Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-21 AdjournedMINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1985 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER • . . . . . . .• . . . . . . . I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelly called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Jean M. Benson III. INVOCATION - Mayor Richard S. Kelly IV. ROLL CALL Present: Excused Absence: Mayor Pro-Tem Phyllis Jackson Councilman Walter H. Snyder Councilman S. Roy Wilson Mayor Richard 5. Kelly Also Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Bruce A. Altman, City Manger Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk Kirby J. Warner, Director of General Services Richard folkers, Director of Public Works Mr. Steve Smith, Acting Director of Community Development Mr. William Strausz, Redevelopment Agency Counsel V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS. AND APPOINTMENTS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR None VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MRS. JANET ABRAMS, 143 TORMALINAS STREET, RANCHO MIRAGE, addressed the City Council and read two letters ooposinq rho Park View Drive Circulation Analysis of Rancho Mirage 3; prepared by Greer 8 Co. Engineers 8 Planners as well as letter of opposition from the Rancho Las Palmas Association on that c i ty' s Park View Drive Land Use Study and Environmental Impact Report (copies of letters attached hereto and made ,3 part hereof as Exhibit "A"). She asked for the City of Palm Desert's opposition to same. Mr. Steve Smith stated that he had been informed by Rancho Mirage that its City Council would be reviewing an application for an apartment complex across from One Quail Place of 128 units on 13.8 acres or 9.2 units per acre. They had certified an Environmental Impact Report some time prior to this meeting, 1 MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1985 and staff of Rancho Mirage would be recommending in favor of the project based on its reduced size and revision. Ms. Abrams disagreed with the number of units cited by Mr. 11 Smith and asked that the City of Palm Desert consider the environment and traffic problems when approving any other developments in this particular area. Mayor Kelly thanked Ms. Abrams for her time and effort and assured her that the City of Palm Desert would continued to monitor its portion of this area with particular concern for the areas she specified. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS None iX. RESOLUTIONS None X. ORDINANCES For introduction: None F.or Adopt i_on None XI. . CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR_ APPROPR I AT_ION BY THE CIVIC ARTS COMMITTEE FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400. Councilmember Jackson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request and appropriate $400 from the Unobligated Fund Balance to Account No. 01-4115-000, Civic Arts Committee. Councilman Wilson seconded the motion; motion carried by unanimous vote. B. TRANSMITTAL OFREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORTS ENTITLED STATEMENT OF EXISTING OBLIGATIONS AND STATEMENT OF EXISTING PROGRAMS. Mr. Ortega and Mr. Strausz explained staff's report and recommendation. Councilman Wilson moved to receive and direct the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency to transmit copies to the Department of Housing and Community Development. Councilmember Jackson seconded the motion; motion carried by unanimous vote. XiI1. CONTINUED BUSINESS None 2 MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1985 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • XIV. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR HIGHWAY 111 MEDIANS. Mr. Altman reported that at its last meeting, Council had authorized him to award a contract for this maintenance up to $12,000. However, since the bids came in over $12,000, an additional appropriation was needed. He said staff in addition recommended the award of contract to Little Grass Shack for median maintenance on Highway 1l1 from Deep Canyon to Plaza Way. Upon question by Councilman Wilson, Mr. Altman advised that staff will be keeping track of manhours required for this so that these statistics can be presented in June. Councilmember Jackson moved to 1) appropriate an additional $4.000 from the General Fund to the Park Maintenance Account No. 4503-362 for this project as bids came in above the $12.000 estimate of costs for landscape maintenance, and 2) by Minute Motion. award the contract to Little Grass Shack Landscape Company in the amount of $16.000. Council- man Snyder seconded the motion; motion carried by unanimous vote. XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - 8 None XVi. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ONE -DAY WORKSHOP iN GLENDALF. ARiZONA. Mr. Altman requested authorization of this attendance by Paul Gibson inasmuch as the computer session being presented would be of great benefit to the City. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Jackson. authorization was granted for Paul Gibson's attendance at a one -day workshop in Glendale. Arizona. by unanimous vote. 111 Unon Council. Mayor Kelly adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m. B. CITY ATTORNEY Absent C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CiTY COUNCIL. None XVII. ADJOURNMENT motion by Wilson. second TTE Z: SHEILA R. GiL-tIGAN. CITY OF PALM DESERT. Y CLERK ALiFORNIA by Jackson. rind unanimous RICMARD 5. KELLY. MAY vote nF tree 3 MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1985 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • EXHIBIT "A" ENGINEERS & PLANNERS October 17, 1985 Mr. Elliot P. Robinson 43-297 Joshua Road Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 • 4095 East La Palma Avenue, Suite L Anaheim, Califarnie 92807 (714) 6309230 RE: Review of Park View Drive Circulation Analysis (153-011 Dear Mr. Robinson: As you have requested, I have reviewed the Park View Drive Circulation Analysis prepared by Berryman -Stephenson, Inc., and summarized in the DEIR for•the Park View Drive Land Use Study prepared by Michael 8randman Associates. 1 have conducted a cursory review of the report and the responses to consents, as well as the traffic study prepared for the County of Riverside for the extension of Monterey Avenue and Avenue 34 to Inter- state 10. This report was prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates in July, 1983. There are important shortcomings in the BSI report that either result in inaccuracies in the data and therefore the analysis, or are omissions alto- gether. 1. The five percent trip reduction in trip generation is not clear even after reading the responses to comments. lire source of the trip generation rates does not indicate the degree to which transit usage or other non -motorized travel may already have been inherent in the rate itself. If ITE rates were used, there is some unknown amount of inherent transit use implied. It is not appropriate to further reduce the trip generation unless specific transit usage or other means of travel are involved. Existing transit service availability to the project was not discussed at all. The response to comments indicated that increasing density implied increased use of transit. That conclusion may be appro- priate on a metropolitan area basis but not necessarily so for a specific project. The application of a SCAG regional oal for increased transit usage is not an appropriate basis f trip reduction. Again, existing or future transit service was not dis- cussed. The reduction in trip generation rates would appear to be inappropriate without further supporting documentation. MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1985 • * • * • • • . * * * * • * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT "A" Mr. Elliot P. Robinson Review of Park View Drive October 17, 1985 - Page 2 2. There appears to be a substantial list of other projects that have not been properly accounted for in this analysis. In addition to those projects of under a 100 trips generated that were omitted from the analysis, there are several large projects that were not included on the list of projects arbitrarily authorized by the City staff for consultant analysis. As size of the projects diminish and distance from the study area increases, these other projects obviously have a decreasing impact on this particular study area. This is in part overshadowed by the impending exten- sion of Monterey to the freeway, which as a regional access facility will attract even more of the traffic from certain of the other projects. The analyses made no mention or reference of the Monterey freeway connection project nor projected traffic result- ing from it. This could have represented a serious omission depending upon the results of those projections. Since it was not taken into consideration, we don't know the true effect of the cumulative traffic conditions. Future traffic conditions may or may not be at acceptable levels with all of these projects and street improvements. The key is that we do not now know, because the scope of the analysis did not properly include the other development projects, the effect of the regional circulation improvements, nor the analysis of even those cumulative traffic conditions that were included in the report. There are a couple of other lesser concerns as well which may also affect the results of the analysis or at least its presentation. However, the major conclusion of the review is that future traffic conditions have not been accurately and completely represented by the analyses contained in the report or the responses to comments. Until that is accomplished, the com- munity and the City decision -makers do not have sufficient information for the basis of making a sound decision on the project. The BSI report and follow-up responses raise serious questions as to whether all of the appropriate projects, other EIR's and appropriate traf- fic values were incorporated and evaluated in the environmental process. There are apparent contradictions in the statements of the consultant and conversations with various project representatives, either through error or misunderstanding. The analysis appears to be complicated with omissions, contradictions and inadequate responses. Unless and until a thorough traffic analysis addressing all of the points, questions and issues that have been raised has been conducted for the study area and its outside MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1985 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • EXHIBIT "A Mr. Elliot Robinson Review of Park View Drive October 17, 1985 - Page 3 influences, it is impossible to make a judgement as to the impact of this project and cumulative impacts. It would be appropriate to have an objec- tive, detailed analysis of future traffic conditions for the area resulting from this project and others conducted by an outside, unbiased consultant in order to obtain a study result acceptable to all parties involved. Sincerely, ,7g CO arry E. Greer, P.E. Principal LEG:pkf 6 MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1985 • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • EXHIBIT "A" RANCHO LAS PALMAS ASSOCIATION, INC. October 3, 1985 City Council City of Rancho Mirage 69-825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Dear Mayor Craig and Members of the Council: The Park View Drive Land Use Study and Environmental Impact Report which you are considering is not the finished product we envisioned and supported both in time and money. We had hoped that the best interests of the City of Rancho Mirage and our particular neighborhood would be served by a meaningful report with full consideration of the interaction of development on both sides of that boundry of Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert. Neither city exists in a vacuum, nor do the people who reside in either. The traffic study deficiencies will be adequately challenged by others. Even though the two locations of entry/exit at Bob Hope Drive and Monterey Avenue serving our 874 homes will be impacted by develop- ment proposed or in progress, we do not impose that repetition herein. The major defect of the EIR format is that each element standing alone can be somewhat mitigated by technicians whether or not adequately studied, however the overall effect with which we must live could be highly undesireable. This report contains no recommendation, only all or nothing alternatives. It has been stated that this report is meaningless and of little importance. In its present form it could be interpreted to either support or deny full scale, high density development depending on the reaction of the City Council. Probably little of what is said here tonight will have any effect on the approval or disapproval of the EIR. In the go-go development mystique prevalent throughout the Coachella Valley it is easy to lose sight of the risk of endangering the peaceful neighborhood environment for which we located in this area and have every reason to expect to continue to enjoy. Rob.. 75'-Ma" 5rCay. /», J 7, Oeseft, O,y.2.260 7 MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • EXHIBIT "A Page Two City Council " NOVEMBER 21, 1985 In summary, the EIR is not to our expectations yet may have little significance, with or without merit. Yet to be determined is the purpose to which it will be applied by the City. We are confident that our concerns for our area voiced over the past two years have been heard by the City Council and will be given full consideration in land use determination. Sincere y, Ernest J. Thabet, Jr., Chairman Legal and Civic Committee For the Board of Directors EJT:mp 8