCE BY CITY REPRESENTATIVES. Mr. Diaz reported this revision of the policy on conference attendance was the result of Council direction in Study Session. Councilman Wilson suggested adding the League of California Cities' Summer Conference to the resolution. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Jackson, Resolution No. 83-7 was adopted as amended by unanimous vote of the Council. C. RESOLUTION NO. 83-8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF DEED FOR SAN PABLO PROPERTY. Mr. Diaz reported that this resolution accepted property purchased from the Community Services District which was required for the widening of San Pablo Avenue. Upon motion by Jackson, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 83-8 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. D. RESOLUTION NO. 83-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION AND SCHOOL FACILITY FINANCING INITIATIVE BY THE GOVERNOR AND CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Diaz reported this resolution had been discussed in a Study Session and at Council's direction, placed on the Agenda. Councilman Wilson suggested that the operation of the schools was not emphasized enough in the resolution. Mr. Diaz recommended that the words "operational expenses" be listed first in the "RESOLVED" paragraph. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Snyder, Resolution No. 83-10 was adopted as amended by unanimous vote of the Council. -8- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X. ORDINANCES For Introduction: A. ORDINANCE NO. 325 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 10, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC. Mr. Diaz noted that after discussion in Study Session, there was still concern about this item. He recommended continuance. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Kelly, Ordinance No. 325 was continued to the meeting of January 27, 1983, by unanimous vote of the Council. For Adoption: None XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO DESIGN MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE EAST OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND TO PAVE THE CITY PARK PARKING LOT. Mr. McClellan reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement with Haver & Associates inthe amount of $7,000. Councilman Jackson seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH VIDEO CONSULTANTS, 9664 PASEO MONTRIL, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92129, FOR PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR VIDEO EQUIPMENT IN THE PALM DESERT CIVIC CENTER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,600, $1,000 OF WHICH WILL BE DEDUCTED SHOULD THE CONTRACT FOR THE EQUIPMENT BE AWARDED TO VIDEO STORES, INC. Mr. Diaz stated this had been discussed in Study Session at great length. Councilman Wilson stated he felt the discussion had been about $1,000, not $3,600. Mr. Diaz explained why the amounts were different. Councilman Kelly moved to approve an agreement in the amount of $1,000 for plans and specifications for the video equipment for the Civic Center. Councilman Wilson seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 8-MONTH LEASE FOR CURRENT CITY HALL FACILITIES. Councilman Jackson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute the Shopping Center Lease for City Hall office space. Councilman Snyder seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROJECT TO BE FUNDED WITH CITY'S 9TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATION. Mr. Diaz recommended approval based on the staff report as written by Assistant City Manager Carlos Ortega. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the City's 9th Year -9- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Block Grant Allocation for the Construction of the Cove Communities' Senior Center with certain conditions. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion; carried by unanimous vote of the Council. XIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, THE CLOTHES HORSE, APPLICANT. Councilman Wilson moved to, per applicant's request, continue the item to the meeting of January 27, 1983. Councilman Jackson seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. XIV. OLD BUSINESS N one XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER N one B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Puluqi asked that everyone note the Future Meetings listed including the change of the Kaffeeklatsches which were now scheduled for the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. XVII. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Wilson moved to adjourn to Joint Public Hearing with Redevelopment Agency to follow Call to Order and Consent Calendar of the Agency Agenda. Councilman Snyder seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. Mayor Puluqi adjourned to a Joint Public Hearing with the Agency at 11:17 p.m. Mayor/Chairman Puluqi declared the continued Public Hearing open. He stated this was the time and place set for the continued Joint Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Desert on the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Palm Desert Redevelopment Project, hereinafter referred to as the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. At this hearing, all persons who wish to speak for or against the proposed Amendment or the environmental finds to the Redevelopment Plan will have an opportunity to speak. Mayor/Chairman Puluqi asked for a staff report. Mr. Diaz stated that he had nothing further to offer than that presented by Mr. Ortega at the previous meeting unless Agency Counsel, Mr. Strausz, did. Mr. Strausz had no further input. Mayor/Chairman Puluqi asked the City Clerk to read any written communications received in favor of the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Mrs. Gilligan responded there were none. Mayor/Chairman Puluqi invited input from persons wishing to speak in favor of the Amendment. No one spoke. -10- C MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor/Chairman Puluqi asked the City Clerk to read any written communications received in opposition to the proposed Amendment. Mrs. Gilligan advised there were none. Mayor/Chairman Puluqi invited input from persons wishing to speak in opposition to the Amendment. No one spoke. Mayor/Chairman Puluqi declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Snyder, Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 168 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Agency. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Wilson, City Council Resolution No. 83-9 was adopted and Ordinance No. 324 passed to second reading by unanimous vote of the Council. Upon motion by Jackson, second by Kelly, and unanimous vote of the Council, Mayor Puluqi adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:25 p.m. ROMEO S. PULUQI, MAYOR' ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY RK CITY OF PALM DESERT, IFORNIA -11- MINUTES 1ANUARY 13, 1983 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT "A" I ZS. O\ OL£'LL GR. Pu2VE5. 77-� �.,* 544 O£oz9ia,z �• � ,• 9Lintziciy£, £alito¢nca yi01J PlanningCommission ENVI.cOt`�MaITAI_ s.- City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Res Jan 13 Mtg. and my property, 6.69 Gentlemens acres in NW of Sec 31 T5S R6E My property is unique because it is not rug- ged. It is adjacent to the flood control channel and the proposed road that will be next to the channel. The land is not mount- ainous and has a natural roadway up the slope from the proposed channel road. Zoning should not be too restrictive and lower the value. I want to make a quality development there, with eight or ten sites for beautiful homes. We can plan at least that many without a mat- erial change of the landscape and grading. I feel that the gentle slope of this view property entitles it to a separate identity. I plan to enhance the beauty of the hills in the development. Sincerely, 4,434-e-zd4-- R. trirginia Black Purves (Mrs. R. R. Purves) -12- /MUTES EGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 EXHIBIT "B" -13-