Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-13MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1985 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Snyder convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro-Tempore Richard S. Kelly III. INVOCATION - Councilmember Phyllis Jackson IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember Phyllis Jackson Mayor Pro-Tempore Richard S. Kelly Councilman S. Roy Wilson Mayor Walter H. Snyder Also Present: Bruce A. Altman, City Manager Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk Ramon A. Diaz, Director of Environmental Services Gregg Holtz, Acting Director of Public Works Paul Gibson, Accounting Supervisor V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 23, 1985. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 85-112, 85-114, and 85-115. Rec: Approve as presented. C. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Circle K Convenience Stores for 45-200 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. D. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Circle K Convenience Stores for 44-775 San Pablo, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * E. RESOLUTION NO. 85-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84-99 BY CHANGING THE PROVISION OF EXECUTIVE PHYSICALS FROM BIENNIAL TO ANNUAL. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. F. REPORT FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT for the Month of April, 1985. Rec: Receive and file. G. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION OF CITY MANANGER APPROVAL of Sports Complex Backstops in the Amount of $10,200. Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify the action by approving the expenditure. H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Agreement No. 00-044 with Palm Desert Post to Provide Legal Advertising Services for the City of Palm Desert. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the agreement and amended rate schedule and authorize the Mayor to execute same. I. RESOLUTION NO. 85-43 - A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO VACATE PORTIONS OF RIGHT-OF- WAY KNOWN AS PALM DESERT DRIVE NORTH UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART 3, DIVISION 9, OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN OR OBJECTING TO PROPOSED VACATION. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. J. RESOLUTION NO. 85-44 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE INVESTMENT OF CITY OF PALM DESERT FUNDS. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. K. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR COOK STREET AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE MEDIANS. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize a one-year extension of the contract for landscape maintenance on the Cook Street and Country Club Drive medians. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Jackson, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Council. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MR. MARK A. BEATTY, Portals, 83-741 Hopi Avenue, Indio, California 92201, addressed Council and read a prepared statement relative to the City's regulations of awnings on El Paseo. He stated that he and the appproximately 40 people he had contacted for letters of support felt that the City's current restrictions were adequate. He had heard that the City Council was considering restricting this type of structure and offered to serve on any investigating com' nittee to lend his expertise. He concluded by urging Council to take no action to reverse the precedence already set which allows awnings in the commercial areas of the City and within the current prescribed guidelines. Councilman Wilson stated he too had heard that the City was planning to revise these regulations but in checking with the Planning Department had found no such program. He thought some erroneous information was being disseminated and assured Mr. Beatty that if and when the City decided to make such a review, it would contact h►gn for his expertise and opinion. MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MS. SUSAN MARTINO, 44-675 San Jacinto, Palm Desert, addressed Council relative to concerns about increased traffic and speeds at which it traveled on DeAnza Way. She requested speed bumps be installed. Staff was instructed to work with the Police Department in resolving these concerns and problems. VIQ. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1980-1 IN FISCAL 1985-86 (Presidents' Plaza). Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Altman reported that the staff memo outlined the provisions of the district as well as the proposed tax levy. He recommended adoption of the proposed resolution and offered to answer any Council questions. Mayor Snyder invited testimony in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 85-45 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. B. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 IN FISCAL 1985-86 (Canyon Cove - Tract 11636-1). Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Altman reported that a petition had been received from the residents of Canyon Cove specifically asking for what staff was recommending -- no tax levy. He recommended adoption of the proposed resolution. Mayor Snyder invited testimony in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, levy no assessments for fiscal year 1985-86 and declare the annual public hearing closed. Councilmember Jackson seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. C. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 IN FISCAL 1985-86 (Tract No. 8237 - Parkview Estates). Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Altman reported that the staff memo outlined the provisions of the district as well as set forth the appropriate assessment. He recommended adoption of the proposed resolution and offered to answer any Council questions. Mayor Snyder invited testimony in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Jackson, second by Benson, Resolution No. 85-46 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. D. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 81-3 IN FISCAL 1985-86 (Tract Nos. 12181-1 6c 12181-2 - The Vineyards). Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Altman recommended adoption of the proposed resolution pursuant to receiving public testimony. -3- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Snyder invited testimony in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Jackson, second by Wilson, Resolution No. 85-47 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. E. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 IN FISCAL 1985-86 (Cook Street/Country Club Drive Median Assessment District). Mayor Snyder decla• red the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Altman stated that the staff report and resolution set forth the provisions of the district as well as justification for the assessment and levy. He recommended adoption of the resolution pursuant to receiving public testimony. Mayor Snyder invited testimony in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Benson, Resolution No. 85-48 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. F. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.37 SPECIFYING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF AN EIGHT UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT CONTAINING TWO UNITS AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SANTA ROSA WAY, 300 FEET WEST OF SAN PASCUAL. (Continued from the Meeting of February 28, 1985.) Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Altman reported that the applicant desired a continuance for this item until such time as the Palma Village Specific Plan had been reviewed and implemented inasmuch as it would have an affect on his development plans. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Jackson, the item was continued to the meeting of August 8, 1985, by unanimous vote of the Council. G. CONSIDERATION OF THE PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. (Note: A verbatim transcript of this hearing was prepared at the request of staff and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" of the Minutes.) Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Phil Drell, Associate Planner, reviewed the plan and all of its provisions (copy on file and of record in the City Clerk's office). Mayor Snyder invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed plan, and the following was offered: MR. ROMEO PULUQI, 72-850 Tamarisk Street, favored the plan as a way of upgrading an older neighborhood and improving the quality of the north side of Highway 111. MS. VERONA STEWART, 44-476 San Rafael, favored the plan as a measure to upgrade a deteriorating neighborhood. MR. STANLEY SOPHER, 44-695 San Antonio Circle, favored the plan in its entirety, especially as it related to provisions for senior housing, and additionally requested the closure of San Gorgonio Way as it is -4- MINUTES — REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * currently being used as an east -west access which deteriorated the neighborhood atmosphere. MS. HELEN BREEDING, owner of Lots 42, 43, and 44 at the corner of Fairhaven Drive and Fred Waring Drive, favored the plan but requested consideration of rezoning her property to allow professional office building development. She felt it would be more compatible with the existing development and zoning. Additionally, she requested consideration of the three lots being consolidated into one lot. MR. BILL ROSSWORN, 41-530 Woodhaven Drive, addressed Council as a property owner on San Pablo Avenue, Catalina Way, and Santa Rosa Way. He favored the plan as a real estate developer and commended staff for the excellent preparation it had given it. MR. CHARLES MILLER, Little Bend Trail, spoke as a property owner in the area covered by the plan and expressed his favor of its provisions. He expressed concern over the lack of a sewer system in the area and asked that it be given a high priority. MR. GEORGE KRYDER, Sonora Drive, spoke in favor of the plan and in opposition to Ms. Breeding's request for office professional zoning in his neighborhood as he felt it was a "single-family area." He too stressed necessity for a sewer system in the area. MR. JACK DAYTON, 74-280 Alessandro, spoke in favor of the plan but against too much increased density on the north side as he did not believe it would enhance the area. He also expressed concern as to what will happen to the north side when the large curb and gutter assessment district is installed on the south side. MR. KIGER BARTON, 44-519 San Anselmo, spoke in favor of the plan but against increased high density projects as he felt they would lower the standard of living by introducing negative elements such as more crime. He also requested Council consider placing a limit on the number of people allowed to live in a dwelling unit. MR. TERRAN ELAM, Goleta Street, spoke in favor of the plan but against the proposed high density on Goleta as he felt it would increase traffic in an area with too much already. MS. HELEN BREEDING again addressed the Council in favor of an office professional zoning for her property as she felt it was in accordance with a plan she had heard about that would make Fred Waring Drive comparable to Tahquitz-McCallum Way in Palm Springs. Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for Council comments. Councilmember Benson stated her concern about the high density residential proposed for Monterey Avenue adjacent to the single-family homes. She felt the City had gone to great expense to improve Monterey as a main corridor into the City which would only be improved by the addition of the Cultural Center. To line the street with high -density projects in her estimation would not serve to be an improvement as would an office professional designation. Councilman Wilson commended staff and the Planning Commission for much hard work in identifying ways to upgrade this area. He noted two overall concerns: one dealing with the quite extensive development of two-story units throughout the area, particularly in the high density areas and some of the office professional areas. The second was the overall concept of the high -density residential throughout. He felt those two items would have a great impact on the entire neighborhood, one which would not necessarily be a positive impact. He went on to say that it would forever and irreversibly change the character of the entire north side, and he felt Council should be extremely careful before implementing something of this impact. He questioned the need to have some of the senior overlay units multiple story. He felt -5- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * changing some of the sizes of units and carport requirements would allow lower density, garden type developments. Councilmember Jackson commended staff and the people who participated in the preparation of the plan for accomplishing a horrendous task. She favored multiple story units as it allowed for more open space. She felt overall height was more of a concern than story limitation. She felt Council had a definite obligation to produce more housing for senior citizens in this area where their activity center is located and at prices they can afford. She noted she had owned property in this area for many, many years and favored the plan as a way of upgrading an area that needed it. Councilman Kelly stated that the plan was very well done and while there were areas in which he shared concern, he felt it was an overall general plan for the area and an excellent plan. He stated his support of the senior citizen development around the Senior Center and the proposed office professional designations. Mayor Snyder stated that Council did indeed have some serious considerations. He said that most who lived here came to get away from high density and crowding, and he did not want to see that happen in Palm Desert. However, he recognized the need for a way to improve the area in the best manner possible. No plan would meet the approval of all. He said he had joined Councilmembers Wilson and Benson in their fight to retain open space and less density, and he pledged to continue to do that. However, the proposed plan was just that -- a plan. He supported its adoption and noted it could be modified to mitigate concerns as it was implemented. Councilmember Jackson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 85-49 with direction to staff to begin implementation of the plan's recommendations. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried by a 3-2 vote with Councilman Wilson and Councilmember Benson voting NO for reasons stated. Mr. Diaz noted for the record a point of clarification. He stated that the plan was labeled "General Plan Amendment No. 2". He stated that the City is limited to four General Plan amendments per year and this labeling was for labeling purposes only and does not constitute one of the City's General Plan amendments. He stated this had been discussed and concurred with by the City Attorney. H. CONSIDERATION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 1,594 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING 2,546 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT LOCATED IN EL PASEO VILLAGE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EL PASEO BETWEEN SAN PABLO AVENUE AND LUPINE LANE. Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Diaz reported that when the Council called the item up for consideration, the parking modification total for the center was 17 spaces. Since the call up, the owner of the center had indicated a willingness to abandon a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (15-83) which would have permitted a 2,500 sq. ft. restaurant on the easterly side of the center. This abandonment reduced the modification from 17 spaces to two spaces. He recommended that the City Council reaffirm the Planning Commission approval subject to the City receiving a letter from the property owner officially abandoning CUP 15-83. Mayor Snyder invited testimony in FAVOR of the request, and the following was offered: COUNT VON HUELLESSEM, El Paseo Merchant, supported the request noting restaurants were good for retail merchants. -6- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MR. RICHARD ERWOOD, 73-729 Desert Vista, spoke as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, explaining the Commission's decision as well as its justification for approving the request. MR. JIM JOHNSON, adjacent El Paseo merchant, favored the expansion of the restaurant and the parking variance. MR. GEORGE BURN, Cameron's, stated Cedar Creek Inn was an asset to the entire community and especially the retail community adjacent to it. Mayor Snyder invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Jackson, second by Wilson, Resolution No. 85-50, approving the request, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. I. CONSIDERATION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CUP 03-82 TO PERMIT A 1,500 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE FORMER TULLIO'S RESTAURANT AND DELETE A NET 11 PARKING SPACES. MARTIN AXIS, INC., APPLICANT. Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Diaz reported that the request had been approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 7,1985. He noted that the Commission felt that the data presented by the applicant warranted the granting of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the applicant at a future date becoming part of a parking assessment district if one was established. He stated staff's position in recommending denial because the proposed expansion would delete 11 existing parking spaces. He noted that the Council did not have a resolution before and should direct staff, when either approving or denying the request, to bring an appropriate resolution to the next meeting for adoption. Councilmember Jackson noted an error in the wording of the Planning Commission resolution. Mayor Snyder invited testimony in FAVOR of the request, and the following was offered. MR. LYMAN MARTIN, 15C Sandpiper, Palm Desert, addressed Council as the applicant. He presented Council with a study which had been done over a 65-day period and one which he felt supported his position that the parking lot did not have a deficiency in parking spaces nor would it if the expansion were approved. MR. RICHARD ERWOOD, 73-729 Desert Vista, addressed Council as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. He stated the Commission's position and justifiction for its approval of the request. He said the main problem the Commission dealt with was the fact that no specific spaces are allocated to individual businesses in this parking lot; parking is determined based on square footage of the building. He said the Commission felt the applicant's data substantiated the fact that adequate parking was and would continue to be available with approval of the request. He concluded by stating that the 2000 Committee had recommended the City encourage this type of business. MR. JACK DAYTON, 74-280 Alessandro, spoke in favor of the request. Mayor Snyder invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilmember Jackson stated that 58 of the merchants had indicated support of the request, and she did not know why Council was even questioning the Planning Commission decision. -7- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Snyder stated he had called the matter before the Council because of an on -going concern he had that we would run out of commercial parking and be faced with a problem identical to that which Palm Springs is currently facing. He said people don't go to Palm Springs to shop because there is no parking. He said he had made a point of stopping in this parking lot on different days and at different times of the day, and the lot was quite often full. He stated that if the City doesn't live with its regulations, great problems will be created down the road. He felt that a variance of 39 spaces was far too big to overlook. He noted that he had received a letter recently from the Chamber of Commerce wherein they stated a strong concern over future parking problems and requested the City to study the problem carefully and come up with solutions now to prevent a future problem. Councilman Kelly stated he was concerned over a shortage of 39 spaces. He said that Tullio's had been approved because there was extra parking. Councilman Kelly moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next Council meeting. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion. Motion carried by a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Jackson voting NO for reasons stated. J. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.68 CONCERNING REGULATION OF SIGNS. Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Diaz reported that in reviewing amendments to the ordinance, the Planning Commisison had discussed political signs and regulations within our ordinance that would be constitutionally legal, internally illuminated signs, criteria under which freestanding signs are reviewed by the Architectural Commission, and appropriateness of limiting freestanding signs to one per street frontage in the regional commercial zone. Mr. Diaz noted that Mr. Ernest Hahn had met with Council in Study Session with regard to a free standing sign in the Town Center that would allow identification of the businesses open at night. The existing regulations did not provide for such a sign, and Mr. Hahn had stressed the need because current businesses in the center now open in the evening had experienced a severe drop in activity primarily because no one knew they were open at night. Mr. Diaz recommended that if Council chose to include provisions for such a sign that the following wording be added to Section 25.68.390 of the proposed ordinance: "In the case, of centers in the regional commercial zone having over 700,000 square feet of gross leasable retail floor area, said center identification signs may contain the name of tenants and/or activities conducted with the center which operate during evening hours." Mayor Snyder invited testimony either in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Jackson, second by Benson, Ordinance No. 422, amended to include the wording set forth by Mr. Diaz, was passed to second reading by unanimous vote of the Council. K. CONSIDERATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM ' CORE AREA COMMERCIAL AND RELATED USES TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (5-7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 12.5 ACRES OF LAND BOUNDED BY THE PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL, EL PASEO, PAINTERS PATH, AND HIGHWAY 111. Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for staff's report. Mr. Diaz explained that Council had previously denied a request for a zone change on this property. The ordinance before the Council would -8- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * place the zoning in conformance with the General Plan by amending the General Plan and its land use designation which would be medium density residential, 5-7 units to the acre. Mayor Snyder invited testimony either in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Benson, second by Wilson, Resolution No. 85-51 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. IX. X. RESOLUTIONS None ORDINANCES For Introduction: A. ORDINANCE NO. 426 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 392 AS IT RELATES TO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR THE EL PASEO PARKING AND IMPROVEMENT AREA. Mr. Altman explained that the Council had established this district last summer by ordinance. However, the ordinance set terms of officers for July each year which was felt by members of the Area's Board to be less desirable than a January commencement. The ordinance before Council would amend the term of office by making them effective January 1 of each year. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Jackson, Ordinance No. 426 was passed to second reading by unanimous vote of the Council. For Adoption: None XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 AND PRESENTATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT AND RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Altman reported that both Mackenzie Brown, legal counsel for the district, and Joe Kicak, engineer for the district, had met with Council in Study Session for the purpose of thoroughly reviewing the procedure before Council tonight and to answer questions. Mr. Brown reviewed the proposed resolutions as well as what each would accomplish in the assessment district process. Mr. Barry McClellan described the boundaries of the proposed district. He stated the debt limit report set forth the estimated cost of improvements at $6.9 million and indicated a ratio of bond value of 16.5 to 1. He reviewed necessary right-of-way acquisition in the district. He concluded by noting that the Engineer's Report had been filed in a timely manner with the City Clerk and that Council had received a copy of it. Councilman Kelly asked why handicapped slots had to be placed in some driveways such as on Fairway Drive. He said he didn't think sidewalks would ever be installed on that street, or others for that matter, and that these slots were then an unnecessary expense. Staff was directed to investigate whether or not the law mandated such installations. -9- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, adopt the following: 1. Resolution No. 85-52, making appointments. 2. Resolution No. 85-53, adopting proposed boundary map. 3. Resolution No. 85-54, covering preliminary determination. 4. Resolution No. 85-55, approving "Report" and setting public hearing. 5. Resolution No. 85-56, declaring intention to order the construction of certain improvements, together with appurtenances. 6. Resolution No. 85-57, passing on "Report" and setting public hearing. 7. Resolution No. 85-58, referencing wage scale and calling for bids. 8. Resolution No. 85-59, authorizing sale of bonds. 9. Resolution No. 85-60, setting hearing on eminent domain proceedings. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. XIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS N one XIV. OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY COACHELLA VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT FOR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT (follow-up report from meeting of May 9, 1985). Mr. Altman reported that staff was working with the C.V. Recreation & Park District and that this item was still pending. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, the item was tabled by unanimous vote of the Council. XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. INSURANCE WAIVER Mr. Altman referred to a written recommendation from the City Attorney to authorize signing of a waiver required by our insurance company dealing with city employees who might issue citations. It was the Attorney's opinion that it did not apply to us inasmuch as the Sheriff's Department has the authority to do this and is insured accordingly. Councilman Wilson moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the required waiver, and Councilmember Benson seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 85-61 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1868 (AIR RESOURCES BOARD MEMBERSHIP). Mr. Altman reported that the City had received a letter from the South Coast Air Quality Management District requesting support of this bill so that our interests will be better represented. Councilman Wilson moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution of support of AB 1868 as outlined in the Air Quality Management District's letter of June 4th and that the Mayor be authorized to sign said resolution. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. B. CITY ATTORNEY N' -10- MINUTES - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3UNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Snyder asked that everyone note the future meetings listed on the agenda. XVII. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Jackson moved to adjourn to Closed Session in accordance with Section 54956.8 of the Government Code for the purpose of discussing negotiations for the purchase of all or a portion of the land immediately adjacent to the Civic Center, said property owned by M. B. Johnson, said Closed session to be held immediately following adjournment of the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote and Mayor Snyder adjourned to Closed Session at 9:55 p.m. Mayor Snyder reconvened the meeting at 10:22 p.m. and immediately adjourned announcing no action taken in Closed Session. ATTEST: SHEILA R. G1U IGAN, CIT�CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT WALTER H. SNYDER, MAVFOR -11- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT A PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN Walt Next matter under public hearings is consideration of the Palma Village Specific Plan and associated negative declara- tion of environmental impact. This is a public hearing. I declare the public hearing open and ask for the report of the City Manager. Bruce Yes, Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, Mr. Diaz and his staff will brief you. I believe they could probably give you a summary briefing and respond to questions since they went through quite a bit of detail in the Study Session - your choice. Phil D. Before I begin, I would like to bring attention to some of the citizens, residents, property owners in the Palma Village area who spent a great deal of time and effort on this plan. They were part of the Palma Village Specific Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. They met fairly religiously on a weekly basis through November, December, January and on and off since then. They are Ella Manor, Frank Vassivo, Tim Palmer, John Hancock, Michael Criste, Franz Tirrie, Rheo Lawman, Verona Stewart, Rick Holden, Jim Sattley, Joyce McAllister, Del Gagnon, Randy Lunsford. Again, they dealt in a very thorough manner area by area to try to resolve some of these issues. For those who are interested and have not yet picked one up, the current draft of the Plan is available sitting on that wall right there. If you turn the page to page 14, there is a map showing the Plan area and proposed land uses to follow along with the various discussions. To begin with, the Plan was initiated because of a desire to stimulate some improvements in this particular area which represents the oldest subdivision in the City. And the Committee first established what they believed to be the basic criteria which would determine the basic recommendations of the Plan. Those criteria were: - That all new uses be compatible with existing and future uses; - That the Plan address the needs of the Palm Desert community; and - That the land uses allowed would be economically feasible in the foreseeable future. Basically, the.Plan recommendations are designed to promote new, high quality development in long -vacant areas, unutilized areas, and to preserve and enhance exisitng single family zones. They also established a number of general policies to, again, guide the Plan, which would apply to the whole area, and those were: 1. That the City would take a more proactive role in the promotion of public improvements in promoting high quality infill private development and public works consistent with the policy criteria. 2. General Policy II dealt with that commercial and multi- family zones be of sufficient depth to allow efficient site planning and the creation of buffer areas adjacent to single family zones. 3. Policy III was to discourage nonlocal through traffic in local neighborhoods. 4. Policy IV was to basically reaffirm the City's overall architectural review process so that all new development in this area will receive the same high standards of architectural review and concern for senior preservation as all development does throughout the City. -12- MINUTES _ REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1UNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT A (Continued) 5. General Policy V has to do with legal nonconforming residential uses, which presently are, under our present ordinance, subject to elimination under certain circum- stances; and this policy recommends that a policy be developed to allow these uses to achieve full conforming status if they achieve a specified standard of architectural and site planning. 6. General Policy VI deals with building height, in that the Plan and the Committee felt that in certain areas two story development was advantageous. They felt that additional controls on height, which do not presently exist, could be instituted to adequately deal with and mitigate the impacts of this increased incidence of two story height. Basically, it recommended the reduction from the present 30 foot height limit for a two story building to 22 feet for flat roofed and 24 feet for pitched roofs and 25 feet for professional offices. 7. Policy VII was to address all. the City owned surplus land in the area which is now vacant, and it basically directs the City to either landscape, develop, or dispose of in a satisfactory manner for development all those vacant lands so they don't detract from the landscape. And those are the general policies. I will then go through the recommendation for the Plan area by area, and it will probably help as I describe them to refer to that map on page 14. Area 1 includes Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. The recommended land uses in that area are as follows: 0n Fred Waring between Monterey and San Pablo, the present low density, essentially single family designation is being recommended to be changed to a professional office. The goal of this particular change and many of the changes in this area are to generate new development of comparable quality and scale as developments which are occurring on the north side of Fred Waring; namely, the Cultural Center and the Civic Center; that these uses promoted and allowed on the south side be of that same comparable quality in this area. Because of the special impacting occasionally being generated by the Cultural Center, professional offices are being recommended. The depth of this zone will extend two lots backing onto Santa Rosa. To mitigate the impact of this increased intensity of use on Fred Waring, it is recommended that a 30 foot greenbelt be established on the north side of Santa Rosa and that only parking and the creation of common uses parking lots be allowed on those lots that presently back onto Santa Rosa. In the block between, on Fred Waring, San Pablo and Portola, in that a great number of multifamily uses already are in existence on the lots presently fronting onto Santa Rosa in that area, we are recommending a continuation of that use but a rezonins; to high density residential with a senior housing overlay which I will discuss somewhat later. 0n to Monterey. We are recommending continuation of professional office uses beginning where the Board of Realtor is north to Fred Waring and maintenance of the high density residential on Fred Waring north of Fred Waring to Parkview with the creation of a similar greenbelt buffer backing onto Acacia. 0n the east side of Fred Waring we are recommending that the professional office zone extend and continue down to Catalina with, again, maintenance of a greenbelt behind and basically stopping there at Catalina. The second area is the area continuing on Monterey down to Highway 111 and around the corner going east on Highway 111 to San Pablo. (to make sure I cover everything) The most substantial proposal in this zone is the expansion of the -13- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3UNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT A (Continued) current commercial use on Highway 111 back one lot into what is now single family. Right now there is a single family zone, I mean there is a commercial zone, an alley and then residential lots back on to the alley. We are proposing to maximize the Highway frontage on Highway 111 so that it does not become consumed by parking as would be the case and as it is being proposed right now by various property owners that the commercial zone be expanded into the first row lots that are presently backing on the alley and that area being utilized as a common access usage parking area similar to Presidents Plaza and creation of a greenbelt north of that adjacent to the residential uses. Access to this parking area would be from the corner of San Gorgonio and Monterey, San Marcos, and through what is now the alley which would become a bio-access to the parking area. The second recommendation is to study ways to reduce traffic through the San Gorgonio neighborhood which is presently being generated by the Palm Desert Town Center. Considerable debate on this in the Committee and in the hearings, it was clearly recognized that a serious problem exists; how to deal with it was left unresolved. Area number 3 - Santa Rosa to Guadalupe between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo. This area is presently essentially is development R-1 although its official designation is R-2(7). The functioning of the R-2(7) in this particular zone because of the subdivision pattern is as R-1. We are recommending that it remain, that that pattern be preserved and low density residential remain. Area 4 - Monterey Avenue west to Fairhaven. In this area, again, in terms of the interior, aside from those impacts and changes specifically described on Monterey, the present single family low density usage should be preserved. Area 5 - Alessandro, basically from San Pablo all the way to Deep Canyon. We are proposing the expansion of the present depth of what is now a multifamily medium density zone with professional offices a conditional use permit which is now one lot deep. We are proposing that it be expanded to two lots deep with the function of the second lot to be a lower intensity, lower height, buffer between the two uses. Area 6 - San Pascual and Catalina. This is the area roughly around the Seniors Center. In the neighborhoods east of San Pascual which are already predominantly built out with single family, we are proposing preservation of the present single family. Number two would be to encourage construction of senior housing surrounding the Seniors Center, and we are proposing the establishment of a senior housing overlay of which a proposed draft is included in the back of the Plan, which will provide standards for specifically designed senior housing. West of San Pascual where we already have a mix of basically vacant land and older multifamily, we are proposing that it be zoned, all of the land be zoned multifamily to be consistent with the existing development and to encourage higher quality multifamily in the area. One specific thing I should point out: In the parcels directly east of the Seniors Center on Catalina, we are proposing that in that this area abuts single family to the south, that although we are .proposing the senior overlay and what now is a medium density R-2 zone, that the SP (Senior Preservation Overlay) or an equivalent restriction be placed limiting development on this site to one story since it is across the street from established single family, single story homes. -14- Cr H. (Zrt rt cn () 'O ct 0) C () (D (1) P C) Al rt c+ c+ ) P 0 B ct ct ^ K () b-3 t� o- O In c-r r• 04 0 rt tc) ct $ ct W p 0 0• c+ Cr 0• 'O 0 0 A) rt c+ P Al () y U) K w ,a m 0(D0.0•0Ot-•'KIv0KX1-CHPK(D(D0•K00O0.0•0(DO0' r•(DHhG0.0OK0•G 0'0•0'0 A) A)R•(DmHPC0'ON0• Cl. ►f ct(DpK O 'O A) A) A) A) 0 0• (D H. 0 O 0 (D W W m m O 0 U) K O O 0 ® () D5' H. Cr CD H. K et R. (D N (D 8 0 (n 0 (D - P N N 'O Ar N (..3 L,. CY N Sv 0 0 (fl P) t-' p rt rt m W O Hh r• A) rt- () P. U) ) et c+ c+ G c+ 0 W 0 O 'O (D Oq c-r C-4. U) 0 c+ 0 w K K (D 0' (D a 0 K 0 K ct H-' H-, K O P) (D P) et' 0 w W Cr G K (-t m (D H+) () ct O) ro a CD C• r•'O C/) 0• K G (D ct H r O Cr Cr (G CMO• G Ar O (D 0 (D W U) w ►-a• 0 ' z- w all O r• W h- G a + )— R. c • rt p 0. 0 3 H. O a 3 HPi H. Cr h P CDK H. CR • r• 3 w D K rt g et(D 0 CD Cr (D O4 4 0"W 0• C 'C S 0 (D A) M 0 r• P (D K (D (D P 0 u) a cC -1 (D H• K H. W (D O K (D rt- rt 0 m 0 r• (D 0 K m 3 0• 0 (D O M 0 rt 0 U) ct 0• cC A) m A) CR a H, In OQ 0 cC U) a (D r• 0 0 O) Co • (D O (D p u) 0 0 CR (n Al 0' 0. 0ci P 0 0 ro C a'v 0 0 w (D G' 0 0 O P H. 0 O K K 4 W (D (D CD t-1 rt OM U) K ct 0 0 ct o4 0 Htb ct CR W et P O • 0 Arm et A� °C a H. C) 0 0 c* 9 CD a r K HA . PP) P 0 .0 C) r• U) G 04 0 w (D et • c+ P m c+ Pr a o o c+ Hh G W ct c+ 3 0 0 P 0- K K 0 a P P. a ro O Pt B G R. ct 0 O4 U) ro 'O m O O' O a• C O• n U) 0 H. c+ et O. O w 0 0' 0) r•aW00 P. w A)0•'Oro$Ht)GKro(DctPa ct0r• 0XQ rocDK0amGO•WOt-'HhIU CDromO H. 00" 'CI 0(D La. Dar• a A) r• C) cC 0• Hh t-+) P 0 13 0 ct ri (D A) CD K U) XQ H+J P Hh 0 r- Oq U) CrR. G H. 0 0 p A) H. 0 D P) U) U) C A) K H z et- A) P) r• O4 O C) (D 0U)• 0 O'00•m K0 0 0 • 001-tP00 U) mr'3P0act • r'C(D COU)• N(D W 'a 5. mmt-'Crct(DctrtCD r70• O Cr0 O c+/1 m m ro P xH'K 3 0.0 0•►s rtr•04 0 wG (D am r•K 0 CD rh 1-6 0 0 G r•K r• W H,0 ( 0'(D c+ H. r- () (D r' 'O 0• (D 0• U) 0 C () (D m H. H. m () A) .0 U) W ro a 0 m H. a 0• e a a P 0 Cr 0 0 Cr W 0 W 0• 0 ct rt (D m O P) 0' 0 r- a 0 0 t-- a P. (D W H. W W 0 R. 0 r• P O ct P 0 0 (D H. P- W U) m et < m 0 m G HI c+ Iv N HP =4 (D Al v 'O U) Al 'O 0• I K P r• U) m •i 0 ct 0 0 G () (D r-• O (D K (D0• K 0' ct X r• 0 0q G P W 0 H. N P G ct W 0 (D (I) • H. Cr m A) O P. C G rt (D 0-3 P) ro et- Oq a O Cr r• (D1•-' 0• () 'C3 O (D cD r (1) r P r• P 0• P 0 t (D O a K 0 1-4 A) t-' 1-1 ct rt 0 c+ (D C) 'O W 0 CD 'C:,Hh 0 '0• 0 0 rt O O G r• 0 (D 0 X rt O K W W 'z - ct < c-r. 0 0 • r• 3 rt ct 0• (/) 1-) rt A) 0 0 H. a r• G O K m c+ A) m K c+'O p 0 W K ro 0 rt, $ K ct H. 0• O 0 C) U) a 0 H. r• 0 0 H. (D 0- (D Xi a Iv U) 'CS O 0• H-' CD A) A) H. 0 t- W H� A) W 0 K H� a K t-' Iv G O G 0 CD 0 rt R. m r- ct G R. ct O (n a Cr 0 0• °C rt. Iv a P) W U) H-' H. U) H t-, R. 0 H— 0 0q Cr m ro m 0. 0 m m 0• O c+ O 0' HP Al 'O '0 K O ro ro rt O H. 3 0 0 0 '-n )--' 04 A) 0 rt ►s - 1-1 0' m W 1•0 Iv r• a 0'Q (n m a K A) W G Iv G '-h O C O A) K 0 O K K t-h C)'O K C W 0• 0 °C rt 0 i-h P (D Pro C H. P a m A) 0 ro W 0• Iv 0 et et 0' H. C H. 0 C) K c+ 0 m 0 U) m et U) 0 (D ro H. rt ro ro H. ,.. p P O4 (D CD 0 rt X ►S 3 0 m 0 rt H. G P H. H. O A) Al a 0 Iv 3 a 0' 0• t m O m rh m m m c+ )-• - m et a [) a Ar P� 'O 0 C� 0 m a t-� 0 �n et 0 C aR.a) rh t � 0rc+ 1-10 )1t K rP ct a)r• 0 • CD0• P) PIP) W r. U) H. CDrt 0 0• H. H. 0' K a H c+ a 0 c+ a) c+ 0 O Pr O 0Q R, et 0 0• m m P) 1-h 0 m r• r• A) 0' r• 0 P K U) 0 m K a W et 0 A) 0 U) `C 0 A) r' H{3 A) 0 0 ro cC 0 W W co m ro r•'C3 ►-. t-' K ar+P)PP) K on3GKc+oc+c prooaPat-b0a0co cn r•r• PmOO 0(n (n t�a00C ma•'CS K K 050 P A) (D 0 0 rt 0 r• a K P 3 U) P Jq 0• C 3 Oq K U) G A) K m m W 0 0 Cr Hh G C) r ct m 04 ct H. K c+ i-b C1• p •• • m ro ro rt m Ht. '� a W 'O m r• r• m CD CO r+ (D (D 'Cl c+ cD t-r X' m 0 '0 QM) A) 0 t•-' I-' ) -' 0. O 1-b 0 m 0q 0• K m c+ m m m 0. O WO A) a CD 0 Hh (D r-t,W H. W r•m0 u) rt 1C)Iv 00 00eLom• $ r•mU)0Gr•P.0'aA)()Or•OOrom 0•0-1 0m1-iWroP)P)WP Wc+A) ►s $ r• ct 0 ct 0- Jq 0 O O 0. 0. O c+ W rt m P O A) A) m 0 r• ct U) 0• 0 0 O t-' U) 0 m 0 O K et a c+ 0 0 ro m m m m 0 0 c+ H. U) • H. 0 AlC 0. 0 0 H. H. G m AlG r• 0• A) c+'O C7 U) U) ro rt r• CD K H. c CD a 0• m A) Hg04 G r• H. rt 'CI H. t-h `Car• U) U) 0 N `C a 0 CD CDr H' 0 CD a)P A) 0 0 W C W 0 0• a) K H. PIH. - 0 H. 0' 0 K HI M 0• CD K r a)K U) P 0 (D K 'O C c+ (Dr 0 0 O H. 0 w 1-' H-' 0 a W HP t� 0q 0q W K m 0 m H. H. 0. 0 r• N K Oq 0 (D0 ro O H. m W Cr a O r• x• K 0 ct Oq 0 O N K A) m A) 0 O 0 0 t-b 0 H. U) `C o r• rt '0 R. m a) 0 O W r• H 0 m P. C (D ti A) 0• et- - 0▪ C) K 3 m- Hh 0 H. ? CD 'O A) O O (Drt • K 0q r• et Cr G 0 H. r� P O Ps P. U) :; 0 (D. a t-J Cr 0 0 P - D P m m 1 0 C, Iv G m `C 0 'O 4> a O m A) (D 0 Jq Xq p a• R. Hop H. P =% ; i. uw 'S 0 • Da O m P a P, , s c - 0 rt P W rt J4 r• U) U) K UI m O H-P Iv p' p' K 0' 0 P O C H� O 'O rt p 0 m <-'• a r• art (D m r• r• G C) K 0 3 a Oq r-•' H. a 0' 0 0• O N - )1 0 rt • U) H-' 0 K 0 H+r 0 A) 1" 1-t, K A) U) ct rt. p rt H. 0 (D K .-, 0 W 0 0 0 0 m O 0' H. a m r• p P 0 P 3 m a CD ct 0 0 I-h r• `C 'O m 0 a 0' G 0• CD c+ () °C m Cr 0- m K a C) 0- 0 0 rt rt W r 0 Xq HI ''1 U) O 0 0 ct H. '-e: 0 (Ai (D K 0• U) 0 PPP 0 K a c+ 0 P W 0 W H-' P' ro P '0 a H. r A) m O m m P 0 rt 0• H. m ►s A) rt W 0 0 rt a H. 0 U) A) 0 0• Al m (Dm m 0 W K c+ 0 H-t 0 0- 0 'O G r• 0 c+ r• K 0 P O 0 m 0 ct g 0 0 0 H. r• W P 0 2 a m P P rt P. 0- - G a ►s m A) O P r• rt m XI CD G O C) O 0 C) 1-' m <t'O 0 W 0$ W ro et- rt K Al 0 m et r-3 t-' ►S et :A P) 0 0 K m 0 G - et- 0 rt 3 r-n 0 W P P ct P O - 0 O IU 0 m A) W w r Hh r• 04 H. `C rt- H. ✓ t ct rt `C • • O `C (-) 0 K W P rt '0 a m 0• K H. W W 1--' r• 0' m 0- K H. 0• 0 A) 0 a 9 W W ro ct W 0 ro 0 H. 0 a W A) Ha H. O 0 O 0. 0' cn 5 G K 'O m U) 0 K P) 0' m 0 ct H. 1 -, 0 rt m 0 K r• 0 m et 0 C) P' 'O O K 0• W a 0 0 W (R 0(D 'O a P) rt- t-' A) P(D a) 0 1-6 H' 0 U) a O Cf K C a) rt, A) K 0 0 0 K n rt 0 0 W G a f✓ '0 Pi rt 3 CD ro A) m C 0 K 'd r• K W ID rt rt O M '-3 0 p (D H. U) (D P U) c-+• A) (D a) P CD ct m 0 74 W m rt 0 G 7q c+ (D p) K PI 'O (D 0• (D 0 � G W a c+ 0 c+ (1) W CD K '1 04 - rt O 'CI 0 Si C 0' n O rt 0 rt m m U) W 0 K K r• m 0 c+ m 0' m H-' W 0' H-•' Cr CD K 0• r• A) 'O 0• W (D r• w 0 K P. 0 0 m en 0 I -' O AP W m m m K r ro rt P m W m 0 m H. w m 0 ct O (-)0" 0 m a 0 H, (D P. )43 0(D W c+ W P H. m W 'O O 0 t� rt 0 X 0 G$ `C cD 0' R• ►S ►I 0 m O K 0 K 0' rt a s C7 0 0 0 W rh rt O m H. rt r-t) O W H. N 0 m 'CI 0 K W C) 0 0 K Cs' A) `C r rt O K CD 0 H-• H. Cr PC m rt Al 0 7q R. 3 0 T) CD K OQ 0 0. 0 t-' W '0 r• P) O m 0 0 0 K m W 'O O K et 0' 3 m `C 3 H-+ A) K W 3 m H. W A) 0 m W m 0 r• K p r• G 0 H. W m 0 ►1 0 t—' H-' K 0 r-' 0 m 0 0 m K W H-' P m- p 0 HJ A) 0' K (DR A) `C K CD P H. O ►s 0 0 W 0 • K m. 0 0 m 0 et r 0 '0 ct C a 0' 0 0 m A) P O m W C) • W m a A) rt C N Cr .0 0 'O 0 r• 0 O 'C; A) m 0 r+ 0 0 K 0 ►S p O r• m P) - a A) 0 7q ro 0 K O W ro Cr H. ►-3 0 G K 0 cr 0 'O O m 0 r• )-6 W `C m 0 H-' g H. O- t✓ 0 a G G H•' W a m (D rt m 74 m ~ 77:O 'GY R W rt W c a N art • c-r0 P) Hmh O ((DD O HClq. a ro a lA ((DD a• z i -' ►• Ps uq c�+ A) O $ rt m (A 0 1G-r a c+ N. UK) 00 H. P. 0. `< UU)) c~D p p ►1 P% H- 7Q ,--' 0 cn ct C A) 0 rt O 0 0 G O rt (D rt cD r• a (D P) m P) 0. O c+ 3 R. 0 rt. 0. 0 G m O ►•( 7q r-� '-1 () (D O J, 0• (D (+ 0 '-s rt Iv 'Iq (1) rt 0 a p 0 0 Cr H-' 0 `C A) 0 (DP) G 0' m O4 m Cr 0 O. (D W (D ,- (D :n rt (D P m H (D (D H. 0 7q P cc co ct R. P Cr r' CD a ro ;.) 'D J, :r. 0 (D ► 0 m m C) • ►S `C ro a 0 n s x •d a) a) O ,-•i (1) (1) - I Q) 'd i-i U) a) W bt .0 'd 0 .0 +- a) a) +3 E .0 a) (1) 0: •r4 0 0 0) 0 b0 ▪ +--� Q) +--' +) O .0 cd Q) cd ..0: F-1 ^ - 0 Q) 0) +� U) +-) 00 1n .n o a� 'd cd S� b0 a) •r+ a� 0: Q) U) WOW o �.:~ z3 bC +3 a) U m v 0 * Q) U) >, w a) cd 3 'd > 0; ca U) •r1 > s1 .r~ O 'd O Q) .0; O Q) +3 a) •r+ 4-3 .0 'd 0 a) +-) O 0 .0 0 o +) I U) a) 0 .0; O P 0: cd •r4 Q) saw E Q) Q) a Q) x b0.0 U S, .Q 'd CO + w [� •r1 'd S� +-) 13 + i+ w * Q) 0 Q) •r1 0 . 0 a) +-3 U) 0 0r Q) .0 r-1 +� Fi a) 0 0 0: +� a) •r•I U) +-� $ +-� a) a) O r+ w O U) O U) x +� 0: 4-) 'd +) U) 3 13 cd +> •r+ U) a) O a) U) r1 +� cd T3 .0 U S� Q) C Si r-1 O Si a) cd O 3 a) 4-4 p cd b0 U) O C1 Q) r1 0 to 0 b0 cd +- U) .�., * O 'd I 'd U) w E +� a) 0 F, U .0 0 cd Q) 4-) 0: +-) U) Q) 0 .0 'C7 ca 0 a) .0 a) m +3 .0 w .0 a) .0 a) •r1 0; 0 > a) U) • a) 0 •,1 P 0 cd 0; a) 0: 0; a r-1 0 I -4-3 41 F a 3 Q O b0 a) a) cd 0 E o +-) r-I 3 a) .0 ;.4 4-) A, +) 0 -4-) -4-) b0 $-, O O U) N 0 0 cd x > >..d 0; O •.-4 b0.0: O W * a) a) a) cd cd a) >, 4) b0 a) a) a a) a) W. 0; d .0: 3 0 a) 0 r1 cd 0; •r1 cd 0; U 0 a .4-1O .0 U cd •I-) O 4-1F-a 0 4- 0 Z d (1) U o :~ +> 0 a) > a $-1 +3 r-, a) (1) w o ^ o +3 +.> o S1 F1 r 1 cd 3 s~ o O r+ 0 .0 w •r1 �1 -r1 * cd a) +) t4 1 +) +) 0; • •r1 a a) ,0 C) cd r1 +-3 cd S4 +) O (n 'd - 0: +-) a) a +� •a) +� 0: r+ 0; a) a U) 'd Q) O N r1 1--1 +) +) a) Q) 'd F, r� a) cd .0 r-•1 cd r-4 0: 'd ••r1 U) 'd ,-1 x S1 .0 3 U) 0: d a) cd Q) cn 0; Q) r+-+ d a'd 4, cd +.1 U 0 •r+ cd ,0 +-3 U .a 0 0: cd f. w cd a) Q) * 'd s~ +) d r-, a) r+ +3 r 1 Q) cd Q) a) 0 U 3 >~ a Q) O Q) U) a) bA r1 a) 0; 0: cd 4-4 •r+ cd i-4 +� cd •r+ 0 a) b0 •,•-1 a) 0; .0 0: 0 0 U +) U cd 0 U > > +-)> ..0; U) r1 w .0; m 4-4 cd P •41 a'd .0 +-) E 'd 0 O U) cd >, O b0 a) 0 > cd U) a) -4-) .0 a E •r•1 U) S4 •r+ -P* 4-4 cd U) O r+ O r+ - 3 f+ Ul O + cd a) 3 Q) P r1 p 3-4r+ C P0 a) a) 'd •r+ cd U 4-) 0) 4-)a) 'd E 0 S 1 U • O d a) U E -0 U) •r+ Fa F•I 4-) 0: a) a)•r 1 a >~ Q) U •,-1 a Q) d $1 O >, 3 - a) +� U Q) Q) r1 to U 0: 0 4-) cd w •r+ r-1 U) 'd 0: Q) s, * a) cd U) -4-) Pr+ a) hi) +) a U a) 3 O 0 0: r-1 3 a) • a 0; O U Q) .0 0: b0 +-) 4-I cd cd cd • E a) U U) cd ca •r•I cd 0: •r-I 0: a) •r+ a a) •r+ a) a) U) U) U) cd cd 'd O a) 0; cd U) cd a) (/) 3 a) a) 0:.0 'd .0 O F1 .0 3 Q.' O •ri U) 0 a) d •rI P 0: +-3 > 0 0) O E 'CIO d W 4-)a) E * I Fi 0 0 0; U) 0: •1-I a •r1 a) ,0 U) 0 a) > U) cd +- Q) Q) +-' E r I N 'd $-1 - 0: +-) • Q) a) 0; O Sr r-I •r1 x +� 0; • ^ +� •r+ 0: 0; ^ a) O P a) a) cd 'd 4-) +•� •r1 i-1 •rI 'd r-1 a) b4 .0 a) 0; v) •r1 +-) sa +-) .0 w CZ. at r+ r+ cd U) Q) cd Q) +� r1 O L" Q) O +� S� r+ r1 •rI cd a 0; T3 U) * ca 'd 0 U) a) cd a) • a) cd U 0 F, a 0; • r-i O 'd w cd 0 0 +-) +-) 0 s., 0 +-' > E a) Q) .0; U) •r1 U +-) U) 0 'Pal cd cd cd - 0 +•) 0 .0: I 3 I .0 U) .0 0 > 'd +-) a) •rI S1 F, O T3 •rl Fi +- Q) -r1 U) 0 •r-1 ..0; 4-1 C 03 0. 0. be CS' •r-1 •ri a) a) I~" F~ E-+ r1 .0 'd a U) •r+ X +-) U a) .rI U) F-, * +-) ri o N U) 10 +) +) cd 0 cd + a) E cd 4 a) $.4 > Q) +-) c3 cd +) r 1 'd ; +3 o + cd C +3 4i Q) U 00a) U) Qr1 U U U) •r1 p O 'd •r1 Sy .0 d •r1 Sti +) Q) a) + 3 0acd .0 U 3 0 - Q) acd 4--> Q) • .0 ,-1 $�+C r I 04.-) UI U Q)4� 0 pr iU)a)T3 0+3 0^ 4-1 4-)* uU a I r-I Cd Ua 0 z3 a) cd +-> > 'd F-, 3 0 .0 +-) (1) F-+ a) z3 F-, F, .0 +-> U) a) a 0 0 •r+ a 0) (1) (1) • r1 0: •H 4' 0 •r•1 a) 0 .4-1 cd 0 a) +-3 b0 +3 4-) r1 .0 a +-) r-1 4- P a) .0 a 0 •rl r-I r1 Q) 0 0 U) a a) 'd a) a) cd -4-) P 4-) 'd > 4-4 cd 0 U) S 1 4-) . Q) Q) cd +-3 E a) 0 'd U) > a) •4-1 U -I-) .0 a) •,-4 0: * 'G a) I-, cd a) F , - at +, bA U)0 cd CaF , a) Q) $, 4-4 +3 r( 77 C QJ cd ;•-4 a) ca w ^ r+ cd � U 4-)s~ CI) m ,-4 p C a) O > cd Q) a 4-3S a r+ a) ,-+ a) U 4-) +� a� cd a) (0o o) a a. 3 m a) a) 3 m ^ +-� cad a (0 ;-I a) 54 4-3cd � a) o $-4 'd U ;.-4•r+ a) P•r+ b0 a a) 4-,4-i Ul * F~ 0 a (A 0 F. a) 0 0 •r1 0; > 'd cd .0 cn 0 4) cd +) +' a) a C) 0; (/) +-) .0 a +-) 0 E 4--1 a) .0 •4-1 +-) 0 O O E a) 'd Q) O w r-1 +•) 1-1 U) U P U) •r+ 0 .r'.1 +-) 4-4 0 a) a) O +-) 1-4 'd P •r1 •,1 0: 04 U) U) +� F-, Q) 'd a) 0+ cd U r-1 O U) cd cd 'd r-I Fr •r1 Q) •ri 3 +) +-) (!) f-, +-> '0 +) •r+ S1 •r+ 0 0; U O 0 * U) Sr f~ U) U + +-� cd Q) Q) 0: S-, •r+ r+ Q) 'd •rI Q) E Ca r l a) r 1 +-� cd Q) U) O 0 a P .0 4-) •r+ 0 0 a) cd 4-, ,-I 'd .0; a a 4-)U) w a 4-)U) d U >, >, U - a+� cd U 'd m U) O r-+ 4--,• r+ a .0 U) 4-4 U) U) Q) >~ 4-1 Q) MI cd a) by 0; Ul U 4-3 • cd 0: * r i a) 'd a) a) a) O a) cd .0 r1 +-) 0 r-1 0 0: +-) a) $+ O U d •r+ 0 cd •r1 (1) 0 U) 0 0 a •rl > b0 Q) r-♦ 0 .0 0 a) .0 •r1 Q) U) a) O 'd U) r+ • S, .0 +-3 a) +-) 0". Sti U) $-1 .0 0 E U) F•, ;.-4•r1 F, cd P +-) - •r1 0: g • 0 r1 U a) O +) s-, t~ S-, • U) F•, P. U) 0 >, 0 C). U) 1r1 0 cd CP.0 4-)� () 'd O a a) r-+ E O r-I F, O * 4.) 0 U) U a) •r4-)4-)1 0 O � � W U) 0 •,-1U a a U) 1 a) a) •r+ S-1 .0 Q) R. U) .P atU) O a 4-) X) +) •r•1 0 Q r-i E .0 .0+� 0; •r-1 ¢, r-1 > .0 0 r1 Si 4-1Q) 0 cd a) .0E a) a) - U ca $, cd 0 0 0; •r+ 0: U) 0 a U) $, •r1 $, r1 $ , O F, 0 F-4 O cd (1) .0 cd cd • * F U) $•, .0 44 'd .0 0; 1:40 .0 P a w C) +-> O a Q) 0: +) •r+ Q) a) U) (1) 4-) U) U) a) 4-4 cd a) b0 'd 0 -CS cd P O s, O +-) cA 1-1 a) a) •r+ r-1 F-1 $-1 S-1 0 P. O a) (1) cd El cd +) .i: 0 0; +-' a +) Q) .0." cd w S•i r-4 0 E 'd (/) .0 cd a 41 ,.s~ •4-1 •r1 Q) 3 .0 0 3 0" C) 'd +- +) 0: 0 a) .0 a cd r-1 a) F, cd •r1 •r+ O r•1 r-I * ;; > C1, i".. a) - 0 .0 •1-1 k' •rl $-1 cd +-) .0 0) Q) 0 0: 3 +� O +-� > bA F~ a) •r+ b0 s~ cd +3 �"+ a) 'd cd +3 Q) w U) S] O ^ 0 .o r-1 a •,-1 'd a) Q) +-) > 1 a) U 0 +-3 u) > +) 0: .0] $i r1 Q) O r+ w s, , + a Q) cd U) 0r 0: cd >, m 0: F , WO r1 f♦ 0; E + 3 O a) t7' 0; U) d cd at Z * . o al • U) (n E cd E 'd � Q) a) cd o a E +� +� U ;-4 a) •,� o a) •,� o r+ 41 •r1 'd s, U) cd .4-4 •r+ o U) •r+ (� a T3 a) bA r-I a) a a > a) Si 'd .0 U) U) Q) ca at 0: U •r1 '� +-� •ra Q) +� U) .. S-, Cd s-, ••r+ F-, - Q) . r1 O a) cd E > +-) •r+ -4 •rl cd 0: o P * W o +, E~ (n 0 'd 0: a) a) w d .0 •1-1 •r1 0 U) +3 r-1 a) O a) a) .0 cd - (/) E U) ..0 cn U1 a) b0 cd +) 3 S� a 0: 0 a) .0 - U) a) 3 C r 4 III.4-4 ca N O O +� O a) cd d r+ •r+ +) O + -4-) +) F. •rI Si + Z7 > - E •r+ a F , Q) T3 + cd T3 a) a Q) U) a) cd U) 4 4 • 0; 0 b0 U) U) cd 'd 0: +3 0 ca a) w * U - U 0; 0r +� +� >, C) O a) +� 0 0 0: cd 0r 4) +� .0: Q) .0 S. 0 r-1 0 r-1 s, U) a r1 cd m Q) ,-1 x x O U x x r-1 1-1 U) > a) +.� +-) a) +-, C b0 U) at •r+ •r1 U) +) +� +-) a) C U) +� Q) 3 E N a O >~ r1 3 + + C C? + - a) O r I cd >, cd r+ r+ ca Si !� O F, i4 +) a) U) a) * .0 O 4 i •r 1 'd r1 r 1 cd !~ •r+ r1 + 0: 0: a 0 ri - C 4-)C •, 1 a) cd +) b4 U) $1 0' +) s" cd cd w Q) .>~ cd al O O .0 d 'd 'd .a (0 s~ b a) d O (n 0: s~ r1 •rI Q) U Q) cn a) O Q) E I-) C F, z3 +) a) Q) •H (1) d cn .0 (n cn (1) S-1 ' a) •' 1 0; •i-i a) •r+ +-) •rI (34 a O .0 +-) a a 0; 3 +-) • 0; 0; * U)Q) U) a) Q) 3 U U E 4-44 •r1 s. a) a) a) cd U cd r1 cd > .0 4-3U) .0 cd 0 .0 4-1 .4-1 0:.0 r1 a) E 4 U) cd cd U •r1 4 a) (n a) - a) 0 cd cd a) .0 a) +- 4-) +- . m +-� Pr 1 + a cd 0; 'd 0▪ ; •rI + + + r+ -0 cd Q) -4-) >, r+ ,d >, O 0: >, 4-4 a) U) 0; 'd Q) ,--4 E Z • * a U) .4-4r-1 0:.0 'd -CI w 4-+ a) U) .0: >, U) •r+ 4-4 +- A •r+ b0 +3 cd 0 0 4 r-i b0 P (1) a) P 0) - ,0 0: a) C7 •rI r-+ U +3 +3 r•1 0 Q) 0 x - 0 0; •r1 a a) P +) •r+ +-, O a a) cd +' .r+ +-) a) i. r1 +) 0 0 0 cd 0 3 Q) 0 S, 4-1 •4-1 0 E $.1 cd E • $.1 w U) U) 0 •r4 a) F-4 3 +••) cd •41 .0 •r-I • .0 •r1 +.3 •r-1 cd +-) U) a) F-1 O * Q) •r1 4-1 S-1 +) 0.0: 'd a) b0 U U +� r-I .0 •r1 r-I a) 0; a 'd •r+ ..0; •r+ E cd a) cd +3 U) cd .0: (n U) a) 0 E •r•1 +) U)) cd a) 0: 4-1 '0 0; cd U) U) 4) b0 r•1 •r1 +) •r-I 0 F-. cd .L U 0 Q) a) +� r1 d >~ rI •r+ •rI 0 ^+) w cd C2 +� Q) v1 0; +) +) r1 .0 s� !n m U) (n f-1 4 a) 0: at X L U) a) 0; a rI x 0: cd U) r-1 ,-1 Q) U * +-) cd a a) a •r+ 1.1 r+ cd +) 0 +' a) 0 .0 cd U •r1 a) +) Q) Q) .0 a) a 4) Q) 0) +-) > +-) at •rI a) a) +-) +••) x U) x o E > U +) •rI a d +) r+ a +3 U) ›, 0 Q) +•) 0 . 'd 0 a) E .0 .0 E 4) u) +•, a) +.) +-, r1 4-, S-1 0 b0 a) #' •r1 R, P 0 0; > Fi U) a) cd U) 0; 0 tr U) Q) 41 X P a) P A E 0 O O cd +) a) 0 0: m U p 0: +-> I••+ * 0:.L to 34 " r1 0 0; .0 fti 0 0 0 O (n cd d .00 0 0 a) •1-1 0: cd .0 E O 0 Q) 0: 0 U) .0 .07 U) 3 0 at >, S•1 O 41 Q) w cd S-4 cd 0) 0 cd F•+ 1-+ .0 •r+ .0 .0 C) 0 cd 0 0 0 ~ <c a r1 U) 4ca U) cd U a a U a) a .0 +-) o 0 cd 40 cd (n r+ O U 3 .4-4 E cd b0 •4-1 U at +3 +-) cd o • U) cd b0 cd 0 Z 0 a a a.0 U v? a, 3 U) +, +- E 0 4-1 U) r+ e MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3UNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Walt EXHIBIT A (Continued) use and that the adjacent property owners are unwilling to accept them and landscape them, the City should landscape them and incorporate them into the parkway system. This also includes parkways, for example,east of Portola on the south side where you have houses backing up, where we cannot expect those property owners to landscape that parkway behind themselves on Portola, that those areas shall also be slated for landscape and parkway installation. Wherever possible, where new development is being generated, we can put that parkway maintenance, installation maintenance, onto the new development. And in these places where we do not foreses new development, because of either the existence of past development or just because of the sale of land, these parkways should be developed by the City. Last item is the Economics and Housing Elements, and this section basically reiterates the goals and objectives of the land use policies and in terms of ,the construction of senior housing and multifamily housing from low and moderate income households in the area. And the establishment of low interest loan programs or other forms of financial incentives to promote the rehabiliation and the improvement of existing housing in the area. And this is b2.iically pursuant to the programs recommended in the housing •element. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Drell. It has been a long presentation. We are pleased that you stayed with us all through it. The results of this is the actions of the Committee that is in the neighborhood that assisted staff in trying to come up with a way to have a plan for this area that is acceptable to everyone. This is a public hearing and I will start off by asking for testimony from anyone ;.ho is in favor of this plan. I will, therefore, take testimony from anyone who is in opposition to this plan. My name is ROMEO PULUQI, 72-850 Tamarisk, and I live in the south end. However, the north side, it's true, is one of the oldest sections of the City, and although there is some nice housing and some nice commercial buildings, the majority of that area is sort of dilapidated. And in view of all the affordable housing that the Council in the past has seen necessary to approve in the north of Palm Desert, my greatest fear, being that I am a property owner in the north side, is that some of the tenants may leave those dilapidated homes on the north side, or at least some of them, and move to those new ones. Therefore, I have a tremendous fear that it may end up being a very low, low rent district because the owner; of the property will not be able to .afford keeping up with th new construction that they can -place on the north side. I hate to say this, but that area has been in a way kind of neglected, in a manner of speaking, including when I was in office in a manner of speaking because most of the output w for the south side of Palm Desert. And I feel it is time to approve this comprehensive plan although I believe that no changes of zoning should take place at this time because you may sort of stop the plan and make some of the property too expensive for some people to buy and develop. I feel that the City should be the leader and buy the property as it cores up for sale, as I think the report has stated in it. I feel that staff has done a good work and also the members of the Committee. I do realize that there are some problems with certain areas, but they can be dealt with as they come up. However, the entire Plan I feel is good and I feel that the Council should approve it immediately. Thank you. -17- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT A (Continued) Walt Thank you. I might point out that the staff will be available and we are available tonight if there are any questions that you have. Woman May I speak? Walt I think that would be wonderful. VERONA STEWART, 44-476 San Rafael. I live on one of those streets, unpaved, 50% vacant. I think that it would be worthwhile if only to get the streets paved and to get rid of some of the vacant lots and the trash and the overgrown weeds and the beer bottles and things like that. I do live there, have lived there for over seven years. There has been no new development in the area until the past year, and now I see that there is, it looks like there are people, contractors, moving in to make further developments, possibly because of this new plan that we have been working on. So although we can't satisfy everybody and there are some people that aren't going to be able to go along with the plan, I think the majority of the property owners who live there would be in favor of it. Thank you. Walt Thank you, ma'am. Walt My name is STANLEY SOPHER, 44-695 San Antonio Circle. I am in favor of this plan, wholeheartedly in favor of it. However, I would like to see San Gorgonio stopped there at Monterey and some kind of a signal implanted there at 111 and San Clemente so the people can, I think this is one of their main problems for not closing this street. I was instru- mental in getting a petition up to close San Gorgonio and this was the main beef as such. If we close San Gorgonio, how are we going to get around the shopping center. 0ne thing is, if we do put a signal turn light at San Clemente and Highway 111, they can get across the street. This is one of the opposition beefs, and they can come out on 111 and go around. This would cut off all of the, or a majority of the traffic that through traffic in there that so many people are complaining of. Now they are using it as a regular highway, 45 and 50 miles an hour going through there, and I imagine you have had people, you say they are counting the cars going through there, how about the speeds. They can tell you and give you a good report on that if they have been alert in this matter. Another point that I would like to speak on is the senior housing there. I understand they are putting in an inn or a hotel for senior citizens. This is not a hospital or a nursing home or what have you where you, as probably most of you have gone into the elderly nursing homes and seen the people wiping their mouths, these elderly people that cannot get around and do for themselves. This is not that type of a thing I understand. You have to have at least a few dollars to get in to this type of a hote: or motel and I think that it would be an asset to our area there. I would be living just adjacent to this plan there, this development, if it is allowed to go in and up to this point it has just been one large eyesore and causing nothing but a lot of dirt and people dumping their trash and so forth there. I think this, if you would consider that, I think this would be a very good plan for the City of Palm Desert. A large improvement. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. And we are conducting traffic surveys to determine what we can do with the traffic. I think you were next, Charlie. 0ne more. Good evening, Mr. Snyder and ladies and gentlemen of the Council. ^7 am HELEN BREEDING. My h'-'-band and I own lots 42, 43, a 44 which is the corner c Fairhaven and Fred -18- MINUTES REGULAR C1TY COUNCIL MEETING DUNE 13, 1985 *;* * *• *•* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT A (Continued) Waring Drive. We have owned these for 25 years and they were, originally when we bought them, two were R-2 and one was R-1. And when the County widened Fred Waring Drive they told us that we would not have any problem changing the third lot to R-2. Now, when Palm Desert took over the City and Fred Waring Drive, unbeknown to us they changed them to R-1 without notifying us. I believe this is a very prestigious corner and if you come off of Highway 111 down Fred Waring Drive, you have a big sign stating that this is going to be a hotel and hopefully retail shopping. You proceed a little further and you come to the Quail apartments and the two churches. On our corner there is nothing except one house a little bit to the east of us and another house to the east of us clear to Monterey. I cannot see this particular corner, which is three lots, going for single family dwelling. I can't imagine anyone buying the lots to put a single family home there that's just going to be sitting out there all by itself. Just to the east of our lots is going to be a greenbelt. Now if this is going to be single family and there no doubt will be children, they will be using that as a playground, and I don't think Fred Waring Drive with the traffic is conducive to this. And I would be very happy if you could see it to change this not from R-1 or R-2 which they originally were but I think a ,rofessional building on the corner which would service all 'he tenants in the Quail Run apartment building would be far more advantageous and using the property to the best of i•s use. Thank you kindly. Walt Thank you. We'll look into that and ask... Phil D. The plan recommends at the present time, based upon some preliminary discussion with Mrs. Breeding, we are recommendin� R-2 there, a medium density. We probably have no objection to the corner lot being, or the corner two lots, being redesignated potentially for professional office. Walt Fine. You will discuss that with Mrs. Breeding? Mrs. B May I just add that I think all three lots should become one lot because that would, I can't see that working at all. It would be too small to even build a house on it, a third one. Thank you. Walt Thank you. We'll take action on that, Mrs. Breeding. I'm BILL ROSSWORN, 41-530 Woodhaven Drive in Palm Desert, and I am a property owner on San Pablo and Catalina and Santa Rosa and I am also a real estate developer and I think you folks have done a good job on this planned development. I wanted to commend you. Thank you. Walt Thank you. Charlie. CHARLIE MILLER, Little Bend Trail, Palm Desert. Council, Mayor, the only concern I have, I think this is a beautiful thing that staff has come up with and I am for it 100%. What worries me, I face the Highway, I'll be on a corner lot back from Monterey, and this new parking that is going to go behind, they are going to do away with the alley, which I think is fine, I'm for all of this. But what worries me is that here is an expense going to come in here on who is going to buy the lots for this public parking behind our property on the other side of the alley. I understand there are some people in Beverly Hills that own one lot and I own the other one, and I am kind of concerned whether I'm going to be reimbursed or what is going to happen there. And another thing was the sewers. There are no sewers down in there at all and I think that this should be kind of a number one priority there to run the sewers down through there before we get everything in place and have to tear it all up again. And I thank you and I think it is a wonderful thing you are doing for the north side. -19- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Walt Walt EXHIBIT A (Continued) Thank you. Anyone else who would care to testify? Another Planning Commissioner. My name is GEORGE KRYDER. I live on Sonora Drive in Palm Desert. I would like to comment on that specific area that this young lady over here discussed. I don't know whether she lives there, but I do, and I don't quite agree with her conclusion that we should, nor do I agree with the plan whic calls for the rezoning of these areas. It seems to me that this zoning area is isolated, it is inserted into an existin residential area, and while I would certainly have no objection to some kind of higher density use on the corner, I hate to see that zoning go into the area and up to Sonora. If there were some adjacent zoning, if there were additional reasons for it, I would concur. But there isn't any such thing. In short, there is no reason for it. It is inconsis- tent and it's really not in keeping with the general policy that you set forth yourself which .I will reread quickly. To the effect that multifamily and commercial zones should be sufficient to allow efficient site planning and creation of adequate buffer zones adjacent to single family zones. That is not being done here. This area as it approaches Sonora there are homes there now which I presume would have to be destroyed. Am I correct on that? Well, then you are rezoning areas where there are existing homes. There is a single story duplex. But at any rate, it is a single family area. The general policy in the discussion says that narrow strips of commercial and multifamily zones adjacent to single family zones are poorly suited to quality development and negatively impact adjacent properties and I think that is the case here. And it goes on to say that it is important to designate zones which are appropriate to the scale and quality of the development we wish to promote. On that bas: alone, I think you are abrogating the promise that you make in the general policy by changing and insertinz into that primarily totally residential area an unwanted use. I would just go further on one other area that was brought up and that would be the sewer system which you may recall I have talked about a couple of times before Planning Commission and the Council. It seems to me that the curbs and gutters are nice. I think the age of the area and the fact that it is almost entirely cesspool, old cesspool, which are in need of replacement, I think the sewer matter is much more important than the curbs and gutters from my standpoint and the standpoint of a lot of other people who live in the area. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Kryder. And I believe these matters will be taken into consideration. And as you know any change would have to go through a change of zone. What we are talking about is a plan for an area. Yes, sir. I'm JACK DAYTON, I live at 74-280 Alessandro, Palm Desert Village here in #6. Mr. Mayor and Council people. I'm not really going to say whether I am for or against. I think overall you've done a good job in Palm Desert, an excellent job compared to most cities. There are a few things and trends that I see that may wind up like Los Angeles, and I hope you never get there. Like Ventura Blvd. You've been reading about that and hearing about that over the news where a guy told them 10 years ago that if they didn't stop the building they wouldn't be able to move. And they have gotten to that point now. So with the rearrangement of some of the increased density that I see here in the Plan, that is one thing that I am concerned about. In fact, on Alessandro we now have the Protection Services unit there which, when they started they didn't require that much parking space. Now the people like to park on the north side of Alessandro -20- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *•* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • Walt EXHIBIT A (Continued) in the residential spaces for the people that come to visit or need to live there and they work across the street. I don't really think that's quite fair. In fact, one of my tenants told one of the guys that he would come down and park in front of his house in Coachella if he didn't stop parking in front of his place, and it worked. And another thing is when I first came down here 13 years ago from L.A. all I heard was the south side. The north side is nothing, the south side is where all the money is and that is where all the buildings are and that is where everybody should buy. And that as far as I am concerned Highway 111 has been the Mason/Dixon line in this town. It has been that way ever since I've been down here and probably many, many years before. And when this town was laid out and sold in lots nobody gived a damn about flood control because they didn't put a divider down through the center of the town where they could get the water from the north to the south, from the south to the north and get it out f town. And of course with this new assessment district .hich is going in for curbs and gutters on the south side, all that is really going to wind up doing is throw mo•e water down the streets into the north side when you have .: heavy rain. That is one reason we have the flood problem today even though the dyke has been built. We get a rain like we did in '76, I question whether that will be completely safe or not. And as far as parking, we need somewhere in that area where those lots should become a parking lot, where the City buys them and provides a parking lot or what I don't know. But I think you should consider it. And as far as rezoning the R-3 back two lots, well the guy on the .second lot right now is better off than he would be than the guy on the third lot if he made his R-1 next to the two front lots being R-3 • cause you're going to have a lot more density and a lot more traffic and a lot more noise and he's going to have to put up with it and you can't put enough of a buffer in there to kill it. So, frankly, I don't think you should put the second lot where it isn't available, cause a vacant lot I don't see a problem in talking to somebody in that respect. But where you go and take an R-1 home like Mr. Arce's on the corner of Santa Anita, second house down, one next to me, he's got a lovely home in there. And that would mean his lot would go R-3. That's not going to do him and peon:, like him any good. In fact, it's going to hurt them in the long run. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for your observations. All of these matter - will, of course, be looked into ar.' the purpose of the Committee action was to indeed loo.: at this area. It is the City's responsibility to participate and help and try to plan and to work with the people who own this land and who live in this Land to do what they want. And that w the reason for the Committee meetin;.;s. And that was tn. reason for getting everyone together to look at the orn. '. try to come up with the best solutions possible that wnu make the most people happy. That is the reason that thy City took the forefront to move into and to assist and have the meetings and to try to get everybody's innut and create a plan that would do what we hoped would be the advantageous to everyone. There will oe individual ite^.'.. the staff will be willing to meet with you, will discss every item that you may feel that needs discussion. you merely need to call and make an appointment and we'll he happy to go over those items with you. We feel that we have created a plan which has to have tremendous amount of good things in it or it wouldn't have gotten this far. :'.e will try to correct to the extent possible any of the had -21- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Walt Walt EXHIBIT A (Continued) things that are in it. Does anyone else care to have any statements relative to it before I close the public hearing? Yes, sir. My name is KIGER BARTON. I live at 44-519 San Anselmo, and I think the Planning Commission and the people who worked on the Committee should be commended. I know they put in a lot of work and they've got some good ideas here. There are a few things that I think should be thought about, and one of them is the high density. This is a mistake I have seen a lot of cities make. They pour in a lot of high density right in their downtown area and then they come along and they've created a lot of crime and this and that in problems and they come along a few years later, and I've seen them spend millions of dollars trying to correct that mistake. And high density, it lowers the standard of living any place it's put in. The higher the density, the lower the standard of living and the more crime you're likely to have. So, to me, high density is not an improvement. Another thought I have is on these neighborhood parks. These sound really great, but you have to maintain these parks and I wonder who's going to police them or supervise them 24 hours a day. That could be a headache to the City and perhaps the immediate neighbors. And another thing, I think we should have a limit on the number of people that can live in a structure. I know of a place or two not far from us that sometimes there are 30 or 40 people living like in a three or four bedroom structure. And it's very chaotic for the immediate neighborhood. It is a danger to them and so on. I don't know, maybe the City does have a limit, but if they don't I certainly think they should. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Anyone else who would care to testify before the closing of this meeting, this hearing? If not, I will close... I'm sorry, I didn't see you, sir. I'm TERRAN ELAM. I live over on 74-035 Goleta Street, down on the west end, and the high density right there I believe the traffic problems are already going to affect an already high traffic congested area. There is a vacant lot on the northwest corner there off of Fred Waring and Portola that will probably never be built as an R-1 because of the stop light and the traffic going through there. And we also own an adjoining lot right next to it that basically is losing value because of the traffic. And it can't be built as an R-1. Both sides of Goleta at the end there, yeah. That's what I'm talking about, yeah. It might be better R-2 or something you can build on, I don't know for sure. Thank you. Thank you. May I point out to you that all of the remarks made here tonight are on tape and we will have the staff look into everything that has been brought up here tonight And we will attempt to adjudicate them and find ways to notify people as to what our actions have been. Anybody else who would care to testify? Mrs. Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, I would just like to ask one Breeding question. When I was meeting, I think it was the first part of April, I think it was mentioned that it was the desire that Fred Waring Drive be similar to Tahquitz-McCallum in Palm Springs. I can see that street in the future. I know I won't be there. It is a very beautiful street, but I can't see it with a little single family home here and a -22- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Walt Ro y EXHIBIT A (Continued) building across the street as large as the apartments that were just built and a church. You take right, slightly behind where Von's used to be, there's a little three or four unit, but the side of it is along Tahquitz-McCallum and it just ruins the whole look of Tahquitz-McCallum becuase it was allowed to be put in there many, many years ago when they didn't have zoning. And it should be torn down and a beautiful office building be put there. And I do think that Fred Waring Drive is not a street where single housing or even R-2 housing. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Breeding. Anyone else? Any questions by the Council? I have one question for Mr. Drell. In the very northwest corner you have a pink designation on your colored map and there doesn't seem to be any designation of a usage change on my page. Phil D. There is no change. That pink is medium density, 5 to 10 units per acre. That is what the current zoning is. That is what the Council approved a project at. It is approxi- mately 7 units per acre is what that Ward project approval was, so that is consistent with the current zoning and the current project. In reference to Mrs. Breeding, I'm somewhat remiss. At the Planning Commission, her property was dual designated Professional Office/Medium Density, and I did not change it. It is changed on the map in the staff report; it is not changed on that map. But, her property is, she owns, I believe, three lots that the two small ones that are parcel lots at the corner and then the one lot south, in that the rest of the property was either vacant or the only remaining unit is a duplex. On those lots the effect of the medium density would be to allow more duplexes like the unit that is currently there. The question is whether the office professional should extend all the way and that is the question. In the Planning Commission map the entire area was dual designated medium density/professional office. Walt Thank you. Any other questions by the Council? Jean I don't have any questions, but I do have a comment. I am very concerned about the high density residential that is on Monterey adjacent to the single families behind it in the one little office professional there. Then all that high density and we are going to all the expense of getting Monterey to be one of our main corridors into the City. I don't really feel that coming in that you should come in and pass a high density there and then go to office professional with the Cultural Center on the other side. I think it's a misuse of that piece of property right there. I think the whole corridor coming into the City all along that way would be far better served keeping it beautiful as an office professional landscaping and the building rather than moving all that traffic onto the Highway there and our corridor entrance. I'm sure everybody knows I don't like high density anyway. All along Fred Waring, I'm not cracked up about all that either, but that one at Monterey really disturbs me. Walt Thank you. We'll have the staff get on that one. Any discussion? Phyllis I wanted to question Jean. Which high density? You mean the existing apartments? Walt Let staff investigate it. Any further questions by the Council? If not, I shall close the public hearing and ask your approval or disapproval of the Plan and direct staff to begin implementation of the recommendations. -23- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Roy EXHIBIT A (Continued) I think we need to discuss various aspects of this overall. My reaction is that the Committee and the Planning Commission and the staff have done a lot of hard work in trying to identify ways to upgrade this. I have two overall concerns. One deals with the quite extensive development of two story units throughout, particularly in the high density areas and in some of the office professional areas. And the second, the overall concept of the high density residential throughou and what along San Pablo and along Fred Waring in addition to the two areas that Councilmember Benson mentioned. I think that we need to be aware of the impact this will have on the entire neighborhood, those two things, the two story and the high density, extensive use of high density. It will have a major impact and forever and irreversibly change the character of that entire north side and I think we need to be fully aware of that before we implement something without the careful study. I know it's had careful study, but I think we need to look at it from the impact that it will have. I'm also not sure why some of the senior overlay units have to be multiple story. I think by changing some of the sizes of the units and carport requirements and so forth that you could have more of lower density garden type developments in some of the larger areas that we are talking about such as the large blocks. Some of those are LDR(SO) but -I guess my main concern is the two story and high density. Phyllis I first want to publicly thank the people who participated in this horrendous job, because it is, and the meetings and the discussions aren't easy and I think the staff certainly has done a fine job. I don't find too much fault with any of their recommendations. I think that we are talking about an overall plan, just like you do a general plan, that can necessarily change as change dictates and this can happen as we grow and develop. I'm really not as concerned about the two story with the height modifications that were recommended, lowering the maximum height limits, because by doing this, as the staff explained, this allows for a lot more open space than putting one story units and covering a greater percentage of the ground. I think that's one of the things that we're all concerned about. We're concerned more rather than whether it's two story, we're concerned to see what the overall height is, and when you can put two stories in what is only two feet more than our one story height limit, why that really doesn't make sense. So I'm not concerned there. As far as the senior overlay is concerned, I think that's where we have a definite obligation is to produce some housing for our senior citizens in an area where their activity center is and that they can participate in and be able to walk to it and to enjoy it, and certainly I think we're all aware that we have many, many seniors living here on fixed incomes who need to have housing that they can afford, and I think the only way we can give them that unless the City wants to be generous and subsidize and do things like that, that we do have to allow for some increased densities, but I think those have to be carefully chosen as to where the locations are an( what the benefits are to the people who will be occupying th, But generally overall I think that they've done a fantastic job and I've owned property in the area for many, many years and I would join with everybody else. I'm tired of being a second class citizen and I think it's time that we upgraded the entire area and provided the incentives for people who want to improve their property by encouraging new building and as long as it remains the way it is, people will not come into the area and will not build there. And it is certainly -24- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT A (Continued) no encouragement to spend money on the front yards and on the what is laughlingly called the street in the area that I own - I know most of it has broken away and there are great gutters where the water has run down and washed the sand away. But I think that this is the step in the right direction and I think that within the next five years we'll see a real marked difference in the look of the area and certainly in the property values there. Walt Mr. Kelly. Dick Well, I think that everyone has done a terrific job, and I realize that there are certain aspects that we might not all agree with and there are some that concern me also, but I think as a general plan, it is an excellent plan. And I think the opportunity for senior citizen development around our seniors center is very good. I think the office professional will help uplift the area and I think it's a good plan. Walt Thank you. Jean? Jean No, I've said what I have to say. I certainly agree, too, that the seniors need their housin;, and those areas in the central area I have no fault with. It's the peripheral areas that I'm concerned about. Walt We can't hear you. Please talk into the mike. Jean I said it's the perpheral areas that I am concerned about and the high density along the outside of these areas. The inside I think will take care of itself. Those are zoned, I think, very well to upgrade the neighborhood. But I am concerned about spilling all the traffic onto the main thoroughfares with high density units and the second story. Roy I think maybe I gave the impression I wasn't for the senior overlay. I think it's a good idea, but I think seniors of all people deserve in their latter years to live on the ground floor and not have to climb stairs to their units, and I think we could put or include an SP zone over this area and it would be to the advantage of seniors rather than a detriment. Phyllis We could give them an elevator. Roy That's expensive. Phil D. The senior overlay draft requires elevators for all second story units and all units be handicapped accessible. Walt As you can see, ladies and gentlemen, nothing is easy. We do, indeed, have some serious considerations. I don't think any of us could argue that most of us come out here to live to get away from high density and crowding and that sort of thing. I can frankly tell you that's the reason I'm here. I don't want it, but I don't want to see an area go downhill either. I want to find a way that we can improve our City, improve the area in which you live, and do it in the best manner possible. I don't think any plan that we could put together would meet the approval of everybody. They'll all have some problems. I have joined Councilman Wilson and Councilman Benson in our fight to retain our open spaces and -25- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT A (Continued) less density. And I will continue to do that. I think I have to face the fact that this area needs some help. That was the reason to ask all of you to get together with us and plan how to do it, and it's not a plan that is total. We'll be working on it. We've taped everything. Our staff is available to discuss with you individual problems. I think together we can put it together. I think we can make this something that we'll be proud of. It will take us awhile, but this is the first step. And I think it's a plan; it's better than we've had before, and I would like to suggest that we go ahead with the plan and modify it as we go to make it like as near possible that all of us want. If there is no further discussion, I'll close the public hearing. Roy Go ahead and close the public hearing. I'd like to continue to discuss it. Walt I hereby close the public hearing. Roy Let's take a look at our little map here. From San Carlos, middle of the plan running along San Pablo to San Carlos at one point to San Rafael the rest of the point. All of that up to Santa Rosa and then all the way to Portola is designated high density residential which according to this map is 18 dwelling units per acre. Now we have a lot of apartment units in there, but it's nowhere near 18 units to the acre. Conceptualize what this will look like. One Quail place is, what, 21 units to the acre, Phil? Phil D. 22 Roy We're talking basically a density not quite the magnitude of One Quail Place running this entire area. That's a lot of traffic, that's a lot of housing, that's a lot of congestion. It's going to impact all the other LDR, the lower density residential units, throughout that area. And likewise as Councilman Benson pointed out earlier, up across from College of the Desert all along there along Arcadia right adjacent to Arcadia which is a nice large subdivision, large lots, nice neighborhood. You're putting potential 18 units to the acre density right up against that residential. And I have serious reservations about most of the HDR in this plan. Phil D. Do you want me to respond to that? I can a little bit. The first area... Walt ....put you on the spot. Phil D. No, it's alright. The Committee's feeling on why that area on San Pablo and Fred Waring were designated high density residential. What we have presently there now is, as you said, vacant lots and apartments. Apartments range from about 12 units to the acre up to 18 units per acre. And there are two story apartments there. Presently all the lots that now front on Santa Rosa are zoned R-2. The presen zoning allows two stories there. The situation we have now which we felt was a little bit unusual, is we have a one story requirement right on Fred Waring backed up by a two story, or a present zone which allows two stories right behind them. Generally you have situations the other way around. You use a higher intensity use on a major street to buffer low intensity uses on the interior, and the present situation we have it reversed, and the proposals for the high density residential MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT A (Continued) will, one, bring the zoning more consistent with what current development is and provide the same privileges in terms of height to the people on Fred Waring as the people on Santa Rosa enjoy. The same, I guess, rationale existed down San Pablo. Presently, if you look at the bottom area where you have San Carlos, that is presently zoned R-3 and it is developed with apartments. And it is zoned R-3 up San Rafael about three-quarters of the way, here we have another situation where we have higher density zoning on the inside and then on San Pablo where we have the medium density multifamily. Again, an unusual situation where the people who are really experiencing the impact have a lower density regulation as opposed to the inside. So in view of the overall existing trend of development, the Committee felt it was not reasonable to expect the developers of the vacant properties to develop lower densities when the existing development all around them is higher densities. And consistent with the goal of trying to stimulate development of these vacant lots with high quality projects, that was the source of those recommendations. 0n the high density on Monterey, again although it was omitted somewhat from the map, in the most north high density zone there would be a similar greenbelt concept on the east side of Acacia. What that greenbelt concept is is that the beginning of any project in terms of a perimeter wall would be at the existing 20 foot setback line for a single family home. Therefore, that 20 foot front yard plus the, in that case, approximately 10 foot parkway, would become and would have to be maintained by any future development as a 30 foot greenbelt. The goal, the site planning on these both projects would be that only one story uses would be permitted on those zones on those lots that right now would be backing onto Acacia. And the two story development would occur on Monterey. So the one story, two story, single family process would be preserved with the addition of the continuously landscaped 30 foot greenbelt on Acacia. And that would also occur on the southernly process. So wherever it was possible that buffer zone would attempt to be created, it was not created on the San Pablo to Portola since the adjoining development was multifamily and it was felt there was no need to buffer multifamily adjacent to multifamily. Walt Thank you. Phyllis I'd like to comment on Roy's concerns about the high density zoning along San Pablo and San Rafael, because I can site a living example of what density can do and not do for you. I owned a lot on San Rafael that was zoned for 13, and this \a:, before the City became incorporated and under the County zoning. 13 units were allowed on that lot, which was about a half acre site, and we were unable to obtain financing because in order to build the building with 13 units we could not get rents to justify the money to borrow the money to build the building. Therefore, we sold the lot for a $4,000 loss; I wish I had it today. But density is the only way we can ever provide affordable housing. And as long as it is in the least objectionable areas, and this area is certainly a mixture, we'd have to say, of zoning and -27- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Walt EXHIBIT A (Continued) of types of uses and of conditions. And I think to encourage some attractive looking apartment buildings is what we really need in the area. I don't think anybody can object to the look of Quail Place. I think it's added a great deal of attractiveness to the community. Any other comments? If not, I have closed the public hearing. We have received comments. What is the pleasure of the Council? Phyllis I would like to move that we waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 85-49 approving the General Plan Amendment 85-2, the Palma Village Specific Plan, and direct staff to begin implementation of Plan recommendations. Walt I have a motion; do I have a second? Dick Second. Walt It has been moved and seconded that Resolution No. 85-49 be approved and that staff be directed to begin implementation of the Plan recommendations. Would you please indicate your position by voting. Sheila The motion carries by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Wilson and Benson voting NO. Ray Mr. Mayor, as a point of clarification for future hearings, the Plan is labeled General Plan Amendment 2, and as you know, the City is limited to four General Plan amendments a year. This is for labeling purposes only and does not constitute one of our General Plan amendments. And this has been discussed and concurred with by the City Attorney. I just wanted to state this for the record. Walt Thank you. Thank all of you for your courtesy and your participation in our efforts tonight. We appreciate it very much. -28-