Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-12MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilson convened the meeting at 4 p.m. ll. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Richard S. Kelly [[I. INVOCATION - Councilmember Jean M. Benson IV. ROLL CALL Members Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Mayor Pro-Tem Buford Crites (arrived late) Councilman Richard S Kelly Councilman Walter H. Snyder Mayor S. Roy Wilson Also Present: Bruce A. Altman, City Manager Carlos L. Ortega, ACM/R.D.A. Executive Director David J. Erwin, City Attor.ney Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/P.1.O. Robert Markey, Acting Director of Finance Ramon A. Diaz, Director of Community Service/A.C.M. Richard S. Folkers, Director of Public Works/A.C.M. Paul Shillcock, ACM/Director of Economic Development V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 28, 1989. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 * * * • • • • • * • • • * * * • • • * • • • • • • B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. WR0906, WR0910, WR0912, WR0916. Rec: Approve as presented. C. CLAIM NO. 121 AGAINST THE CITY By Frank Tysen in the Amount of $343.00 for Alleged Damage to His Vehicle. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny Claim No. 121 and instruct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. D. RESOLUTION NO. 89-126 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, Setting Forth Its Findings and Authorizing the Destruction of Files from the Department of Building and Safety That Have Been Microfilmed. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. E. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. 00-334, Town Center Way and Goldflower Street Storm Drain Improvements. Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for Contract No. 00-334. F. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 00-388 - Hovley Lane/Monterey Meadows Assessment District Landscape Median Maintenance. Rec: By Minute Motion, award Contract No. 00-388 to Environmental Care, Inc. in the amount of $207.50 per month. G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Extension of Contract No. 00-315 for Landscape maintenance on Cook Street and Country Club Drive Medians. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Sunshine Landscape for $1,775.00 per month. H. REQUEST FOR _APPROVAL_ of Renewal of Contract No. 00-161 with G. Alan Smith for Project Manager Services. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize a one-year extension of Contract No. 00-161. 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • a * • • • • • • • • • • ■ ■ • • I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Speed Limit Designation on Monterey Avenue. Rec: By Minute Motion, endorse the Rancho Mirage Speed Limit Study and authorize staff to proceed with installation of speed limit signs along Monterey Avenue within the City limits. J. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 00-387 - Highway Ill Frontage Road Median Maintenance. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to sign Contract No. 00-387 with Environmental Care, inc. in the amount of $1985.00/month. K. CONSIDERATION OF SEASONAL RENTAL PROGRAM - SAN TROPEZ VILLAS. Rec: No action is necessary at this time. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Kelly, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by a 4-0 vote of the Council; Councilman Crites had not yet arrived. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MR. DOUG SIMMONS, General Manager of the Palm Desert Town Center, addressed Council and presented the Center's check for $10,000 as its share of the People Mover Study. He said the Hahn Company was very excited about being part of this unique program dealing with traffic and circulation in the future. He said they were proud to be working both with the City and with Ahmanson Company. He commended the City for taking the lead into the 21st century. At this point, Mayor Wilson acknowledged that there were many residents of the Lakes Country Club in the audience to give public testimony on the installation of a traffic signal at the entrance to their country club. He noted that the staff information had not been ready at the preparation of this agenda and, therefore, the item did not appear. He said that as soon as negotiations between the Lakes, Desert Falls, and the City were complete, the item would be scheduled for City Council action, and all residents would be notified. 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • * * • • • • • a • • * • • • • • * * a • The following individuals spoke in strong support of the installation of a traffic signal at The Lakes because of the traffic hazard created by the increased traffic on Country Club Drive: MR. TOM BERNATZ, 24 Lost River Road, Palm Desert. submitted photos to the City Council as support of his position that a signal was needed. MR. BUZZ RANOFF, General Manager of The Lakes Country Club, also noted that four serious accidents had occurred at that intersection, two the past week. MR. SHELDON SHOCK, 303 Appaloosa, Palm Desert, said the residents of The Lakes Country Club were very affluent and would be more than willing to help pay for a signal. MR. EDWARD ETHELL, 310 Running Springs Drive, Palm Desert. MR. PHIL STAATS, 58 Lost River Road, Palm Desert. MR. MURRAY NEWMARK, 207 Wild Horse Drive, Palm Desert. Mr. Altman assured the speakers that he would convene a meeting within the next week between the City and representatives of The Lakes Country Club and Desert Falls Country Club. He advised Council that staff would prepare a report after such a meeting for presentation on a future agenda. VII. RESOLUTIONS None VIII. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 586 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A RECYCLED PRODUCT PROCUREMENT POLICY. Mr. Altman stated that no changes had occurred in this ordinance since first reading, and he recommended its adoption. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Snyder, Ordinance No. 586 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Councilmembers present. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 * * * * ■ •* * s IX. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None X. NEW BUSINESS (The record reflects that Councilman Crites arrived at this point in the Agenda.) A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL BY DANIEL F. COHEN FOR CIRCLE K STORE #321 OF THE REMOVAL OF A LOTTO BANNER. Mr. Diaz reported that the City's sign ordinance, both current and newly proposed, prohibited these types of banners. However, at one point staff had been informed that State law preempted the City's ordinance, and staff had discontinued enforcement. Since learning that the State law did not take precedent, enforcement had been reinstated, and this appeal was filed as a result of that enforcement. Because the new sign ordinance was to be considered in the Public Hearing portion of the meeting at 7 p.m., Mr. Diaz recommended a continuance of this matter until after that discussion. Councilman Crites moved to table the appeal until the 7 p.m. portion of the meeting. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote of the Council. (See Page 35 for City Council action on this item.) B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN OUTDOOR LIGHT CONTROL ORDINANCE. Mr. Diaz noted that the Council had been given a copy of the La Quinta ordinance, and he recommended that the Council direct his department to prepare such an ordinance for the City of Palm Desert. He noted that he had spoken with Kermit Martin of Southern California Edison so that Edison could include pertinent comments when the ordinance was introduced at a later meeting. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, instruct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance and amend the appropriate sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Councilman Crites seconded the motion. and it carried by unanimous vote. 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • * • • • • • * • • • • * • * * * • • • * • • * * C. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A LIGHTED EIGHT -FOOT HIGH AWNING WITH SIGNAGE FOR THE BUILDING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND SAN PABLO. Mr. Diaz reported that the Architectural Review Commission had denied this request because it felt that due to the exposed nature of the subject building, an eight foot high illuminated awning, needed to cover the mansard roof and roof -mounted equipment, would be excessive and overpowering. In addition, the Commission felt that a structure of this size was no longer an awning but rather a major architectural feature. There was also some concern about the amount of light that was used in the installation. Councilman Crites said he had a problem with staff's recommendation to send the matter back to the A.R.C. with stipulations from Council in light of the fact that it voted 4- 1 to deny the request. Councilman Kelly said that whatever action was taken, he hoped the applicant would not abandon what they were trying to do as he felt it would improve the image of the entire corner. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant's position was that the height was needed to screen the roof -top equipment. Councilman Crites noted that a subcommittee had worked diligently on amendments to the sign ordinance relative to awnings, and he did not believe that the Council should now proceed against those amendments. Councilman Crites moved to deny the appeal and ask the applicant to return to the Architectural Review commission with an awning that matches the signage program currently being used by the City. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion. Upon question by Mr. Diaz, Mr. Crites stated the intent of his motion was that if the matter was not resolved at the Architectural Review Commission, it would come back to the City Council. Mr. Erwin suaaested that the motion be reworded. Councilman Crites moved to amend his motion to state that the matter be referred back to the Architectural Review Commission for decision and/or recommendation. If it grants approval, it does not come back to the City Council unless someone calls it up. Counci'--an Kelly agreed to the amendment. The motion carried by unanimous vote.` 6 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION OF OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES POSITION ON THE HOME MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION. Councilmember Benson said she had asked that this be placed on the Agenda for consideration. Mayor Wilson stated that the information contained in the resolution from Lake Elsinore was inaccurate and had been disseminated by the Building Industry Association several months ago. He recommended that staff contact the National League of Cities to get its input and recommendation. Councilman Kelly moved to refer the matter to staff for investigation, and Councilman Crites seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote. E. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Update on Palmer CableVision. Mr. Ortega reported that he had distributed a new cable complaint 1 i st to the City Council. In addition, he reported that three new bills had been introduced by Congress to reregulate cable companies. He said staff was studying them and would support those of benefit to the City. Councilman Kelly noted a three-day conference in Anaheim on cable legislation and recommended someone attend. It was resolved that both Councilman Kelly and Mr. Ortega would attend. 2. Highway 111 - Modification of Median Nose. Council thanked Mr. Folkers for the report. XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS None 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • XII. OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF A SIGN APPROVAL FOR BETTY'S SHOE BOUTIQUE, 72-785 HIGHWAY 111, PALM DESERT. Mr. Diaz presented a video and reviewed the staff report and recommendation. He said that the sign had been approved by the Architectural Review Commission. If the Council felt it to be incompatible, it should reverse that decision and reimburse the applicant for the cost of the sign since permits were issued. MR. PETE PETERSON, 72-785 Highway 111, Palm Desert, addressed council as owner of Betty's Shoe Boutique. He presented a video of the signage in the shopping center and stated he felt other signs as shown were similar to the one he was requesting. He said his was the last retail store in the center, and he was trying to survive in business; the sign was necessary. MS. JOYCE WILKE, Carver Management Company, said her company had given Mr. Peterson permission for the sign which they felt was in good taste. Councilman Crites noted that this sign had been approved by a staff member and installed prior to its going to the Architectural Review Commission. He said he had called it up because it did not conform to the new sign regulations. He noted that the art gallery adjacent to the shoe store had a wood sign with external lights on it -- not internally lit can signs. He said both videos showed him what had been done wrong in the past and convinced him that the new regulations, prohibiting these kinds of signs, were good ones. Councilman Kelly agreed but said he had one problem in that the Architectural Review Commission had approved it which would make him cautious in denying it now. Mr. Diaz pointed out that the sign did meet the code, both the existing one and the proposed one. He said the matter was one of aesthetics. Councilmember Benson said she was the oldest tenant in the center and felt they had the right idea back when externally lit wooden signs were required in all leases. 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 . . * . . . * * . . * . * * * . * * * . * . * . * Mayor Wilson read from the minutes of the Architectural Review Commission wherein it was stated that the sign program was lost long before this sign was installed. He agreed and said he liked the wooden signs that had originally been in there. Councilman Snyder said the original sign program of the City had been lost, and he thought it should be restored. Councilman Crites moved to deny the sign, reimburse the owner for the cost involved in installing it, and refer the matter to the Architectural Review Commission to find signage compatible with the adjacent business. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion. The motion failed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Benson, Kelly and Wilson voting NO. Councilman Kelly moved to affirm the decision of the Architectural Review Commission and approve the sign. Mayor Wilson seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Benson, Crites, and Snyder voting NO. Councilmember Benson asked that the record reflect that she was not against Betty's Shoe Boutique and in fact had enjoyed a good neighbor relationship with the business for several years. B. CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN COMPLAINT RELATIVE TO HACIENDA DE MONTEREY NORTH SIDE BLOCK WALL. Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report stating that Hacienda de Monterey had offered to paint the portions of the wall being objected to. Mayor Wilson noted for the record that he had listened to the portion of the tape dealing with this issue from the previous meeting as he had been absent. He also noted that he and Councilman Crites had visited the site Councilman Crites asked if the individual who had complained at the last meeting had provided a list of other dissatisfied homeowners; Mr. Drell responded she had not. Mr. Crites said he felt Charter Development had gone to great lengths to please the adjacent property owners and that in fact what they were looking at now was a big improvement. Councilmember Benson agreed. She felt that lowering the wall would be wrong as it enhanced all properties. MR. NORM REYNOLDS, Charter Development Company, said he would go on record again that his company was willing to attempt to mitigate any problems with adjacent property owners. He noted 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • that a number of property owners were in fact happy with the wall. He said that for one property, that of Keiger Barton, the wa l l had been lowered one block. He said his problem was the wall was constructed one and one-half years ago and doing anything about it now was difficult. He presented Council with pictures of the wall and adjoining properties. Mayor Wilson asked if Ms. Day was in the audience to speak, and she was not. Councilmembers Kelly and Snyder both stated they felt it was wrong to ask Charter to now paint the wall. Councilman Crites moved to take no action on the matter inasmuch as the applicant has met all conditions of approval of the project as it relates to the wall. Councilman Snyder seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote. XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER Mr. Altman introduced the City's two new Administrative Assistants, Ray Janes of the Redevelopment Agency and Tom Bassler of Public Works. B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Erwin advised the Council of a need for Closed Session as listed under the Adjournment section of the agenda. C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Reguests for Action: 1 Request for Approval of Historical Document Gallery in Council Chamber - Councilmember Jean M. Benson. Councilmember Benson stated that several of the Council had received old newspapers over the years which reflected some historic moments for the City. She suggested approving the purchase of some type of display box for these at the rear of the Council Chamber. Staff was directed to look into the costs associated with such a purchase and report ba to the Council. 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • * * ■ * * * * * * * • * • • • • * * * * • * * * o City Council Committee Reports: 1. Sunline Trolley - Councilman Richard S. Kelly. Councilman Kelly showed a newspaper picture of the new trolleys purchased by Palm Springs and noted that he would have one available for Council to see at 3:30 p.m. the afternoon of the next meeting, October 26. 2. Councilman Kelly reported that he had just attended an excellent recycling conference and was proud to report that Palm Desert was a leader in the field. He noted many bill=, before the State legislature that we should be tracking and supporting, including those at the Federal level dealing with tax incentives to those businesses participating in recycling programs. 3. Councilman Crites stated he had met the day before with Mayor John Pena of LaQuinta who had stated he felt the Valley's cities needed to start sharing new ideas of concern to all entities 4. Councilman Crites stated that the College of the Desert's class on Humanity and Environment had asked for and received a presentation by Phil Drell. He said Mr. Drell had done an outstanding job and had received many compliments from the students. He thanked him. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B MR. DAN EHRLER, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed Council and expressed his appreciation for the excellent job staff had done at the conference at the Marriott. He said that both the City and Ahmanson Company had done a very professional job in promoting the City. Upon motion by Crites, second by Snyder, and unanimous vote of the Council, Mayor Wilson recessed the meeting at 6 p.m. for dinner. He reconvened the meeting at 7 p.m. XV. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • * * • • • * • * • * • • • * * * * * * • • * * * XVI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C 1. Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the Agenda may address the City Council at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the City Council. 2. This is time and place for any person who wishes to comment on non -hearing Agenda items. It should be noted that at City Council• discretion, these comments may be deferred until such time on the Agenda as the item is discussed. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the City Council. XVII. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None XVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS With Council concurrence, Mayor Wilson changed the order of the agenda to accommodate the many people present to address the North Sphere Plan. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Mr. Diaz presented a video of the area in question and reviewed the staff report and recommendation. He noted that no rezoning would take place as a result of this specific plan; those cases would be dealt with individually and in public hearings as they arose. He concluded by recommending Council's approval of the plan. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of the plan; none was offered. He invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the plan, and the following spoke: MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, 74-309 Highway 111, Palm Desert, spoke as legal counsel for the homeowners of Palm Desert Resorter. While they did not oppose the plan in general, the specifically opposed the proposed zoning of Service Industrial currently being considered on the land across from their club and under the County of Riverside's jurisdiction. He requested that land be designated Office Professional. He also emphasized protection of the scenic corridor along Country Club Drive. 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • MR. JOHN AGISH, 41-946 Preston Lane, Palm Desert, opposed the proposed County zoning of Service Industrial. Said he had started a petition drive against it and now had over 300 signatures. Asked that Council protect the scenic corridor and their property values. MR. RICK WALKER, Equity Directions, 77-600 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert. said he was the developer of the property across from the Resorter. He said they were putting upscale landscaping along the scenic corridor and that his project was going to be the highest quality corporation development in the desert. MR. BOB ROCCO, 1215 Jupiter Hills Court,Palm Desert, opposed the rezoning of land to Service Industrial. Said he had moved here for a change of life style and the proposed zoning would destroy that. MARY STROISNEIDER, 4179 Preston, Palm Desert, opposed the rezoning to Service Industrial because of the increase in noise and traffic it would produce. Mayor Wilson noted that the property being considered for rezoning to Service Industrial was not within the City of Palm Desert but rather the County of Riverside. He suggested the residents contact the East Area Planning Commission of the County with their objections to this rezoning. MR. BILL CARVER, 555 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, spoke as a property owner in the North Sphere and one who had worked on the proposed plan for the last five years. He said the plan addressed all of his concerns except one that required 100 acres of land to qualify for development as Planned Community Development zoning. He urged it be reduced to 50 acres. Mr. Diaz responded tnat staff too felt that it should be reduced to 50 acres. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Comments: Crites: Felt that City should find reasonable use of land that is as closed to existing zoning as to give the least amount of change - R-1 to R-3, for example. He felt that the Regency Palms and Palm Valley Country Club were proof that R-I is reasonable for the area. Complimented report for including street widenings and added that Cook Street needs to be wihenNd 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • to six lanes. Plan should include a master plan for medians and landscaping. Questioned whether enough land had been set aside for park land as well as land for flyways and overpasses. Kelly: Felt the requirement of 100 acres for Planned Community Development was too high. Thought control of it could be through the zoning ordinance. Felt the land across from the Resorter should be reexamined to see if something between residential and industrial zoning could be found that would mitigate residents' concerns. Concerned that Portola was being left out as a major traffic carrier as he felt it was a street most residents use. Saw no mention in the plan of the mid - valley parkway Benson: Thought some zoning could be found that would be more compatible but did not think it should be residential, especially if the County's proposal to haul trash to Eagle Mountain was approved because the trains would be running constantly behind that property. Did not want apartments in there either. Felt that the single -story buildings such as those found on Cook Street were the nicest looking in the City. Snyder: Sympathized with the residents of the Resorter and agreed that Country Club Drive needed to be preserved as a scenic corridor. Felt property closer to the freeway was a problem as to what zoning it should be. Wilson: Didn't know what the City could do about the property across from the Resorter as it is in the County. If the City were to consider annexation, it must be prezoned; in order to prezone it, it must be consistent with the plan. Felt it could be shown as R-2. With regard to the scenic corridor, felt it would be protected as development occurred. Councilman Crites said he preferred that the land be annexed at its existing zoning which would allow an applicant to make a request for a change of zone. Mr. Altman noted that the residents would have to petition the City for annexation before any process could begin to do so. Mr. Diaz suggested a dual designation for this property of Office Professional, Service Industrial, and Residential-3. The specific zoning could then be decided after annexation and when a development for the land was proposed. Councilman Snyder agreed that this would leave us .in consort with the County. Diaz Response to Council Questions: Park 8 Recreation Commission should review the plan and loo- t the 25 acres for 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • * • • • • a park plus the 30 acres. Plan should not preclude us from acquiring other park land as it is needed. Felt that if it was the Council's desire to have flyways, it should be so stated at this time in the plan. He cautioned, however, that it may be difficult to require land dedication for these. Said Master Plan of Landscaping can be developed; staff was attempting to accomplish it throughout the City and not just in the north sphere. Noted that sufficient right-of-way was available to make Cook Street six lanes but that Portola was predesignated at four lanes. Dinah Shore between Monterey and Portola is designated as four lanes as well. Crites: For the record, said it should be noted that Council was talking about a 25-acre park in the North Sphere in addition to the 30 acres which totals 55 acres. Kelly: Proposed setting aside six locations for potential fly overs; said it would never be done if it were not included in this plan. Locations suggested were: Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, Monterey Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive, Monterey Avenue and Cook Street, Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive, Cook Street and Country Club Drive, and Cook Street and Hovley Lane. Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 89-122 amended to include: That the area directly to the north of the Palm Desert Resort Country Club be dual designated R- 1/O.P./S.I., that the six locations of Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, Monterey Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive, Monterey Avenue and Cook Street, Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive, Cook Street and Country Club Drive, and Cook Street and Hovley Lane be set aside for possible use for fly -over type intersections, and that the Planned Community Development be reduced from 100 acres to 50 while maintaining the same standards of the zoning. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Wilson declared a five-minute recess. B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE, AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 1, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND AHMANSON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (CASE NOS. GPA89- 1 , C/Z89- 1 , Z0A89- 1__)_. (Continued from the meeting of September 28, 1989.) Wilson: The next public hearing Is consideration of a request for certification of Environmental Impact Report, Approval of General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone. 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Amendment No. 5 to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1, and Development Agreement between the City and Ahmanson Commercial Development Company, a hearing that has been continued from our meeting of September 28, 1989. For the record, 1 would like to state that I was not in attendance at the meeting of September 28, 1989. Since that time I have listened to the tape that was recorded of that hearing and I also read the transcript, verbatim transcript, of that hearing and feel that I am apprised of the issues that were discussed at the last meeting. The public hearing is still open but 1 will first ask the staff for a report and a response to issues raised at the last meeting. Diaz: Yes, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. The proposal that you have before you is a culmination of a lot of months of work and effort. Actually, we can say a lot of years of work and effort, the beginnings of which were the Year 2000 committee's work in the commercial area and that Year 2000 plan calling for the City of Palm Desert to retain its preeminence in the retail commercial area as well as a resort commercial destination area. Also, the Economic Development Advisory Committee has worked with the developer and applicant in reviewing the proposal, and they have recommended approval. The Planning Commission's public hearing process, where they recommended approval, not necessarily in the same manner as I will get to as far as the circulation is concerned. In addition, presentations have been made to the Chamber of Commerce and the El Paseo Merchants' Association. And finally your Core Commercial Plan called for, which was adopted by the City, called for rethinking and reanalysis of the particular parcels under consideration, Particularly along Highway 111. Some of the key issues that were brought up at the last hearing, and of course, one was which alternative with regards to the future of Painters Path. There seemed to be consensus among the members of the Council that alternative B or this alternative that does not have a connection across the Channel with Painters Path would be the preferable of the alternatives as opposed to having Painters Path a through street. There was some discussion of the possibility of, at the time of development, some kind of interconnect bridge between these two projects and your discussions today should lead us or let staff know exactly what is proposed here. With regards to this 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 interconnect, you have a letter from legal counsel for Mr. George Fox that was submitted today indicating that if the Alternative B is adopted, there could be possible litigation as a result of that because he needs that for access. I might indicate to the Council that at the time we were reviewing that particular plan, that access was not shown as necessary for that development. If it had been, we might have looked differently at that particular development. However, as far as the access to that particular property is concerned and those easements, it is staff's feeling that is a private matter between the property owner and that we should make the decision that, I'm sure that we will make the decision that we feel is in the best interests of the City of Palm Desert with or without the threat of litigation. The other issues that arose was with regards to the parcel at Town Center Way and Fred Waring Drive and the uses that would be proposed along Fred Waring. At this particular point in time, we do not have specific developments or development plans before us. Those, again, would be subject to further public hearing and additional hearings. It would be staff's recommendation that we indicate that in terms of this particular parcel that along Fred Waring Drive that at the time of application, that the applicant develop this in a manner that will not duly impact Fred Waring in terms of aesthetic concerns as well as impact it in terms of intensity of development. One of the key items within this plan and proposal, of course, is the item of the people mover, which is currently under study by a firm, and you received a first check for $10,000 today from the Town Center. The applicant has also agreed to pay for $10,000 of that study, and of course the City is paying for the other third. And that particular study will result in terms of the overall plan of a people mover to connect the entire commercial area, which would have a significant effect in terms of traffic flow and interchange of people moving from one area and one center to the other. The applicant will be conditioned to pay his fair share of the cost of implementing that. He does not object to that and that will be in the f i na l development agreement that you will have before you. In terms of El Paseo, an issue that arose at the last meeting was how that Sun Lodge Colony was going to be developed. Again, that would be subject to the precise plan of design for that particular site and it will be developed in a manner that is obviously compatible with our overall long-range goals and objectives and compatible 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ■ * . s t s * * * • • a ; . s * * * OCTOBER 12, 1989 with the type of development that is now occurring and complementary to the type of development which is now occurring along El Paseo in implementation of our overall goals to make El Paseo one of the best shopping streets, not only in the State but in the Nation. Staff would at this time like to state that, I think the purpose of the hearing this evening is first of all to conclude the environmental impact report comment period so that we can then at your next meeting present the response to those comments for your consideration. Obviously, the Council can then discuss those response to comments, but that would conclude then the comment period to the environmental impact report and to bring out any specific issues or concerns that had not been brought out at the previous meeting. And looking at the hour, that would conclude the staff report. Wilson: Are there any questions of staff before I take testimony? Crites: Do I then assume that responses to all the specific inquiries that we made two weeks ago will come two weeks from now? Diaz: Yes, your inquiries would be specifically addressed at that time. Crites: But they'll be addressed after the opportunity for the public to comment on those responses is over? Diaz: The, yes, the purpose of CEQA is you have the draft environmental impact report, the comments to those reports, and the response to comments. We do not have an endless series then of comments to the response and response to those comments. If the Council so wishes, at that particular point in time wishes to reopen the comment period, it can do so. Crites: Okay, thank you. Wilson: Okay, thank you. The public hearing is open. 1 would like to, again, make it clear that we would first like to have all public comment address the environmental impact report. After we have gotten all of the testimony on the environmental impact report from the public, give the Council another chance to discuss that, and I would like to close that public hearing on the environmental impact report and continue to take testimony then on the 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 * * * * * s * * f r s s * s * * s * a a ■ ■ f 1 1 oronosed change of zone. development agreement, and the other aspects of this complex project. Ortega_ Mr. Manor, this part of the hearing should be in conjunction with the Redevelopment. You remember that... Wilson: Thank you very much. Before we take testimony. I would l i ke to call the Redevelopment Agency meeting to order and ask the City Clerk to call the roll. Gilligan: Member Benson. Benson: Present. Gilligan: Vice Chairman Crites. Crites: Present. Gilligan: Member Kelly. Kelly: Here. Gi_1 l i qan :_ Member Snyder. Snyder: Here. G_ill_iaan: Chairman Wilson. Wilson: Here. Okay, we are sitting as two bodies at the moment. the City Council of Palm Desert and the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. We'll take testimony now from anyone who wishes to add additional comments on the environmental impact report. Yes, Mr. Simon? Simon: Mr. Mayor and City Councilmembers, my name is Gregory Simon. I'm Director of Ahmanson Commercial Development, 11111 (1 always have to remember it's five l's) Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2127, Los Angeles 90025. 1 lust wanted to start our comment period in the same manner in which Mayor Pro-Tem Crites closed the last meeting, and that was in a very up. very thoughtful. and a very positive manner. Since the last meeting, our staff has been meeting rather intensively with not only the City staff but with our consultants in addressing the very I9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • * a • • • • thoughtful issues that were raised. And we looked forward to being able to conclude the public comment section tonight in order that we can finalize and deal in its entirety with the comments relative to the EIR. We have very positive attitudes and responses to a presentation that was made on the people mover. It's genuinely exciting. I've had a chance to talk to Mayor Wilson about how we hope to be able to cooperate in getting the right type of people out here to give us their expertise. In addition and in the interim since our last meeting, Palm Desert has been the host to the International Council of Shopping Center, a deal -making session for the Western United States which is that everybody who would like to talk about having a tenant come in and serve their community fortunately all those tenants and merchants came to Palm Desert and from this position decided where they would like to go. And obviously we were able to garner a very strong interest in a broad base of the retail community to serve this valley, and I think in particular Palm Desert stands highest among that. Thank you for your time. Wi1_son:_ Thank you for your comments. Additional testimony addressing the environmental impact report? Perrier: Yes. my name is Allen Perrier, and my address is 226 Santa Barbara in Palm Desert. And I'm here to state on behalf of Mr. Fox, he was unable to be here this evening and asked that I appear. And I did, this afternoon, deliver to the City Clerk a letter that apparently you have. And 1 would just sort of like to suggest that 1 think it's really time to sit back and to understand that the Fox Canyon project is very significantly impacted by this concern that we have with respect to the circulation element, which 1 understand to be that the s i qn i f i cant matter or at least one of the significant matters of your concern of the environmental impact report. And we had understood, Mr. Fox had, that a Painters Path, as far as the proposal as the developer was concerned, was to be bridged at the Channel and that Painters Path would, in fact, be completed as a public street as it now is a public street in the City. I made some inquiry. 1 don't believe that there's been anything clone to vacate the public character of Painters Path. so it is a public street. Secondly. the Fox Canyon property_ has a 60 foot easement from the property to Highway 111 as it was several years ago. which is Painters Path. And it's a very valuable 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • right, and it has always been Mr. Fox's intent and while I haven't had a chance to review the proceedings there has always been an understanding that access to the property would be from Highway 11l as well as the north side. That's something we can delve into, but in my personal discussions with Mr. Fox, that's always been e factor. So the point 1 would 1 i ke to bring out that 1 ' m here trying to speak in some respects on behalf of the future owners of that project. While it has had some controversy with respect to it, I think it's a fact that it will be developed and it's I believe in everybody's best interest that it be developed to its finest quality possible. And in my judgment that means reasonable access through this property, and it ought to be something that you can be proud of as far as access is concerned to the property. You know, the players in some respects are still the same. It's the Ahmanson Company that sold off the property to Mr. Fox's predecessor, has granted the easement to Painters Path. And they're now in, and I believe they've got an obligation of good faith and fair dealing to deal w ith us in a reasonable manner with respect to that property. And that's a position I'll advocate and while that is a matter of, private matter, the fact that Painters Path is a public street and that our access is to Painters Path puts the City into the arena because the developer, I believe, made a reasonable request for the bridging of Painters Path. It seems to me it was recommended to you by the Planning Commission. I'm not an e xpert on traffic, traffic standards, or what is beneficial to the City, but it just seems to me and I am a citizen of the City, that it would make sense that there be some fashion in some manner that the El Paseo traffic could travel to the commercial development on the west side of the Channel without going onto Highway 111. I think that makes some sense, so as you get into this give some thought about Mr. Fox's easement, the rights of the people to have sensible access to their lots as they're going to be developed in the future. So, that's rea l l y all I have to say unless you have some questions. W ilson: I have a question, Mr. Perrier. Perrier: Certainly. Wilson: I'm a little unclear. The easement that the Fox, or that Mr. Fox has with the property owner runs... Perrier: May I show you? 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • * * ; ; * • a 1 * • * * r ; a t * f • * * * ■ Wilson: Would you point it out please? Perrier: (unable to hear clearly) W ilson: Could you hand Mr. Perrier the microphone and also. Perrier: ...60 foot easement and it joins Painters Path. And that's where the easement is. W ilson: In other words, regardless of how we decide on this, the people in that area do have access to the City of Palm Desert down to Painters Path, down Painters Path to Fred Waring Drive. and then out to Highway 111. Is that correct? Perrier: Right, and (unclear)...Painters Path was the Highway 111, which provided significantly better access that it does now. And we believe they have an obligation of good faith and fair dealing to be fair with us at this time to provide us the same access. That's why we think, frankly, they're obligated to seek to bridge Painters Path in out behalf. Wilson: Mr. Crites. Crites: I'm amazed at how perceptions of what's good for folk change. Some years ago when Mr. Fox was a weekly visitor to our city concerning Fox Canyon, he spoke eloquently of keeping all of the traffic out of that area and sealing all that off from Painters Path and so on and so forth. And that he wished to use the existing bridge that crosses up near the little tennis court area, which is to the south of his project, as his primary access. I remember sitting_ at this side of the desk with Mr. Fox at that side and hearing Mr. Fox earnestly proclaim the usefulness of the rural access so that people were not pothered by traffic. etc., etc., etc. Now I'm sure that you will be diligent in going back through the transcripts and looking for all those comments and so on and so forth. But I'm .lust at least remarking that the flavor of this, the flavor of that. had the flavor of entirely different meals. Perrier: Well, my recollection is that access in both d irections was required by the City. That's my recollection of the facts. So... But, that, you know. I'm sure we can find out and all I'm saying is if you had your choice of the access to your lot, my question would 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 ■ • • * • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • a • rt • r rr whic--h i rr w i ;I volt Prefer? And 1'! se . `hn ; fllt;lrr- nwnerc. of the l of s , f think hh� h ,n �r ; t`-!thwav 1 1 1 arP measurably ben“:F i r : , 1- F he nrr,nor `v . Wi 1 -or! Thank v.-;u. Mr. Prrr. ier. for volir think th i s additional input we will take undo ,; ;•�:, � when we ,sddress that issue of Plan A or B. The next additional testimony on the environmental impact report? Seeing none, I will ask the Council if they have any additional questions or comments on the environmental impact report. Kelly: 1 guess I have to make sure my comments fit into the environmental impact report? Wilson: We'll let Mr. Diaz tell you... Ke l 1 �: He'll to l 1 me if they don't. One of the things that came up at the Recycling Conference, well on recycling, but came up at the Recycling Conference that has never come uo at any other conference that I've been to on that particular subject, that is with all the new laws it is imperative that recycling be addressed in all zoning ordinances, which needs to be included in these zoning ordinances. Probably. that's an environmental impact. Where it fits in and how it fits in I don't know. Wilson:.. 1 guess the question directed to staff is to whether or not that appropriately belongs in the EIR or part of the development agreement, some kind of... Diaz: We can address that in the general response to the comment and obviously we're working on the recycling within the zoning ordinance that would apply to this project anyway. Kelly: And another mitigation to the traffic along with the people mover is other public transportation and proper turnouts and conditions that encourage people to use public transportation. Wilson: Is that so noted? Diaz: Yes. Wilson: Mrs. Benson, do you have any additional EIR comments or questions? 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • * • • • • it * • * * • • * • * * • * Benson: No, I don't have anything additional. Wilson: Mr. Crites, I don't see how you could have anything additional after listening to your exhaustive (unclear) last week, but we'll ask you anyway. Crites: 1 just have this five page summary of more, no. Those few comments from last week suffice. Wilson: Mr. Snyder. Snyder: My comments last week were sufficient. W i_ 1 son_ In that case, I will hereby close the public hearing on the environmental impact report and direct staff to prepare appropriate responses and bring them back to us at our meeting in two weeks, if that's possible. Diaz: Yes, we will. Wilson: With that, I'll now, we still have... Crites: Excuse me, one question. Is that sufficient time, I mean, we don't need to have this back in two weeks just to find out that it's really not done in a way that tends to the business to where we have to do it another time after that and so on and so forth. Does staff have a preference for two weeks or four weeks in terms of the preparation of getting this job done and getting it done well for Ahmanson, for the City, for the Council, for the whole works? Diaz_: weeks. We believe that we can respond to the comments in two Wilson: Thank you. The public hearing is still open on the remaining issues dealing with this project, and those are the approval of the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone. Amendment to Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1, and Development Agreements between the City and the Ahmanson Commercial Development Company. We will now take testimony in FAVOR of those remaining aspects. Ehrler: Mr. Mayor. members of the City Council. Dan Ehrler with the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, Executive Vice President. On behalf of the Palm Desert Chamber Board of Directors, 1 just wanted to reiterate what was In our communication to you some months ago. After a very extensive presentation by the Ahmanson Company to a joint meeting of our Board of Directors, Business Economic 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 Development Committee, and our Civic Affairs Committee, at which the presentation was made, the concept was presented, and then the Board took the action to support that concept for the implementation of this plan. And 1 just wanted to reiterate that. I believe that that communication was a part of, if I'm not mistaken Ray, a part of that EIR too, wasn't it? Diaz: Yes, I believe it was. Ehrler: 1 believe that was a part of that report as well, that written comment and then you've also received it before. So I just wanted to reiterate that support on behalf of the Board of Directors. I think the Ahmanson Company has demonstrated its commitment to the community to do the best they can to work out whatever arrangements will be most beneficial to the entire community, and they are to be commended for that and as the Chamber looks at it, we think it will be ultimately a very beneficial project for years to come. Thank you. Wilson: Thank you very much. Next person who would like to give testimony in FAVOR of the proposals before us. Powers: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, I'm Bi11 Powers, Chairman of the El Paseo Business Association. We are in support of the Ahmanson project. As a matter of fact, on October 5th, we passed a resolution, which I'll read to you, and I have copies for the members. "At the October 5th, 1989, meeting of the Board of Directors of the El Paseo Business Association, the Board voted its unanimous support of the Ahmanson Development Sun Lodge project on El Paseo as well as the balance of their developments along Highway 111. By its resolution of support, the Board hopes this project will serve as a centerpiece for a strong and vibrant El Paseo." And as a member and Chairman of that Association, we look favorably on this project because it will add to what has been mentioned earlier about El Paseo being the class act of the desert and possibly California and maybe even tie Nation. We hope that would be what could happen. But it's the vitality and the synergism and everything else it all tying together that makes a lot of sense for us. and we endorse it completely. 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • s s s s * * s * s s s a s * s s s * s * * * * Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr. Powers. Additional testimony in FAVOR? Seeing none, I'll call for testimony in OPPOSITION. Perrier: I would like to have the statements that 1 made previously made a part of the record as far as this matter is concerned and would ask that since apparently your consideration does include circulation, I don't see how and 1 don't understand what proposal you're making for the circulation on the west side of the Channel. I see no public roads or anything or an acknowledgement of the existence of Painters Path. That's my only comment. Thank you. Wilson: Thank you. Additional testimony in OPPOSITION? For the record, did Mr. Perrier state his name for the tape? Mr. Perrier, who previously spoke and gave his address, just spoke. Name and address. Stake:_ I'm Joanne Stage at Sandpiper. I have one quick question. How many lots does Mr. Fox intend to develop? Could 1 just ask that just as a personal? Unknown: 58. Stage: 58. So, okay. There are 306 units at Sandpiper that we're concerned about and of course then on up Edgehill there are quite a number of other units thatare very deeply concerned about the traffic flow. And I came up with an idea, he it good or bad, and 1 ' m going to present it again. And I don't, I really didn't understand Plan 1 of the Ahmanson plan that well, and I'd really like to see it again. I guess it's been vetoed and it was mainly because we didn't want the bridge over the Wash because we really feel strongly that we don't want more traffic on that area. Wilson: 1'd like to correct the record. It hasn't been vetoed at this point. I think the consensus from the last meeting was that they favor the other proposal, but until the matter comes to a vote it's still on the table. Sta_ae: Well 1 was just talking with the representative from the Ahmanson group and I just thouaht maybe that was something that we sort of tabled. But. . may 1 just show you something ,lust on the map? 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • W il son :_ We'll give you a microphone here that you can use. please. Please use the microphone because we are taping those proceedings. Stage:_ Alright. When we had a mild rainstorm recently. the flood channel did its bit I guess, but an awful lot of the City will tell you of dirt and rocks and so on that is stacked against the channel and against Edgehill washed down onto Edgehill. It was a real mess, and a dangerous one. My proposal is that somehow that area be walled, that there be consideration for some sort of a wall, and a wider street at Edgehill giving a service road of a sort to Edgehill, with a stop sign. I'm sorry you're not able to see this... with a stop sign at this very dangerous corner of Painters Path and Edgehill and a divided road. There's almost room, there's room for an ample two-lane road here now. But if this bank along Edgehill were cleared and the road were widened, there could be two roads, two lanes, and there could be a service road all along this area, which I would think might be a serious consideration that hasn't been discussed at this point. That's Edgehill. Then, turning here at this very bad point, which is a big consideration, here you have not developed anything yet. And they've talked of giving Sandpiper a park, they've talked about putting up a wall, one thing or another. There is quite a wide, Painters Path is quite wide actually. And El Paseo has dividing islands that are even wider than the road, so that if this area were widened for a two -land road, since they're going to have an access road coming out of their new development, and if we were to have a service road along Sandpiper so that that would run not only for the good of the Sandpiper but mainly, yeah, for really for the good of Sandpiper. And, but it would also continue on up Edgehill for the good of the people that live along Edgehill who have built there for years in good faith, and there are many of them, many more than fifty. I think that might be something to consider, where right now there is land available to do that. The worst, one of the worst spots in our whole Palm Desert area was created when there was an access road coming out of TGI Fridays and The Wherehouse and all the rest of it, right onto El Paseo. There's no way to have good traffic control there, and they zip across there into E1 Paseo, and they zip across there onto Painters Path, and that I said last time. But I've given it a lot of thought, and I do think th i s extension might be interesting. 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Crites: Would you be willing to take your innovative idea and visit with Mr. Diaz tomorrow about that? Stage: Yeah, 1'd really like to do that. I didn't know who to see, but I will be glad to. Wilson: Mr. Diaz and Mr. Folkers both, I think. Stage: Thank you. Crites: We need to look at every option we can come through with and see what and evaluate them. Wilson: Additional testimony in OPPOSITION? Stage: My name is Don Stage, and I can't let my wife get the last word. I have, I'm really not in opposition to this project at all. I just want to clarify that we're talking about Plan B or Plan 2, which does not include a bridge. I was at the hearings when Mr. Fox was here, and 1 specifically stood here and said "are you going to put a bridge across the wash?", and they said, the Council at that time said "No, we're not." Now, this gentleman understood they were going to have a bridge. I don't know. Maybe the tapes will show. But that was my understanding. And I see no reason in the world or the only reason to put a bridge across there to take care of 58 people on Fox Canyon. And I don't know that I'll live long enough to see that many people up on the hill. I hope not. Thank you. Wilson: Thank you. Additional testimony in OPPOSITION? Evers: I'm Dave Evers, 72450 Manzanita Drive. We live just across the street from Travelers Inn there on Fred Waring. And I'm not opposed to it, but I do have a concern about where 111 meets and Fred Waring, across from Reuben's Restaurant and Flying J gas station. Well we live right behind there, and we've, they've used that, where (unclear) development was going to put a farmers market there. And they've been using that for parking for, well, the worst problem we have is CalTrans. When they were in there widening Highway 111 and when Travelers Inn came in and the Wash was there and One Qua i 1 and the Mall. And we've been, the dust has, you know. But we're not against this, unless they're going to park there. If they use that for a parking area, then we are. Wilson: We will so note that. 28 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Evers: Okay, so they won't be traveling back and forth and rollers won't be going down our street any more, and trucks, and... We've got all kinds of pictures. So anytime you want to see them let us know. Thank you. Wilson: Thank you for your input. Additional testimony, please? Anyone in OPPOSITION? Is there anyone else. Yes, sir. Dresser: Good evening. My name is Dan Dresser, and I live at 43-900 Joshua Road in Palm Desert here. And I'd just like to reiterate what my neighbor just said because it was just awful and it was 1 i ke 1 i v i ng in a truck st".on and so, as long as they don't park there 1 don't have anything against it either. Okay? Wilson: Thank you for your input. Any additional testimony? Seeing none. then I will call on the applicant. Is there anything he wishes to refute that might have been entered i +c) the testimony this evening? Applicant: Mr. Mayor. I would like to take tl,r opportunity to consider all statements that have been midi - tonight in order to rebut if necessary, certdini'v respond as we intend to respond at the next Coun. meeting. 1'd like to take that opportunity. Wilson:.Okay, with that understanding, we will keep ; 1,; public hearing open. It would be inappropriate to take �r on this until we get the comments on the EIR and have the �'•� f analyze this entire package and come back with a recommend, to us. Mr. Diaz, is two -week continuance appropriate? Diaz Yes. Wilson:_ Does Council have any questions of staff or •.F - in the audience or any questions before I entertain d n„!: continue for two weeks this public hearing? Benson: I'd just like to say in regard to Buford's, t . if two weeks is sufficient, we certainly don't wart Tuesday before Council in order to digest the .answers. Diaz: My staff, super Planner Phil Drell, will lid�a. response to comments to you before the Tuesday bef-,r, Thursday. Wilson: It's called puck passing? 29 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • a • • • Crites: It's his last act before officially retiring, right? Wilson: So now it would be appropriate to entertain a motion to continue this. Councilman Crites so moved. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote. A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE, SECTION 68, AS IT APPLIES TO SIGNS AND AWNINGS. (Continued from the meeting of September 28, 1989.) Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and recommendation. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and invited testimony in favor of the proposed revisions. The following spoke: MR. DAN EHRLER, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, noted he had chaired a task force which worked with the City on these changes. He said they strongly favored the proposed changes to the Architectural Review Commission which recommended individuals with design or color coordination skills as well as the one which did not ban neon signs but rather left those approvals to the A.R.C. under strict guidelines. He said the committee did have three concerns: 1) It continued to recommend implementation of the definitions provided by the State of California Sign User Council as it would give the City State-wide uniformity; 2) Opposed limiting signs to three colors - felt current wording should be retained; 3) Supported retaining current language relative to awnings and allowing them to be approved on an individual basis with strict guidelines. He concluded by asking that the Council review the implementation of the new ordinance in 6 months, no later than a year, to see how they are working. Mayor Wilson thanked Mr. Ehrler and all the members of the Chamber who participated on this committee which had proved to be of great assistance to the City. MR. JIM ENGLE, Imperial Sign Company, 46-120 Calvin Street. Indio. opposed prohibiting signs on parapets or mansard roofs. He said that they already existed on many businesses in Palm Desert and as new tenants went into these buildings, they would be forced to remove them. He also opposed the six foot height limitation on free 30 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • standing signs feeling a maximum of 15 feet should be allowed. MR. ROBERT KINNEY, Sign Users Council, said he had worked with the Chamber of Commerce subcommittee and his organization was generally opposed to the majority of the proposed revisions. He said they would create problems for existing business and particularly those new ones required to remove and replace signs which had become illegal. He specifically opposed Section 25.68.670 as proposed by the City Attorney as being unreasonable and an open invitation to offenders. He stated the height limitations on the monument/free-standing signs were unreasonable as was the elimination of parapet and mansard roof signs. He noted that many of the buildings in the City had been architecturally designed for this type of sign. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Wilson closed the Public Hearing. Council Comments: Crites: Revisions do not in excess of 6 foot monument sign as language says six feet as long as it provides adequate visibility; if not, it can go to 10 feet. With regard to the signs on mansard roofs, he noted that the two members of the task force on this issue who recommended against these had been architects. He said he thought the videos shown pointed out that if anything, this type of sign violated the architectural integrity of any building. Agreed the ordinance revisions should be reviewed in six months to a year. With regard to the Chamber's suggestion that awnings be reviewed on an individual basis, he noted it was at the request of the Architectural Review Commission that specific guidelines be established, and the ones included in the amendment are the ones the City has been using for the last five months. With regard to using State definitions, they have created numerous problems in the past. With regard to eliminating the three -color restriction for signs, he said the current ordinance which allows more has brought the City to the point of limiting to three. Benson: Thought the amendments were the best the City had had in a long time; thought they gave excellent guidelines to the A.R.C.. She liked the idea of reviewing them In six months David Erwin: Said he would like to talk to the attorney who wrote the California law that Amendment 25.68.670 was responding to. He said he would do so and have a response at 31 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • the next meeting. If Council chose to pass the ordinance to second reading, his report could still be given. Mayor Wilson reopened the public hearing to accommodate more comments from Mr. Kinney from the Sign Users Council relative to Section 25.68.670. He reclosed the public hearing. Snyder: Complimented Chamber of Commerce subcommittee for its work in assisting the City in this matter. Said any sign ordinance would fail to please everyone, but this one came close. Wilson: Felt the regulations dealing with mansard roofs prohibited future building to using signage above roof lines; the question is whether or not we are creating problems for business turnover. Councilman Crites said he had asked the Chamber for specific data supporting that theory, and there was none. Councilman Snyder moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 587 to second reading with direction to staff to schedule appropriate meetings in six months to review how the amendments are working. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote. D. NS_1 DERAT ION OF A REQUEST FOR VACATION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 33 OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN PARK ESTATES, UNIT NO. 1. Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and recommendation. He said he had received no opposition from the utility companies. Upon question by Councilman Snyder, Mr. Folkers responded that this was not necessary for any type of drainage easement to the property. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and invited public testimony. MR. JACK LANDON, 73-720 Shadow Lake Drive, Palm Desert., addressed Council as the property owner and in favor of the easement vacation. with ro further testimony offered. Mayor Wilson closed the Pith l i r Hearing. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Benson, Resolution No. 89-123 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. 32 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * E. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A PRECISE PLAN FOR A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, MIDWAY BETWEEN PORTOLA AVENUE AND SAN LUIS REY AVENUE. GEORGE METSOVAS. APPELLANT. Phil Drell reviewed the staff report. He said that the Planning Commission had been concerned with the applicants first submittal inasmuch as it contained several errors and did not provide sufficient information as to the quality of the project. Since then, the applicant has produced a rendering which might have allowed the Planning Commission to have confidence in the quality of the project. He concluded by stating that the project met the City's standards. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and invited testimony from the applicant. MR. GEORGE METSOVAS, 72650 Sun Valley, Palm Desert, addressed Council saying that he had originally drawn his own plans which had been sufficient for other buildings he had constructed. He said he had brought his engineer to answer any technical questions Council may have. MR. FRED DIVA, 2250 W. Chestnut Street, San Bernardino, said there was no problem with the building from an engineering standpoint. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Comments: Snyder: Thought that there was additional information, it should all go back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Also thought the plan was lacking in adequate landscaping and did not like the parking lot in the front of the building as he felt there were too many along Highway III as it was. Crites: Said the highway along that area tends to be at a higher elevation than other property so that you look down into it. Said that further mitigated against design where you pl.-jce parking in front of the building. Said buildings should be in the front and parking in the rear. 33 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • Benson: Said that Alessandro had been developed to accommodate rear parking, and this defeated it. Kelly: Said he liked the parking in the front as opposed to the layout of the Reubens, Rusty Pelican, etc. center. Upon question by Mayor Wilson, Mr. Drell responded that this project provided landscaping far in excess of any in existence now. Wilson: Said he liked the layout; thought it was desirable to break up the monotony of that block as it exists now. Mayor Wilson reopened the hearing to allow the applicant to respond to a question. Mr. Metsovas advised that he was proposing 50 trees for the parking lot. He added that customers don't like to enter commercial buildings from rear lots for security reasons. Mayor Wilson reclosed the Public Hearing. Upon question by Snyder, Mr. Drell responded that the project was deficient in parking by six spaces, but staff did not view it as a problem because there would also be Frontage Road parking available as well. Upon question by Benson. Mr. Drell responded that any clock tower in the project would have to receive specific, separate approval. Councilman Snyder moved to send the request back to the Planning Commission with the additional information now available plus the observations made by the City Council. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion with the addition of direction to the Planning Commission to include conditions for recycling bins in the project. Councilman Snyder agreed to the amendment. The motion passed by unanimous vote. F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE, PRECISE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 59,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 111. B!RTCHER-DUNHAM, APPLICANT. Cather ine Sass reviewed the staff report and recommendation for approval. She noted that three conditions of approval should be added should Council chose to accept the plans. They were: 34 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 * * * * * * * • • * * • • * * * • • * * * • • • * #13. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. #14. Applicant agrees to provide their fair share to the construction and operation of a proposed people -mover system. #15. Applicant shall establish a commercial recycling program to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Conservation Manager. Upon question by Crites, Ms. Sass responded that the requirement for parking lot trees was included as Condition No. 12. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and invited testimony from the applicant. MR. CURT DUNHAM, 72-010 Varner Road, Thousand Palms, introduced Jay Singer, Real Estate Manager for Toys R Us. Mr. Singer said they had chosen the property because of its location to the Town Center. Their peak months of operation are October, November, and December. He said they had modified their building to meet the City's standards and that its elevation was substantially different than their other facilities. MS. SHERRY NATTRENS, 3130 S. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim. addressed Council on behalf of the Marriott and Allies Restaurant, also proposed for this property. She noted that Allies was replacing all the Bob's Big Boy Restaurants in southern California, and they were anxious to get this new restaurant built. MR. DUNHAM stated that they could agree with all conditions imposed except for that of the people mover. He said he had just learned the day before about this requirement and did not feel he could agree to it since he was selling the land. He asked for a specific dollar amount this condition would require. 35 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • • OCTOBER 12, 1989 • • • • • • • • • • • Mr. Altman said that no exact figure could be established unt i 1 after such time as the study was completed which was expected the end of December. He said perhaps the applicant could place an amount of $16 per sq. ft. into an escrow account until such time as an amount is determined; this would allow the Council and applicant to then move forward with the project. Councilman Crites stated that traffic surveys showed that a system $uch as the one being studied was mandatory. Upon question by Mr. Singer, Mr. Altman responded that it would be $16 per foot of building, not land. Upon question by Councilmembers Kelly and Benson, Mr. Dunham responded that Travelers Inn was in favor of widening the entrance. Ms. Sass said that it had been widened and angled for better traffic circulation. Councilman Crites asked that staff look into the rear landscaping of the Toys R Us facility as it was very visible; he said there should be some minimal landscaping along the Palm Valley Channel as well. Mr. Dunham asked how long after approval he would have to accept it. Mr. Erwin said the clock started running with the approval of the Precise Plan of Design, so the time limit would be 90 to 120 days. Mr. Altman noted that the applicant was not concerned about the people mover condition itself but rather the amount. He said that the City is concerned as well as it will be responsible for paying for half of the system. At this point, Mr. Dunham and Mr. Singer agreed to the people mover condition. Mayor Wilson invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the request. and none was offered. He closed the public hearing. Counc i l member Benson said she did not want to see that parking lot on the corner with 350 cars in it and therefore would vote against the project. 36 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1989 * * * • • * * • • • * • • * * * * * • • * * • * • Councilman Crites compliment Toys R Us for the design of their facility. Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 89-124, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 89-125 as amended by Ms. Sass to include Conditions 13, 14, and 15 under Department of Community Development Conditions, and to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 592 to second reading. Councilman Snyder seconded the motion, and it carried by a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Benson voting NO. Continued Item for 4 p.m. Session A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL BY DANIEL F. COHEN FOR CIRCLE K STORE ##321 OF THE REMOVAL OF A LOTTO BANNER. Mr. Diaz stated that in light of the Council's action on the sign ordinance amendments earlier in the agenda, he would recommend denial of the appeal as it does not meet the standards of the new code. Upon motion by Crites, second by Benson, the appeal was denied by unanimous vote of the Council. XIX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D None XX. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Crites moved to adjourn to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, Real Property Transactions and 54956.9 (a) and (b), Pending and Potential Litigation, and Personnel; specific cases of Palm Springs vs. the City of Palm Desert, Palm Desert vs. Indian Wells/Sunterra, and Indian Springs Trust vs. City of Palm Desert. Councilman Snyder seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Wilson adjourned to Closed Session at 12:10 a.m. He reconvened the meeting at 12:50 a.m. and immediately adjourned with no action apnounced. ATTEST: 'SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CCLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA (7.72„-r-7-7?„ OY 141 LS-6N, MAYOR 37