Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-10MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelly convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Buford A. Crites III. INVOCATION - Councilman Robert A. Spiegel IV. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Pro Tempore Jean M. Benson Councilman Buford A. Crites (arrived at 4:08 p.m.) — Councilman Walter H. Snyder Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Richard S. Kelly Also Present: Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, Director of Community Affairs/City Clerk Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works John Wohlmuth, ACM/Director of Administrative Services Carlos L. Ortega, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance Mary P. Gates, Deputy City Clerk V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MS. BARBARA BOWIE, Principal Librarian, reported on statistics for March for the Palm Desert Library as follows: 23,678 items circulated plus 1,610 for the College of the Desert portion 14,484 reference questions answered 451 new library cards issued 305 children attended eight programs HNUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APRIL 10, 1997 38 volunteers gave 540 hours of service - with regard to the new "Grandparents & Books" program, in ten days there were 12 volunteers who gave a total of 18 hours and read to 65 children. She noted that with assistance from the Palm Desert News Bureau and an article in the Desert Sun, there were 35 people waiting for training in the "Grandparents & Books" program, with training scheduled to take place in two weeks. County Kiosk installed in the Library on March 5, and there were 817 log-ons compared with 476 at the Justice Center in Indio for the same time period. Mrs. Bowie noted that the Council had received invitations to the National Library Week kickoff and celebration of the Library's birthday on Tuesday. She stated that various programs had been scheduled for the entire week, including a presentation by Virginia Waring on Friday for the Friends of the Library and a juggler on Saturday at 3:00 p.m. Councilmember Benson noted that the City Library Committee recently hosted a coffee to try and attract more volunteers. Approximately ten individuals showed up, with some taking the tour, and it was hoped the Library would get two or three volunteers from this group. MRS. BETTY TUMINELLO addressed the Council relative to her attendance at a previous Council meeting and stated that Lt. Conroy of the Sheriff's Department would be getting some information to her. She called to the Council's attention the fact that some cities have ordinances and fees because they have had a lot of problems with burglar alarms and false alarms, etc. She suggested that Palm Desert had so many fictitious calls from the abortion clinic on Painters Path that the Council might wish to consider such a program. She agreed that these types of things do happen, but she questioned how many were legitimate, and she said this was the information that would be provided to her by the Sheriff's Department. She asked how soon such a report would be available. Mr. Diaz responded that staff would try to have a report at the next Council meeting on April24th. MR. PEI'b FREESTONE, 72-761 Tamarisk Street, stated he had noticed on Highway 111 that all of the bus stops have advertising signs that appear to be about four to six feet in size. He said other cities do not have advertising, and he asked why people are subjected to this advertising when it would seem that this would be a non -advertising zone. Mayor Kelly stated that several years ago the decision was made that advertising would be allowed if someone would build and maintain a shelter, and the City would also receive revenue from it. He said not all of the Councilmembers agreed at that time and that the matter was now being looked at by staff. He noted that the City of Indian Wells chose to build and maintain its own shelters. The Palm Desert shelters were originally built with private funds; however, since then Sunline has purchased them and now operates them. 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 27, 1997. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CL IMS ND D .MANDS A 1AINST THE CITY EASURY - Warrant No. 54 Rec: Approve as presented. C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#327) by Rachael Marie Haggard in an Unspecified Amount Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the Claimant. D. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by James L. Krieg for Vinney's Wine and Spirits, 73-510 Palm Desert Dr., Palm Desert, California. Rec: Receive and file. E. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Anastasios Inc., for — McCormick's, 74-360 Highway 111, Palm Desert, California. Rec: Receive and file. F. SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS as of February 27, 1997. Rec: Receive and file. G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Charitable Contributions/Outside Agencies Committee Recommendations for Funding in Accordance with the 1996/97 Budget. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the Charitable Contributions/Outside Agencies Committee recommendations for funding in accordance with the 1996/97 budget, for the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements between the City and those same agencies. H. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATIQN for attendance at the Traffic Signal Association's IMSA Certification in Laughlin, Nevada. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize attendance at the Traffic Signal Association's IMSA Certification by the Engineering Technician II. 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Median Stamped Concrete Installation -Project No. 676-97 (Contract No. C12340) Rec: By Minute Motion, 1) Award the contract to H & H Contractors of San Bernardino, California for the construction of Cook Street median improvements (Project No. 676-97) in the amount of $18,900.00, plus a ten percent contingency in the amount of $1, 890.00; 2) appropriate $20,790 from the Unobligated Year 2000 funds; 3) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. J. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Stephen Browning from the Civic Arts Committee Rec: Receive with sincere regret. Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Snyder, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Council. VII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 97-2a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, WHICH WILL AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-1997 BUDGET FOR MID YEAR ADJUSTMENTS. Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-2a amending the Fiscal Year 1996-1997 budget for mid year adjustments. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. B. RESOLUTIONNO. 97-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE HEALTHY CITIES CONCEPT AND INDICATING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT'S INTENT TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATION. Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-22 in support of the California Healthy Cities Project and the City of Palm Desert's re -application for 1997 designation. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - VIII. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None IX. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None X. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL THREE INFORMATION KIOSKS IN THE CIVIC CENTER PARK. Associate Planner Jeff Winklepleck reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Winklepleck stated that while there are directional signs in the park, there is nothing that shows a map of the entire park. He said _ many requests had been received from citizens as well as Parks & Recreation Commissioners, and this would allow the City, the YMCA, and the Parks & Recreation Commission to disseminate information throughout the park without having people have to come in to City Hall. Councilman Crites asked why the entrance to the park that is between the softball fields and the tennis courts was not chosen to have a kiosk. Mr. Winklepleck responded that staff had presented to the Parks & Recreation Commission five or six spots in the park that made sense, and the Commission chose the three as listed in the staff report. Councilman Crites stated he felt something was needed in that back area, and Mayor Kelly agreed. Councilman Spiegel expressed concern with spending $30,000 in a park of this size. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, 1) Approve the kiosk design and allocate $30,225.00 plus 10% contingency for Parks and Recreation Account No. 430-4664-433-4040 for the purchase and installation of three information kiosks; 2) authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids for the purchase and installation of the information of the information kiosks. Councilman Crites seconded the motion with the addition of a fourth kiosk. Councilman Snyder did not agree to the amendment in view of the argument relative to the cost. Councilman Crites seconded the motion as stated, and the motion carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Spiegel voting NO. Councilman Crites moved to amend the motion to include a fourth kiosk. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Spiegel voting NO. 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF LETTER FROM SHADOW MOUNTAIN GOLF CLUB REQUESTING PAVING OF IRONWOOD STREET Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. MR. EDWARD TUNISON, 73-820 Grapevine Street, asked if there were private homes on the north side of Indian Wells that use this road and said it was his understanding that there were two or three dwellings on the north side that did so. Mr. Folkers stated this could perhaps be true; however, the map he had showed what is public right-of-way, and beyond the corner at San Luis Rey and Ironwood, everything to the east of that was private and the City cannot go in and maintain private property. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, deny the request for maintenance of private property. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. C. REQUEST FOR FUNDING BY THE DESERT CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL IN THE AMOUNT OF $500.00. MS. MARIE GAULEY, President of the Desert Child Abuse Council, stated that her organization initiated blue ribbon week for the month of April and would distribute posters throughout the Valley. She requested the City Council's support to help pay for supplies to make the posters. Mr. Diaz recommended that the Council refer this matter to the Charitable Contributions Committee. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request for funding in the amount of $500.00 and appropriate said funds. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF SPEED ZONES ON 4-LANE ARTERIALS (Eldorado Drive from Frank Sinatra Drive to Hovley Lane East; Gerald Ford Drive from Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue; Frank Sinatra Drive from Monterey Avenue to Tamarisk Row Drive; Portola Avenue from Gerald Ford Drive to Country Club Drive; Oasis Club Drive from Country Club Drive to Hovley Lane East; Tamarisk Row Drive from Frank Sinatra Drive to Country Club Drive). Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and stated that Mr. Folkers was available to answer any questions. 6 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. $3l to second reading amending the speed zone to 50 mph on Eldorado Drive from Frank Sinatra Drive to Hovley Lane East; 2) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. B32 to second reading amending the speed zone to 55 mph on Gerald Ford Drive from Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue; 3) waive further reading and pas. Ordinance No. 833, to second reading amending the speed zone to 55 mph on Frank Sinatra Drive from Monterey Avenue to Tamarisk Row Drive; 4) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. $34 to second reading amending the speed zone to 55 mph on Portola Avenue from Gerald Ford Drive to Country Club Drive; 5) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. B35 to second reading amending the speed zone to 55 mph on Oasis Club Drive from Country Club Drive to Hovley Lane East; 6) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. $36 to second reading amending the speed zone to 55 mph on Tamarisk Row Drive from Frank Sinatra Drive to Country Club Drive. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. E. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY JAY E. WERLE RELATIVE TO A CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT ORDER TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. Code Compliance Supervisor Evelyn Bridges reviewed the staff report, noting that the public nuisance had been abated with the owner's complete cooperation and that no Council action was necessary. Councilman Crites moved to remove this item from the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Spiegel — and carried by unanimous vote. F. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS; 1. Update on Interchanges: a. I-10/Washington Street b. I-10/Cook Street c. I-10/Monterey Avenue Mr. Folkers updated Council on the progress of these two interchanges, noting that the ribbon cutting ceremony for Cook Street was tentatively scheduled for 8:15 a.m. on Friday, May 9, 1997. Mayor Kelly stated that he had hoped something could be done that would get a lot of press coverage, such as having the dignitaries drive across it. Mr. Folkers stated that it was going to be staffs recommendation that the City's electric bus be the first vehicle to cross, and various dignitaries could ride it across. Mayor Kelly agreed. 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies Mr. Drell reported that a meeting had been held earlier that day with the engineer for the parking structure for Saks. 3. Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) Grant Management Analyst II Ray Janes stated that staff had met with RCTC earlier that day to look at ways to spend this $482,350 grant. He said there had been several options discussed. One would be to build a small station, approximately 1,500 feet in size, an Intermodal Passenger Transfer Facility, to be located at the northwest corner of the Palm Desert Town Center parking lot near the fire station. It would be served by Sunline Transit, Amtrak Thru-Way buses, the Shopper Hopper, mall shuttles, and various local private taxi companies. Another option talked about would be to build a small facility near the Price Club, with a 24-hour secured parking area so that people could park their cars, hop on an Amtrak Thru-Way bus, and connect either to Palm Springs or Indio, depending on whether they are going east or west. He said this would also help to provide better rail connections for people going in to Los Angeles, Riverside County, San Bernardino, and points east. One concern of RCTC was that the drive from Indio to the Palm Springs station is approximately an hour because of all the stop and go. RCTC would prefer to build the station near the Price Club where the original design of the MetroLink stop would have been. Staff advised RCTC that these options would be studied and a recommendation made to the Council at its meeting on April 24 or May 10, 1997. Councilman Spiegel asked if this money would be lost if not used. Mr. Janes responded that the City had three years from the time it originally received the grant to use the money. Mayor Kelly stated that RCTC staff recommended that something be done to interconnect the Coachella Valley with the rail stations at San Bernardino and Riverside. He said the Amtrak in Indio goes to San Bernardino, and the people who operate Amtrak are interested in doing something that would go on the freeway and make stops at Monterey Avenue, Indio, somewhere at the pass, etc. Mr. Wohlmuth stated that staff would report back to the Council on April 24, 1997. Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this matter to the meeting of April 24, 1997. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. NOTICE OF COMPLETION- CONTRACT NO. C 11060 SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT THREE LOCATIONS: 1) Country Club Drive and Oasis Club Drive (Project No. 567); 2) Tamarisk Row Drive, Country Club Drive, and Resorter Blvd. (Project No. 575); 3) Country Club Drive and Park Center Drive/Barrington Drive (Project No. 553) (Continued from the Meeting of March 13, 1997). Mr. Folkers recommended that this matter be tabled at this time. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, table this matter to an unspecified time. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. B. CONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR ALL -WAY STOP AT PORTOLA/GRAPEVINE STREET. (Continued from the Meeting of March 27, 1997). The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting: Kcy — CC Curtis Cohee RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor PF Pete Freestone ET Ed Tunison RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman RJF Richard J. Folkers, Director of Public Works JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk CC Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Curtis Cohee, I live on Tamarisk Street. I come to you this evening as a member of the Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association, and I speak on behalf of our over 1100 members who belong to this association. I'm here to urge your approval of this stop sign. The Palm Desert Property Owners Association, as you're probably aware, predates the City by some 25 years and was originally called the Palm Desert Improvement Association. And while this stop sign is not specifically in our area, Palm Desert Property Association basically is an area from Highway 111 to south of Bursera and from Highway 74 to approximately Portola, not including the Ironwood Golf Course. 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This particular stop sign has been needed for a long, long time, primarily because of the fact that the stop signs at the corner of Fairway and the stop sign at the gates of Vintage and Marrakesh so space traffic that it is increasingly difficult as the volume increases to get out into the street. A golf cart practically has no chance of getting out into the street because...to make a left turn onto Portola, simply because the traffic is spaced in a way that they can't do it. Aside from that, for many of the members that live in that area of town, Portola is the street of choice going to the Post Office, going to the new Lucky supermarket, Washington Street School. Most of the golf courses in Palm Desert in this area are also located that you have to drive down Portola. We feel that to have a stop sign here is simply a matter of evenhandedness. There is a stop sign, as I say, at Fairway, at the gates for Marrakesh and Vintage, at Haystack, and another stop sign at Mariposa which has no other purpose other than to allow people out of the Ironwood Country Club and both sides of Portola access to the street. Now we feel that common sense and logic and basic evenhandedness gives us perhaps the same opportunity access to the street as other communities fronting on that street. I have a letter that I would present to the Council from the Palm Desert Property Owners Association and signed by the President of the Board. RSK We have one, I think. CC Yes, you have it. Thank you. RSK Anyone else who would like to speak to this item? Well, I have one there, I forgot about that one...Mr. Freestone, you made out a sheet, there. PF Pete Freestone, 72-761 Tamarisk Street, Palm Desert. I agree with Mr. Cohee that there is a definite need for an all -way stop at the corner of Portola and Grapevine. I understand that the east side of that...the east side of that Portola Avenue there is in the Vintage, oh, I'm sorry, is in Indian Wells city limits. So it possibly needs to be a joint venture. I also understand that the City of Indian Wells is not in favor of this particular stop sign. As the gentleman pointed out, every other access, major access, onto Portola has access through an all -way stop, and the traffic is a lot heavier at Grapevine and Portola than it is at Haystack and Portola, but yet there is an all -way stop there. It is also a lot greater than the traffic that goes into the Ironwood Country Club there at Mariposa. The further south you go on Portola, the less traffic you generate because the majority of the traffic, and I'm talking about heavy construction traffic, 18-wheelers and everything like that, are going into the service entrance of the Vintage Country Club. So there is a heavy amount of traffic that flows north and south on Portola. Now, I was given a report from Mr. Folkers today that the average wait at Grapevine is 11.2 seconds before you can gain access to get onto Portola Avenue. Well, I went that way twice today, and I must have hit it wrong because I waited at least 30 seconds on both occasions. In addition, every 10 1VIINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ET RAS ET time I have questioned, and I question a lot of things that go on here in the City, I've got nothing better to do. Every time I've questioned some of these signage and stop lights and stop signs and these silly little barricade things that they like to put up all over town, every time I question Public Works or in talking about the stop light at El Paseo and San Pablo, and I'm also talking about the silly little rubber things that are sticking up in the middle of Portola at the crossing of Alessandro, every time I ask about, you know, well why'd you do this, and then another one is that one there that they've got there on El Paseo by the Post Office. Every time I ask, you know, why did you do this, it seems like the standard answer is, well, we're afraid we're going to get sued if we don't do something. And, don't shake your head no, because I've heard it out of that office, okay? So, now, it is a matter of record that approximately 1100 people feel that there's a stop sign necessary at the corner of Portola and Grapevine, and the bottom line is, whether...if there is a serious accident there, there have been two accidents there where people have not even...they've gone right straight on through, but the point of it is now if there is an accident there, right, wrong, or indifferent, because it's a matter of record, somebody I'm sure will come to the City, try to sue the City, and the City's going to spend big bucks to defend themselves even if they, you know, if they're not liable for anything. So, you know, I think it needs...I think it needs a lot of consideration from this Council. I don't think it should be up to Public Works. Public Works staff has already told me they don't think it's necessary. Well, Public Works staff doesn't use that intersection, so, you know, I think that's, you know, I think that's a biased opinion. Of course, my opinion in probably biased, too. Another thing that goes on there, and it's like Mr. Cohee pointed out, people trying to get out with their golf carts to go north on Portola Avenue. You're very limited on your vision to the north because of the parking that is there, you can hardly see down that way, and if you're in a golf cart and you get out there, you're just liable to get hit because it's a 35 mile an hour speed limit on that particular street, most of the traffic is doing in excess of 35 miles an hours. So I'd strongly recommend that Public Works and this Council vote to approve putting that stop sign in . Thank you very much. Yes, Ed Tunison again, 73-820 Grapevine, Palm Desert. Council, I live about seven doors from the cross street of Grapevine and Portola, and I've lived there for ten years, and we've had an increasing amount of traffic on Grapevine and naturally on Portola. The chances of getting out onto Portola without getting hit at the busy traffic hours of the day is very precarious, and I personally have had close calls. And I think that the Council should take serious consideration in doing something for us there, whether it's stop sign or a traffic light. We'd really appreciate it. Thank you. May I ask you a question? Sure. 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAS I know we moved a lot of dirt. ET I'm sorry, sir. RAS I know we moved a lot of dirt... ET Yes. RAS ...across that intersection. Everything that came...almost everything that came out of the new Saks thing went by that corner. ET Right. RAS And certainly I would have been concerned had I been living where you are with all this traffic going by. But it had to be done. Was that really what instigated this because all that's over now, I mean that's...you know, there's no more dirt to be moved. ET Well, I agree that the construction traffic has added to the problem but we have so many people using Grapevine and so many people now using Portola like these gentlemen stated for the Vintage and Ironwood and Marrakesh that I don't think it's really because we don't have as much construction traffic after the dirt was removed. I don't think it's really made a big difference on the traffic. RAS Thank you. ET Thank you. RSK RAS RJF Anyone else like to speak? You dropped something there. That's that card you were supposed to give me, isn't it? Anyone else like to speak to this particular issue? If not, comments from the Council. I have a question of staff. With the opening of Saks, which I know is a couple of years off, and that parking lot, will this increase the traffic there, in your humble opinion? We don't feel it will be a measurable increase. The traffic that's going down through there now will probably continue. There may be more traffic ending up on El Paseo or on Shadow Mountain, but it's dependant on the housing that's in there right now. If people want to use Portola from Ironwood or from south, they're going to use it. 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAS And also, the report that you gave to Council shows that in the last five and a half years, almost five and a half years, there were two accidents at Grapevine and Portola. Is that correct? RJF Yes, sir. RAS Thank you. RJF If I might, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to respond to some of the comments that were made for a little clarification. Yesterday afternoon when I talked with Mr. Freestone I pointed out that there were, you know, we talked about several items. We talked about the interconnect on Highway 111, we talked about some other things. I can't speak for my staff because I haven't polled them, but I don't recall them... us ever using the tort liability or that as an excuse for doing things, normally there is a rationale, and if, you know, if that's been done, I certainly apologize to Mr. Freestone and the Council because that's not our intention. With regard to the situation there, we are concerned. We went out and took a gap study, excuse me, a delay study, and we found when we went out and did it, there was a maximum of three car backup, and it was about 11 seconds average delay. I've been past there myself in the last few days to get a reading, and I've seen as many as six cars backed up. So, many times when we're gathering statistics, we're not there when the actual, or when the worst case situation takes place. So, you know, that's not to say it doesn't happen, but we're attempting to use what information we've gathered. We've shown...we've got a map up on the wall that...the one to the right...that kind of shows some of the routes that a person might take if they wanted to not use Portola to go into town. And there is a limited number of residences that area directly along Portola, excuse me, along Grapevine to the east. There's...I had some numbers...between Highway 74 and Desert Lily there are 21 housing units, between Desert Lily and Portola there are 34. But of course there's a lot more development to the west. Anyhow, our feeling was that there are going to be times at the intersection when it gets a little bit sticky, and that doesn't preclude somebody from using these other routes or using Highway 74. That's not to say that if a device is warranted it shouldn't be put in. We've used the standards that are applied to an intersection for consideration of a three-way stop, and it's come up that it doesn't make it. So the staff is not trying to be arbitrary, we're not trying to get somebody hurt, all we're saying is that using the criteria we normally use, the intersection does not meet the warrants. A further complication, of course, is the east leg, or the east side is in the City of Indian Wells, and they've indicated to us that they don't want to have a three-way stop. At this point in time, the staff has no choice but to recommend what we've recommended and leave the matter up for the Council's decision. JMB I don't understand the Indian Wells part because a three-way stop... 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RJF The north leg is in the City of Indian Wells...excuse me, the north bound approach to the south leg, southeast (unclear) where a stop sign would go. In other words, Portola is half Palm Desert, half Indian Wells, and the north bound traffic is traveling in the City of Indian Wells. BAC So as an example, the south bound traffic that makes a left turn into the Vintage is in the City of Palm Desert. RJF South bound traffic is in the City of Palm Desert, yes. BAC So if the City of Palm Desert wanted to eliminate the possibility of a left turn from Portola into Vintage, that left turn approach is in our City. RJF Yes, sir. BAC And if we wanted to eliminate a left turn from the Vintage onto Portola, that's in our City. RJF Now we're getting into a real finite situation as far as... BAC You hear my point. RJF Yes, sir. RSK But I think, you know, that comment that it's in Indian Wells and that staff in Indian Wells said that they wouldn't do that, I would have to think that if we decided we wanted a stop sign there, there I could go to the Council in Indian Wells and convince them that it would be... BAC (unclear) RSK Well, no, their cooperation I would expect that they would help us get one. I'll put it that way. RJF Mr. Mayor, the City Manager has a comment. RAD Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I have a meeting tomorrow with the City Manager of Indian Wells and others at CVAG and with Council's permission I will discuss this with Mr. Watt. He's been very cooperative... RSK You know we went through a long and lengthy discussion on that project that's up on the other side of The Living Desert. And one of the biggest parts of the discussion was the traffic that we're going to get on Portola from that development 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCLL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BAC WHS which is still in the mill and still going to happen, so you're going to have a little more traffic than you've already got. And everybody on the Council got something that satisfied them that it was going to be a good project except me, and the thing I wanted was something done about Portola, and I didn't get anything done Portola, so I just think, you know, it's hard for me to...and I realize the staff, it's not staff s problem, that they have the rules that they have to follow but then that's why we have the City Council because we're closer to a lot of other things that are happening and everything isn't always in black and white statistics, and it's difficult for me to see how we can have top signs on the other locations that we have stop signs there, and you and I all know that we put some of those in because we had a lot of pressure from the people that live there, they didn't have the warrants either. And so I just think this is one of those situations where we need to figure out some way to get that done, and it looks like the simplest way is to put in a three-way stop sign. I was just going to say if you look through the warrant issue, perhaps I don't adequately understand how that all finely is measured out, but about half of the warrants or more, the interruption of continuous traffic is met, some of the other warrants that you see back under traffic signals for interim control measure is met, three of the four under peak hour delay are met, with the exception of the one that Mr. Folkers speaks of and that is that the totality of delay does not equal four vehicle hours, and what I suspect that means is that in this case, what we have is at times of the day, high backlog and at other times of the day I suspect that past ten o'clock in the evening, if you had a two -second delay it would be astoundingly long at that area because there just simply isn't any traffic any more down there, and that maybe what we have under number one, which is the one piece that's missing, is the fact that we have not a distribution of traffic that is constant but has high peaks and long valleys which may equal the issue of not meeting of the warrants. Mr. Mayor, if I may...I have the distinction of using that intersection for 30 years, so I feel that I'm a pretty good expert on the use of that corner. I'll have to abstain because I live so close that it could be my personal desire, so I believe my position would be to abstain from vote, but I will say to you that I come out of there probably on an average of five, six, seven times a day, and I do find some very serious difficulty in getting out of there many times. There is, as Mr. Buford just pointed out, rise and fall of coming out of there. Plus the fact that it's almost impossible to look down Portola to your left to determine the traffic coming up the hill, which by that time has exceeded the speed limit by a substantial amount because they are pouring it on coming up the hill and heading for home. It is getting more and more dangerous. The traffic is probably quadruple what it was two years ago, and I agree with the summation by the staff and submitted to us what the real world is, but it is our right to say yes, but we believe there are mitigating circumstances, and I hope the Council will look at those mitigating problems and see to it that we correct the problem there. 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAS RAD I would move to approve a three-way stop at Portola and Grapevine and recommend that the City Manager ask the City of Indian Wells to also adopt a stop sign on their... yes, City Manager. Sorry. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, with all due respect, I would recommend that you continue this to your meeting of the 24th, instruct the City Manager to talk with the City Manager of Indian Wells and that way when we come back to you looking at the entire situation and with Indian Wells information, and he's been very cooperative in the past, we can take an action in totality on the 24th. RAS Why not do it now. We could have it done and then you'd say this is what we're doing. You can either do it or not. BAC I would second the motion. RSK Sounds like we want to do it. RAD That's fine. And if there are any findings that we can find to strengthen the Council's position, we will have it for you at the next meeting so you can adopt those as findings on your actions, which we're sure you're thinking of but just haven't echoed them at this point. BAC Right. RSK Is that okay? BAC I'm sure we'll look at the Vintage issue too. RAS You've got the motion. RSK There's a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Please vote. SRG Motion carries by a 4-0-1 vote with Councilman Snyder abstaining. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF OPERATING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND KEMPER SPORTS MANAGEMENT. (Continued from the Meeting of March 27, 1997). Mr. Diaz noted the reports in the packets, including a report from himself and Mr. Ortega relative to review of summer green fees. He said staff and the Golf Course Committee recommended that the green fees for the summer be left at $35.00 from June 1 to September 30. He also noted a report from Mr. Wohlmuth regarding charity events and the resident 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * cards, and the recommendation was that the Council accept the recommendation by the Golf Course Committee and allow staff to implement that recommendation. Councilman Spiegel stated that as he understood it, the City will revisit the resident card issue in November to be effective the first of the year. Mr. Wohlmuth responded that this was correct. He said this issue was taken to the Golf Course Committee which recommended looking at the duration of time to consider someone a resident and that this matter be brought back to the Committee for its review so that any changes can be implemented prior to the issuance of next year's resident cards. He noted that cards are good for one year, from January to December 31. Councilman Spiegel stated he also understood the $35.00 is as low as any other "good" golf course in the desert. Mr. Ortega agreed. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the following recommendations made by the Golf Course Committee with regard to the operating agreement between the City and Kemper Sports Management for Desert Willow Golf Resort: 1) Approve posted green fees as recommended, for the time period between May 1 and December 31, 1997, as described in Attachment I; 2) appoint two members of the Palm Desert City Council to the Golf Course Committee; 3) amend the Charitable Tournament Policy to have — the Golf Course Committee make recommendations on use of the Golf Course by charitable organizations. Motion was seconded by Snyder. Councilman Crites stated that he felt the resident card issue needed to be reviewed a long time before November so that a policy is in effect by next fall. The rest of the Council agreed that this was something that should be done during the summer months. Mr. Diaz stated that staffs intent was to get back to Council by the end of the summer. Mayor Kelly called for the vote. The motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. XII. OLD BUSINESS None 17 1VIINUTFS REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. Fuel Cell Exhibit for Sunline Science Fair Expo May 14, 1997. Mr. Diaz stated that this was to authorize staff to have a fuel cell exhibit at the Sunline Science Fair Expo on May 14, 1997. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request as outlined by the City Manager. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT. 2. Presentation by Gene Marchu on Street Fair Summer Events. Mr. Diaz introduced Mr. Gene Marchu, Director of the Street Fair and Executive Director of the Alumni Association of the College of the Desert. Mr. Marchu distributed packets of information to the Council relative to the proposed Summer Nights Street Fair. He reviewed the major points of this information and requested approval for the Street Fair to be held on Friday and Saturday nights from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. instead of during the day on Saturdays and Sundays. He said this would be for the months of June, July, August, and September. Councilman Spiegel commended Mr. Marchu and stated he felt this was a great idea and would bring additional people and business to the Street Fair. He expressed concern relative to security at night. Mr. Marchu stated that he would like to hire off -duty Sheriff's deputies and said he felt strongly that there needed to be some type of security officers just as there are at other night events. Councilmember Benson asked whether there had been discussions relative to the times being from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. She said ten o'clock seemed a little late to her, and if it started at 5:00 p.m., it would attract people on their way home who would not want to go all the way home and then turn around and come back. Mr. Marchu agreed that this was a good point; however, he said other similar street fairs in La Quinta and Palm Springs started at 6:00 p.m. and went until 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. He said he would hope that the Council would approve the 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. time. 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Snyder said he felt this was a great idea. However, he said he remembered the problems and complaints from the El Paseo Merchants' Association when the hours of the Street Fair were first set. He asked if Mr. Marchu had discussed this with the El Paseo Merchants' Association. Mr. Marchu responded that he had not discussed this with that Association. Councilman Spiegel stated that to his knowledge, there were no businesses open on El Paseo on Friday and Saturday nights. Mayor Kelly stated that these new hours for summer would replace the existing hours, and the Street Fair would not be open for more hours than it currently is. Mr. Marchu stated that it would actually be open for less hours because the Street Fair currently is open from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Councilmember Benson stated that the Chair of the El Paseo Merchants' Association is a member of the Retail Committee, and if the Association had a problem with the proposed new hours, the Retail Committee would have heard about it. She said there had been no complaints or concerns expressed by the Association. She added that she felt this was a good thing because business is hard for the El Paseo businesses in the summer without competing with the Street Fair, and these new hours will not be competition. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request and wish the Street Fair "bon voyage and great success" in its new summer hours. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-1-1 vote, with Councilman Snyder voting NO and Councilman Crites ABSTAINING inasmuch as he is an employee of the College of the Desert. 3. Tour of Palm Desert and La Quinta High Schools. Mr. Diaz asked whether any members of the Council were interested in touring La Quinta High School. He said the purpose would be to get ideas from that campus for things that could be done at the Palm Desert High School campus. Several Councilmembers expressed interest, and Mr. Diaz stated that he would work with Council Secretary Pat Scully to set up tours for next week and the week after. 4. Mr. Diaz noted a letter he had received via facsimile from Greg Cervantes of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians requesting a resolution or declaration of support for the Tribe in its quest to have the Attorney General's Office back off with regard to electronic gaming machines. He asked that the Council add this matter to the Agenda. 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilmember Benson moved to add this item to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting: Benson Could I just make a comment relative to this and also...I represented the Mayor at Sonny Bono's conference the other day at the airport, and Indian Wells had said that they had done a resolution in talking about this. But all the mayors or vice mayors or someone from a lot of the Riverside County cities were there, and in talking to Congressman Bono, the consensus of opinion of the people there that gaming was one of the most important issues affecting Riverside County, whether it was in your city or whether it was in an adjacent city, it was a big economic factor to the cities that had the gaming and that other cities should support, the cities that didn't have it, for that impact that it had on all of the Coachella Valley. That was basically the whole gist of his conference there was related around the support to give to the other cities. Just a comment. Diaz Mr. Mayor, 1 might add that the City of Palm Desert has given its support through CVAG as a member of CVAG, and CVAG took a position at the last Executive meeting on this to support the request that the Attorney General's Office allow the negotiations to go on. So if you wish to take further than that, I don't believe it's necessary... Kelly I guess we're kind of doing something that maybe the City Attorney...are we allowed to discuss this before bringing it on the Agenda? Erwin I haven't seen the vote to put it on the Agenda yet. Benson I thought we did. Crites Yes, we did. Gilligan No, you didn't. Erwin No, she had not cleared the board. Kelly So we didn't vote to put it on the Agenda yet. Gilligan Did you vote, Mayor Kelly? Motion carries by unanimous vote. Erwin Now it's okay. 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crites Mr. Mayor, just as one person's comments, I recognize the economic importance of it. I also recognize that whether my perceptions match the majority of the citizenry of Palm Desert or not, I certainly have found very little support in our City, as an example, for having gaming within our City, and I've certainly heard a lot of issues about some of the social and other issues that come along with gaming. And while I don't wish poorly to the gaining industry or anything else, I personally tend to stay out of an issue about which I have not received any particularly detailed briefing in terms of the State Attorney General's point of view and other points of view and would, therefore, not be supportive of such a declaration. Kelly Other comments. Spiegel My comments would echo what Councilman Crites said. I really don't know enough about it. You read in the newspaper that it's going to impact "x" number of people and they won't have jobs and so on, but I don't know where the Governor stands. I know that at one point, supposedly, he was working with one of the groups of Indians and I know also that it wasn't too long ago that we, 1 thought, took the position that if land were to be given to a tribe of Indians to put a casino in, that we would prefer it not be in the City of Palm Desert. So, to say yes we're in favor of casinos at this point would go against what I voted on. Benson Well, I guess I have a different opinion. I certainly think that in a letter supporting those cities that do have it, it would clearly state that although we are not in favor of gambling within our City limits, we do support the economic impact that it has on the rest of the Valley and the employment and that that goes with it. I don't think that commits us to having it in here, which I'm sure all of us or the majority of us are against, but I just think for the cities that do have it, there is an economic impact to Palm Springs, to Coachella, to Desert Hot Springs, and all our neighboring cities, and a lot of them are in dire circumstances, and if they pull out, you know, from the area and the employment of those people and with the Welfare Reform Act coming up, I think the cities are going to be harder hit and I just think it behooves us to do what we can to help our neighboring cities. Snyder I concur completely with what Mrs. Benson just set forth. I'm personally against gambling but I have to admit that she has hit the nail on the head. The impact would be substantial to these other cities, and I can't see how we can stand by and not try to see that that doesn't happen to them. Kelly I have a problem with...I think that while it's great for the Indian tribes that they're able to do this, I have a problem with the County being involved in gambling and the State being involved in gambling, there's the Lottery and the schools accepting funds from gambling, and the whole gambling issue. I think that we're hiding our heads in the sand if we don't think there's a social impact with gambling. On the other 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hand, I know that some cities feel like that...they're depending on that, and I'm troubled by one thing and that is that they were allowed to go ahead and set up the casinos and get started and then all of a sudden they're going to change, and that bothers me that they would allow it this long and then change when everybody's moving ahead. I have one question before we continue...before we stop the discussion and that is, I haven't seen anything from Senator Kelley or Assemblyman Battin. Were they in support? I've never seen anything relating...did they take a position? Shouldn't we ask...I mean... Diaz Yes, we may wish to ask them as well as contact the Governor's office as to... Kelly So, I...looks to me like there's some people here that are involved and those people are their constituents. They're not our constituents, and I sense that in our community I know that we sure don't want gambling in our City, and I sense that our citizens, a lot of them, don't believe that gambling is a good thing either. So, I guess there's a motion made. No motion yet? Benson I would move that we do send a letter of support stating our position and that the reason that we are...that the letter state that the reason we do support the cities that have gambling is the economic impact and the employment impact on the whole Valley. Snyder I would second that motion. Kelly Any other discussion? Please vote. Gilligan Has everyone voted? The motion is defeated by a 3-2 vote. We have Councilmembers Spiegel, Crites, Mayor Kelly voting no, Councilmembers Benson and Snyder voting yes. B. CITY ATTORNEY Request for Closed Session 1) Personnel: Public Employment pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. a) Business Support Center Title of Position: Director of Community Development Mr. Erwin asked that the Council add to the Agenda three items for Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b), Threatened Litigation. He said he felt these had inadvertently not been included on the Agenda and that they needed discussion and decision prior to the next meeting. 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Spiegel moved to add these items to the Agenda for discussion in Closed Session. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. Mr. Erwin also noted the item shown on the Agenda for Closed Session. C. CITY CLERK 1. Consideration of Summer City Council Meetings. Mrs. Gilligan stated that, with regard to summer Council meetings, in the past the Council has held its regular meetings the first week in July and last week in August, canceling the second meeting in July and first meeting in August. She asked that Council decide which, if any, meetings will be canceled in order to enable staff to schedule public hearings. Councilman Spiegel stated that there was a shopping center meeting scheduled for July 10 that he would like to attend, and he asked that the Council consider meeting the fourth Thursday in July and the fourth Thursday in August. After additional discussion, it was the concurrence of the Council to continue with the current policy of meeting the second Thursday in July and the last Thursday in August, canceling the second meeting in July and the first meeting in August. 2. Mrs. Gilligan stated that she had met with Mayor Kelly and Mayor Pro Tempore Benson on Monday relative to the new Committee/Commission appointment process. She noted that the Mayor had scheduled a meeting of all of the Chairs of the Committees and Commissions for May 23, 1997. She said another item that came out of her meeting with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem was that it might be better to hold an awards ceremony, as people are going off committees/commissions and new ones are coming on, have a dinner, give a plaque to those who are leaving and welcome those new ones coming on. She said if the Council was to do this, it would probably be better to change all of the term effective dates to January 1st. She said this would make it easier for staff and easier for the committee members. She added that with Council concurrence she would come back with a resolution to extend terms of all City committees and commissions to January 1st and change them from that point on. Also coming out of that was that if we were to have this type of a function, an awards dinner, it could be done at the holiday season and separate the employee Christmas party from the committee/commission members party. That way the employees could have their awards, and the committee/commission members could have theirs. Councilman Spiegel agreed and said he felt the employee turnout at the holiday party had never been outstanding. In discussing this in the Customer Service meetings, it 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * was suggested by one employee that we consider possibly going back to having the Christmas party on a Friday evening after work for employees because a lot of people don't live in this area and have to drive back in on Saturday or whenever the party is scheduled. He said the suggestion was to separate the employee party from the party for committee/commission members. D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: 1. Mayor Kelly stated that staff had forwarded information to him that he felt the Council should look at. Councilman Spiegel moved to add this matter to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Kelly stated that it looked like the Council was being asked to set some policy and that it might be something the Council might not want to get involved with. He asked for Council direction. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, he said the request came from another city which requested that the City of Palm Desert send a letter to its legislators in support. Councilman Spiegel asked whether the City can impose conditions on liquor stores and bars now. He said these facilities had conditional use permits and that it could always be called up. Mr. Diaz stated that what this legislation allows is to have that same authority when the liquor license is renewed or changed. He said the City has a lot more power on a brand new license coming in, and this legislation would give the City that same right when the license is up for renewal or change. Councilman Spiegel stated he felt if a nuisance is happening in a liquor store or bar, the City is not going to wait until the license is renewed before doing something about it. Mr. Erwin agreed and said the City's past practice has been to deal with the problem when it happens instead of waiting until the license is renewed. Councilman Spiegel said he did not see any need for it. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to do nothing with this request. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * o City Council Committee Reports: 1. Councilman Crites stated that he knew he spoke on behalf of his colleagues in expressing regret that the Agenda at the last City Council meeting prevented them from attending the SCAG dinner hosted by the City of Palm Desert. He also expressed appreciation to Mayor Kelly for his time and energy in chairing SCAG for the last year. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None Upon motion by Crites, second by Kelly, and unanimous vote of the City Council, Mayor Kelly adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m. to Closed Session. He reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. XV. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION XVI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C None XVII. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. PRESENTATION TO MAYOR KELLY IN APPRECIATION OF HIS SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG). On behalf of her colleagues, Mayor Pro Tempore Jean Benson presented to Mayor Kelly an engraved dish in appreciation of his service as Chairman of Southern California Association of Governments for the past year. B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL AS "NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION" MONTH. Mrs. Gilligan noted that a representative of Assemblyman Jim Battin's office had planned to be at this meeting to accept this proclamation. She noted that the proclamation itself had already been mailed but that the representative had planned to bring it back and have it presented publicly. 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. PRESENTATION TO MAYOR PRO TEMPORE JEAN BENSON AND THE PALM — DESERT CITY COUNCIL FROM THE CALIFORNIA SENATE AND ASSEMBLY IN HONOR OF THE OPENING OF THE DESERT ROSE CHILDREN'S CENTER. Ms. Betty Carapellese, representing both Assemblyman Battin and Senator Kelley, presented a resolution honoring the Palm Desert City Council and Mayor Pro Tempore Jean Benson for building the Desert Rose project. D. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO PALM SPRINGS REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, reappoint Mayor Pro Tempore Jean Benson as the City of Palm Desert's representative to the Palm Springs Regional Airport Commission, with Councilman Snyder continuing as the alternate. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Mayor Pro Tempore Benson ABSTAINING. E. PRESENTATION TO FRANK LAIACONA AND STEPHEN BROWNING. On behalf of the entire Palm Desert City Council, Mayor Kelly presented engraved clocks to Mr. Frank Laiacona for his service as the City's representative to the Joslyn Senior Center Board and to Mr. Stephen Browning for his service on the City's Civic Arts Committee. XVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO 827 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE A FREEWAY COMMERCIAL OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT. Case Nos. ZOA 97-1 and CZ 97-2 The following is a verbatim transcript of this Public Hearing: RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman MR Marvin Rouse RF Richard Franzen KHS Katrina Heinrich Steinberg 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk RSK The first public hearing we have is consideration of adoption of an Ordinance No. 827, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving an ordinance to create a freeway commercial overlay zone district. RAD Mr. Drell. PD Yes, Mr. Smith will give the report. SS As Council is aware, this matter was continued from your meeting of March 13th. Back in July of 1996 the Council directed staff to initiate a process...initiate and process a zoning ordinance amendment to create a freeway commercial overlay zone district. The matter was referred to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. At that body it was discussed at six separate meetings between October of 1996 and January 22 of 1997. On January 22nd, ZORC completed its work on the ordinance and endorsed it and directed staff to process the matter through the Planning Commission and the City Council. The proposed ordinance that is before you, if adopted, will establish an overlay on certain r.vyc-ilies near the I-10 intersection with Monterey, Cook, and Washington Street. The map is on the overhead with the areas to be included in the overlay shaded. As well, the ordinance if adopted will create new zone standards for development on those designated r1„r:,1Ges. Two high issues were the issue of drive-thru restaurants and service stations closer than 500 feet apart. Current City ordinances prohibit both of those matters. The ordinance before you tonight would permit those matters to occur subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. There are other permitted uses outlined in Section 020 of the draft ordinance, which you have a copy of. Again, these additional uses would only be permitted upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. We should point out also that the base zoning, which is commercial in all respects, will continue in effect. The property owner does not have to...it is not a requirement that he take advantage of the overlay zone. He can continue to work within the terms of the existing base zoning. The development standards contained in the ordinance require that the area be master planned with a minimum of five acres in the area planned. Then individual projects within the master plan are to be processed through the Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit process to assure that all the provisions of the master plan policies are in fact being implemented. The ordinance then establishes a series of development standards which are above and beyond current City standards, specifically relating to setbacks, parking, and landscape. The projects using the freeway overlay ordinance are required to provide a minimum of 30% landscape open space. This is significantly higher than the present code requirement Lastly, the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission proposes a new category MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * of signage, freeway visible signage, the goal being to create signs that would be visible to traffic traveling on the Interstate 10. We will continue to work on the sign section of the ordinance. We've talked to Caltrans. We've confirmed that sections of I-10 adjacent to the City would meet the criteria for their business logo signing program. I passed out a brief report on that which you may or may not have had an opportunity to review. As well, this week, Councilmember Benson, Bob Leo of the Chamber, and I met with a Mr. Roberts of Fairway Outdoor Advertising. After hearing from him it was the consensus of that group that probably the sign issue should be referred back to Zoning Ordinance Review to: a) allow Mr. Roberts to make a presentation and, b) to allow that committee to reconsider the signage issue. Therefore, we will be recommending at the end of my presentation tonight, that you separate out Section 25.108.040, the freeway visible signage section, from the rest of the ordinance. We'll be requesting a 60-day continuance on that. A couple of other issues. You have letters that were contained in your packet, one from a Mr. Richard Franzen, owner of the Lucky Center at Washington and 42nd, requesting that his property be included in the overlay district. His goal is to obtain approval of a drive-thru restaurant that had previously been approved under the County. As well, you received a letter dated April 7th from Mr. Pence referring to the same property and the issues presented by Mr. Franzen. We would indicate to Council that we have a zone change application in our department for this property seeking to have the overlay zone apply to the Center, ostensibly to allow them to then come in with the drive-thru restaurant. That matter will be going to Planning Commission in May, so while we wouldn't want to expand the area to that center tonight, we could receive an indication as to its appropriateness if that's the desire of Council. We would indicate that the Franzen property was discussed by Zoning Ordinance Review at its October 16th meeting. At that time the group deadlocked 2-2 on the matter as to whether to include or not to include it. As a result, it was not included. We would indicate that the Franzen property meets some of the criteria for the overlay; i.e., that it's located on the boundary of the City, where properties across the street operate under totally different rules, but it does not meet the distance criteria that was set out at the beginning when we looked at the freeway commercial overlay zone in that we initially said that the overlay, if it's to be applied, would be within generally 1,000 to 2,000 feet of the street intersections with the interchange. The Council has also received letters from Lionel Steinberg and Mainiero Smith and Associates, and these letters are substantially the same. They both request that the overlay zone at Cook Street, where the Steinbergs own approximately 270 +/- acres. They are both seeking to have the overlay expanded to cover the entire acreage. It is currently shown in the upper diagram and it leaves out probably half the property as it presently is proposed. Tonight we also passed out copies of EDAC Minutes where this matter was discussed. That body has recommended the approval of this ordinance. Recommendation... staff is recommending that you waive further reading and pass the ordinance to second reading with Section 25.108.040, the freeway visible signage section, separated out and that that be continued to your meeting of 28 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * June 12th. That would conclude my report at this time and I'd be pleased to try and answer any questions. RSK Does the Council have any questions? JMB I just didn't see the one report you mentioned, Steve, that was passed out. BAC Economic Development? JMB Yes. BAC It just showed up a few minutes ago. JMB Oh, I guess I just... RAS The additional Steinberg property that they're asking us to consider, would you sort of point out what we're talking about. SS (Unclear) RAS Over towards Portola along Highway 10? PD On this map it would be PA6, it would also be PA7. SS PA7 and 8. PD Everything that's north of Gerald Ford. SS Correct. So right now on that development plan that comes up on your next item on the Agenda, it currently includes Planning Area One, Two, Three, and Five would be expanded to the PA7 and 6 which are towards the Portola Side and adjacent to the freeway, and then on east of Cook Street the area in blue, the long linear piece, that's PA4. RAS Did the Planning Commission consider the Steinberg request? SS It was not before them at that time. I beg your pardon, I stand corrected, it was before the Planning Commission, and they recommended what you see tonight. RAS Any reason why? SS I'm sure there was, and I'm looking for the Minutes. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PD JMB My recollection was, again, on the same justification, that this was an ordinance specifically dealing with freeway interchange dependent businesses, and that's why it was confined within direct proximity to the interchange. Councilman Spiegel, I might add that being on that committee, that was one of the discussions when it was brought up then and as Steve said, it was 2-2. I was one of the two not to, because it was specifically meant to do something different at the freeway. If we started up Washington, started up Monterey, where were we going to stop, so we kept it within a certain distance of the freeway. RAS As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, the really major thing we're talking about, and that's the closeness of gas stations and drive-thru restaurants. JMB Right, that and how far up...in establishing the zone, how far up do you consider it freeway, and... RAS But as far commercial use and that sort of thing, that's not under discussion. JMB No, it was because of coming up those alleyways as to what would be freeway. RAS But what I said was right, that what we're talking about, forget about the signs because we're going to delay that until June, we're talking about how close gas stations can be to each other and we're talking about drive-thru restaurants. Is that basically it? SS RAS We're also talking about convenience stores, car washes, combinations of these uses, hotels, commercial recreation, amusement establishments, mini warehouses, and outdoor recreational vehicle and boat storage. But couldn't the land in question where the "x" is up there, couldn't that go to the Planning Department, say for example, for a car wash, for a storage facility, for a Lamps Plus or whatever, or you know? SS Yes, it could. It could not go...without the overlay, it could not go for a drive-thru restaurant... RAS That's the point...that's what I was trying to get to. So those are really the only things that are deprived from that area without it going to the Planning Commission to take a look at it, etc., right? SS Correct. RAS Okay. 30 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RSK Any other questions? BAC The changes as you mentioned and some of the various issues, are those then granted with this overlay as a matter of right or as a matter of potential approval? SS All the issues coming under the freeway commercial overlay are Conditional Use Permit processing through the Planning Commission and upon appeal it would end up at this body. BAC Okay, so as an example, if we didn't want an RV storage yard directly next to Cook Street, even though it's included in the overlay, that's still a discretionary issue. SS That is a discretionary decision by both the Planning Commission and the Council. RSK Any other questions of staff? If not, I'll open the public hearing and ask if anyone would like to talk in favor of this. MR Yes, Mayor and Council, my name is Marvin Rouse with Mainiero Smith and Associates, representing the David Freedman company. We're here to basically support the freeway commercial overlay zone, the concept and the details that have been submitted to the Council with a couple of exceptions, which we did point out in our letter. We are seeking the extension over the rest of the property, not, however, to extend the uses. The service station and drive-thru restaurants in particular are basically before you tonight as we see them in our project in the first planning area and the only one that we would really consider those uses. We actually have, not that the City would control this, but we have a restriction against any further gas station development throughout the rest of the project with our agreement with the existing potential applicant for that use at the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford. Our main reason is potential for uses such as hotels to be able to...that would be oriented to the freeway to be able to get some freeway graphics if that in fact comes through. It's really the primary purpose of doing this. As we point out in the letter, it appears that the prime focus of the configuration of the zoning here was to reconfigure the 80 acres of existing PC2 zoning that has existed at the intersection, or the potential intersection, long before the intersection was planned. That's now shown in the middle of the diagram. Our property has 10,000 feet of freeway frontage. We have railroad tracks, we have power lines, we have the mid - Valley storm channel potentially, we have a lot of factors that are orienting this 1,.�y:..ty to freeway -type uses as opposed to residential and other kinds of uses that have shown on the general plan in the past. It's a residential study zone, I think it's called, on the part that we're now coming before you. So we would seek the expansion over the entirety of the property; however, as you've pointed out, all of those come back to you in drawings and agreements and the rest you have full and MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * total control over. That's our primary quest to you at this point on the freeway overlay zoning. Thank you. BAC May I assume that the term "increased use of freeway graphics" is somewhat euphemistic for more freeway pull signs or some variation thereof? MR Under the...basically, yes. BAC Thank you. MR Thank you. RSK Anyone else like to speak in favor of the project? RF Councilman, my name is Richard Franzen, I'm general partner in the firm that owns the Li at East Hovley and Washington Street. Just a couple of items. At the time we were annexed into the City, we were negotiating with a fast food restaurant. We went through the ARC and the Planning Commission with the plans and landscape plans, and they were all approved. Then as corporations will do, they retrenched for a while. They have since come back. We do have a signed lease, obviously, conditioned upon our ability to provide them with a drive-thru facility. As pointed out in the letter, our pi. p... ty in our minds is somewhat unique due to the fact that it is on the easterly border of the City and further on the easterly side of Washington you could have drive-thru restaurants lined up one right after the other. We are the largest commercial development on Washington Street within the City of Palm Desert. Two things obviously after listening to what the ordinance totally contains is we would not expect to get a freeway sign or a sign that would be visible from the freeway. Secondly, we are specifically, in our rezoning request which we filed, we are specifically asking for just one parcel of the three undeveloped pad parcels that we have, not that we get an overlay for the entire shopping center. We really would hope that you would reconsider our request in the affirmative, and any questions that you might have I'd be happy to answer them or provide any other information necessary. Thank you. RSK Anyone else like to speak in favor of this project? KHS Good evening, I'm Katrina Heinrich Steinberg, and I would like to thank the City Council for all the work and consideration that has gone into the consideration of the freeway overlay zone areas, and also thank you very much to the staff. I thought it might be important for you to know how we feel about this approximately 270 acre parcel that begins on the western boundary with Portola and wraps itself around the City -owned 200 acres which will become the college site with the 10,000 plus linear feet, as Marvin Rouse pointed out, freeway frontage. We as landowners are 32 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * extremely aware of the sensitive issues with which you are concerned, namely that this particular stretch of freeway, which leads ultimately into the Cook Street overpass, is one that does not begin or end up looking like so many other approaches into areas that are experiencing along freeway approach. We have the luxury, thank God, to have owned this land for a very long time and to be generous with the land use. We as landowners want to have something master planned there that ultimately would benefit the community and the Valley and everybody who lives here with uses that are economically efficient, that beautify the area, that provide employment, and create added positives to the quality of life here which we all enjoy. It is, however, a fact of the modern world that, especially with the increased speed limit now on Interstate 10, and I assure you nobody drove yesterday evening 65 when I came back from Ontario Airport, it is very very difficult to assess when you have to turn off or want to turn off for a specific need, whether you want to have something to eat or gas up or come into a community unless you really have adequate signage provided sometimes three to four, even five miles alerting you to that fact, especially when you have been on the road for some time. And I am looking primarily at drivers who .are not that secure on the freeway, whether they be elderly or visitors to the country or young new drivers who need really adequate time in order to get into the correct lane and slowly make their way over. And one mile is not enough, two miles sometimes is not enough. I realize that what we want to avoid is a forest of signs, and the provisions written into the freeway overlay zone with its two signs per site limitation is adequate. I like that, that's fine. In our specific case, I'm only concerned that if we do not get advance signage, let's say one mile westerly, actually it's a little bit more, at Portola for instance and then even between Portola and Monterey or at Monterey alerting the traveler that Cook Street is upcoming and possibly even a generic kind of signage, it doesn't have to be tacky and loud, and it's all subject to your approval anyway, but if we miss the large portion of the traveling public that overshoots Cook Street on their way to wherever they're going, whether it's to the river in the summer or to Arizona, what have you, we lose revenue, and they will ultimately go then let's say to Indio which has much better signage because we are in a very tough competition with the County on the other side of the freeway as you realize. So it is a selfish concern, not only that we as landowners attract developers who are saying what about signage, how am I going to tell people I'm here, but also for the ultimate end use of who has paid me for the land but now is sitting there trying to make a living, and if three or four thousand people turn off because of the signs, that will make a very big difference and ultimately due to sales tax and other benefits, this will benefit the City as well. Its very difficult to create a freeway off ramp of the very generous layout that has been designed here and not provide the necessary economic backup that an entrepreneur needs, whether it is a Carts, Jr. or whether it is a 150-room Holiday Inn. And it is a service provided to the traveling public as well as to the merchants who ultimately benefit the City. So we want to do something that pleases the City. We are aware and we are going overboard to do something that makes the staff happy, makes the Council happy, and 33 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RSK RAS ultimately makes everyone well economically and otherwise. So please consider the idea of allowing us for, in this particular case, signage purposes primarily to include our freeway frontage into this overlay zone. As Marvin Rouse mentioned, we have voluntarily, this was not a demand by our gas station developer, voluntarily put into the sales agreement and escrow instructions that we will not have any other service stations on our r.. p .. ty within one mile from that location. And since we own from Portola on the west and where the extension of Ford sort of makes is way through, which ultimately will come Dick Folkers tells me, and then across Cook Street onto the other side, that is really one and three quarters miles where we will only have one service station because the southwest corner of Cook and Ford is owned, as you know, by the City, and...excuse me, southeast corner...and the southwest corner is owned by a Japanese landowner group who has no plans of putting a service station there and there is no zoning provided for that anyway. So you really are safe. If you were to take it to the inch, my suspicion is that the s-curve of the future extension of Gerald Ford going over to Portola might be a little bit longer than a mile and somebody might be cute and say well, I can still stick a gas station then on the northeast corner of Ford and Portola. I tell you, that's not in my design. There will be no gas station between Portola and the very easterly boundary line of our property. So it is not for you to think I'm going to have lots of stations there and I'm going to have lots of drive-thrus there. I personally don't like billboards, I personally don't like signs, but it is a necessary economic need that needs to be fulfilled. And I thank you for your attention. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this project? Anyone would like to speak in opposition? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and ask the Council for direction. Well, since nobody else is going to say anything, I guess I'll say something. Basically, we're not going to be talking about signage tonight, that's going to come back to us in June. There are other options that I think we're looking at right now, so I'm not even to discuss that. As far as the two primary things that we're looking at in this ordinance, one is drive-thru restaurants which don't exist in Palm Desert, and secondly, the adjacency of gas stations where we have an ordinance that they've got to be "x" number of feet apart. Those are really the only things we're looking at because anything that Mr. Steinberg wants to do on the rest of his property can go back to the Planning Commission and come back to us as long as it doesn't relate to drive-thru restaurants or gas stations, and the rest of his property I wouldn't think he'd want to put a drive-thru restaurant or a gas station. Anyway, I feel that the two things that we're talking about make a lot of sense in what the Planning Department and the Planning Commission has approved, and I'm in favor of passing the ordinance as is with the exception of the signage and bring that back in June. BAC I'm comfortable with my colleague's comments. 34 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHS I sat through this with the Economic Development Committee and listened to those gentlemen look into it, and they obviously approved it as it's submitted. So as a member of that Committee I have to follow along. JMB Well, having worked on it all those meetings, I'm certainly in agreement with the way staff presented it. RSK Well, would somebody like to form a motion? RAS I'll make a motion that we approve the ordinance with the exception of the sign issue and that that be continued to the first meeting in June. WHS Second. BAC I wanted to second it, Walter, just so my college students would know that I actually voted for something for a drive-thru restaurant. WHS Okay, I'll withdraw my second. BAC So seconded. RSK Is there any other discussion? Would you please vote. SRG The motion carries by unanimous vote. For purposes of clarification, the City Council waived further reading and passed Ordinance No. 827 to second reading with the exception of the section dealing with signage, said section to be continued to the meeting of June 12, 1997. B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE TO PCD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT), PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR 270 +/- ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10, EAST AND WEST OF COOK STREET, Case No. C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 and DA 97-2. The following is a verbatim transcript of this Public Hearing: Keyes RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman 35 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman MR Marvin Rouse KHS Katrina Heinrich Steinberg WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk RSK The next item is consideration of approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development), precise plan of design/conditional use permit, master plan of development, and development agreement for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. RAD Yes, Mr. Smith is going to give this report, also. SS Plans in question are on the wall to Council's right. The Council has just given first reading to the freeway commercial overlay ordinance. What is now before you then is a multi -faceted proposal which will in part implement sections of the freeway commercial overlay zone. As had been mentioned previously, the Steinbergs own 270 +/- acres east and west of Cook Street, south of I-10. They wish to establish a long- term development plan in the form of a master plan of development. As has been mentioned previously, the property extends from Portola to a point approximately 3400 feet east of Cook Street. The property with the size of 270 acres qualifies for...under provisions of the planned community development zone in the zoning ordinance. In order to obtain said zoning, you need to have at least a hundred acres and then you need to prepare a master plan of development that is accepted by this Council. The development standards contained in the development plan will become the development criteria for the property. As you can see on the upper plan in the center, the conceptual land plan, the area has been divided into eight basic planning areas, generally commercial shown in red, industrial shown in blue, office/business shown in manila, and then there's a mixed use parcel in purple. As well, there is a small strip on the south side of Gerald Ford which is called out as Planning Area 8 which is residential in nature. Council received a reduced version of that land concept plan along with site plans for Planning Area 1 and building elevations for the service station/convenience store on Planning Area 1, but we're sort of getting ahead of ourselves. The future uses in the proposed master plan of development range from freeway oriented commercial businesses to planned service industrial to regional commercial to high density residential. You received a copy of the development plan as has been recommended by the Planning Commission in your packet. It looks like this, it has several foldouts of the land plan and other matters. We would indicate that in the development plan at Page 6, Item 7F, as it applies to Planning Area 6, we would request that the reference to drive-thru restaurants be deleted. We have so advised the applicants. We can indicate that the master plan of development was reviewed and recommended for approval by 36 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the Planning Commission at its March 4th meeting on a 4-0 vote, with Chairman Ferguson abstaining. Also in your packet you received a development agreement prepared which if it's passed will among other matters vest the applicant's development rights and establish a credit for drainage fees for contributing property for the mid - Valley channel. Along the north limit of the property as it...that's the railroad right-of- way, the applicant will be required to dedicate almost 17 acres for the installation of the mid -Valley channel and the development agreement will provide for a credit to offset that dedication. A copy of the development agreement as was recommended by the Planning Commission was included in your packet. Again, it looks similar to the development plan. I can indicate that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 1st, reviewed this most recent version of the development agreement. It evolved through several drafts. You have the most recent one, and this is the one the Planning Commission has recommended. That was on a 3-0 vote with Chairman Ferguson abstaining and Commissioner Jonathan absent at that time. Part three...the precise plan/conditional use permit review. The development plan as indicated would, if approved, would create eight basic planning areas. The precise plan/conditional use aspect applies to Planning Area number one, that is the 21 +/- acres at the northeast corner of Cook and Gerald Ford. The site plan for it is located center and lower. It provides for a gas station on the corner with convenience store and car wash, full service car wash. Wrapped around the service station is a restaurant park, pads for six future restaurants, some drive-thru, not all. As well, this precise plan provides for a parking lot for oversized vehicles. In the northerly corner, immediately adjacent to Cook Street, is a proposed RV and boat storage facility. To the east of that and abutting the railway is mini warehouses and lastly, a retail building shown towards the easterly end of this PAl . RAS What kind of retail? SS It's not specified at this point in time. As described in detail on pages 8, 9, 10, and 11 of your staff report, the precise plan complies with the requirements of the freeway commercial overlay. One item of note, the landscaped area in the area of the service station/convenience store and the restaurant park is in the range of 45% plus. I think we'll be able to do a more than adequate job in that respect. Findings for approval of the precise plan/conditional use permit can be affirmed. They are delineated on page 11 of your report. Environmental review. Projects have been reviewed pursuant to CEQA as outlined on pages 11 and 12 of the Council staff report and more extensively in the Planning Commission documentation, again, which you received. Staff is recommending that a negative declaration of impact be adopted. Okay, just to sum up. First item, with respect to the change of zone and master plan of development, we recommend that you waive further reading and pass that ordinance to second reading subject to the deletion of the reference to drive-thru restaurants as applies to Planning Area number 6. Number two, that the Council waive further reading and pass ordinance with respect to the development agreement to second reading. Third, that Council waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. whatever approving the precise 37 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * plan/conditional use permit for the development of Planning Area 1 of the master plan of development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center, subject to conditions, and we would like to add one additional condition. It would be number 22 to the Department of Community Development, and it should read "that the City acknowledges that this precise plan fulfills the requirement for a five -acre development pursuant to Section 25.030.220 of the Municipal Code and will permit the lifting of the deed restriction currently recorded against Parcel 1, Parcel Map No. 28448. With that I would conclude. If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to try and answer them. JMB Is there someplace in this where we postpone the signage on this property until the other... SS No, actually the verbiage with respect to signage in the development plan ties it in to whatever we establish in the freeway commercial overlay zone. It must be consistent with it, so we can... JMB Okay. BAC Mr. Mayor. A couple of quick questions. First my compliments to staff on what is obviously a lot of work and to Mainiero Smith to what appears to be a very competent job of initial planning. Number one, do I see correctly that as a person came off of Cook Street down the freeway overpass that the first thing you'd see glancing off to your left is an RV storage yard as the entrance to the City of Palm Desert? And I know, we're going to put trees and bushes and flowers and all the rest of that. SS The site is 32 feet below the ramp. BAC Right. SS It is adjacent to the ramp. BAC Is the first thing that you're going to see... SS I don't believe so. I think the line of sight will preclude you viewing it. BAC You cannot see it? SS The line of sight when you're 32 feet above an object. RAS When you look to east, what do you see? SS You'll be seeing off in the distance Emerald Desert. 38 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAS Why wouldn't...piggybacking on Councilman Crites (unclear) why not put the retail where the RV storage is and move the RV storage to the back side? SS I would defer that question to Mr. Rouse in that he presented a plan which we didn't have a problem with, but as to why they did one versus the other I frankly don't know. BAC It also would seem, given what you said that you are elevationally above the project that this particular area then would be in which we would wish to pay special attention to something we normally don't think about, which are roof tops, and how things area, you know, the kinds of air conditioning and so on and so forth, I mean, normally, what's up on top of Target, unless you're climbing a local hill, is of no consequence whatsoever, but if thousands of cars every day are looking down on top of those things, I'd certainly like to see something that directs Architectural Commission to pay particular attention to what becomes the primary view of certainly the components that are adjacent to the storm channel. SS BAC The Architectural Review Commission just considered the gas bar at Price Club two weeks ago. That was the main issue. They required a second screen roof over the main roof so that we don't get to see all the ducts and... Okay. Two other quick questions. One, I know that we have had problems in the past with not getting trees planted in projects but about survival, and I know in talking with the person who's contracted to do City arbor work that they're looking at reviewing how that is implemented in parking lots. May such changes be implemented in this process as we go along? SS Yes. I know Jerry and Eric have toured the Valley, and they've made extensive notes on parking lots from Palm Springs to Thermal. BAC They can be included in this? SS Absolutely. So we're going to be revamping the City parking lot tree ordinance to provide trees that will stand up in the wind. BAC And...one other question. We give conceptual approval to this as areas, and we're looking more specifically at number one. The thought for my colleagues to consider. Under the current thing we have an entry statement to be coordinated with Art -In - Public -Places that's at the corner of Gerald Ford and it's obviously vague, we don't know what we're going to do. I have a suggestion that we look immediately...PA2 is also going to have to have 30% open space, right? SS Yes. BAC Okay. That... 39 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SS Assuming it's developed under the freeway... BAC Assuming that it's developed under that, that we look at asking the applicant for a small piece of that 30% to be right at Cook Street so that we can do something we've wanted to do in other places, and that is provide a spot for people as they come in to the City to stop, get information whether it's at kiosks or whether, you know, from whatever kind of way we want to do it, that whatever kind of public art is right there if somebody comes in our City entry signage is there, make it work with the applicant and so on and so forth. Rather than having something that may or not may happen way on up the way. I know we'd like to...I think I would have to have seen us be able to do that on Monterey if we had the druthers, so that as people come in they can find out what's going on in the City of Palm Desert, and this is the first time we've ever had a chance to have an empty freeway opening, and at least... RSK I'm frowning because we are showing where you are going to do this, so I'd be concerned about the traffic there. BAC About what? RSK It's okay. I just... BAC Well, it would be coming...I don't...you know, you don't need to tell people who are headed for the freeway. RSK No, we want to get them off there and smoothed out and out of there. BAC It's a thought that I'd just like to have considered, that we think about working with Promotion Committee and so on about whether we would like to do something in conjunction with the applicant to do something alongside PA2 and the road. I don't mean to be any more specific than that. It may not be a good idea. But I think we have this chance to do that and we won't have it again. SS The...I could indicate that the development agreement at page 16 has language to that effect, the City and developer agree to outline a process to establish a master plan for public art. It goes on, for funding and location and dedication of property. RSK Any more questions for staff? If there are no more questions for staff, I'll open the public hearing and ask for anyone who would like to speak in favor of this project. MR Mayor and Council, Marvin Rouse again from Mainiero Smith. We also want to thank staff for a lot of work, the ZORC Committee for helping us continue to define what this process was going to result in, Frank Urrutia and Ron Gregory who helped put together design package for you. We started this a year and a half ago. My clients had run down to the City to get a change of zone for 270 acres of commercial zoning. Talked to Phil, 40 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * he said it's going to take longer than three weeks to do that, and we're finally here. We find the process of working with Planning Commission and Council on this project very exciting because there is a lot of support and certainly lots of good questions that need answers. We started this with the idea that we could generally master plan, come in with some details, set up a design process and design guidelines which you have before you, and you can see the results in the first phase. Relative to that issue, getting right to the public art issue and how to deal with that, some kind of a kiosk, a visitor information center, is a great idea somewhere in this location. We've already been to the Art -In -Public -Places group, they're setting up a subcommittee to work with us, we're setting up a master plan process that may include the campus site and may include the other property all the way to Frank Sinatra. This property is a very interesting shape as you come off the freeway, it's a bowl, so there is, as you say, you're not only to see roof tops, but you have some opportunity to take in a very vast scope of area, probably in the neighborhood of about 500 acres pretty much at a glance as you go from side to side to say nothing obviously of the other side of the freeway. It is the entry to this City, and we have tried to take that into account with what we've done here. We would certainly love to work with the City on a visitor information center, probably in Planning Area Three I think, maybe Two. Two's on this side of the freeway, and you'd have to cut back in. Three's on the other side, you'd come across, you'd get an idea to take a look at that, but again there's a little more room in Two and we might have a little more time working that out. But we're very open to that, we find that an exciting idea. The, you know, the matter of trying to entice fast food and other kinds of restaurants, gas stations to participate in an extensive open space program will be a challenge. You go down to most fast food rows that are along the freeway, landscaping is frequently nonexistent, dead, gone, poorly thought out, and certainly unusable. If you wanted to do anything besides drive through and take off, there's not much opportunity. ZORC and some other folks in the community helped up try and define this what might be really an exciting process of putting freeway travel and the services you need together in a way that would be fun, would be exciting. As you say, we're going to need some help making them know that this will work in the long run. Maybe your current graphic portion of the ZORC ordinance isn't exactly what we need to do, but we hope to continue to work with you on that. We certainly agree with the screening of all air conditioning equipment. The roof tops are critical. We've seen that in other freeway orientations. You've got a decent piece of architecture and you see a flimsy looking screen. We will be working on that. The one issue of the RV storage. Why is that there and not necessarily at the other end? We saw that as a very difficult retail site from a couple of standpoints; one, visibility. Unless you put the sign on the roof from an airplane or something, it's really very deep. We've got dozens of trains going by all the time, so hotels are going to be difficult. These uses actually evolved out of ZORC in terms of what things would make sense to go along with that and what do we see as potentials here. In terms of the RV storage, we would like to pursue actually covered storage, not necessarily in total but at least some. We think the $200,000 up units that are out there next to the railroad tracks and potential vandals...if we don't have it covered and enclosed it's probably not going to be a particularly good facility or at least 41 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * economically marketable. So we will, as we come back in with details of that, we will give you sideline studies. We'll show you what you're going to be looking at, how it's going to design out, the final landscape. One thing, we haven't pointed out, really haven't talked to staff about, is the embankments along Cook as you go up over the freeway have never been treated. Perhaps this is something that could be included in the Art -In -Public -Places, I'm not sure. As we've all talked about Art -In -Public -Places on this vast scale, some amazing things come to everybody's mind. We'll sort through that and figure out how that's going. But hopefully we'll be able to dispel any of those questions that you might have. Again, we thank staff, thank the Council and the Commission for their work and hope you can see your way to approve us tonight with our proposals. Thank you. RSK Any questions? Anyone else like to speak in favor? KHS Thank you. Just to add to what Marvin Rouse has stated, especially with regard to the proposed RV storage site, and I saw Mr. Crites' warning smile when we mentioned it earlier for the first time, and I thought I have to explain something. When I was sitting for the last 18 months through various City Council hearings and other hearings before Planning, I noticed that frequently...or occasionally, I should say, the complaint came up that RV's were being parked around the City, and upon looking into it, I found that at present, I may be mistaken, the City of Palm Desert does not allow the parking of RV's and/or boats and/or campers/buses, whatever you want to call them, within the City limits on streets and only in specially approved garages. My assistant and I set to work and did a little marketing calling, cold calling, and we found out that from a newsletter that is circulated by mobile home and RV owners, that we probably could fill 100 boxes, covered boxes, inside of large, and I suspect they would be big boxes, as we refer to them, for the storage of these very valuable items that people do purchase. What it will not be is a junk yard, what it will not be is a storage of people's discarded old motor homes or their old camper tops and things on blocks. It's in our interest that this development does not look unsightly, and we will address the concerns that you have placed on us. The retail site that we have on the most easterly portion worked into the plan is perhaps misnamed as retail although technically it is. We are foreseeing something like a Jiffy Lube or something that the City right now doesn't really want in its areas that are closer to residential, something that they want to be pushing out that are attractive buildings and that would lend themselves to going next to railroad tracks with up to 28 trains in a 24-hour period. And we will take of the roof tops. The entire mini warehouse and/or RV storage area is really one that should be flexible in size because if we need, as an example, 500 indoor RV storage places, then we take away from the mini warehouses as the market demands. But we see it as a walled development with landscaping on the exterior and 24-hour on -site, including living quarters, management. So this particular area I think would lend itself to that. As a note, if you recall the ARCO station site on the off -ramp of Date Palm Drive at Interstate 10, they bought from us about 12, 13 years ago. It's about four and a half acres if I remember correctly gross site area. The station itself takes up about an acre 42 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RSK WHS JMB BAC RAS RSK and a tenth of an acre. ARCO has been trying to market the remaining portion of that parcel, which is about three acres, in that elbow curve, to retail and/or any related uses, and did not find a user because it was too small for storage, it is too unattractive for client traffic, retail customer traffic, so this use may be fitting the bill if we address your concerns about the aesthetics. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this project? Anyone like to speak in opposition to the project? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and ask for...start over on this side? I'll start it. I think that the staff and all personnel concerned and the developer have done an excellent job. It's taken a long time. They've really gone into every aspect of this matter, and I believe that it's a difficult problem because we have never faced the fact that we're going to be against a railroad and against a freeway. Now we are, and the effort that's been put forth to do this has been extraordinary. And I believe that we have a good master plan and we have the authority to monitor that plan and approve or disapprove as we go along. And, therefore, I would be pleased to make a motion to approve this matter as it has been submitted. Well, I would just like to say, again, having worked on this, I think that this first shot at what's going to go out on I-10 is a good example of what can be done and hopefully tastefully. It was the concern of the Committee all the way along that we didn't want strip building out there and we didn't want sign after sign and to design a project like this with a restaurant park and auxiliary things that are needed. I think if this comes out the way that it is presented here, it will be a good example for the rest of the freeway land that's there. I agree with my colleagues, and again thanks to Mr. Smith and to the landowners and to Mr. Rouse for his capable efforts and others who have worked on this, and I agree, I think if we can especially get something with restaurants that has this kind of open space along with it, we'll have done something better than the norm, that's for darn sure. You took the words right out of my mouth. I think the food park idea is sensational. I haven't seen anything like it in traveling, and it's a great place if you have kids just to let them out and run around. It's terrific. The RV thing has be worried but I'm going to drive out there tomorrow and take a look and see if what I can see. But I'm proud that it's going to be part of Palm Desert, and I thank both the developer and the Planning Department. And I will second the motion that Walt made. When I first glanced at this and saw RV storage, I thought...00h, you know? But the more I think about it, I used to be an RV owner, too, by the way. Anyway, as I think about it, it looks to me like an opportunity to actually fix the RV storage there so that it looks better than if there was a building or something there because we've talked 43 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * about having to look down on the roofs. But if we put some, I know it's difficult to put planting in with RV's because of their height, but if we work out some green there like across the back where those buildings are so that when you look across there, even if you look down, RV's look better from the top than buildings do. But also, some greenery around there, some planting, you could really use that to enhance that area. And if you put a Carl's Jr. in there, I'll promise to stop on the way home. JMB You gave up on Wendy's? RSK I'm a Carl's, Jr. fan. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? BAC Do I get an In and Out Burger if you get a Carl's? RSK Let's see, do we need to read through this motion or can we look at it as a staff recommendation? DJE We will assume the motion is for all three items. BAC As adjusted by staff during their presentation this evening. RSK Would you please vote. SRG The motion carries by unanimous vote. For purposes of clarification, the City Council took the following action: 1) Waived further reading and passed Ordinance No. S32 to second reading approving Change of Zone 96-6 and Master Plan of Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center, amended to delete reference to drive- thru restaurants as it applies to Planning Area Number 6; 2) waived further reading and passed Ordinance No. B38 to second reading, approving the Development Agreement for Wonder Palms Commercial Center; 3) waived further reading and adopted Resolution No. 97-3Q approving PP/CUP 96-10, a precise plan of design for development on Planning Area #1 of the Master Plan of Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center, subject to conditions and with the addition of Department of Community Development Condition Number 22 as stated by Mr. Smith in his report to the Council. 44 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 1) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2) PROJECT AREA 4 SPECIFIC PLAN; 3) CHANGE OF ZONE IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN; AND 4) AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25.14 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE RE (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONE) AND CHAPTER 25.76 FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS, BUILDINGS AND USES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SPECIFIC PLAN, Case No. GPA 97-1, CZ 97-3, ZOA 97-2 and ZOA 97-3. The following is a verbatim transcript of this Public Hearing: Ka: RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development JO Joel Osborne PO Patricia Osborne BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman YS Yolanda Steger --- RJF Richard J. Folkers, Director of Public Works BW Bill Wolfe MW Mery Webster RH Raymond Hill JG Jessie Gilmore MJ Matilda Jones JJ Jim Jones WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore MPG Mary P. Gates, Deputy City Clerk DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney RSK Next item is consideration of approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, Project Area 4 Specific Plan, change of zone implementing recommendations of the Specific Plan, and amendments to Chapter 25.14 of the zoning ordinance for the RE (Residential Estate) Zone and Chapter 25.76 for nonconforming lots, buildings, and uses as recommended by the Specific Plan. RAD Mr. Drell of the staff will give this report. PD Mayor and Councilmembers. When the City annexed this area for expediency, although it took us two or three years to annex it, we adopted the County zoning with the MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * promise that we would initiate a comprehensive plan to reexamine those designations and policies and try to resolve what we knew were some controversies out there. In conjunction with the Redevelopment Agency, a Project Area Committee was formed, and beginning in October of 1995, met on a monthly basis to address these issues. And over the 18-month period, the result is the Specific Plan before you and associated zoning ordinance amendments. The Specific Plan divides the area into six subareas, behind you and shown in your plan. Most of the study area is made up of master planned developments. A lot of our work concentrated on subarea one which is the northwest corner of Fred Waring and Washington, extending up to Dudley. It's an area of presently one -acre parcels primarily currently unpaved roads. It was an area which the master planning efforts of the various developments kind of bypassed. And, therefore, basically most of the land use changes involved that one area. Those changes pretty much include the area on Washington at the Washington/Fred Waring intersection, which is currently zoned in the County of multi -family which has an existing commercial office development on it, and we would be rezoning that area, redesignating/rezoning that area to professional office as would all the areas fronting on Washington to a depth of 300 feet up to Dudley. The one -acre parcels that are on Robin Road, Mountain View, and Delaware that were zoned R-1 9,000 in the County that permitted the subdivision of those parcels into four, we're proposing redesignation to our Residential Estate 40,000 zone, very low designation which requires a minimum of a 40,000 square foot lot, in essence precluding any further subdivision of those parcels. Directly north of Desert Breezes there's a nineteen and a half acre vacant parcel which is the westerly portion of zone R-1 9,000 and the 300 feet on Washington zoned high density residential, and we're proposing that the entire parcel be rezoned to R-1 9,000 and a property is imminently going to be submitting a subdivision map for a 9,000 square foot single family subdivision. The area right along Dudley is an area of particular concern, especially at the end of the process since it's a mixture of a number of different uses, including a church, a school, an apartment project, an office building, and some vacant parcels that kind of snake around a residential area adjacent to Palm Desert Country Club. And in this recommendation, that entire area would be part of the redesignation to professional office. Due to the land use pattern, I mean the land ownership pattern back there, which includes actually kind of sandwiched in between the church and school and office building, a residential little parcel, some vacant parcels, we've after consulting with both property owner and a citizens residential group of the property owners and residents on Cardiff right behind that property, we've made some specific recommendations concerning the potential office development of that site which includes the requirement of a 20-foot landscape buffer area between that area along the rear property lines with those residences, landscaped with 24-inch box trees, and right now it actually has the enviable condition of those properties...of the office properties are considerably lower in elevation than the residential properties, and there's about a 12-foot wall which provides actually a pretty good buffer between whatever commercial property development occurs there and those residences. But those are...it's been called out as implementation policies in the plan and more fine details that...I think you have a letter from the Gallery Series home subdivision owners referring to that site. The 46 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * more detailed project specific design requirements that he's talking about will be again addressed when we have an actual precise plan brought to us. Associated with those land use changes...I guess I could address one more kind of a clarification of a controversy that was before us in the past, and that is the 150 acre site north of Country Club, that large remaining vacant property west of the Industrial Park. Right now it's currently dual designated for residential and industrial, and as part of this plan we've clarified that really the goal is that based on the noise studies that we've received on that property, that being appropriate to have residences right up against the railroad tracks, and so clarifying that dual designation would...is that the northerly 500 feet would be developed with either professional office or service industrial, and the goal would be to have that development in conjunction with the office industrial project to the east of that so that the primary access would be that, in essence the...it would not have primary access, a second primary access out onto Country Club. And the southern half would be, then, residential. In conjunction with these recommendations, presently, although we've had a residential estate zone, we have no property in the City that's zoned for residential estates, and given that the unique rural aspect, we want to customize our residential estate zone to meet the needs and requirements and desires of the people who live in this one area which is the only area in the City that's going to get this zoning. One of the issues is the keeping of horses. Right now there's no residential zone in the City that allows the keeping of horses. Historically, horses have been kept here on a limited basis, and the County permitted it, and so in the amendment to the RE zone, we proposed standards for the keeping of horses. We received a letter, I would say we...in dealing with these issues, we had a questionnaire sent out to all the residents of these acre parcels, of which there practically 90, we received almost 30 answered questionnaires relating to all these issues. We then held a town hall meeting. Again, of all those people, we had about 30 people show up and we discussed the issues. We then had our hearing before the Planning Commission, and although we have this letter from Joel and Patricia Osborne, it is very knowledgeable and is very helpful to us, it would have been nice if we had had it earlier. They've made some recommendations concerning our, as proposed, recommendation in the...for the RE zone, would limit the keeping of horses on one of these 40,000 square foot lots to two mature horses and to allow temporarily two foals. They're suggesting that age not be the criteria but size and that they should be able to keep up to four horses if they're ponies. Secondly, the ordinance contains criteria for stables and corrals and currently requires both an open corral and an enclosed stable area. They're suggesting that you really only need one of those. And they also made a suggestion concerning, which are probably good, concerning maintenance and cleanliness. In that, again, I just received this today, and this was a subject that was discussed in detail by the Project Area Committee, I would suggest that if we want to consider the Osbornes' comments, we would continue the amendment to the RE zone and refer these suggestions, because this is really one of the gut issues out 47 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * there, on the keeping of horses, and refer it back to the Project Area Committee and, in essence, continue that one issue. To continue, other areas of the RE zone which are being proposed is the addition of private greenhouses and horticultural collections, again due to the rural nature of the area, establishing definite setbacks, 30-foot fronts and 15-foot side yards, and allowing for an exception to the Senior Second Unit ordinance which now requires Senior Second Units to be attached. It was felt that when you own an acre, it is not unusual to have larger accessory buildings and in this case with a conditional use permit which is what the Senior Second Unit calls for to allow a detached Senior Second Unit, or at least it will have the opportunity for them to apply for it. The last zoning ordinance amendment has to do with our nonconforming buildings and uses section. By virtue of our rezoning of the Washington frontage from high density multi -family to office, we're making the...to apartment projects nonconforming, we have a process in our nonconforming ordinance that allows nonconforming residences in residential zones to go through a process of rehabilitation if required to being a vested right, but it doesn't apply to residential units in office zones. So we are extending that...the two projects that are out there are actually in very good condition and would qualify for that program. And that pretty much concludes the report. The Committee worked very hard on this. We got a lot of citizen input and we recommend approval of the staff recommendation with the exception of, I would say, at least a 30-day continuance on the issue of the Residential Estate zone. And that concludes the report. Do you have any questions? RSK Any questions? If not, I'll open the public hearing and ask for anybody that would like to speak on this rezoning proposal. JO Yes, Honorable Mayor and City Council. I'm Joel Osborne, this is my wife Patricia. We're residents at Delaware Place in the study zone. I would like to apologize to the City for receiving our correspondence late. But we were never notified by the Project Area Committee that there were studies being done regarding the keeping of horses. I don't know if that was an oversight on their part or what. In response to the hearings here today, we submitted a letter, which I believe you all have copies of If you'll excuse me, it outlines specifically, since we are probably the only horse owners in this area, and perhaps another one, in the City of Palm Desert, so we feel imminently qualified to comment on this issue. And we have, of course, maintained horses, as we stated in the letter, for some time. Since this issue is going to deferred for another 30 days, there's really no sense in further comment from us directly. My wife would like to state her personal feelings, though, regarding the keeping of horses in the City of Palm Desert. And I appreciate your comments. Thank you. 48 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PA I was here about five years ago when we were constructing our house on Delaware and I said the same things that our horses are for our children and they're avid horse show girls. They've gone six years in showing and they ride in our back yard every day. And we water the arena every time they ride for dust purposes. We clean every day. They come home from school, they ride, they clean, they feed. I feel it keeps them from horse playing on the streets of Palm Desert. Also, just wanted to make a note on our original letter, I noted that you have the top of it saying that a permit would be required. I feel if the guidelines and all the restrictions are met I don't feel a permit would really be necessary for horses, and so forth; otherwise, I feel that you could be letting us or making us get permits for our dogs and cats and kids and so forth. If it's going to be the 40,000 estate homes, I would feel that the horses should just be part of that. And I did feel size had more to do with it than age. PD I propose that the Osbornes be invited, of course, to the meeting and discuss the issues with the Committee. PA I would be happy to attend any meeting. PD On the issue of the permit, and this was something that was, again, discussed by the Committee, it will be a nondiscretionary permit like a dog license, where you say here are the rules, we will then know exactly where horses theoretically are, but they would be, again, it would be more of an educational, you know, and for us to determine that in fact that, at least from the outset, the facility was consistent with the rules. PA Okay, I understand that. That explains that, and I just want to keep Palm Desert horse friendly. JO One other comment in regard to the other cases there in this proposal. With regard to the negative declaration of environmental impact and the zone study and the positive response to the homeowners' wishes for this particular area, we really are encouraged and pleased that the City has taken this position to allow us to continue. When we purchased this property some 7, 8 years ago, we had no idea that the City was going to eventually gobble us up that quickly. So, it was one of our reasons for moving into this area, was to have the rural atmosphere that we have, allowing us to keep horses virtually unrestricted other than the common sense guidelines which we've managed to follow pretty well, I hope. And I really appreciate this city's concerns and I'm sure all the amount of effort and intense emotions that have occurred in the last few years when this particular area of the City was annexed. Thank you. BAC Mr. Mayor, I'd remind Mr. Osborne that if indeed he's part of a meal, it's a meal that was requested by his neighbors in general. In other words, the folks out in that area requested to become part of the City versus the City coming out and asking to annex that. 49 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAS We didn't gobble you up. RSK No, in fact we gave it a lot of thought before we agreed and we only did it as a social mainly because the people lived there so long and had their name Palm Desert and they felt like they belonged there. It was not beneficial necessarily, definitely not beneficial financially to the City. JO Well, we certainly appreciate the road paving. I mean, I must admit, it's going on right now. As difficult as that project is for us, the end result will certainly be an advantage to us and certainly an advantage for the City. RAS And I for one am proud to have horses in the City. JO Well, thank you very much. RSK Anyone else? We won't pass anybody by, so you don't have to worry about hurrying. YS Thank you. My name's Yolanda Steger. I'm currently President of the Warner Trail Maintenance Association, which as you may or may not know has a water retention basin at the bottom of Edinborough Street which I understand the City is going to take over at some stage because it contains so much water running into it from other areas. As this is so near the area that you're going to be dealing with, and you're doing a comprehensive plan for everything else, you could consider this water retention basin as part of it that is right down Edinborough Street just catty -corner from where it crosses with Carter Street, there are two lots there by the original homeowner, and I think it's very important that you take it over as soon as possible because the water goes down that street from everywhere in the locality. And I think it could usefully be a part of the plan, I hope. I have a couple of questions to address this actual issue. First of all, there is an access road right behind my house which is in Edinborough Street, and that access road according to...well, when I came in to talk to the Planning people, it does not exist. They were not aware of it, it is presumably a sand track. I see vehicles passing behind my garden wall, and I would like to know what will happen to that sand track, how many other people will have access to look into my yard from the other side of my wall on Edinborough Street, and also what else is going to go trafficking past there. I have a concern. It is quite a sand track along there. And the other thing that I'm also concerned about, it's great to have some horses in a location. I myself was a horse owner when young, but I do think that horses need a great deal of space, and what would worry me is not these horse owners who have just come up and spoken who seem to be really responsible members of society and good citizens and willing to do everything so that their horses will stay clean, I'm just concerned if all 90 lots have horses up to whatever number they wish, and then it would be really difficult for some of us to enjoy our amenities. Thank you. Do I get an answer to any of my questions, or do I wait? 50 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RJF Mr. Bassler has been talking with some representatives of your group about setting up an assessment district, and I think on two occasions he's given the information to them. If you could leave your name and phone number with the City Clerk, we'll get back with you again. So on that issue, we've given, like I say, information twice, and we are in the process of doing the Bermuda Dunes Drainage Study, and hopefully within a couple of months that will be completed, so we'll have some idea of what's needed as far as facilities. How the retention basin that you have fits into that I can't tell you at this time because the study is ongoing. With regard to the sand track situation, I'm not aware of that at all and will have to look into that because I wasn't aware of it. YS There are vehicles that drive along it daily, I mean daily. RJF Okay. If you'll give your name to the City Clerk, we'll look into this. YS You bet. Thank you very much. RAS Have the horses caused a problem at this point? YS No, not at this point. RAS Okay. YS Thank you. RSK I'm not sure I understand the problem with the wall and the cars. PD If you look on the map that shows the zoning exhibit, and I think there might be someone in the audience that might have some recollection of the history of that. Basically you're looking at the R-1 9,000 at the north side of where the zone change is occurring and that's Edinborough. And I recall there being an easement in the original tract somehow that provided access to the back ends of those lots. I'm not sure what those people are driving on or where they're driving to but maybe someone that lives out there...but again I think the fundamental problem is that it's an undeveloped area and people have historically driven back there. Hopefully what we're...that easement was provided because in the original CC&R's those most northerly lots could be subdivided into two lots, and the access to the rear lot would be on that easement. And by what we're doing tonight by making those R-1 40,000 precluding any of those...that subdivision, that easement becomes unnecessary. There's no reason to get back there because it's always going to stay one parcel. But, how...to find out what those people...where they're going and why they're driving back there is, I guess, a job for Code Enforcement to maybe report back and find out what the actual source of that is. Ultimately when those properties are developed, that problem will disappear. RSK Okay. Anyone else? 51 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BW RSK My name is Bill Wolfe. I also live in the Gallery Series which is on Edinborough, that's the part we're talking about. My property faces near, you know, on the same way. That easement you're talking about, the way it was explained when we bought our house is that was an easement for the utilities, that's the way it was explained to me. We have our wall, our back wall is about 12 to 15 feet. They said our property would run back 12 to 15 feet if that easement wasn't there. So I don't know...I think you need to investigate this easement situation quite fully because obviously there's a bit of no- man's land that's sitting there. We have a couple more in the City. There was a...in the early development of this area there was an effort to make easements between the lots where utilities could go and work... BW Right, I understand that. We were told it was a utility easement. RSK I have one in my back yard, also. BW Okay. RSK So, it's a messy thing now. We don't use them. BW The other thing I had a comment on . The gentleman here, you spoke about someone in the department spoke to us about the retention basin. I'm the individual that they spoke to because I'm the Vice President of this Warner Trail Maintenance Association. In both cases when I spoke with this...with your group, it has taken me almost a year and a half to get two responses. It's been a very poor response. What I was trying to do is to get the City to consider taking over this retention basin which we pay a small fee every month, and as Yolanda pointed out a lot of the water does drain from other parts, and I would like you to consider that because I was told that because I believe it's resolution 208 which says you cannot pass new taxes to cover your public expenses. Is that the right one, 208? RAS 218. BW 218...I'm sorry...Prop 218. I was close. 218 said that nothing further would be done until that was considered... it was tested or considered, so I would like you to consider taking over this retention basin very seriously. The third thing I'd like to comment on, I'm not in favor of having horses in this R 40,000. I know there are some there now. They do not bother me in the same way. But I would really hate to see you folks vote that all those properties as being horse properties. That would cause a lot of dismay because we front right up on those properties and I think it's a very serious mistake if you do that because I think us as homeowners should have more say in this. I mean we weren't part of this...we weren't part of this public meeting yet we face right on these properties, and that's all I have to say. 52 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RSK PD Well, I don't think there's any zoning change that's come before us since I've been on the Council for 14 years where there was more time put in and more time spent with people, and there's a...the committee has representatives from every single area out there, and they've been meeting for a year at least or more so there's a tremendous amount of input from that area. I'm sure invitations went out to all areas. Well, again, we didn't...the town meeting dealt with specifically the one -acre parcels. I would also suggest that representatives of the association also come to the discussion on the RE zone and participate in that discussion, so if you have a representative. RSK We certainly welcome anybody and everybody. PD A representative if you could give us your phone number so we can tell you when the meeting's going to be. MW I'm Mery Webster, and my wife and I live right across the street from Joel and his wife. I'd like to say a couple things in support of what Joel said. I'm an old country boy from Illinois, and I can only say that the facilities that Joel has to care for his horses and the way he cares for them is considerably better than the work horses that I grew up with and made a living with my parents, etc. for a good number of years. I would also want to say that I have not had one single complaint about the horses that are there across the street from me. There is no odor that we receive from them. Once in a while you'll hear a horse whinny, and that's about the extent of it. The facilities that Joel has, indeed he has the corral instead of the corral and stable both, but a good part of his corral provides shade for those horses so they do not take any hurt whatever time of the year they're there. These are all represented in the letter that you received from Joel, I have a copy of it, and I endorse them. I endorse his input. I also wanted to say that we bought our property, got the home built, six and a half years ago, seven years ago, and it was advertised and presented to us as horse property at that time. I still have the home's brochure with that annotation that we were buying horse property. I personally don't have horses, don't anticipate having horses, but to me it's important that you have that flexibility, particularly when you paid good money for it at the time we bought it. And I thank you. RH PD My name is Raymond Hill. I own approximately three acres of the sandwiched property that Bill referred to that's under consideration for the office professional. I support the project. However, I'd like a couple of clarifications. You mentioned something about the nonconforming use. Would that also apply to me. You talked to...the apartment buildings...I currently have my residence there and until such time that I either sell or decide to develop it, I'd like to continue living on the property. Is that... The answer is...without doing anything a legal nonconforming use can always be maintained and continued. The process relates to if it was to be destroyed, without going through this conformance process you couldn't replace it. 53 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RH But if it's destroyed by fire. PD I don't think you're going to rebuild a house there. RH Right. PD But if you want to go through a process to show you're well maintained and you've agreed to maintain that high level of maintenance, you can get a vested right in your current use as well. RH So there's a process I need to go through if this zoning passes. PD No, only if you have a fear of not replacing it if it's destroyed by fire. But there's a process if you have that fear...if you have that fear, then you can go through it and demonstrate your high quality of development and maintenance and then get that vested right. RH PD RH Okay. The other question I had was regarding the folks on Cardiff and some restrictions that apparently they have attached to the approval of this. If I heard right, 20-foot buffer zone seems a little excessive. Is that a condition of approval? I mean, I'm R-3 2,000 now, approximately three acres, and I don't have any such restriction on that, and apartments would be considerably more noisy than I would think office professional. Again, that is a proposed in the plan. My understanding is the representatives have talked to you about that before and you had consented to it, or what you're saying you haven't consented to it. I don't think it was really...it was mentioned with a broad brush at the last meeting that there were conditions. I don't think they were spelled out, and there was something about a 13 or 14 conditions that they had written a letter in but they weren't really addressed issue by issue. And I think you and I talked a little bit about a 20-foot buffer zone through there, which there's an easement road right now that's existing. But to...I've got a hundred feet one direction, two hundred feet another, and about three hundred feet on up, and that's quite a bit of ground for a buffer zone inasmuch as there's, you know, like you stated, there's 12 feet of wall that surrounds that property now. I'm not opposed to them having a buffer zone. I would just hate to see 20 feet be attached to it at this point. I'd like to see when the property is developed, but let's take into consideration those folks, and they're certainly entitled to consideration, but to attach 20 feet right now might be a hindrance on me in peddling the property, developing it, whatever I want to do. PD Yes, if you want to go to...page 11 and 12 of the specific plan, it talks about the Dudley Drive area. 54 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RH Do I have that information? PD No, I can... RH Okay. PD I can give you a copy of the specific plan. It...under implementation, any proposed office development shall include a minimum 20-foot tree landscape buffer adjacent to the perimeter wall shared with a single-family residence on Cardiff RH This is what the folks have submitted, conditions of approval? PD Basically, I've...certain of the issues they submitted I felt were not appropriate, you know, how detailed these should be is open to question. Trees shall be at least 24 inch box, that is our standard tree size requirement for parking lot. RH That doesn't bother me. PD So it's the 20 feet. RH Yes. PD And, again, that's an issue that the...I guess the issue would be whether this belongs in the implementation section or in a policy section which gives general direction to the Planning Commission when they review, so relative to language, whether it could be softened that it would be a goal of compatibility in creating a buffer between the two uses, whether 20 feet is appropriate is, you know, or appropriate at this stage of the planning process is something I debated at length with...it was actually Manuel McDowell who was actually the author who was the representative of some of the owners out there who wrote this letter. RAS A comparable situation in Palm Desert, residential office professional, what's the buffer zone? PD BAC PD RAS Typically we have five feet between a...you know...we have a buffer that separates the building, typically 60 feet or 65 feet, or almost 70 feet really once you have the width of the parking lot plus the five feet between the building and the residential area. Do we have a normal place where these two things come together, a minimum vegetative zone? No. Five feet. Five feet is what it is. 55 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PD In essence enough to plant one row of trees. Five feet is enough for one row of trees. RH I would just like it to be flexible at the point in time that a development is submitted for approval. PD And then there we would take it out of implementation and put it in the policy and say there will be a general goal to provide a landscape buffer up to 20 feet, planted with trees. RAS But you've got it in here (unclear) PD Well, again, we're changing the language from a specific, there shall be 20 feet minimum, to up to 20 feet as required to provide adequate buffer as determined by the precise plan. RH But if the City's current buffet is five feet, what's with (unclear) PD Again, it vanes depending on the character of the project and the unique locations. Obviously over at Luckys we required because of some unique architectural screening them to put in some 72 inch box trees. RSK Well, we almost always do more in various ways. It doesn't turn out to be just 20 feet of planting, we work something out so that they get buffers, but... RH Sure, it's harmonious with...then everybody wins. RAS A compromise. PD So, the direction, if you choose to go that way, would be to make the...describe the buffer in a more general way as something that should be addressed in a specific plan when an actual... RSK Well, it has a lot to do with the heights of the building and the distance the building is from the property line. To say 20 feet period doesn't make sense because it might be a two-story building, it might be a single -story building, who knows. PD Right. RH The folks that spoke just ahead of me were talking about a two -lot retention basin that they're concerned about the City taking over or whatever. The reason for that is that that project that they live in had to be elevated and dipped to those two lots to handle the drainage. There's a 13 foot 6 wall, the differential between my driveway and the top of the wall right now existing. And about 300 feet of it is already tree -lined. And the balance of it has a 13 foot wall which is hundred feet on the westerly side and two 56 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hundred feet on the southerly side. So I say again, I don't think a 20-foot buffer zone is really necessary, and I'd hate to lose that much property, but I do appreciate that they are entitled to privacy or, you know, no light shining in their windows and that kind of thing, but they don't have it now. Anyway, thank you very much. But I support the project. RSK Anyone else like to speak on this zoning proposal? JG Good evening. I'm Jessie Gilmore, I'm one of the owners of Palm Desert Palms Apartments. This project involves me because I own a corner spot...my building is on the corner of Washington and Dudley Drive being rezoned to office professional. I live in the L.A. area and I visit this property more than most owners as I come to Palm Desert every weekend and have for the past five years since I've owned this property. I spent several weeks at this property living there and am very active in this business. I've put tremendous time and work into this property. These aren't regular apartments; they're townhouses and are in great demand. We have a very high occupancy rate and at the present time we're one hundred percent full with a deposit waiting for the next available apartment. If offices were built there they would be sitting empty. I'm under the impression that the zoning change for our building was requested by a neighbor. I believe that the original cutoff point for the change of zone was our property, for this would not have affected us, but our neighbor requested that our zoning be changed to suit his purposes. Our property doesn't disturb our surrounding neighbors. We have very strict rules. Right now we have legal multi -family status, and we should be able to continue our business this way without going through the hassle of (unclear) with office professional status. Please reconsider your proposal to change our zoning. As you see, there are several letters to Mr. Drell from us. Thank you. PD Again, these were letters that we had submitted prior to Planning Commission. Again, the issue here is in doing zoning, again, you're not supposed to isolate one single parcel. And in essence the zoning to the north is office professional, the zoning to the south will be office professional, and typically we don't isolate one parcel and zone it differently than all the properties around it. Typically it's called a spot zone. All similarly situated properties should be zoned the same. Addressing the problem is the zoning ordinance amendment which will give them a legal conforming status with what they have. They will get a document recorded with their property that says they have a vested right in multi -family on this property. If it burns down they can rebuild it with the same number of units as what they had before. With this they have that option which, again, we've gone through this process...when the City incorporated we made almost all multi -family properties nonconforming, and that's why we created this thing in the first place, and we've probably put through, I don't know, a couple dozen properties through the process, because without it they did have a problem reselling and getting financing, getting insurance, etc. And every time we've done it, it's been successful, and again it solved that problem without creating an anomalous situation of one isolated parcel with a different zoning of all the properties around it, so... six of one, half a dozen of another. 57 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APR1L 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAS Should there be a problem with getting a new loan...would there be a problem with the bank? PD If we rezoned it and did not grant them...if we granted them the conforming status, then...in every case that I've aware of, it solved the problem, and typically that's how we learn about it. People learn about their nonconforming status, they try to sell it, there lender asks us what's it zoned for, we say it's ten units, it's got 20 units on it, they go uh-oh, what do we do, they come in, they go through the process. Some people have had to do some rehab as a result of it. It's been our best incentive for multi -family rehab that we've had in the City. We've probably had ten of them motivated by this thing. This particular property doesn't need it. A lot of properties just come in and say it's great, we go yes it's great, it goes to the Arch Comm, and we issue them a letter, it's recorded on the property, and then we don't hear from them again typically. JG I might also add that we weren't informed of this, either. We were never included in any of the meetings. RAS Does this answer your concerns (unclear). JG Yes, it does, because I don't see why we should have to go through all this hassle of filling in paperwork, paying out money, to conform when we're already legal. PD They'll have to go through a process with the Architectural Commission, submitting...typically they submit photographs, we go do a site visit, determine that yes this is in terms of its standard of maintenance it's conforming with what we expect, and then we issue the letter. So they do have to jump through a hoop. RAS Would they have to pay for that? JG Yes, we do. We've already been told that we have to. PD Yes, it's fifty dollars. RSK We could waive that if we want? PD We could waive it if we want. MJ I'm Matilda Jones, 1350 Manzanita, Palm Springs, owner of Palm Desert Palms Apartments, 77-979 Dudley Drive in Palm Desert. In October 1995 a citizens advisory committee was created for change of zoning and since the monthly meetings were performed at City Hall, we were not invited to participate or notified. In fact, we didn't know anything until the notice of the first public meeting. According to the Minutes of the Planning Commission March 18, there were various representatives of the various neighborhoods, and I really would like to know who was our representative and was 58 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RH there any other apartment owner also represented, and how was the representatives were selected. The staff recommended professional office zone and a petition was signed by residents of Cardiff Street. And I would ask what right do the residents of Cardiff Street have in deciding the change of zoning which does not affect them since their zoning will not be changed but definitely affect us by changing the zone of an already operating business. No one asked us to sign any petitions. There is a State code section that prohibits the City from damaging multi -family projects in residential zones without providing a remedy. I would like to know the price of this remedy. We already have inquired about it and included forms, fees, photos, etc., we don't know what next, maybe lawyers, I don't know. There was also another meeting in which horses be allowed on acre parcels in the RE zone. Well, again, we were not invited, and this definitely would affect our business, as the horse flies, by the way horse flies bite just like mosquitos, and others may not be a welcome feature for a prospective tenant or a present tenant trying to relax by the pool. Originally in the proposed change of zone we were not included, but Mr. Hill who owns three parcels and also, I think, a gentleman on Cardiff Street, Mr. Hill who has undeveloped land, wanted the zone also changed to office professional. And because of their wishes the proposed zoning was moved forward and now includes out building. Once again we were not aware of any of this. We are a legitimate business and this property has been there for eleven years. We have an apartment building, 40 units, complying with the multi -family zone. Mr. Hill has undeveloped land and no project or development plans in the near future. Chairperson Ferguson of the Committee said that the change in zoning would enhance the value of our property if we would like to convert or sell it. This property will never be able to be converted as the parking is designed for apartments, not for commercial. For commercial you probably would need three times the parking that is there now, parking for employees or customers. Second, a person will not buy a nonconforming building even if it's laid out, and I'm sure that many investors will think this way. If this zone is passed, out property will be difficult to sell, and its value will be reduced. We are not talking about a dilapidated building or an old building that you can just bulldoze away, but for eleven years our property has been in an excellent state of repair. Our tenants, 40 families, work and shop in Palm Desert, and they vote and they have rights, too. Anything that affects the property affects the tenant. We will soon be in the process of refinancing this property, but changing the zoning could affect the terms of our loan and interest could be more, which will be passed to our tenants in the effect of increased rents. When you change things, there's always a repercussion, and these days the repercussion is us, and I have a solution, that is to proceed with the original zoning and stop before our property, and Mr. Hill has no project at hand, but when he has one, then he will be able to apply to whatever zoning he wishes and then we probably will support him. Thank you very much. Raymond Hill again. Just in my own defense here, I seem to have been the scapegoat on this thing. And just for the record, I knew nothing about it. I knew nothing about any meetings, I received a notice the same as these folks did that there was going to be 59 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RSK a zoning change. I support the zoning change, it's an upgrade from my R-3 2,000, I support it, I am not the author. Thank you. Let me assure everyone that if there's any problem that anyone doesn't have an opportunity to participate, we'll continue it until you do have an opportunity to participate. We certainly aren't going to do something...our objective is to have the citizens give us input and be able to talk to everybody out there. JJ Well, that isn't what happened. People were talking a year ago. BAC Sir, you need to know, though, that decisions are made by the Planning Commission and by the Council. JJ Right. BAC And I assume you've been notified of both of those. JJ Correct, right, that's why we're here. My name is Jim Jones, 77-979 Dudley Drive. I'm one of the owners of Palm Desert Palms Apartments. I'm a business owner, operating a legal legitimate business in the City of Palm Desert. We're not rezoning a pawn shop out here. This whole process for which my apartment building is being rezoned to office really disturbs me. The first I heard about this was when I received the notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission. I called the Planning Department and was told don't worry about...the first person who answered the phone told me don't worry about it, it won't make any difference to you. On questioning that person further I was told to call Mr. Drell. I called Mr. Drell three or four times, my calls were not returned. So I went to the Planning Department to see Mr. Drell. While I was waiting I asked for the file and on looking through it I discovered that the City had been sponsoring meetings among other property owners literally asking them what they would like done with my property. Neither I nor my partners were invited to any of these meetings. I talked with Mr. Drell at the counter after I looked through the file at which he mentioned that in his opinion that office and apartments were a good mix. He also mentioned a way to make conforming use of...using an existing ordinance, and that's been discussed. He also said I should write a letter with my request. I wrote the letter requesting that our zoning remain unchanged and also requesting another meeting with him. While talking there he said that my neighbor wanted the change so obviously he had talked to him prior to that. My wife and I met with Mr. Drell on March the 10th in which Mr. Drell said that the OP zoning could finish at our property, now we're talking about March 10th. My wife wrote a letter to Mr. Drell March the 1 lth reiterating this recommendation. Now, either on March 17th or 18th, the 18th was the day of the Planning Commission, I received a call from Mr. Drell. He said I have good news and bad news, these are the words I'm using. The bad news is that his recommendation was going to be to include us now in the office professional zone. It seems that there had been a last minute deal made between our neighbors to the west 60 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * and some on Cardiff Street and we were being left out in the cold again. Now the good news was, and that's Mr. Drell's words, not mine, was that I can now go through some bureaucratic process and after that I would be back exactly where I am today. What was going to be the point in that, I mean we were going to be right back where we are. My wife said somebody putting me through all this aggravation, I really don't need it. On March the 18th I went to the Planning Commission meeting. I was surprised that when I asked if they had received our letters, the Commissioners sort of had a blank look, and the letters appeared to be passed out at that time. I continued to tallc, but nobody appeared to read the letters, and it seemed like they had already decided what they were going to decide. And the Chairman even called me by the wrong name. Now my name is Tim Jones, and nobody could possibly, you know, forget that. And as I left the meeting at the same time as Mr. McDowell and Mr. Hill, Mr. McDowell said to Mr. Hill, now you can make a lot of money with your land and some further conversation was held with Mr. Bill, you know, just chat, and I left that meeting. When I called and asked Mr. Drell about the process that we were now going to have to go through, he said I would have to fill out an application and pay fifty dollars, take photos now, and write out some dialogue concerning the property. All this to be back where I am today. As of right now, I'm still legally conforming in an R-3 zone. I cannot understand why I'm being put through all this aggravation. I'm providing housing that is obviously needed as as I speak the property is one hundred percent occupied. I mean there's a lot of apartment owners who would like to be saying that. Was any study done here to bear out the fact that apartments are needed in that area? I don't think so. I mean, we charge very reasonable rents, and while these buildings are no architectural masterpiece, and I'll be the first one to say that, this property is extremely well cared for, and Mr. Drell will attest to that. I don't think there's any argument on that point. But I certainly wouldn't build that structure I have today, but anyway that really isn't the point, what we have is well looked after, and we take pride in our property and consider ourselves and our property an asset to the City. We...and I want to read something else here that came from the original...I pulled out from the original file, RDA Project Area Specific Plan. This says here Washington Street Frontage...to a depth of three hundred feet, Washington Street frontage is zoned for multi -family use, the increase in traffic on Washington Street raises the question between the ultimate compatibility and the economic viability of small-scale multi -family development. Well, I mean, I've been in this business for about 30 years, and the more traffic there is on the street, the easier it is to rent the apartments, so I don't know who wrote this on economic viability. They obviously know nothing about that subject. That's ridiculous. And, also, in that same paperwork I pulled out, the project area, it is recommending an alternative to the OP zoning, which didn't include my property at that time anyway, was (unclear) R-3 and OP allowing the market to determine the ultimate use. Well, that's sort of the way we do things in America anyway, it's all, you know, the market drives what ultimately is to be somewhere. We appear to be left out of the loop here at every stage of the process. And I ask you that you now continue to leave us out of the loop and just leave us as we are, you 'know, as we are actually there. That's all I have to say except that I used to live in Bradbury, which is north of Arcadia, too, and I still own a home there, 61 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * and in the City of Bradbury there are more horses than there are people, okay, and it's close to Santa Anita track, and that's where a lot of the horses are kept, and, I mean, if we're going to have 150 horses over there, 100 horses over there, I mean, this will be a tremendous problem. It's not bad with...a one -acre lot would be small. Thank you. RSK Anyone else like to speak? JO Yes, Mayor Kelly and the rest of the City Council. Regarding these RE zoned one -acre parcels, this area was an old development, it's been there I believe in the neighborhood of some 30 years. The original intent is not quite clear since it was never maintained as a development per se. My wife and I have kept horses in Ventura County, and we've kept them here in the desert for some time. The reason we chose this particular area because it was rural in nature as you can see by, you know, witnessing it yourself, the discussion of having a great number of horses in this area is really quite ludicrous. I doubt that there are that many interested horse owners in the Valley that would be interested in this particular area because it is close to an urban area. The neighborhood is quite friendly, everybody knows everybody else within, certainly within their property lines, Mr. Webster and I are good friends, he lives across the street. Directly next to him, Edward Avila has lived there for some 25 years, kept horses on his property when his children were younger. Again, it's a matter of maintenance, it's a matter of understanding. If this area, which has been there for 25 years, 30 years, and has been zoned agriculture one, is that correct, 1 A Agriculture under the County zoning? PD No, it...maybe 30 years ago it was, but most recently it was zoned R-1 9,000, which I single family low density residential. JO And when was that changed to R-1 9,000, do you know? PD I'm not sure, but it's been that way for probably at least ten years. JO Okay. PD Again, by evidence of the fact that you've seen where a lot of the lots have been subdivided, a number of them have been subdivided in that zoning, how it got changed is not... JO Well, seeing as how this area is considered for the first residential estates zoning in the City of Palm Desert, it sets a tremendous precedence that I think this City Council needs to really recognize and hopefully we'll see something similar to this in the future, if not in a large development, in a smaller scale such as occurs in Rancho Mirage, has an equestrian nature to it in some parts of it, Desert Hot Springs as well, certainly in Indio and some of the other surrounding communities. I'd hate to see Palm Desert excluded 62 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * from this opportunity for development and for recognition within the Valley. Thank you. RSK Anyone else that hasn't had an opportunity? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. RAS Well, I'm going to try to say what I heard, and you tell me if I'm right or wrong. As I understand it, this area really hasn't been zoned properly for some time so because of the meetings that we all had with, we thought, representatives of the residents of the area, we put together, we the Planning Department, put together a zoning plan to try to bring into conformity the whole area that wanted to become part of the City. PD Correct, as best we could. RAS There are parts that are residential that really need to be in the overall plan zoned office professional residential because they are surrounded by office professional residential. PD Yes. Mr. Jones is correct, the option of, one, keeping it multi -family on Washington was discussed, the option of allowing, as we said, a mixture was discussed. I guess I should...obviously this is a huge area. We could not have a representative of every single property owner... RAS I understand that. I was there. PD ...there, and therefore we got the best we could and then we have a hearing process where we do inform everybody. RAS You had the public hearings after the... PD Right, we had smaller groups and then...so, that's how that works. Right, the consensus of the group was the long-range plan for Washington was professional office. RAS Okay. PD Acknowledging, again it was specifically discussed, we have some multi -family projects that have become nonconforming, and that's a problem based on our experience, and we talked about that in the committee and determined that the remedy was the remedy that we'd used before for the last twelve years and, right, it's consistent with State law. State law specifically does say you can't damage a multi -family project through the zoning process without providing a remedy. We provided a remedy. So this was something that we initially we recognized and discussed in the meeting, I see the Chairman's here if he wants to comment on it, but the consensus of those there was this is what we feel the long-range goal of the area should be, and now we're having the hearings, the hearings which everyone knows... MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCLL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAS So basically what you're saying is that whatever is there, if it's up to standard, is grandfathered. PD It has a specific recorded statement from the City that says this is a legal conforming use under the zoning ordinance of the City of Palm Desert. RAS Like I said, it's grandfathered. PD It's more than grandfathered. RAS Alright, more than grandfathered. PD Better than grandfathered. RSK Better than being grandfathered? PD Yes. They have a vested right in their current development. RAS So if there's concern about refinancing, this should have no effect on that. PD In our experience, and we've run into this again, in each one of these cases it has solved the problem. RAS But what we've asked of these people that are in nonconforming under the new zoning situation that they come in and they apply for some variance that would require a fifty dollar... PD Right, they have to demonstrate that they are currently maintained to a reasonable standard. RAS Right. Then it would be my recommendation that we rezone as requested by Planning Department with the stipulation that anyone that has to go through this process be done without a fee. RSK And assisted... PD Correct. RAS Through the process. PD Right. It takes usually a couple of weeks. I guess they've made the application, we could refund their money. 64 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCII. MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BAC Could we also take the photographs that the Joneses have submitted and use those as evidence of the well -kept nature of the project so that no one has to even bother to go take photographs or anything? PD We would take the photographs... BAC Oh. PD I believe they've already submitted... BAC They're right here in my hand. PD Oh, okay, if those are the photographs...again, I went and inspected the property two weeks ago, well actually before the Planning Commission, and determined yes, and I informed them in my opinion it was well maintained and would not require any improvement. RSK In other words, we're going to make it so there's not any problem. We're going to set it up... PD Yes, and it's just a process before the Architectural Commission and again it's kind of historically very painless. I'd like to....the other issue, as long we we're resolving issues, is relative to the 20-foot buffer and how you want that dealt with is the other thing you probably should address. RAS Well, I think you need to come back with a recommendation on that and also a recommendation, from my standpoint, on the horses, based on the... PD Exactly, the horses section, which is the RE zone. RAS Yes, I don't think we should do anything about either one of those until we get a recommendation. That's my own personal feeling. RSK So you addressed three different things there. One is the nonconformancy, the other one is the horses, and the other one is the 20-foot buffer. RAS It's the 20-foot buffer. I think that's the only thing that's questionable in this... PD And we could reconsult with Mr. Emanuel and the people from Gallery Series Homes and discuss with them, and I guess some of them are here, and they can relate that...this direction should be more of a general policy recommendation to be implemented at the time of a precise plan. BAC Yes. 65 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAS Okay. WHS You'll see to it that you assist these people in anything that has to be done to get the letter that you set forth that we'll give them...that's correct? PD That's correct, and again I've talked to Mr. Jones three or four times by phone, I've met with him in person three times. WHS Well, we've got photographs. PD And, again, I agree that his property is conforming and should not have a problem. He'll be on the next Architectural Commission Agenda. WHS To make a short story out of it, we'll help and see that it's taken care of. PD Yes, without questions. RSK Just tell us that you're going to take care of it. PD We'll take care of it. I mean, we are taking care of it. RAS Alright, so I move that we waive further reading and adopt the resolution with these stipulations. JMB On the three issues. PD Yes. JMB I'll second. RSK Any other discussion? Would you please vote. MPG The motion carries by unanimous vote. WHS Hope you're happy. DJE Was your motion intended to include all four action items? RAS Yes. PD One, I think the...but on the horses, we're going to come back to you, so on the zoning ordinance amendment for the RE zone, we should continue it for 30 days. RSK Was that part of that motion? 66 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAS Yes, it was. JMB Yes. RSK I think we need to take a five-minute break before we do Redevelopment. BAC Out of curiosity, Mr. Drell, could someone keep...their are a variety of people who ride, and I'm not meaning to be facetious, there are people who ride mules. Could they keep a mule? Is this an equestrian ordinance? PD Interesting question. Again, we talked about the general issue of livestock. BAC I'm not talking about livestock, I'm talking about... PD That could be an issue we'll address in the meeting. BAC Because I have friends who wouldn't sit on a horse because of the ne'er-do-well nature of them but consider riding this other animal to be a fine idea. PD That's something we'll address. For purposes of clarification, the City Council took the following action: 1) Adopted findings and approved a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2) waived further reading and adopted Resolution No, 97-31 approving GPA 97-1, (Project Area 4 Specific Plan); 3) waived further reading and passed Ordinance No. 839 to second reading approving C/Z 97-3; 4) continued Ordinance No. $44 (ZOA 97-2)to the meeting of May 8, 1997; and 5) waived further reading and passed Ordinance No. $41 (ZOA 97-3)to second reading. These actions were approved with the stipulation that staff will do everything it can to assist people in getting the letter of nonconforming use at no charge. XIX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D Mayor Kelly recognized the Chair of the Project Area Four Committee, seated in the audience, for all the hard work she has done. He also expressed appreciation to all of the other members of the Committee on behalf of the entire City Council. XX. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Crites, and unanimous vote of the City Council, Mayor Kelly adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. to Closed Session, said Closed Session to be held immediately following adjournment of the Redevelopment Agency meeting. 67 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Kelly reconvened the meeting at 10:35 p.m. and immediately adjourned with no action announced from Closed Session. ATTEST: i SHEILA R. GILGAN, CIT ERK CITY OF PALM DESERT I_ RICHARD S. LY, M YOR 68