The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-06-26MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelly convened the meeting at 4:25 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Pro Tempore Jean M. Benson Councilman Walter H. Snyder Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Richard S. Kelly Excused Absence Councilman Buford A. Crites 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 Steve Smith, Planning Manager III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MR. PE1'E FREESTONE, 72-761 Tamarisk Street, Palm Desert, questioned why the City Council was considering donating an additional $40,000 to the McCallum Theatre since it had already donated $800,000 in the past year ($500,000 in a loan and $300,000 to support a summer program last year). Mayor Kelly stated that there was a rather lengthy explanation and said he would like for the City Manager to send a letter to Mr. Freestone explaining the reasons behind that. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of June 12, 1997. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. CLAIMS S AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 64 and 65. Rec: Approve as presented. C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#336) by Angela P. Moritz in the Amount of $15,927.47 to Date. D. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Jack O. Wise and Ruth Eilene Wise for Smoky's, 72-990 El Paseo, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. E-1. MINUTES of the Housing Advisory Committee Meeting of April 9, 1997. Rec: Receive and file. E-2. MINUTES of the Citizens Advisory Committee for Project Area No. 4 Meetings of March 17 and April21, 1997. Rec: Receive and file. F. RESOLUTION NO. 97-42 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, Setting Forth Its Findings and Authorizing the Destruction of Files from the Department of Building and Safety that have been Microfilmed (May 1997). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. G-1. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for Installation of Thermoplastic Striping and Pavement Markings on Various Streets (Contract No. C13030). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for installation of thermoplastic striping and pavement markings on various streets. G-2. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Design, Advertise, and Ca11 for Bids for the Construction of Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Fred Waring Drive and San Pascual Avenue (Contract Nos. C13040 and C13050). Removed for separate consideration under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. See that section of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * G-3. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for Production of the City's 1998 Community Calendar (Contract No CLi06)). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for production of the City's 1998 Community Calendar (Contract No. C13060). H-1 REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Resurfacing of El Paseo between Portola Avenue and Highway 74 (Project No. 752-97, Contract No. C12840). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award Contract No. C12840 to Matich Corporation of San Bernardino in the amount of $327,752.50 for the El Paseo resurfacing and authorize a ten percent contingency in the amount of $32,775.25; 2) authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Matich Corporation. H-2. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BIT) for Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Alternative Fuel Pickup Trucks. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the bid for two OEM alternative fueled pickup trucks to Bob Wondries Ford, Alhambra, in the amount of $49,148.25; 2) authorize the appropriation of $49,148.25 from the unobligated Year 2000 fund for the purchase. H-3. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for the Curb, Gutter, and Cross Gutter Repair Program (Project No. 753-97, Contract No. C12830). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award Contract No. C12830 to J.D.C., Inc. of Rancho Cucamonga in the amount of $233,347.50 for the curb, gutter, and cross gutter repair program (Project No. 753-97) and authorize a ten percent contingency of $23,334.75; 2) authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with J.D.C., Inc. H-4. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID for Fleet Maintenance Services (Contract No. C12880). Rec: By Minute Motion, award the bid for fleet maintenance services to M & N Mobil Service Center (Palm Desert Mobil), 73-611 Highway 111, Palm Desert (Contract No. C12880). H-5. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for 1997 Slurry Seal Program (Project No. 751-97 Phase II, Contract No. C12350). Rec: By Minute Motion, award Contract No. C12350 to California Pavement Maintenance Company of San Diego in the amount of $108,939.25 plus a ten percent contingency of $10, 893.92 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. Funds are available from Account No. 110-4311-433-3320. 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * H-6. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID for Fleet Vehicle Washing (Contract No. C12$90). Rec: By Minute Motion, award the Contract to Five Star Emerald Shine, Palm Desert, for fleet washing services. I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract with Kaiser Permanente to Provide Health Maintenance Benefits that will Replace Pacificare (Contract No C13070). Removed for separate consideration under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. See that section of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. J. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Monterey Avenue at I-10 Interchange Construction Cooperative Agreement between the State of California (Caltrans District 08), County of Riverside, and City of Palm Desert (Contract No. C13080). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve and execute the Monterey Avenue at I-10 Interchange Construction Cooperative Agreement between the State of California, County of Riverside, and City of Palm Desert. K. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract with Elite Racing (Contract No. C13.4QQ). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Contract NO C13090 in the amount of $55,000 with Elite Racing for production of the 1997 Palm Desert 5K Run and authorize the Mayor to execute same. L. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION of Graffiti Removal Contract with Sunline Services Group (Contract No C08323). Rec: By Minute Motion, renew the graffiti removal agreement with Sunline Services Group (SSG) for one year in the amount of $54,782.52 ($4,565.21 per month). M. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION of Presidents Plaza Sweeping Contract (Contract No. C06805). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize a twelve month extension with M & M Sweeping in the amount of $4,260.00 ($355.00 per month) for power sweeping of the Presidents Plaza parking lots, Contract No. C06805. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 (Irrigation Retrofit) to Contract No. C12080 - Monterey Avenue Sidewalk (Project No. 697-97). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C12080 for additional construction (irrigation retrofit) in the amount of $32,300.00; 2) approve additional amount of $32,300.00 to Contract No. C12080 from the Sidewalk Improvement Account #400-4616-433-4001. O. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C12360 - Highway 111 and Highway 74 Intersection Improvements (Project No. 626) for Additional Engineering Design Services. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C12360 in the amount of $14,500.00 for additional engineering services for Highway 111 between Highway 74 and San Pablo Avenue; 2) approve additional amount of $14,500.00 to Contract No. C12360 from Project Account No. 213-4387-433-4001. P. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Ms. Piper Close from the City's Promotion Committee. Rec: Receive with sincere regret. BEQUESTIO.KWAIIER of Drainage Fees for Tract No. 27710 - The Reserve. Removed for separate consideration under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. See that section of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. Q. R. LETTER from City of Monrovia Requesting Support of AB1151 (Goldsmith) Relative to Implementation of Daytime Curfews as a Tool to Combat Pre -Delinquent Behavior Among Youth. Removed for separate consideration under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. See that section of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. Councilmember Benson asked that Item Q be removed for separate discussion under Section VII. Mayor Kelly requested that Items G-2, I, and R also be removed for separate consideration. Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Snyder, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the City Council. 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * V. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 97-43 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REVISING THE APPOINTMENT DATE FOR ALL CITY COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS AND ESTABLISHING A RESIDENT POLICY FOR COMMITIEF./COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS. Mrs. Gilligan reviewed the staff report, noting that the recommendation for the change in appointment date from September 1 each year to January 1 each year had been determined to be more conducive to the new application process. She said this resolution also accommodated a concern that the Council had expressed over the last several years that because there are so many applications from Palm Desert residents, they should have priority in receiving appointments. She added that it also gave Council the leeway to appoint non-residents to fill positions where a particular expertise is needed. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-43. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. B. RESOLUTION NO. 97-44 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 34. Mr. Diaz stated that this was part of the Canyons at Bighorn project which would be heard later this evening. Councilmember Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-44. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. C. RESOLUTION NO.97-45 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CERTAIN COVENANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (PROJECT AREA NO. 1, AS AMENDED), SERIES 1997, OF THE PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY. Mr. Diaz noted the report and recommendation in the packets. Councilman Spiegel questioned the second paragraph of the staff report and the statement that "The need for the resolution arises from the possibility that the City, in the future, may approve an arrangement for the use of the Desert Willow Golf Course which could adversely affect the tax-exempt status of the Authority's 1992 bond issue." 6 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Ortega stated that the Redevelopment Agency financed the Desert Willow North Course as tax-exempt use, for public use, which meant that the Agency could not contract with a private hotel developer to have any rights to it. Since a refunding is now being done, now is an appropriate time to set up the refunding so that if in the future the City wanted to enter into such an agreement, all it would have to do is notify the Agency before it did so and, based on how the financing is set up, that portion of the bonds could be cashed out. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-45. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. VI. ORDINANCES For Introduction: A. ORDINANCE NO. 844 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.36.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHING NEW SPEED ZONES (Fred Waring Drive from Cook Street to Elkhorn Trail). Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. Councilman Spiegel questioned the current speed limit on this portion of Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Folkers responded that the portion from Cook Street to Eldorado was currently 50 miles per hour, and the portion from Eldorado to Elkhorn was 45 miles per hour. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. $44 to second reading. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Councilmember Benson suggested that when this is published in the newspaper that it be made very clear what the speed limits are in what areas so that people are not confused. Mr. Folkers stated that he would work with the City Clerk on this. B. ORDINANCE NO. 845 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.36.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHING NEW SPEED ZONES (Fred Waring Drive from Elkhorn Trail to Washington Street). Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 845 to second reading. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. 7 NIINUTFS REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 840 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT CHAPTER 25.14 (RE - RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT), Case No. ZOA 97-2. Mayor Kelly stated he had voted against this ordinance at the last meeting because he felt this whole area is nothing like it was when this original zoning was put there. He said he felt this was an idea time to clean up the area and grandfather in the horses that area already there. He added that he would vote against it at this time also. Councilmember Benson moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 840. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-1 vote, with Mayor Kelly voting NO. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER G-2. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Design, Advertise, and Call for Bids for the Construction of Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Fred Waring Drive and San Pascual Avenue (Contract Nos. C13040 and C13050). Mayor Kelly stated that since this was such a controversial intersection, he was curious to know what would be done at that location. Mr. Folkers stated that staff had been looking at what could be done to provide a safe pedestrian crossing and yet not encourage traffic to go up into the neighborhoods to the north and south. He said as a result of stop signs installed on San Pascual to the north at different intersections, the amount of traffic going through there had been reduced. This plan would provide a safe pedestrian crossing on Fred Waring where traffic would actually be stopped. He added that the only time the crossing would be activated is by a pedestrian pushing the button for the light to change and traffic to stop. Mayor Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Authorize the design of pedestrian safety improvements at Fred Waring Drive and San Pascual Avenue (Contract No. C13040); 2) authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the construction of pedestrian safety improvements at Fred Waring Drive and San Pascual Avenue (Contract No. C13050); 3) authorize the appropriation of $92,400.00 from the unallocated street fund reserve. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAI. of Contract with Kaiser Permanente to Provide Health Maintenance Benefits that will Replace Pacificare (Contract No. C13070). Mayor Kelly stated that he did not have a problem with this and moved to, by Minute Motion, approve Contract No. C13070 with Kaiser Permanente to provide health maintenance benefits to replace Pacificare, which canceled coverage effective July 1, 1997. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. Q. REQUEST FOR WAVER of Drainage Fees for Tract No. 27710 - The Reserve. Councilmember Benson questioned the waiver of the drainage fees and said she felt this was a large amount. Mr. Folkers responded that the City would benefit by the hardened channel that will be put in Indian Wells that will affect Palm Desert. There will also be drainage improvements along Portola that will affect Palm Desert. He added that the developer will basically be putting in a lot more improvements than the amount of fees that the City would be charging. Councilmember Benson expressed concern that this will also be affecting the City of Indian Wells, and since the majority of the project is in Indian Wells, she felt that city should be contributing as well. MR. TED LENNON, President of Lowe Reserve Corporation, 72-058 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, reviewed the drainage improvements, noting that this project would be taking in all of the drainage from Ironwood Country Club and other areas of Palm Desert into the project. He stated that the City of Indian Wells would pay $4.5 million in tax increment. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize a credit of the applicable drainage fees for this subdivision against construction costs for subdivision drainage improvements. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-1 vote, with Councilmember Benson voting NO. R. J.FXTR.8 from City of Monrovia Requesting Support of AB1151 (Goldsmith) Relative to Implementation of Daytime Curfews as a Tool to Combat Pre -Delinquent Behavior Among Youth. Mayor Kelly stated he felt this was an excellent piece of legislation and asked if it was necessary to refer this matter to staff. Mayor Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to prepare a letter in support of this legislation. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL • OF CONTRACT NOS C.131Q0 AND C 1311 Q WITH PUBLICITY UNLIMITED FOR ADVERTISING SERVICES AND NEWS BUREAU SERVICES, RESPECTIVELY. Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and stated that City Clerk Sheila Gilligan was available to answer any questions. Councilman Spiegel stated that it was his understanding that the contract was for the same amount at last year. Mrs. Gilligan responded that the advertising contract was $2,000.00 more, and the news bureau contract was $2,000.00 less than last year. Upon question by Mayor Kelly, Mrs. Gilligan responded that this did not include the newsletter which was included in the budget and would be contracted for separately. She noted that this agency stepped in at a very difficult time when the City lost is advertising agency and that Publicity Unlimited had done an outstanding job, both with the news bureau and the ad agency. She said it was a pleasure to work with this company and a pleasure to recommend approval of the contracts. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve Contract Nos. C13100 and C13110 and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded by Benson with a comment that it had been a distinct pleasure to work with Publicity Unlimited during the past year and that the agency had worked very well with the Promotion Committee. Motion carried by unanimous vote. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO THE NOVEMBER 4, 1997, COUNCILMANIC ELECTION. Mrs. Gilligan reviewed the staff report, noting that Resolution No. 97-55 called for the November 4, 1997, Councilmanic election for two members of the City Council as well as submitted a measure to the voters of Palm Desert relative to whether or not the City should become a Charter City. Resolution 97-56 made provision for the filing of written arguments regarding the City measure and directed the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. She stated that Resolution No. 97-57 made provisions for rebuttal arguments to the arguments and that the City had never adopted this particular resolution in the past but that it was being made available to the Council should it decide change past practice. The last Resolution, No. 97-58, established regulations for candidates for elective office. She reminded the Council that when it adopted the expenditure ceiling ordinance, it also made provision for the payment of candidates' statements in the sample ballot. She noted that this resolution reflected that change. She said staff recommended adoption of Resolution Nos. 97-55, 97-56, and 97-58, with Resolution No. 97-57 solely at the discretion of the City Council. 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Snyder moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution Nos. 97-55, 97-56, and 97-58, with no action taken on Resolution No. 97-57. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAT. OF FINAL DESIGN AND ESTIMATE FOR THE SOCCER FACILITY, APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE AND SOLICIT BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOCCER FACILITY, AND ADOPTION OF "PALM DESERT SOCCER PARK" AS THE FACILITY'S OFFICIAL NAME. Associate Planner Jeff Winklepleck noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the final design and estimate for the soccer facility; 2) authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids for the construction of the soccer facility (Package "B"); 3) adopt "Palm Desert Soccer Park" as the facility's official name. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Upon question by Mayor Kelly relative to timing, Mr. Winklepleck responded that if staff did not wait until November to see if the voters approve the charter city issue, the soccer park was estimated to be ready in February or March; however, if staff waited until November to see whether Palm Desert becomes a charter city, the facility would not be ready until some time in late August or September. This would be in time for the next soccer season which runs from late September or early October and runs through December. Mayor Kelly stated he felt the value of having this facility on line six months sooner more than compensated for the possible cost savings as a result of the election. Councilman Spiegel stated that as he read the staff report, the City stands to save between $240,000 and $400,000 if the City becomes a charter city in November. Mr. Winklepleck agreed that this was a possibility. MR. VAN TANNER, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, stated that he had been involved with youth soccer and baseball for the last 12 years. He agreed that the City could save from $240,000 to $400,000 if the City becomes a charter city as a result of the November 4th election. He said the normal soccer season for the youth in the Valley begins in September for practice, with the season itself starting the end of September or first part of October. It then runs through the month of December, with tournament play beginning in January. If this soccer facility is opened in January, the tournament itself would generate approximately $30,000 for the City for use of hotels/motels, eateries, etc. Once January ends, he said the normal soccer season also ends; however, that doesn't mean that adult and club soccer leagues do not continue. He said tournaments could be hosted here, and this facility would provide that opportunity. He noted that he was speaking both personally and for the Parks and Recreation Commission in stating that he was not opposed to putting this off until November to save the 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * City money; however, they were not convinced by putting this off that the City would actually save that much money by doing so, and this would have to be a decision made by the Council. Mayor Kelly asked if it would be possible to bid the project both ways. Mr. Winklepleck stated that his understanding was that bids were good for 30 days only. Mr. Diaz expressed concern with the timing. He said in talking with the City Attorney, bidding it both ways would be counterproductive because of the time involved and could result in some problems. He suggested going out to bid and asking the Council to make a decision after the figures are received. Mr. Tanner noted that there was a five-day Gold Cup tournament currently held at Eldorado Polo Club, and the City might be able to get a part of that tournament to be played at the new Palm Desert facility. This would bring in a lot of revenue to the City in the way of hotel/motel, restaurants, etc. He added that the Palm Desert facility would be used for ten out of twelve months each year. Councilman Spiegel said he would prefer to wait until November to see what the voters decide relative to the charter city issue. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids for the construction of the soccer facility, with the Council to make a decision relative to actual construction once bids are opened and results revealed. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Kelly noted that he had an item which he requested be added to the Agenda dealing with water features in the Civic Center Park. Councilman Spiegel moved to add this item to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Kelly reviewed the staff report relative to two water features (rainbow and sunflowers) for the Civic Center Park tot lot area. Mr. Winklepleck added that the design would incorporate the spongy safety matting similar to what is in the smaller area of the tot lot which would protect the children if they do slip and fall. He stated that according to the manufacturer, the original site selected did not provide sufficient room, and a new site was selected which had sufficient room, easier accessibility to water, power, and sewer, and no concrete demolition would have to be done. He added that the Vortex Aquatic Services International representative indicated that this project could be done for under $40,000. Councilman Spiegel stated it was his understanding that if someone gets hurt out at the tot lot, the City is insured, and Mr. Winklepleck agreed. Councilman Spiegel asked whether the City 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * would be insured if someone were to get hurt at the water feature. Mr. Winklepleck responded that it was his understanding that as long as the City conforms to the safety standards, it will be insured as if it were a playground. Risk Manager Ken Weller stated that under the general liability policy with JPIA, the City would be covered for all park uses, including this use. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the water features as described in the staff report dated June 25, 1997, in the amount of $40,000, appropriate said monies from developer fees, authorize staff to advertise and call for bids for the project, and authorize the Mayor to accept the bid and enter into a contract. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. OF CHANGE IN VISION SERVICE PLAN PROVIDER TO HCM MUNICIPALITY BENEFITS POOL EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1997, WITH NO CHANGE IN CURRENT PLAN OF BENEFITS (July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1999). Mr. Diaz noted the staff report in the packets and stated that the vision policy would be exactly the same as we have currently but that the City would save money by being in a municipal pool of 11,000 members. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Diaz responded that the savings would be approximately $9,000 per year. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the change in vision service plan provider to HCM Municipality Benefits Pool effective July 1, 1997, with no change in current plan of benefits (Contract No. C13120). Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. E. REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIQN OF FUNDS FOR THE COVE COMMUNITY CmES TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HENWOOD ENERGY SERVICES, INC. FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ON ELECTRIC INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING (Contract No. C13130). Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report, noting that this was Palm Desert's share of the cost to engage the firm as part of the Cove Commission's study on energy services and usage. He stated that the Cove Commission had reviewed three firms and determined that Henwood Energy Services, Inc. should be retained. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Diaz responded that the results of the study would be shared with Palm Desert residents in the City's newsletter. Mayor Kelly stated that it was his understanding that the firm conducting the study is not eligible to bid on the system, and Mr. Diaz agreed that the firm doing the study cannot bid on the result. 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the appropriation of $72,975.25 for the Cove Community cities to enter into an agreement with Henwood Energy Services, Inc. for consulting services on electric industry restructuring. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. F. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS; 1. Update on Interchanges: a. I-10/Washington Street b. I-10/Monterey Avenue Mr. Folkers updated the Council on the status of both of these interchanges. He added that a ribbon cutting for the Monterey interchange had been tentatively been scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on August 20. Upon question by Mayor Kelly, Mr. Folkers responded that traffic would also be moving on the Washington Street interchange in August. 2. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies Mr. Diaz stated that the committee was continuing discussions with the Palm Desert Town Center representative relative to revitalization and upgrade. He said the Economic Development Committee had received a report from a group proposing to take care of Palms to Pines East and upgrade it. He also reported that the City had retained the services of Ms. Ruth Ann Moore to be the City's new Business Service Center Manager and that she would be on board on July 21 st. 3. Preparation of the City of Palm Desert Charter NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS LISTED ON AN AGENDA ADDENDUM POSTED 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. OF AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES (CONTRACT NO. C06895). Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report, noting that this would increase the level of staffing to add six positions for Palm Desert. Councilman Spiegel stated that it was good that the City would be able to get these officers on board immediately and that normally it would take several months while the officers go through training. 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the amendment and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT OF THE DESERT FOR SERVICE RATE INCREASE. Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and recommendation. He noted that last year's increase was absorbed for the residential areas and that Council could do the same type of absorption of this year's increase. Councilman Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-54 authorizing the following: a) adoption of the new solid waste collection and residential recycling service rate structure with Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase of .8% submitted by Waste Management of the Desert (Exhibit "A"), with the City to absorb the residential additional expenses; b) rescission of Resolution No. 96-56 pertaining to the RCWRMD's landfill tipping fee increase and the solid waste collection and residential recycling service charge increase, respectively; 2) By Minute Motion, direct the City's franchised waste hauler, Waste Management of the Desert, to remit funds collected under the RCWRMD's landfill tipping fee reduction to the City for deposit in a special fund entitled "Waste and Recycling Fee". Motion was seconded by Benson. MR. PAUL VOTH, 43-683 Marigold, asked why Western Waste, which is already about $2.50 per month cheaper than Waste Management, has not applied for a rate increase. MR. PAUL FREESTONE, 72-761 Tamarisk Street, stated that he was pleased that the Council had agreed to absorb the rate increase of .8% for residents. He said during recent discussions with several different city managers, he found that the citizens of Palm Desert are already paying the highest rate for trash service of the six cities served by Waste Management. He said the low rates appeared to be $9.90 per month for Cathedral City for automated service which costs $13.58 in Palm Desert for the same service. He said La Quinta residents paid $9.92, with Indio paying $10.60 per month for unlimited trash pickup by manual service. He said the City of Indian Wells had walk-in service charging $11.69 per month for unlimited trash, and Rancho Mirage residents paid $13.28 per month for 96 gallons twice per week. He said he was aware that dump fees had been reduced by $8.50 since the time Palm Desert contracted for the new automated system, and this is a big savings for Waste Management. He questioned whether Waste Management's cost of doing business in the City had really gone up. He said he was also led to believe that the City paid for the automated trash cans; however, Waste Management has indicated that it paid for them and that they were roughly $55.00 per month. He said the fact that residents have an option of $7.22 per month service is part of the reason he was paying $11.68 per month for trash service. He said he understood Waste Management saying that trash cans have to be replaced; however, he felt it was the Waste Management drivers who were destroying the trash cans, not the residents, as the cans are slammed down very hard. He said if Waste Management was having a problem with replacement and the cost, 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * they needed to look in-house. He noted that everyone was aware that several dumps in the Valley had closed and that now everything goes to Edom Hill. He said because Waste Management's corporate yard was in Palm Desert, their round trip service to service the residents was actually less miles traveled than to go to the other cities, especially in La Quinta and Indio. He noted he had had long conversations with Tom Freeman of Waste Management and had offered suggestions on how he could cut the company's costs, such as using transponders. Mayor Kelly called for the vote. The motion carried by unanimous vote. X. OLD BUSINESS None XI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER Mr. Diaz stated that two items had come up after the Agenda was posted, and he requested that they be added for discussion and action. He said the two items were a contract with Indigo Productions/Kemper Golf relative to the "Going Low" program and a request to proceed with palm tree trimming. Councilman Spiegel moved to add these items to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. 1. Consideration of Contract with Indigo Productions/Kemper Golf Relative to the "Going Low" Program. Mr. Diaz stated that Ms. Piper Close of Kemper was working with the contractor, Indigo Productions, along with the City Attorney and himself. He said there was no increase of funds requested but that there was a timing problem in terms of getting things going. He said the request was for authorization to execute the contract subject to final approval by the City Attorney and Mayor. Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute the contract subject to final approval by the City Attorney and Mayor. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. 2. Request for Approval to Proceed with Palm Tree Trimming (Contract No. C12750). Mr. Diaz stated that two bids had been received, with the low bid from Andy's Tree Service. He said staff was requesting that Council approve execution of the contract 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * in order to get a two -week jump on the trimming of the palm trees. He said there were approximately 1,6,35 palm trees in the City that required trimming and that the total bid was in the amount of $20,437.00 or $12.50 per tree. He added that the second bidder was $16.00 per tree. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, award the bid to Andy's Tree Service in the amount of $20,437.00 ($12.50 per tree) and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract (Contract No. C12750). Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Erwin requested a Closed Session at an appropriate time to consider the items as listed on the Agenda. He asked that Council also consider adding three items that had arisen since the Agenda was posted as follows: Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): Palm Desert vs. Developers Insurance Company, Superior Court - Indio, Case No. 59393 Kenmor Enterprises vs. City of Palm Desert, Municipal Court, Case No. 084151 Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation pursuant to Section 54956.9: Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c): Number of potential cases: 1 Councilman Spiegel moved to add these items to the Closed Session. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. 1) Report and Action on Items from Closed Session Made at This Meeting. 2) Request for Closed Session Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): City of Palm Desert v. REFCO Capital Corporation, et al, United States District Court, Central District, Case No. CV92-7632 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation pursuant to Government -- Code Section 54956.9: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b): Number of potential cases: C. CITY CLERK Mrs. Gilligan noted a memorandum distributed to the Council relative to changing the order of the Agenda. She said that unless she heard differently, these changes would be implemented beginning with the Agenda of July 10, 1997. D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: 1. Request for Consideration of City Council Retiree Health Care (Councilman Walter H. Snyder). Councilman Snyder asked that this matter be continued to an indefinite date inasmuch as it had been determined the matter needed additional study. With Council concurrence, this matter was withdrawn at this time. • o City Council Committee Reports: 1. Mayor Kelly stated that all of the cities in Riverside County and the five Supervisors met Monday to discuss reorganization of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. He said it was decided to have a representative from every city on the Transportation Commission and also to protect the cities and the County a provision was agreed upon to have division of the house so that the County would have to pass an item separately from the cities or there would not be any action. He said the cities' vote would be based both on the number of cities and population. He added that the only thing left to decide was whether the County Supervisors could have a proxy vote because each of the cities could send an alternate, one of the other elected officials, while the Supervisors do not have any other elected officials. He said he did not see a problem with approving this. XII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * With Council concurrence, Mayor Kelly adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. for dinner and Closed Session. He reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. XIII. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION None XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C None XV. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINTMENT TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMri i LE. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Mr. Stuart Davis to the Economic Development Advisory Committee as a restauranteur manager. He noted that Mr. Davis was the owner of City Wok restaurant. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. B. PRESENTATION TO PALM DESERT EXPLORER POST 507. Mayor Kelly expressed his appreciation to Palm Desert Explorer Post 507 and said that during any kind of special events the City has, these young people are very active and provide an invaluable service in helping with traffic, parking, etc. On behalf of the City Council, he presented each of the explorers with a shirt in appreciation of all they have done for the City. XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF CITY MANAGER/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PROPOSED FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 (JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Mayor/Chairman Kelly declared the public hearing =en. Finance Director Paul Gibson reviewed the staff report and recommendation. He noted revisions outlined in a memorandum distributed to the Council which included all of the changes requested by Council at the June 1 lth budget study session. He noted several items that the Council did not state a specific dollar amount, including: 1) Business Support - additional $22,500 for conferences and seminars and $7,000 for furniture; 2) Community Promotions - additional $6,500 for Historical Society staffing; 3) Risk Management - additional $10,000 for low watt radio coverage in north part of the City. He said the General Fund 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * revenues being approved would amount to $24,123,490, and the General Fund expenditures would amount to $23,285,529. Mayor/Chairman Kelly invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman/Member Spiegel moved to: 1) Approve the factors used in calculating the Gann Limit per discussion and waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-46 adopting the 1997-98 Appropriation Limit at $39,013,714 as per calculation: 2) waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-47 adopting a program and financial plan for the fiscal year July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998; 3) waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. .1, adopting the 1997-98 Fiscal Year Budget for the Redevelopment Agency; 4) waive further reading and adopt Resolution No 97-48 setting the salary schedule, salary ranges, and allocated classifications. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT PALM DESERT SHOULD BECOME A CHARTER CITY. Mr. Diaz stated that staff had worked on the proposed charter for some time now and had the draft charter completed. He said staffs recommendation would be to proceed with submitting this to the voters in November and letting them determine whether Palm Desert should be charter city. He said the principle benefit as staff saw it was the flexibility the City would have in terms of operation of the City and greater control in terms of the way things are done in Sacramento that could impact us. Councilman Spiegel asked what percentage of California's population live in charter cities. Environmental Conservation Manager Lisa Constande responded that over 50% of California's population live in charter cities. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to place an item on the ballot for the November 4, 1997, Councilmanic election, relative to the issue of whether or not Palm Desert should become a charter city. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 (RESIDENTIAL) TO urriur. PROFESSIONAL AND A PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A 1,581 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE INTO AN OFFICE LOCATED AT 44-835 DEEP CANYON, Case Nos. C/Z 97-7, PP 97-7 (Andrew Pierce Corporation/Gary Lohman, Applicant). Planning Technician Martin Alvarez reviewed the staff report, noting that the applicant's request for a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional was consistent with the Palma Village Specific Plan. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the change of zone at its meeting of June 3, 1997. With regard to the precise plan, he said the request included conversion of the existing 1,500 square foot home to an office use, including improvements to both the landscaping and architecture. He noted that both the architecture modifications and the landscape plans had been approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission and that the project itself met all of the City's development standards and ordinance requirements. He added that the precise plan had also been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. He offered to answer any questions. Councilman Spiegel asked whether the Planning Commission approval was by unanimous vote. Mr. Alvarez responded that it was unanimous. Councilmember Benson asked whether this would put a limit as to how far Deep Canyon the office professional zone was going or if this was going to be done house by house. Planning Manager Steve Smith responded that there was an application pending that would expand the office professional north another four lots but that a general plan amendment was also needed on those lots, whereas this lot was contained within the Palma Village Plan as office professional. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing Dpcn and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. MR. BRUCE Phil 'INGILL addressed the Council and stated that he lived next door to the subject property. He said it was his request for a zone change on the whole street, and he expressed concern that the City would try to "gobble" up these lots one by one. He recommended that no action be taken until the zone change for the other four lots has at least gone before the Planning Commission. He said he had not even seen the plan as far as landscaping, etc., and he said he hoped the Council would put this off at least until the other plan goes before the Planning Commission. MR. GARY GOUDSWAARD, 44-755 Deep Canyon, stated that a letter was handed down that those of them interested in the zone change to commercial had signed and addressed, and all of them would like to see that happen. He said this would at least give them an equal playing field so they would not be swallowed up one at a time. He said that with all of the 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * inconveniences experienced on Deep Canyon due to the building of the Lucky store, he said he felt it was time for the City to consider those residents left. Councilman Spiegel asked if Mr. Goudswaard had a chance to attend the Planning Commission meeting to express his concerns. Mr. Goudswaard responded that he had received the letter but that he had not had an opportunity to attend the Planning Commission meeting because of a prior commitment. MS. BEVERLY SCHAEFFER, 5 Barcelona Drive, Rancho Mirage, stated that she is a real estate broker in the area. She said she represented two of the owners in this particular block in a professional matter. She said she wondered, as asked by the two other residents, if this is going to be done one after the other. She said there were some residents in the block who were not anxious to move, and she wondered whether this would make them have to move because of the lifestyle. She added that she felt it was time to question the fact that we have a lot of medical/professional buildings, some vacant, in the area. She pointed out that this area was not near any of the three major hospitals. She noted that she felt whatever is done should be a blanket conversion. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing clascd. Mayor Kelly asked whether the question of changing the zone for the four units all at once came up at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith responded that the issue had not come up at the Planning Commission meeting; however, the subject did come up relative to looking at the general plan amendment and the zone change on the remaining lots before the Commission the same evening this item was discussed on June 3, 1997. Mayor Kelly asked if there was any question about holding this one until they were all done at once, and Mr. Smith responded that there was no question to that effect. Councilmember Benson stated that when she brought this up before, her concern was that a Conditional Use Permit was done for the Godecke property to be the buffer between the office professional and residential, and it keeps being moved. She said she felt there should be some determination on the rest of the block and how far down it is going to go. Councilman Spiegel agreed and said he felt it should be revisited, just as Fred Waring was revisited, and there are blocks that are rezoned office professional that currently have homeowners who will eventually be able to sell their homes and develop offices. Rather than take it piece by piece, he said he felt staff and Planning Commission should come to the Council with recommendations as to what they would do with the entire block. 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this matter until such time as staff and the Planning Commission come back to Council with recommendations as to what should be done with the entire block. Motion was seconded by Benson. Mr. Erwin suggested that the Council continue the matter to a specific date and said his recollection was that the City's ordinance requires a decision within a certain period of time after closing a public hearing. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Smith stated that staff planned to take the remainder to Planning Commission on August 5. The Council meeting after that time would be August 28, and he recommended that the hearing be continued to that date. Councilman Spiegel asked if this would be within the time frame noted by Mr. Erwin, and Mr. Erwin responded that he did not believe it was within the required time period. He stated that the Council could leave the public hearing open and continue the matter to that date. Councilman Spiegel amended his motion to leave the public hearing open and continue the matter to the meeting of August 28, 1997. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. NOTE: SEE SECTION XVIII - ADJOURNMENT FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO THIS MATTER. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A 457-ACRE REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, NEW 62-ACRE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PRE -ANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE AND SECOND ADDENDUM TO CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 395-LOT RESIDENTIAL COUNTRY CLUB WITH 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74 BETWEEN INDIAN HILLS WAY AND THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS, Case Nos. Revised Vesting 1T25296, Vesting TT28575, C/Z 96-7, GPA 96-1 (Winmar Palm Desert, L.L.C., Applicant). See verbatim transcript attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * E. CONSIDERATION OF PRE -ANNEXATION ZONING OF PCD/HPR (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL - 228.5 ACRES) O.S. (OPEN SPACE - 411.5 ACRES) AND ZONE CHANGE FROM HPR TO PCD/HPR FOR 54 ACRES; WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE CREST" CONSISTING OF 151 HOMESITES ON 640 ACRES NORTH OF "CAHUILLA HILLS AREA" AND 54 ACRES OPPOSITE PALM VALLEY CHANNEL FROM THE "SOMMERSET" CONDOMINIUMS, Case No. C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 and Development Agreement (Crest Partners, Applicant). See verbatim transcript attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C". XVII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D None XVIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Gary Lohman addressed the Council as follows relative to Public Hearing C: Key GL Gary Lohman RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor GG Gary Goudswaard JMB Jean M. Benson , Mayor Pro Tempore BP Bruce Pettingill DIE David J. Erwin, City Attorney SS Steve Smith, SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman GL My name is Gary Lohman, 75-570 Merry Lane, Indian Wells. I'll be brief, I know it's late, I know you've gone through a couple of big projects. I'm here regarding the project that's on the wall behind you, which is the Deep Canyon request for office. I'm part of the applicant, and in the hearing tonight the homeowners adjacent to me got up and requested that...they had made a request to Planning that they be allowed to go to a change of zone as well. I support that with them; however, I have some very definite reasons for readdressing you this evening. We have to make a business decision relative to this property. It's been an abandoned property for a number of years. We're a specific user at this time, and by extending us, it creates a situation where I 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * would have to probably drop out of the application. I've talked to the owners that addressed this issue this evening, and I believe they're still here, and they could readdress the situation, and I believe that they are in favor of my issue passing. I don't know whether it can pass yet this evening or if it cannot, we'd like to move it to the next Council meeting. I have talked to Planning, and they said that that was possible. I've already made one extension on the purchase of this yi.,Y:.ity relative to continued hearings, and in every one of those hearings, we have not had any opposition to this project, and I believe that the City does favor this use. That's my request. I'd like to allow the other people that spoke tonight also a brief moment to readdress it and have you tell me what you might... may or may not be able to do to help me relative to the business issue relating to this project. Thank you for your time. RSK The other property owner there...do you want to say something? GG Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, my name is Gary Goudswaard, I'm on Deep Canyon Road. I stated earlier that I was in favor of the letter which was sent to the Planning Commission, and I'm in favor of a total zone change, but I'm not in agreeance with this gentleman here as to the zone change as it stands now. Thank you. RSK Does Council have any... JMB What could we...maybe Dave could tell us how we could address this. RSK If we chose to? JMB Yes. BP I own the adjacent property. Bruce Pettingill, 44-805 Deep Canyon. After talking to Mr. Lohman, it has been vacant for two years, and we have done a zone request with staff, and I'm willing to go ahead and let, if you could go ahead and pass his and hopefully we'll take a favorable view when ours comes up in front of the... RSK You may have already convinced us we shouldn't do it that way. BP I realize that, but after talking to him and looking at him trying to close escrow and trying to get an extension on it, if he doesn't buy it then it might be vacant for another year, and I'm hoping that we just take a favorable view when ours comes in front of the Council. RSK One by one. You didn't want that. BP I...no, I don't want one by one. But it's either that or I'll probably end up buying the pro :Ay...well, that's...I mean, I've got to make a choice here. And after talking to 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * him, it might be the best to go one and hopefully the other four will follow. Thank you. DJE Mr. Mayor. I might indicate that I did talk to Mr. Lohman at the break between the two public hearings. I indicated to him that if the Council were to ask me whether you could reopen the public hearing, which you earlier this evening continued to your second meeting in August, that I would advise you that you could not. RSK I wouldn't imagine that... DJE I suggested that he talk with Mr. Smith and see the possibilities of renoticing the public hearing for y our meeting of July 10th. RSK Is there time to do that? DJE I don't know. RSK I don't...seems to me that that's 30 days. SS No, it's ten days notice, but it would also have to appear in the paper ten days before, and we just don't have that latitude at this point. GL Maybe I could address that, I covered that with Martin earlier this evening, and he did indicate that if it is posted tomorrow, it would reach the ten day notice. DJE Posting is one thing...the publication in the newspaper is another requirement. GL They require a three-day advance notice, and that allows us then ten days of a newspaper publication. DJE I have no idea of that. That's up to the City Clerk. SRG And it's not always three days, it's often five days. GL Martin believes he can get it done in three days. That would meet the requirement obviously, if that's the direction we have to take. I'd have to go back to the seller and try and convince them. But you understand...I am...it is a difficult situation because the Council meets only once a month through the summer months, and that would...right now...and as I understood, the public hearing might still be open, but I understand maybe you're saying that it's closed. If we go to the 28th, it requires a second hearing, which would then be in September, so you can see how far down the line that puts me. I'd like to look for a worse case situation where I'd be allowed to try and, if we can meet the proper notice, to come back to you with a new public 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hearing. I think these people will tell you the same thing on the loth, and that allows other people to come in and speak in favor or against the project at that time. But I would like to be allowed to go to the loth if we can reach the proper notice. If we fail that, then we would move to the 28th. RAS I think that's a fair request, and we could ask staff to work with him to see if they can't get whatever notices out as quickly as possible and... GL As that is, that will be a difficult...I still have to go back to the seller one more time and ask them to extend me. JMB Is it working with the newspapers, is that it? SRG We'll have to run it in the Desert Sun, and I don't...you may get a three-day leeway, we get five, so...I'll try. JMB We'll try...that's all we can do. SRG The Post only publishes once a week...that obviously wouldn't meet the deadline, so I'll have to work with the Desert Sun and as I said they give us a five-day, so...I'll call — tomorrow. I'll work with Martin. GL Thank you for trying. RAD Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, we will work... DJE Assuming the Council instructs us to do that. RSK Yeah, I know everybody has agreed to do all these things, but I haven't heard the Council agree yet. Don't worry, I'm waiting. Don't get concerned. WHS I would move that the Council attempt to create this program as suggested and that the gentleman work with our City Clerk to see if the paper can do it in a timely manner so that we can (unclear) on the loth of July. RAS I'll second it. RSK Any other discussion? Please vote. SRG The motion carries by unanimous vote. 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Benson, and unanimous vote of the Council, Mayor Kelly adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. ATTEST: ' "SHEILA R. dLLIGAN, C CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT ,,:! a RICHARD S. KELLY, MAYOR 28 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I Aninii "A" The following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearing D at City Council meeting of June 26, 1997: Key: RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager MAC M. Andriette Culbertson DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney RAS Robert A. Spiegel Councilman JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore GP Gail Paparian KT Kathryn Thompson WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman EB Ed Burger JT Joan Taylor EH Emily Hemphill CM Chad Mooney CS Chuck Strothers TW Tom Walton BT Bob Thomas SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk CH Chris Hearn RC Rich Clark RSK The next item is a request for approval of a 457-acre revised vesting tentative tract map, new 62-acre vesting tentative tract map, general plan amendment and pre -annexation change of zone and second addendum to certified final environmental impact to allow the development of 395-lot residential country club with 18-hole golf course generally located on the east side of Highway 74 between Indian Hills Way and the southern City limits. RAD Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, at this time I would like to introduce Ms. Andi Culbertson of Culbertson, Adams. They are the City's environmental consultant on this project, and she will take you through the staff report and environmental considerations on the project, then the applicant will have an opportunity to make their presentation and go through the process. And I believe Ms. Kathryn Thompson will be representing the applicant so, Andi, if you could walk us through it, please. MAC Mayor Kelly, members of the City Council, it's a pleasure to be before you again on this 29 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * jl.Aninti "A' project. Our firm presented you the environmental impact report on this project in 1991 and the addendum on this project in 1992. Once again, the project has come before the City of Palm Desert for consideration of an altered plan and once again we have conducted a thorough environmental review. I know that the applicant has an extensive project presentation tonight, and I don't want to be redundant in the applicant's presentation, but I would like a few moments to lead the Council through some of the more significant aspects of the property and also to discuss some of the numbers involved. Right now, the project is 514 acres in size. You may recall that the Altamira project was about 350 acres in size and that there were several parcels both within the Altamira project boundary and outside of it that were not included in that project that are now. So that accounts for the acreage difference. Of this 514 acres, over half or 273 acres, are occupied by golf course, either the irrigated portions of the golf course, which constitute about 98 acres, the balance being the desert treatment surrounding the irrigated areas. 52 acres of this project are buffered to the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre lambing pen as well as, in this case, the ram pen and the isolation pen, which also exists on the adjacent property but were never brought before you for a buffer because that specific property ownership was not involved in the Altamira project and now is, and the buffer has simply been continued around in an arc. On the project now, as presently proposed, there will be 350 dwelling units. This yields a density overall of .76 dwelling units per acre. Probably by a calculation of the zoning, just a raw zoning calculation, of the density by acre, probably the total property could yield about 2,000 units, to give you some order of magnitude on the variance between the zoning and the number of units now proposed. Two areas of the property are now outside the City, the municipal boundary. One is the 57-acre parcel known as, currently owned by Coachella Valley Water District, and that is being added to this property, proposed to be added by a pre - annexation zone change and general plan amendment and tentative map 28575 before you tonight. 28575 also includes a small five -acre area that lies along Highway 74 immediately abutting the project, and that is simply being added into the City as well, proposed to be. The balance of the property is within the municipal boundary. The Planning Commission on June 3rd approved vesting tentative map 25296, which was the original number assigned to the Altamira Country Club map, and it is treated as a revision in this case, with the Sun Creek and Kelly properties added and the buffer depicted. The other map, as I had mentioned before, was tentative map 28575. Portions of both maps call into, call to our attention the hillside ordinance of the City. In tentative map 25296, approximately 80 acres of that map is subject to the hillside criteria. Option 1 of the ordinance was used in this case, and that yielded an average slope of 21% to 25%, allowing a maximum of 48 dwelling units, and that is in fact what is proposed in that portion of vesting tentative map 25296. This would leave 62 'A% of that portion of the map in open space. With respect to tentative map 28575, which is the map that involves the portions of the property in the project outside of the current municipal boundary, the average slope in those areas is 26% to 30%. Again, Option 1 was used, and that yielded a maximum of 34 dwelling units, or 77 V2% natural open space; however, in this 30 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * '-" J n to h 1 "A" case only 13 units are proposed, so 34 would be permitted by your hillside ordinance and 13 are proposed. This property, owned by Coachella Valley Water District at present, it's my understanding it's the intention of the applicant to acquire this property should this project be approved. This property also is the site of the two water facilities, the water tanks, which are buried water tanks, which were contemplated originally in the 1992 approval, it has an access road and also a retention facility, water for flood control purposes. In summary of the project, when the Altamira project, which involved 350 acres approximately, was proposed, there were 422 units proposed on that and approved by the Council in that project. Now there are 350, it's almost reversed, there's 350 units on 514 acres. Now with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act, as usual with any discretionary project, the City is obligated to examine whether the project, its conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and what, if any, environmental document is necessary to be prepared. We conducted an exhaustive review of this project and concluded that the prior EIR from 1991, which was certified by your Council in August of 1991, as addended in 1992, and as joined with the Coachella Valley Water District's mitigated negative declaration for their own water facilities on the 57-acre property which has the substantial margin of the land form modification involving that project, and that those documents taken together adequately address the California Environmental Quality Act. I might add a footnote that the environmental documentation that the California Environmental Quality Act calls for after the environmental impact report has been repaired, must pass a very high threshold before an agency may require another EIR. Basically, one has to find that a seriously different environmental picture, which is the fault of the impact of the project, must be found in order to call for another EIR, and this is because an environmental impact report is designed to be decision -making and information -making document for the decision makers and once that decision is made there is a certain degree of finality given to it on the environmental documentation. What has happened in the last six years, almost, since that EIR was certified is that there has been growing concern for diminution of the populations of the free-range Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, and this concern is well -taken. The diminution in the population in the numbers has occurred irrespective of the fact that this project was not developed when approved in 1991 and, in fact, an economic slow -down has reduced the pace of real estate development until quite recently in the area. And so, in order to obtain the best professional liaison on this project, we consulted with the California Department of Fish and Game, a State agency who has a very privileged position with respect to the Bighorn Sheep, they are a public trustee for the sheep, it's a fully protected listed endangered species in the State of California, and they are fully cared for by the Department of Fish and Game. So with respect to both free-range Bighorn, if any, and the operations of the Bighorn Institute, a private captive breeding facility located just outside the City of Palm Desert to the south, we wanted _ to obtain the input of the Department of Fish and Game as to the appropriateness of 400-yard buffer, whether it was adequate to reduce impacts, whether there were additional mitigation measures in the span of the last six years that ought to be applied to this project, and in 31 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r.Ananai "A" general have conversations with them. Those conversations started between my office on behalf of the City and the Department in December of last year and have continued, resulting in the document that's before you tonight as the expanded initial study. The mitigation measures reflect the requirements and the suggestions of the Department as does the analysis, and you will find in your packet tonight a letter from the Department of Fish and Game, dated May 30th, suggesting some minor modifications to the mitigation measures which are in the mitigation measures in the resolution before you and indicating their support for a 400-yard buffer, minimum 400 yards as mean red from the 30-acre lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute as well as the ram pen and the isolation pen, which are all off -site. Additionally, the Department assisted in drafting measures which involve specialized fencing, very unique restriction on the ownership of domesticated animals in portions of the project, with the benefit of that restriction placed in a format where it can be enforced by an off site property owner, the Bighorn Institute, and a very large $750,000 contribution to the Department of Fish and Game for administration and recovery of the Bighorn Sheep. This would be designated in an ear -marked account used only for the Santa Rosa Bighorn and used for their recovery and monitoring. It's probably the most, one of the most vexing problems faced by any public agency trying to recover the sheep is the question of funding, and this would be, is unprecedented in terms of a project and the Department of Fish and Game's requirement in this regard, their suggestion, and their suggestion has been accepted by the applicant and the City. The...there was a 100% Desert Tortoise coverage survey done of the site. You might recall from 1991 that there was an issue regarding Desert Tortoise. None was found at that time, but the protocol, there is a protocol by the Federal government for tortoises surveys, and that was conducted. A tortoise was located. For reasons of security of the tortoise, we have not published maps of where the tortoise is located, but I will represent to you that the tortoise is located in the buffer area and that the biologists who have studied this issue concur that the buffer area and the area to the south that is open area, not within the City but within the Bighorn Institute, is appropriate home range for the tortoise that was located. So together with the fencing, this tortoise can remain in its natural environment. We received letters of support on the project, both at the Planning Commission level, which was a recommendation to your Council on a 4-0 vote of approval. We received letters in opposition as well. We responded, based on the time we had, we responded in writing to all letters. The letters in opposition... RSK Mr. Ortega, if you lean back a little bit, we can see the speaker. MAC The letters in opposition were responded to in writing, including the one that was received at five minutes to noon today, and it was a third letter from The Sierra Club, and we have...I have provided to the City Attorney's office a written response (attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B"). It is largely the same letter in content that was presented to the Planning Commission, although it has some new points that we did address in writing. 32 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r.A.,■nii "A" DJE That letter, by the way, has been given copies to each Councilperson and the City Clerk, for the record. MAC And the only remaining aspect I would like to share with you tonight is in the 1991 approval as well as the 1992 approval, there was a mitigation measure, a very standard matter that is imposed on private development projects, the hold harmless and defend the City of Palm Desert for the applicant to do that in the event you are litigated or have any damage awards. The only language that I provided, that is being suggested here, is to better characterize on what basis the damage award would be compensable for the buffer on the Winmar Palm Desert property, the 400-yard buffer. The buffer is not being applied to any other property but the property before you tonight as the applicant's property. I want to stress that because there is no project before you on property not involved in this property, in this project, that is before the City in a regulatory sense tonight or, so far as I know, in the City application files at this time. Therefore, the buffer, the 400-yard buffer that the City may apply tonight if it so desires, comes up from Highway 74 on the applicant's property and takes a jog around property not owned by the applicant and not within the City, by the way, and arcs and following the contours of the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre lambing pen and takes another jog around the property that is not before you tonight and then terminates at the property ownership again. There are, all the mitigation measures that were adopted in 1991 are imposed and modified only as suggested by the Department of Fish and Game, other input we might have had from biologists, and as necessary to reflect this project, this specific project. And with that, I believe that I have covered the items of interest to the Council, and I know again that the applicant has a presentation for you with respect to this project. Therefore, I'll conclude and ask if there are any questions I may answer. RAS Yes, 1 guess, to sort of summarize, and correct me where I'm wrong, in 1991/1992 this Council approved 422 units on Altamira that was a 350-acre project. Tonight we're being asked to approve 273 units on 514 acres. MAC 350 units on 514. RAS Okay, 350 versus 422. MAC That's right, Councilman Spiegel. RAS Okay. But the additional area that is being questioned, I guess, by The Sierra Club, has been signed off by both the California Fish and Game Agency and the Bighorn Institute? MAC The Bighorn Institute, to the best of my knowledge, was not consulted, they are not a special State resource agency. The State Resource Agency was consulted, and they dictated some mitigation measures for that area and have concluded in their letter that there are no 33 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r.Ariant I "A' significant impacts as a result. RAS Okay. Going back, this wasn't mentioned, going back to the original Altamira project, as I understand that project gave about $900,000 to the Bighorn Institute? Is that correct? MAC I have no direct personal knowledge of that, Councilman Spiegel, that is a...the City was, to the best of my knowledge not a party to that settlement agreement, it was between two private parties. I have heard that stated in other... RAS There was some kind of a settlement agreement between Altamira and Bighorn, and I think that also included moving, as I understand it, moving the lambing pen. MAC That is my understanding of the agreement. RAS Okay. And the California agency, do I understand correctly, the California agency, Fish and Game Agency, is not concerned about the one tortoise that was found in the zone in between the Bighorn and the development? MAC No. In fact, we are...I am very pleased to state to the Council that Kevin B. Renin of the California Department of Fish and Game has come to this hearing tonight in the event the Council...and it is my understanding is the Department of Fish and Game, he's nodding his head in the affirmative, has made the same findings that I represented to you the biologist has, and they have gone on -site. RAS Okay. Thank you. RSK Any questions? JMB I'm just curious if there's another letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service other than June 3rd because they're saying in here since they didn't have time to review all this they are especially concerned about decisions being made on outdated information. Was there another later letter after this because says on the short time frame of this notice we have not had the opportunity to review all of the available information, and you're saying that they think everything's okay. MAC Well, now, there's a difference. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a Federal agency. The State Department of Fish and Game is a California State agency. We did attempt to consult before the Planning Commission hearing, well before it, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They did receive our documentation, they sent that letter about an hour or so before the Planning Commission, two hours or so. We met with them subsequently and Fish and Game participated in the meeting, as did the Army Corps of Engineers, and we submitted the 34 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * rAni ii "A" tortoise study to them. They have not responded, but I guess I'd have to say at the meeting 1 didn't have any reason for alarm. It's a very large agency. They have many tasks to do. The only agency that has listed the Bighorn Sheep is the California Department of Fish and Game. The reason that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was approached, other than just for their input, was that they are the agency who has listed the Desert Tortoise, and they will have to alter...they will have to render an opinion ultimately on the Desert Tortoise survey, but so long as...the Desert Tortoise area, the area of occupation, is well outside of the area of grading and is protected by the fence, and so it's...while I cannot predict how a Federal agency will ultimately rule, it is true that no grading can take place in Dead Indian Creek area of this project until the Army Corps of Engineers issues its 404 permit revisions, and they will not do that until they hear from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. So, the City is connected in that loop. We believe that they will be...they will receive our report favorably. RSK Any other questions? I guess I'll open the public hearing before we take...and then we'll take the applicant's testimony/presentation. GP Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, my name is Gail Paparian, about a two-year resident to Palm Desert. I was taking notes here because I'm not totally familiar with some of the terms used. This project is sort of diagonally across from where we live. We moved from Solana Beach because of the setbacks being constantly violated and constantly getting closer and closer to the ocean and basically ignoring the scenic overlay zone, ignoring good sensible environmental sensitivity with economic reality, and now you have million dollar condos falling into the ocean. I wonder about an EIR that was done six years ago, whether all the conditions of a project are still as pertinent as they were in 1991 and 1992, the cumulative effect, not a project, I believe you called Altamira, which is kind of down -sized, I guess this one is down -sized. I'm concerned that there is no protection to...the word "mitigate" scares me to death, anyway, because we can mitigate people away if we play it in the right direction. But what comprehensive environmental study has been made to indicate whether this project is sane and realistic. In your Agenda item, it indicates an 18-hole golf course generally located on the east side...I don't think I understood what "generally" means...is it on the east side or...what does "generally" mean, I mean is that what I read... RSK I think the applicant is going to make a presentation. GP Okay, I'm simply concerned with this Council who has shown a great deal of foresight, that this project cannot be recalled. I'm concerned if this project goes in that we are going to have some (unclear) billboards in the mountains and then I'm afraid that this will just be a vast wasteland, not the outstanding community it is to live in, so I hope that if the information is outdated that is becomes updated before you make a decision. Thank you very much. RSK Would the applicant like to make a presentation? 35 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r.Asusui 'A" KT Thank you. I'm Kathryn Thompson, 19700 Fairchild, Irvine, California. I'm also a part-time resident at 73-311 Mariposa in Ironwood. I'm here representing the applicant, Winmar Palm Desert. Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present The Canyons at Bighorn. Other members here tonight are Larry Olson, the Vice President of Safeco Properties, Steve Walker of Heartland, Warren Smith, the General Manager of Bighorn, and most of our consultants to the project. I believe this is an exciting plan for a very important major landholding in Palm Desert. Instead of three projects as originally planned, if you could look behind you on the map just above there where it says tentative map 25296, you'll see the Sun Creek property, the old Altamira property with the out parcel, the Kelly property, and then across the street we have Bighorn. That particular plan had 18 holes of golf on the Altamira and 9 holes of golf on the Sun Creek property. RSK We should make sure everyone knows that that Kelly is not this Kelly. KT I didn't even equate that, but it is not Mr. Kelly's property. WHS Can't (unclear) RSK I'd like it...I wish it were. KT Therefore, the property now will be one contiguous project, the Mountains at Bighorn and the Canyons at Bighorn, divided only by Highway 74. The project, as you heard earlier, is 514 acres of privately held land at the southeast entrance to the City along Highway 74. I'd like to take a moment to refresh your memory even further on the previous project that was approved in 1991. The City approved plans and certified the EIRs for two independent projects on this now combined landholding. Altamira, which is 344 acres of golf plus community with a total of 422 residential units, with a density of 1.23 per acre. The Sun Creek property was 123 acres, with nine holes of golf and 232 residential units, with a density of 2.83 units per acre. These two communities allowed for a total of 654 residential units on 467 acres. A new vision was formed in 1996 after Winmar, a division of Safeco Properties, acquired the interest in both projects and because a partner in the Mountains at Bighorn and the homeowners group led by R.D. Hubbard, which is the combined plan that you see here behind Mr. Diaz, which has been revised incidentally to reflect the buffer area. Instead of moving ahead to the existing development entitlements that Winmar had, the decided to take a fresh look at the project, at the market conditions, the environmental issues, the traffic, and infrastructure. Based on what they learned about the market preference for more environmental sensitive and less overall density, they began a new planning process with a group of world -class planners. These planners were instructed to design the plan within the parameters of the current City's approvals and the certified EIRs. The proposal is for a much lower level of density on 514 acres, with only 350 residential homes, a density of .76 per acre as compared to the 650 units on 467 acres. It extends the high quality of community already 36 1VIINUTFS REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * rdlnirin. "A" a landmark within the City of Palm Desert, that being the Mountains at Bighorn. The core of this new community is an 18-hole, championship course designed by Tom Fazio, slated I think to be the premier golf course in the desert, both in terms of the golf experience and the environmental suitability. Mr. Fazio is probably America's most sought after golf course designer. It took almost seven months to convince him that this would be the high quality project he could commit to. You may know that he designed the Quarry and the Vintage in the Coachella Valley, but this will be his first project in Palm Desert. The course features 98 acres of irrigated fairways, which is the green on the map, you can see, within a larger 175 acres of golf course envelope with desert landscaping. The course forms an open space framework, allowing views from the community without scarring the landscape to both the floor of Coachella Valley and the surrounding layers of mountains. Surrounding the course are a series of individual neighborhoods with homesites for 350 homes on lots ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to over two acres. Behind you, if you want to look now or later, you can see some of the lots, I think directly behind Mayor Kelly, you can see the lots. The main entrance to the canyon is mid way along Highway 74 opposite Cahuilla Way. The entrance leads to a desert canyon landscape to the central club facilities and individual neighborhoods. And over to my left is the main entrance. I don't want to (unclear) right there is the main entrance, and then this is the canyon drive that leads up to the club area. The neighborhoods are linked to the club and each other by a network of private roads and trails. Emergency access is located at the north and south boundaries, and a tunnel golf corridor connecting the Mountains at Bighorn is located at the southwest corner. The plan contributes to the surrounding and creates a finished entrance to the City from the south on Highway 74 as well as completes the other half of Bighorn. At the west along Highway 74, the canyon edge is designed to contribute and be a part of the important scenic corridor. Over to my left again is an artist rendering of the corridor along the Highway and below is a section that indicates there's approximately 100 feet of landscape, bike trail, sidewalk, and a berm before you get inside the property, and then there's a road on the inside of the property. Also behind Councilman Spiegel there is a computerized version showing the berm and the landscaping along Highway 74 and you can see a little bit of the trees and landscaping within the development. Here the project will build, as I said, an earthen berm land form, it will be natural landscape rather than a conventional block wall, the intent is to obscure the views of the development from the public yet keep open the views of the mountains beyond. The berm will run the entire mile long, with the width of approximately 100 feet, from Highway 74 to the interior roads, and will contain rock outcroppings as depicted on the rendering and native planting. At the north and east a plan has been worked out with the neighbors to ensure single -story homes to provide adequate separation, buffers, and mountain views. We understand how important the hillside development is to your city. Realizing the potential visual impact, we have carefully designed homesites to conform to the existing land form. The plan incorporates planning and engineering techniques that mitigate the development and impacts of hillside development including folding the roadway into the existing topography, aligning the access drives behind the homes, thus screening it from the Valley floor, contoured 37 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 34..iln it ii "A" JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * grading to create a blend of improvements and natural features, avoidance of prominent topographic hilltops, selecting natural homesite settings in the hillsides, mesas, and bowls, variance of roadway grade and alignment to avoid hillside scarring, reduction of the hillside density to below allowable levels, for a blended average of one dwelling unit per 2.2 acres. We will use tan pavement for the roads in these areas, native vegetation planted in the open space areas outside the house pad areas, and berm and landscape screening of the reservoirs. I did deliver to you, to the City Clerk, earlier today photographs of a typical site at Bighorn that uses this type of grading and mitigation, and I hope that you had a chance to review that. In most cases, I'd like to point out to you that there's no difference in elevations between Highway 74 and the property, that's tentative map 28575, which is the Coachella Valley Water District property, or there is 60 feet to 100 feet difference because Highway 74 descends to the north while the CVWD property, excuse me, rises to the north. The perspective makes the difference smaller the further you get away from the site. That is why the berm grading technique, we believe, will be very effective in most cases, I believe, will 100% screen any of the homes that will be built there. Everything at the Canyons at Bighorn has been designed to showcase the natural beauty of the desert mountains. Very little of the development will be visible from Highway 74, and the addition of meandering creeks and enhanced native vegetation will provide a tranquil environment for the homeowners. At the south of the property, a source of major controversy in the previous plan, additional protections have been incorporated. A 400-yard buffer of no development has been established surrounding the northern boundary of the Bighorn Institute pens. This near quarter mile buffer of no development, meaning no golf, no roads, no homes, results in an additional 52 acres of protection of existing agreements with the Institute. It comes on top of a prior payment of over $900,000 to the Institute and comes along with a new $750,000 payment to the City to help fund the California Department of Fish and Game's ongoing research, recovery, and continued occupation of the Bighorn Sheep. The City in approving the new proposal has the opportunity to ensure that this important landholding is built out as a single, higher quality, lower density community in keeping with the well -established Bighorn community. Because the property is in the Redevelopment area, there will be substantial tax increment for the Agency. Winmar, Safeco, and the homeownership group of Bighorn as a single entity, have both the financial strength, the corporate integrity, and local community involvement to make it a reality. Approval of the plan ends a long, litigious land use chapter in the City's history by adopting a plan everyone at the City, I believe, will be proud of In the 30 years that I have developed projects in southern California, I have never experienced a group of public agencies that have worked so hard to come up with a plan that all agree is in the best interests of the public and the environment. The plan is a model cooperative can - do spirit on behalf of all the parties who worked out the plan, and I'd like to name a few of them. City of Palm Desert, of course, Mr. Diaz, Phil Drell, Phil Joy, Steve Smith, the Army Corps of Engineers represented by Robert Smith, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Department of Fish and Game, Mr. Kurt Koucher and Mr. Kevin Barry Renin who is here tonight, Bureau of Land Management, Coachella Valley Water District, and while 38 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * pAnitui "A' not a public agency, the Bighorn Institute with Mr. DeForge and his Board. Each entity has worked diligently with us to develop a plan that accomplishes each agency's objectives and assures certainty about the future of this important part of the City of Palm Desert, preserving the requested buffer and other mitigation for the Bighorn Institute to continue their important work with the Bighorn Sheep. I respectfully ask you to approve the Canyons at Bighorn tonight, and I will be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you. RAS Mr. Mayor, I've got just a couple. You indicate that there is very little visibility from Highway 74. KT That's correct, RAS How would you compare the visibility of the Canyons at Bighorn to Bighorn that's currently in existence? KT Well, there are some lots at Bighorn, the current Bighorn project, that are using the same techniques that we're talking about, but for the most part I would have to say that there's more visibility of homes from the current Bighorn because I don't believe there will be any visibility of these lots from Highway 74 on this property. RAS From an elevation standpoint, and this may be difficult for you to answer, the highest home at Bighorn will compare to the highest home at the Canyons at Bighorn in what way? KT I'm not sure about their elevations, Councilman Spiegel, but I will tell you our elevation at the south corner, just above the buffer, is about 750 feet elevation at the Highway, and the lot as you proceed toward the Coachella Valley Water District property is about 750. RAS And my last question, there are two water tanks as I remember that are going to be built in the Canyons at Bighorn. Are they going to be visible from Highway 74? KT No, as I think you heard earlier, they will be sunk, and they will be graded and sunk into the ground, and there will be landscaping shielding them from view. RAS Thank you. RSK Questions? Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak to this item? EB Yes, good evening Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Ed Burger. I live at 124 Wanish at Bighorn in Palm Desert. I want to say a couple of things. Number one, I'm obviously in favor of this proposal. I think it's great for Bighorn, I think it's great for Palm Desert. I want to point out, though, that I think it also is something else for Palm Desert, and 39 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAiliaLLIA: that is it can be a major source of economic development. I know, I'm also Chief Financial Office for R.D. Hubbard Enterprises, we're involved with ownership of Bighorn.. Also own the El Paseo Village shopping center on El Paseo, where the Cedar Creek restaurant is, that about half a block there, and I think what the City has done with getting involved with the parking garage, I mean the Redevelopment Agency with the parking garage and getting things going on El Paseo is great. It shows that we're forward thinking, we're moving ahead, and we need these kind of people living in Palm Desert to come shop in Palm Desert. I think it's important that we look at the whole picture of economic development this can bring us. Thank you. JT My name is Joan Taylor. My address is on the blue card, and I'm representing the Tahquitz Group of The Sierra Club. I'm here tonight with some regret to address you to talk about kind of avoiding potential conflict, and I say regret, truly, because I think the City has done a lot for the environment. And I believe the City tries to do what is right. And I don't think anyone here is disputing the quality of this project; however, there's a lot at stake here tonight, and I'd just like to take a few moments to talk about that. Basically, we feel that the stakes are very high because the buffer that is being proposed tonight is less than the buffer that your Council approved in 1991 after a rigorous review and lots of expert testimony. And this is being done without peer(?) review and expert testimony, and it does subject the City to doing something that is in violation of California law. And why are we so concerned about the buffer? Well, we were concerned in '91 and certainly consumed a lot of the Council's time. We're more concerned today, at least the environmental community is. The Bighorn Sheep in this area are down to 21 in the Santa Rosa Mountains. It is almost solely through the efforts of the Bighorn Institute that we have the monitoring, the herd augmentation. We have sheep there, and if the sheep are not going to be extirpated in the next 15 years or so, the augmentation program has to continue to be successful, and I feel it would be unwise, we urge the City to stop, to continue the matter, to think twice about reducing this buffer at this critical time. Now certain assertions were made by the proponent about the Fish and Wildlife Service somehow concurring with the project, about the Bighorn Institute, Mr. DeForge, the Bureau of Land Management. I feel the City should go to those entities and ask them how they feel about the project. I do not hear them here tonight. I won't reiterate legal points we raised in several letters. Suffice it to say that the legal opinions we have received do not concur with the ones you've heard and I do not feel that the review is adequate to do such a thing as reduce the buffer at this time. In addition, there are some questions about the hillside homes proposed. We've offered to work with the City. I have many months ago received a call from Ms. Culbertson, a brief conversation, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Thompson met with me briefly last week, and we discussed matters. However, there has not been time to work things out, and that would certainly be The Sierra Club's preference. Again, we would like to avoid conflict with the City and urge you to continue the matter and consider it carefully. Thank you very much. 40 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r.A n afil "A" EH Good evening. My name is Emily Hemphill. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Selzer, Ealy, Hemphill and Blaisdell in Rancho Mirage. I'm here this evening on behalf of my clients, Guy Laliberte and Mario Pascucci. These gentlemen are the owners of a 12-acre parcel of property that was previously called the Del Gagnon property. If you look on your tract map, the sort of triangular shaped parcel that's on the lower portion in the center is their property. They also are the owners of an easement that extends upward from their property and into the proposed project. We are objecting to the City's approval of this project this evening because of the impact that it would have on Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Pascucci's property. Essentially, in the 1992 settlement agreement between the predecessors of Winmar and the Bighorn Institute, the buffer that was discussed at that time was in a slightly different location such that my clients' property was not within it. Because that settlement agreement is apparently being discarded and the buffer is being moved, the entire 12 acres of Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Pascucci's property is now located within the buffer. We believe that the commitment of the City in terms of protection of environment is admirable and certainly the City has an excellent track record in this regard. However, I think that the City needs to take some time and to encourage the applicant to initiate further discussion with Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Pascucci regarding the purchase of their property. By placing the property within the buffer zone, we're essentially saying that these gentlemen will not be able to utilize this property for any purpose whatsoever. The fact that there's a caveat in the conditions of approval that says that this buffer zone applies to this project but not necessarily others is really a semantic issue when you consider that the existence of that condition of approval being on record will essentially prevent any reasonable individual from purchasing this property in the future. As such, we believe that they've been denied all economical and viable use of the property and feel that the property should be purchased and perhaps donated to the Bighorn Institute as part of their research area and to preserve the buffer zone. Essentially, I can see that there has been a great deal of discussion amongst California Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, the Bighorn Institute, and so forth; however, the people that are in the very center of this, we do not believe have been adequately included within those discussions, and we would request the City, rather than approving this tonight, instruct the developer to initiate further discussions with my clients so that we can resolve these issues and prevent their property from potentially becoming useless to them. Thank you. CM Good evening, Council. My name is Chad Mooney, and my wife Susan and I... RSK You want to pull that mike up? CM Excuse me. My name is Chad Mooney. My wife Susan and I reside at 136 Netas Drive in Palm Desert. We have two young children, I'm full-time employed here in Palm Desert and make Palm Desert my full-time home. It's been a great privilege to be a resident and member of Bighorn. I think Bighorn has added an extraordinary element to the City of Palm Desert, and I think that the proposal for our new development will bring a tremendously expanded 41 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * N_ r1Lnnll 'A" economic base, improvement in educational opportunities, and I compliment the partnership that's presented tonight on the outstanding due diligence and effort that they've made in the environment. My wife Susan, again, and myself and my children totally support this. We think this is an outstanding step forward for the City of Palm Desert, a tremendous economic boost, done with great taste, that will be recognized as a world -class development, both from a golf course and environmental point of view. Thank you very much. CS Excuse me. Mayor Kelly, members of the Council, my name is Chuck Strothers, 73-425 El Paseo. I'm a real estate developer and builder in this Valley for 19 years, and during that time my office has been in Palm Desert. I don't own property at Bighorn, I have no business interest at Bighorn, but I have great regard for Bighorn. This project has been so well managed since day one and so well maintained all through the difficult economic times that people in our business have experienced. Now they've assembled themselves with the Altamira group, Winmar, across the street, and a stroke of genius, I think, to create what could be truly a world -class country club community, and I think Palm Desert is fortunate to have this group of developers and their experts as part of the community. I support them because the high quality standards are impeccable, their professionalism and their management is second to none in this Valley, and they have the financial strength to weather any storms that may surface in the near future, as they always do in the past. And I would wish this Council to act tonight on this project. I think the economic, I mean the environmental studies and the time that's been devoted to this project over the past years is second to none in this community. I think every issue that they could possibly address has been addressed, has been mitigated. Their generosity with regard to their donations of financial assistance and research monies as well as the land for the buffer zone is something that has never happened in this valley, and I just think that they are an asset, they are going to be a greater asset with the inclusion of the Canyons, and I strongly urge you to pass this project tonight. Thank you. RSK Did Kathryn Thompson already speak? Oh, you were first. I got that mixed up with the other one there. Sorry. Anyone else like to speak? TW Good evening. My name is Tom Walton, 48-726 Desert Flower Drive, Palm Desert. I'm here to support the project from a marketing point of view. I was involved with the Vintage Club in its development, worked very closely with Mr. Fazio on that project, and to see this kind of a program and this kind of a plan have an opportunity to be developed in this City I think is a big, big, big plus. Someone mentioned earlier that there's a trickle -down effect for commercial people in the City, and I think that's valid, too. So, I think you have a very special opportunity to approve a very special project. Thank you. BT Mayor Kelly, Councilmen. I'd like to pretty much share Chuck Strothers' views. I think he pretty much said everything I was thinking about saying, and I've been a citizen of Palm Desert for about 40 years, and you don't often see a great project like this, and I'd like to see 42 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r it go through. I've seen a lot of work that went through here, and I hope they finally get this thing wound up and get it going. Thank you. SRG Sir, would you give me your name for the record. Sir? RAD Sir, your name. RSK We have to have something for the record. BT Bob Thomas, Candlewood Street, Palm Desert. RSK Anyone else that would like to... CH Mr. Mayor and City Council, my name is Chris Hearn, and I reside at 30 Belmonte Drive, Palm Desert. I've been practicing landscape architecture and land planning for 17 years and have a real good understanding of what's going on with this project for many years. I've followed it since the beginning. I currently have no economic interest in the project, either, I just know what good quality planning is and the process that it takes to get to this point in the project. It's very tedious, and I think this project has nothing but great things for this valley, and I would urge you to approve this project tonight. RC Good evening. My name's Rich Clark, I'm the Civil Engineer for the project, and so I have a professional interest in seeing this project go forward, but that's not why I chose to speak this evening. My address is 72-890 Somera, I'm a recent resident of Palm Desert, having just moved from Palm Springs and Cathedral City. My family and I decided to move to Palm Desert because of the wonderful quality of life here. It's a great place to raise a family and enjoy the desert lifestyle. I think that's largely attributable to the City's desire and ability to attract quality programs and quality development projects. I've been involved in development in the desert for over ten years, and I firmly believe that this project will be the new benchmark for quality development in the desert. And I would encourage you to continue that momentum and approve the project. Thank you very much. RSK Anyone else that would like to speak to this project at this time? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and ask the Council for direction. RAS I have a couple...go ahead, I'm sorry. JMB No, I just have a comment because, number one, on the project I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that it would be a good project for the City of Palm Desert. My concern is that a letter I received showing June 20th wanting it to approve on June 26th, saying I realize this is the first time you've seen this says to me it's not enough time to go over this 43 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * project when you consider the volumes of stuff that was delivered and the things that we have to do that we can't drop everything and just look at this. And it's been six years. It is an entirely different project, it's not the same project that was approved in 1991. I certainly don't feel that the developer has a crisis, it should not be our crisis. We've waited a long time to see that property developed there. It's the last stronghold of mountain area other than The Crest that we're also looking at tonight. Once those two pieces are gone, whether it's a benchmark for future development, there won't be any because there is no place to put it. So I don't feel that we need to make a decision tonight on it. I don't see that there's a big rush when you have six days to look at the volume of this and to study the implications of a whole new project that it should be done in that big of a hurry. So I certainly don't...can't condone approval on it tonight. And I think we should also honor our colleague's request to hold the hillside part of it until he's here for discussion. RAS There was another part to the letter that Councilmember Benson refers to, and that is the timing element. As I read the letter, there was an agreement with the State Fish and Game and the Bighorn Institute not to do any grading between the months of February 1st through June 30th, to avoid any potential of stressing the Bighorn Sheep during the lambing season, which means that if they don't get started pretty soon, it's going to be another year, it's not like if we decide in a month or two they can get this accomplished. Well, if they don't get this accomplished, then there's a good chance that we could lose out on a Fazio golf course. Now if there's a question about the development, that's one thing and you look at it that way, but if there really isn't a big question in your mind and if you take a look at Bighorn as it is today, it's something I'm very proud of to have in the City of Palm Desert. I think that as you come from the south and you drive down Highway 74, you see a premier development to the west, and wouldn't it be great to have a premier development to the east? And that's what I see in the Canyons at Bighorn development. It's interesting that there is no representative from the Bighorn Institute that wishes to speak to us this evening nor from the U.S. Fish and Game. They obviously knew that this was going to be reviewed tonight by Council and yet they saw fit not to come to this meeting and discuss their concerns. So if they're not here, I assume they had none. It's not like they didn't know about it. So I'm in favor of the project and would like to see it go forward as soon as possible. WHS I've been involved with this project since it started. I was a member of the Council who had to sit in on the hopeful decisions that were made and as we tried to find a way to settle all the parties under the old program. I think this is a beautiful program, and it's a program that does indeed give the City an opportunity to have a program that will, there's no other word I can think of, but a remarkable program, the finest golf architects in the world, and the finest people that design projects have been mixed up in creating this program. I do have a concern that we have one of our Council people who worksvery hard on environmental programs and so forth who is not here and has asked us to delay this for that reason. But I have thought about it and consider that if there is a problem and we do decide to go ahead with this, that 44 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * N.Anlrlri `A' he'll have an opportunity to meet with the people because I'm sure these people have...the very way that they've handled themselves all these years we've been mixed up with them, will sit down and talk to him and discuss any problem that he may have. So taking that into consideration, I have to believe that this is a project that, well as an example I talked to the president of the El Paseo Merchants Association, and they are very anxious for programs like this to come about and to bring a wealth of prosperity to our city. We do all other kinds of things. I think we've done a pretty good job over the years of having a well-balanced, well- defined city, and I think this is another add -on to that, so as much as I would like to have it, have my colleague Buford Crites be here tonight, I feel that I don't want to let this thing start again as I put in all too many hours in front of a judge -appointed program to try to solve this once before, and I would like to see this program considered. And if we need to put something in there that...for Buford to talk to these people, I'm sure they will agree to it. RSK Well, like the rest of my colleagues, I have a concern that Buford asked for that opportunity, but on the other hand, he didn't specify what his concerns were, and with the window of grading there from June 30th to February, as I look over everything I see here, it's not like we started working on that area yesterday, you know, we've been working on it for five or six years, and I've been out there...well, a few years ago when I went out there and tramped around, I was in better shape than I was this time, I couldn't tramp quite as far, but I made it up on a hill there where I could look around pretty good and see everything. RAS That was a mountain. RSK Was that a mountain? It's a mountain now. It might have been a hill a few years ago. Anyway, this is the kind of development, we only have about three of this caliber development in the Coachella Valley, and I think this one is going to be a cut above even the three that we have, and everybody probably knows what those are, but this, in my estimation, is going to be the best, highest grade development anywhere in the Coachella Valley. I just can imagine what other cities would give if they could have this development in their city, and I, for one, would like to see this happen. And having a Fazio golf course in the City excites me. It's an entry to our City, it excites me, and I think that with $900,000 for Bighorn and $750,000 to help keep Bighorn and the kind of buffer zone equal to four football fields, you know, I'm just very impressed with what everybody has done and the kind of quality development that we have there. JMB Referring to that time element, the letter from Kathryn Thompson states that if approvals are delayed until September, the approvals would not be late until September, if we extended it two more weeks to our July 1 lth meeting...July 10th, that's only two weeks, that's not going to throw off the schedule because she's already saying September. So you've still got August into September, so two weeks I don't see as any big deal on it, and we've always honored other colleagues' requests when they've been away with something that was unavoidable, and 45 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * aisu i "A" I just think for two weeks...and the other issues that need to be resolved with the attorney that spoke for the other land holder, I jut think we'd be very remiss if we went ahead and approved it tonight. RAS I may not be here in two weeks as I think I indicated earlier before the meeting. Therefore, I'm going to move to approve Resolution No. 97-50, 97-51, 97-52, Ordinance No. 847 to a second reading, and adopt Resolution 97-53. JMB Could we ask the developer if two weeks would hurt the project. RAS You can. I may not be here in two weeks, I mean, but that's... RSK Did I hear a second to the motion? WHS I guess I was waiting for the answer. RSK I'll second the motion. WHS Do you want an answer to your question first, or... JMB Well, I'd like an answer, but obviously from this letter they're going two months ahead and I can't see that two weeks is...so obviously it wouldn't make a difference. RSK Well, it makes a difference to me. JMB I don't really think that's in the spirit of cooperation for the City of Palm Desert. RSK Well, we have a motion and a second. Are you prepared to vote? WHS Well, I assume that there is a motion on the table and we will vote on it. I'm trying to respect Mrs. Benson's question and think of Buford, but if this in any way would hold up the project, I would have to vote for it. I want this project. RSK Well, I'm very much in favor of (unclear) up tonight but others of us don't know if we're going to be here on the l Oth and I know that I have...I'm going to be out of the country...I scheduled that all according to our Council meetings, so, well... 1MB On the 10th of July you're out the country? RSK Well, I'm not planning to go out then, but I... 46 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Anrflii "A" WHS I'll be here...I'm always here. RSK but, my...I would like to make a decision tonight. That's my... JMB Well, it seems kind of odd that we would make the decision tonight because Councilman Spiegel might not be here on the 1 lth, but Councilman Crites is not here tonight, so we're going one's versus the other one? RSK We're not honoring him. We've had a public hearing here, and a lot of people have taken their time to be here. We have a whole Council Chamber full of people. We've gone through, what, about an hour and a half of testimony, it's not like it's just one simple thing. Councilman Crites, even if we held it over, he's going to come back, he's not going to have the opportunity of all the public hearing or all of the testimony that's been tonight. I just have a strong feeling that the right thing is to do it tonight. I mean, there's...we could sit here and argue about that for two or three hours, and I have just as many reasons why we ought to tonight as you do as to why we oughtn't to, but I don't know why we should take up all these people's time to discuss that. I mean, I don't think you're going to change your mind, and I'm Irish. So... WHS Mayor, I think you have a motion on the floor. RSK We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? Would you please vote. SRG The motion carries by 3-1 vote, with Councilmember Benson voting no. RAS Do you want to call a recess? RSK Yes, I think we'll take a five-minute break. 47 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,...r �r ■r��Y Y 'B! lY Resoonse to letter from Sierra Club dated June 25. 1997 and received by the City at 11:55 a.m. June 26. 1997 The responses below relate to the topical areas raised in this letter. This is the third letter from the Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter received during this process. Public comments were due by May 30. The first letter was received on June 2, 1997 and responded to in writing for the Planning Commission hearing on June 3. This response has been attached as a part of the Council agenda. 1. At the June 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Joan Taylor of the Sierra Club testified, and submitted the second letter, dated June 1. This letter was, as the letter itself described, quite similar to the letter submitted on June 2 by fax, with the exception that the last paragraph had been cut off by the fax. The City's environmental consultant responded to this last paragraph at the Planning Commission hearing. Although reorganized somewhat, the June 26 letter (dated June 25) raises the same principal issues, with certain exceptions responded to below. To the extent that points raised earlier were responded to, the City incorporated those responses by reference into this supplemental response. Therefore, only the new issues are addressed below by topical area. THE NEED FOR A SUBSEQUENT EIR The City has concluded on the basis of substantial evidence and with the input of the agency acting as trustee for the bighorn sheep that no further EIR is necessary. The new points in the letter relate to the commentor's position that the extension of the 400-yard buffer around the pens somehow raises a new issue of concem for the captive sheep. However, as was acknowledged in the 1991 EIR and in several personal communications between BHI and the environmental consultant, the 400-yard buffer on the property formerly known as Suncreek and now included within the project was the subject of an agreement between the former owner and BHI, and acknowledged by the City. Therefore, the idea of a 400-yard buffer in this area is not new. What is new is that the original buffer only related to the lambing pens, whereas the new buffer protects ALL of the pens. THE ADDENDUM RELIES ON OLD DATA The assertion that free-range bighom habitat is adversely affected by the development is considered by the City to be inaccurate. First, there has been no formal habitat delineation in this area. The map submitted from the Metapopulation study is unscaled and covers an area from Interstate 8 to Interstate 10, an enormous territory. The project site - to the extent this can be determined from the quality of the map - does not even appear affected. DUNE 26, 1997 48 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * — LAM1111 °Ca The following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearing E at City Council meeting of June 26, 1997: RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor PJ Phil Joy RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore TM Ty Miller, Applicant WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman MC Mrs. Cocroft JW Janice Wood JM Dr. Jerry Meintz RR Robert Ricciardi PS Paul Selzer SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk RSK Next item is consideration of pre -annexation zoning of PCD/HPR (planned community development, hillside planned residential - 228.5 acres) O.S. (open space - 411.5 acres) and zone change from HPR to PCD/HPR for 54 acres; with development agreement for project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 640 acres north of "Cahuilla Hills Area" and 54 acres opposite Palm Valley Channel. RAD Mr. Joy of the Community Development staff, will give this report. PJ Yes, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. This project has been before the Council a couple of times previously, and my recollection is that it has always been well received. And the EIR was certified for this project previously for a project of up to 209 units. The problem with the project was always the density in regards to what the County would approve on the project since the major portion of the project is under County jurisdiction presently. When the project first came before you as a 209 unit project, we asked the County to comment on the project, and even though it contained a general plan amendment at the time, the County would not look at the project in terms of amending their own general plan. And the only, after lots of work with the County, the only letter that we received from them was that they would only approve a project of up to 140 units, and so that is all the City approved for the project at that time. What happened was the applicant actually had to make a general plan amendment request to the County before they would actually analyze it on its merits, and at that time the County said they would agree up to a 151 unit project on the property, and 51 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * that's how we arrived at the 151 unit number now and that's still the maximum that we're working at. Last time it was before the Council the applicant requested a continuance prior to the hearing to work further with the City and work out some of the major concerns about the project. He spent a couple years working on these concerns and two major changes to the project in these two years has been relocation of eight units from the lower property, which is property B, which constitutes 55 acres, which is already in the City, to the main bulk of the property, which is in the County, which is to the rear. As you look at the plans over here to your right, what we've always called property B is the one on the right, that's 55 acres, it's in the City, and the property to the left is 640 acres, which is presently in the County. And so what we're doing is relocating eight of the units from that City property to the County property, and the main reason for this is that those hillsides that are in the City right now are the most noticeable, and the balance of the project is not visible to the rest of the Valley. So we're really mitigating some of the visual concerns of some of the Councilmembers. The main reason the project has been well received is the 640 acres that's in the County right now, 404 acres are being dedicated as open space. And with that, both the United States Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game found the project acceptable due to this quite large open space dedication. The applicant's giving up over two-thirds of his property. The way our hillside ordinance reads, even though he's giving up that much land, the balance of it that he is developing he is still required to conform to our City's hillside code. And with really basically no allowances at all for the dedication area, the way it works out, so it's not altogether fair, but that's the way we work sometimes I guess. The provisions of the Planned Community text, which is this document that you have before you that was given out to you, require natural area between the home sites, and this is in line with the City's hillside ordinance and it's incorporated into the text also that the implementing tract maps that are to follow will be further required to provide a slope analysis showing that the projects are still...each home site itself would still meet the City's hillside ordinance on a per lot basis. When the Planning Commission analyzed the project, they looked at it very closely because there's also a development agreement tied together to the project now that kind of further incorporates and make sure that everybody understands our concerns of the project. This has been a long process, and we'd hate to have to go through this all over again. After continuing the project for a couple meetings, the Commission did approve the project on a 4-0-1 vote, with one of the Commissioners abstaining due to some property interests. The only lingering concern left on this project that has been voiced to staff is an access road into the Cahuilla Hills area. We've had a couple of concerns. There is a letter that is addressed to the Council from a Mr. Bowie, and his last letter was asking that the emergency access road the applicant has negotiated with the adjacent property owner would be configured in a straight fashion rather than the way you have to do roads in the hillsides is kind of curvilinear and work with the hillsides a little bit, and the property lines in that area run straight north/south, but to run a road straight north/south in the hillside would require quite a bit of extensive grading which the City always discourages. So we find nothing wrong with the existing configuration that the applicant has given to the City on this 52 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . * nint1 "C" emergency access road and the curvilinear fashion. With this, staff feels comfortable with the project and is recommending approval of it and is ready to answer any questions that you have. RAS 640 acres are in the County? How many did you say are in the City? PJ 55 acres are presently in the City. RAS 55. Maybe I should ask the applicant this, but why didn't he go to the County rather than to the City for approval of the project? Should I wait and ask the applicant? PJ It perhaps might be appropriate. RAS Alright. JMB The 404 acres open space will be dedicated at the beginning of the building? PJ The timing of the open space dedication is 100 acres would be dedicated within 30 days of annexation to the City, with a nondisturbance agreement on the balance of the open space area. And that was one thing the Commission looked at very closely, and that seemed to satisfy the Commission's concerns that they have a nondisturbance agreement on the remaining acreage. JMB They're not giving (unclear) PJ It's not going to be given at the time of annexation. There is another reason for this also, which we kind of ran into on the Bighorn project, is that the best time to actually draw that property line is when tract maps are being submitted to the City, so you can see exactly where that line shall be in relation to building sites and that. RSK We'll take it without the lines being drawn. RAS I do have one other question. The access road as I remember it, and this was before the Planning Commission when I was Chairman of the Planning Commission some years ago, was on the south side of the development. Is that correct? PJ Does that mean the access road going to the project...are you referring to the emergency access road? RAS Yes, well there's property owned by other people adjacent to this development. 53 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * J t11D11 "C■ PJ That's correct. RAS Right. And the road that was going to be put in would then enable the people owning the property adjacent to this development to develop their property. PJ It would give them access to their property. RAS Give them access to their property and the development of their property, whereas the majority of this development is within, if you'd call it, a "canyon"? PJ The majority of this property is back in a, we call it, more of a valley area. It's kind of a bowl shaped area. RAS Alright, let's put it differently. The majority of the houses in this development cannot be seen from Highway 74. PJ That's correct. RAS The property that is accessible, the properties that are accessible if this road is put in are visible from Highway 74, is that correct? PJ The properties that would...there are two different areas of property that would benefit from this road. The first benefit is a new bridge that would be placed over the Palm Valley Channel, and that would benefit some of the properties around that particular area.. Right now they have access to the Thrush Road bridge which is quite a ways down the Channel. This would give them a lot better access to use. And then there's other properties back in the Cahuilla Hills that would also access this road, and they would not be visible. The majority of the properties that would access this road, we have a subdivision approved directly to the south of this property alongside the Palm Valley Channel, and that's low enough that it would not be visible because it's so far down on the hillside. RAS I'm talking about the ones that are up the hillside on the south side of the development. PJ South of the development there may be a few parcels in there, but it's not a lot. RAS That's what I guess I'm referring to...I went out there, but it was five years ago, and saw the area that they were planning to develop, and there were parcels not part of the development that were on the south side of the development that I was worried about. PJ Okay. 54 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * J A I1IDh1 NC" RAS Okay? Alright. RSK Any other questions? Then I'll open the public hearing, and would the applicant like to make a presentation? TM Mr. Mayor and City Council. I'm happy to be here again. We started this project, we worked real hard, Ray Diaz, and we started this in 1989. I didn't have any children, I have four now. They're not adopted, and I had them one at a time. RSK Does that mean that it was a long time or you were very active? TM Probably a little of both. And I appreciate the hard work that all of the...well, that I believe that all of you have spent on this property, substantially the same development. We haven't really changed a lot other than we did give a lot more open space and we gave up a lot of great view lots recently to add some more additional open space. We think that the project which has been approved by the Planning Commission I might add, three times, and that the City Attorney has looked at, the Commission has done a very thorough job, we think we responded to all of the issues, we've been very open, and I appreciate working with the staff, they've done a darn good job because it is the same staff who were able to remember very complex issues over a very long period of time. And so, anyways, the project is very unique from the standpoint that over 90% will be dedicated to open space, will be left in its natural state. It's nothing like projects that you've seen with golf courses or things like that. It's being developed, this idea was developed out of some state of the art type projects that are in Scottsdale and I think you all are aware of what we're doing. It's late, I know you've all spent a lot of time on it, and I'd be happy to address any specific issues that you have on it. We have all kinds of pretty graphics, I don't think you want to look at that. We believe we can answer all of your concerns and would be happy to do that. And I'd like to kindly request your approval on this project after working diligently with everybody for a long period of time. RAS I will ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Drell. Why didn't you go to the County for approval of the project? TM It was a couple of issues. One of them, well, one of them is that we think it would be good to be in the City of Palm Desert. You have a fine reputation, you have...it's much better to have a Palm Desert address than some of the other addresses. From a practical matter, it would have been very difficult if Palm Desert was not on board to work with all of the municipalities, the lower property, part of the property is in the City, part is in the County, very unwieldy to work with. It seemed as though the opinion of the Council was that we wanted to have a print in Palm Desert. Palm Desert governed the process, including the dedicated open space, and they would be in the driver's seat. It was determined that because 55 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Llllpll MCw over five miles of ridge line, probably your most visible ridges, we're giving to the City forever. It was pretty much in the judgment, as I understood it, with Councilmembers of the City, etc., that it would be better for the City to control its destiny than the County. The City for quite a while didn't necessarily, I would say it in other words, but trusts the County with its valuable view shed, and so for some of those reasons, that's sort of a long discussion, but primarily it was to control your destiny, to be in the driver's seat, which you have...it's been very tedious and complex, and you've been very, very involved the whole time. But we would like to be a part of Palm Desert...it's a fine city. And for those reasons, we...it would have been an easier choice just to go to the County, I think, eight years difference, but we're here and we want to build a quality development in your quality city. RAS Thank you. RSK Any other questions from the Council? WHS I have no questions. JMB On the dedicated open space you have here on that desert park, why isn't that included in the open space? TM A couple of reasons. It's primarily an ownership issue in that the desert park would basically look like the other property. In other words, there won't be improvements to, and if you'd like, I can put up a map, there won't be improvements to the desert park, the land use restrictions in desert park are very strict. It'll look just the same. The difference is from a security standpoint, we felt it was important that the title was held by the community. In other words, the community would own that property from a security standpoint and be able to...most of the dedicated open space is a vertical drop that if someone climbs in there from 2,000 feet and below, now we didn't think that was a concern, but we felt it was very important that we control it in terms of who owns it. JMB unclear. Is there any provision in here that says you won't build on that? TM In essence, that's what the land use how it describes it. What it says is...the dedicated open space was an issue...there was some controversy early on...could you walk through the dedicated open space...we said, look we want to make everybody happy. Initially the major concern...the Mountains Conservancy said we don't want anybody walking through it. We said, okay, we won't through it. And someone said we've got to be able to walk through it, and so we're saying, look, we want to make everybody happy, we think it would be reasonable for our own residents to be able to walk through, hike through there, walk through there, and be able to use it passively. We don't allow any sort of four-wheel drive vehicles, we don't allow any structures, other than maybe, you know, a bench to sit down at a 56 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I Ariinii NC. viewpoint, which is what's described in the land use there. And the Commission was concerned about that issue, and Mr. Ferguson raised a question, and we did not put any structure on the ridge lines, and we'd be happy to make that an additional...there's no intent to develop that land other than we'd like to be able to have our residents passively use it, which there would be some question if we lose control of it through the dedication process. RSK If there are no other questions, then would anyone else like to speak to this project? (Unclear) RAS Would you pull the microphone...no, not that one, the other one, yeah, that's right. MC Did that do it? RSK That's good. MC I'm Mrs. Cocroft, 74-346 Sunny Trail, Palm Desert. And I don't know that I have the same papers that you all do, but I did go to the Planning Commission to get them, and it seems that in project A there will be no building pads on the ridge, but that isn't specified in project B, and you're going to have it looking like Pasadena very shortly with all the little hills cut off. It might not be very desirable. And the other thing that was concerning me was this access road for emergency in the back. All that Cahuilla Hills area is unpaved, and unless this is a gated road so that people can't just take a Sunday drive through The Crest and through Cahuilla Hills and back down and out, you're going to have an awful lot of unhappy land owners in the Cahuilla Hills area because that's all dust, which and from the Cahuilla Hills area, if my map is the same as yours, you're going to look into a very congested area on that south side. Anyway, those were the points that I had wanted to bring up before you made a final decision. Thank you. JW My name is Janice... RSK You need to pull it up now, the mike. JW My name is Janice Wood, and I live at 72-375 Upper Way West. My property borders the area that I understand is going to be granted back to the City as a hiking and recreational area for campers or whatever, maybe not campers, I may not have that correct. But I'm concerned...what is going to be between my property and The Crest? What's going to keep hikers from hiking through my land? I, as it is now, because it's pretty much just hillside property, I haven't had that problem, but if the City is to take over a park area, then I will have that problem, and I believe it is about 660 feet of property that borders The Crest. Another question that I have, on both of my notices that I received, my last name is spelled 57 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * N.AH1D11 MC. "tje"; my name is spelled "Wood", and I tried to have this corrected after the first notice for the City meetings, and it was absolutely to no avail. I contacted Planning and Zoning and they denied responsibility for them, and I contacted the Riverside County Tax Assessor's Office and also responsibility was denied. So I hope I can receive further notices under my correct name so I don't feel I'm opening someone else's mail. Thank you. JM Mayor Kelly, distinguished Councilmembers, my name is Dr. Jerry Meintz, I've lived in the City of Palm Desert for 32 years, I've spent 25 of those in the Cahuilla Hills. My four children, my wife and I and other family members reside in about 12 acres that are adjacent to The Crest. I have been in opposition of this project for over 20 years, and I must admit in those days as a college professor I was a NIMBY and a pretty militant naturalist. I'm in a position today that I thought was pretty aptly described in the editorial in the Desert Sun and that is I'm becoming more of a realist as I grow up, and I describe myself as a recovering naturalist because I've really given up the kind of Marxist idea that I have the right to dictate what people can do to their private property just because I like the view or just because I want it the way I want it. Instead, what I've come to realize is that what we really need to do is to have those of us who are really concerned about the environment and about the beautiful open spaces we all enjoy here in the desert to work with developers so that nobody runs over anybody else, so that there's some sort of harmony in this process and some sort of sanity. I have thanked this Council on several occasions, because this city has reached out to us in the Cahuilla Hills, you've purchased an entire acre of land, providing our children with a safe bus stop, Bighorn landscaped that bus stop, other community agencies worked in concert to provide a shade structure, and to provide once again a safe place for our children to travel to and from school. Over the years, I've also applauded this Council because you've helped us stop projects like Rancho Bella Vista, which was going to be developed on the Bighorn site, and that was an intensely high density project with condos and hotels and all kinds of crazy things, and the wisdom of this Council has been to move forward and be progressive but at the same time try to find a balance with nature. I've come to a place after long-term negotiation with these developers in attending Council meetings, attending Planning Commission meetings, to feel that they have made enough changes, in fact some significant changes, to bring this project in line with a balance between development and environmentalism. And for the following reasons, I'm here tonight to speak in favor of this project, and I'll try to address those reasons systematically. Number one, in contrast to what has been alluded to here this evening, this project provides no hilltop development, and Roy Wilson and some of us have sat and looked up from Highway 111 and seen some hilltop homes we wish were never there, and they're there today only because it's County, and so earlier, sir, when you were addressing the question about why the City and not the County, I'm scared to death if the County takes over this project, because Palm Desert and many of you have drafted what is considered to be the toughest hillside regulations in the state of California. So County is a dangerous place, as I do believe this City, particularly after some very strong reassurance from Jim Ferguson and the Planning Commission, this city will in fact 58 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lri11fll NC' hold the developers' feet to the fire and make them do exactly what they promise. Number two, there's no golf course, and I know that's been a very popular thing to say, and I'm really glad I didn't have to mention it an hour ago when all of the strong applicants for this wonderful cutting edge golf course were chanting and cheering. And I don't like golf courses, I'm in the Cahuilla Hills because I like the open spaces, I like to hike with my family, I love the nature trails, we adore the canyons, we preserve the canyons, and I don't want to see Orange County transported to this valley adjacent to the Cahuilla Hills. In addition, I'm not really with what's happened at Bighorn, and I went through that process with the folks at Bighorn, and they made big promises that they did not keep. There were supposed to be no hills cut down, and somehow they slipped through, and I want this Council to hold this developer to honor those agreements. I don't want to see any back room decisions made by folks wanting more property developed, and I also don't want to see developments like Bighorn occur. And that's because they graded the entire property and then revegetated. What this developer promises is to leave alone what God has put here and to walk softly through those canyons, not disturbing, I'm sorry, disturbing as little as possible, and believe me I've pored over these plans in great detail because I'm one of the ten and, I repeat, one of the ten property owners that can see this project. No one else can. And we're really concerned that it happens right. My next item is this is incredible low density. I mean, I'm just amazed. Only ten percent of this nearly 700 acres is being proposed for development, and moreover, this project is consistent with the rustic small ranch character of the Cahuilla Hills, and we applaud that. In addition, this is an issue although it doesn't override the environment and it doesn't override the need for gentlemen's ranches, but it will enhance the property values of those of us in the Cahuilla Hills, and you know because we've cried before you in the past that we've been sadly overlooked. I know we're not yours, I know we're County, and I know we're County because there's a lot of really recalcitrant property owners in the Cahuilla Hills that just feel that in order to maintain this rustic ranch character, they've got to be in the County. Fear was that the City might tell us where we could park our motor homes or how many horses we could have, and we really don't want that. So we want our property values enhanced, and the only way that can happen is by allowing developments adjacent to us, not like Bighorn, we can't afford to play golf at Bighorn, and besides, the horses would mess up the greens anyway. What we're interested in is ranch property that creates tons of open space and leaves, and I'm going to repeat it, 90% of this property just the way it is. I must say, then, and I've visited Desert Mountain and Troon (spelling), because I heard these were, you know, similar or parallel projects, the can't hold a candle to this project because they've got golf courses, they've got Orange County out there in Arizona. This project does not, and for those reasons, and for the kinds of low density and for the kinds of open spaces that are mandated between these homes, this is the most ecologically protected development ever proposed in the desert and maybe ever proposed in California. Now, this could only happen in a city like Palm Desert because you've cared enough to guard the environment. It's a treasure we all enjoy, but I can't tell this family who has owned this property since, I don't know, back in the 20's, not to build on it. I tried, and 59 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *•* * * * * * KC" I tried to get some people, the government, the Conservancy, and a whole bunch of people, to buy it. Nobody could come up with the money. So if you ask this developer to sell it, all of a sudden I understand the price tag on this property is going to go up about $13 million, and that means the next developer is going to have an opportunity to develop this property, and he's going to have to have high density or it won't pencil. So I submit, this is the City's best chance tonight, and the only opportunity to really control this property and have it developed in such a way that keeps this density incredibly low and makes this property a project that is ecologically sound and protected. Next, I want to emphasize that the City has a lot by lot approval, and the hillside is going to affect all of those choices. I want to mention something, and that is there was an issue raised about access, and yes indeed the developers have negotiated with three of us property owners to put through our land, not on a road, but to put through our land an emergency roadway that connects with Painted Canyon. And in the doing of that, they provided two things: number one, if there's a fire and I don't know the last time a fire happened up there, it's pretty dry, nothing much to burn, cactus is pretty short, but if they have a fire that blocks there main access road, then by God they can crash through this guarded gate right there at the edge of our property and get to safety down through the Cahuilla Hills and out the front gate. But now, more important, the road runs in two directions, and that is if our only single entrance and exit is blocked by some catastrophe, well we have the right to crash through that same gate and exit through The Crest. And with reference to an issue the woman raised here earlier this evening, and that is the dirt roads of the Cahuilla Hills, well, I'm Co -Chairman of the Road Committee. We've been struggling with the County to get a soil cement project through. Many of us homeowners have chipped in ourselves, the County is finally working with us so that we can extend the cost of soil cement, which is like Elmer's glue, it's not a petroleum product, doesn't kill the landscape, but it keeps PM10 down effectively, and the roads still look like country roads, which most people don't want asphalt up there, they like the country feeling. Well, we on that Road Committee are committed to persevere. We've got bids right now to regrade Painted Canyon and lay it down in a scarified manner and to put soil cement down twice a year, which will take care of all of our dust problems, and we don't want PM10, we don't like the dust any more than you do, and we don't want our dust to blow down on the folks at the condos and the country clubs below us there, in what we call the lowlands. So we're going to take care of that, but we want the roads natural. Another comment was made about taking Painted Canyon and making it straight — over my dead body — that road flows because that's the way nature flows, and we need to respect that, and I did hear some intelligent commentary about that this evening, and for that I applaud. I know a lot of people are scare of development. I know that this project has been a long time in the planning, and I think the concerns that many of us have had have been addressed 200%. My biggest concern is not this project, but it's simply that you colleagues hold this developer's feet to the fire and make them do exactly what they promise. Because if you do, what this promise will realize will be one of the proudest, one of the most environmentally sensitive projects ever done in California. Thank you. 60 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I Anlnii rC■ RSK Anyone else like to speak? RR My name is Robert Ricciardi, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, California. Back in 1977 Dave Rogers and I bought 20 acres up in the Cahuilla Hills from Del Gagnon, and we came to this City and around 1979/1980 we've got a road that went from 74 down through the wash, up to almost to Tyler Miller's property, and that road was approved by this Council, by this body, and it created or allowed five, excuse me, four five -acre parcels, which abuts Tyler Miler's property. Mr. Miller is using part of our road, which we bulldozed when he bought the property from Dr. Bertrand and his group. So when we got ours approved, part of the approval was we had to go get water from the Coachella Valley Water District, so we have water lines to our property on the Coachella Valley Water District and so even if the Tyler Miller property never goes, we have the right to use the Tyler Miller road forever, and the Miller people have to honor that agreement to get to our four five -acre parcels where we can build houses. That property today happens to still be in the County, and those are the only parcels that would ever have a view down to the Valley floor, but they have that right today because they are in the County, they have that right because this city approved a roadway all the way up to those parcels years ago, and we have water to that now. In fact, we have a fire hydrant on the site, and three of those four five -acre parcels have been sold. Now, nobody has ever built on them and may never build on them...who knows? When this Tyler Miller project comes along, it will make it more valuable because there'll be a paved road to it, there'll be sewers to it, Mr. Miller's to provide water to it. But those are the only ones that will ever affect the Valley floor of Palm Desert. So that answers your question, Mr. Spiegel, that there are four that will be able to look down at the Valley floor. One looks back to the south, and the other three will be looking down to the Valley floor. One's tucked back, I don't know if you'll ever see that one, but there will be two, one of them is owned, I believe, by one of your Planning Commissioners, and you know who that is, so...and that's it, nobody's trying to cover that up, that's been there for a long time and it was something that this body approved back around 1979. RAS I appreciate it, thank you. RR And we did an EIR for the road and everything else. And that's that. I'm in favor of the project because those properties that look down onto it will be looking down on a very super project. As you know, I think they're one -acre parcels basically, and they can only develop half of the one acre, the other half they have to leave in natural landscape, and so this is a unique project. Is it financial feasible, I don't know. But it will be a beautiful project once it's built, there's no doubt about it. And it's not for the golf course set, and I don't know how many people want to live up in the mountains and not on a golf course, but the Cahuilla Hills proves that there are a lot of people that would like that, that are naturalists and would like to walk the natural landscape and communicate with nature. I've been up there, there's a lot of different kinds of animal life up there, there's iguanas up there, there's red foxes up 61 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Litmus' 1 NC. there, there's all kinds of beautiful creatures up there, and it's a great place just to walk and spend your time, and it would be a great place to live if you don't really like people and you want to really communicate more with nature, and there are a lot of us that are like that. Thank you. Hope you'll approve the project. RSK Anyone else like to speak? PS Mr. Mayor, assuming there are no further comments, we would like this brief opportunity to respond to some of the questions. My name is Paul Selzer, I'm an attorney with the firm of Selzer, Ealy, Hemphill and Blaisdell, and we do represent the applicant. Several questions have been raised, and I'd like to respond directly. First, Mrs. Benson, with respect to your question with regard to development in the desert park. The same exact restrictions will apply in the desert park as apply in the dedicated open space, and that is guaranteed by both the specific plan as well as the development agreement, the contract we will sign with the City. To address the issues raised by Mrs. Cocroft with respect to ridge line development, there is absolutely no ridge line development on either parcel. I think she...I don't know which plan she was looking at, but there are no ridge line developments on either parcel A or parcel B. With respect to her concern regarding the emergency access and the ability for people just to come and go, as I'm sure you know, the emergency access is gated, controlled and locked, so we won't have that problem. Mrs. Wood raised the issue of hikers trespassing on her property, obviously we're going to be dedicating the open space to the City. No one is going to build a trail on her property. I assume that this property, as all of the open space in our beautiful desert and the mountains, folks will from time to time use it, but I would guess no more than use it right now. Dr. Meintz raised a very important issue with you, and that is to assure that the deal doesn't change, and we've attempted to address that issue with the development agreement. Dr. Meintz said we don't want any back room deals that are going to change this thing and all of a sudden we wake up and we've got something different than we thought we had. Well, we think we've gone a long way to assure that with the development agreement. In order for that development agreement to be amended it of course, the State law requires, public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council before that could occur. So, we believe that we have...I guess there is one other question, Mr. Spiegel, and that is your issue with respect to the visibility of some of the adjacent lots, and I think the response to that is we went out on the property with Councilmember Benson and Councilman Crites and specifically located on the lower parcel where each residence would be built and made sure that the views of that ...those would be placed in the least visible position. We assume that the same, if those properties are in the City, that that same process would occur, and that is before development could occur on any building space up, that they would receive the same scrutiny that our building sites have received. So, with that, I think we've responded to everything, and if there are any other questions, we'll attempt to answer them at the present time. 62 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r,J�f1Intl MC" 7MB I just don't understand why you can't dedicate all the open space at one time. Other projects that we have that have given us open space, they gave it to us with conditional of approval on the project, and I'd hate to see the open space given in increments. PS Ms. Benson, I think the only way I can respond to that is this. One, we are giving 100 acres up front, with the signing of the agreement. There are several reasons why we don't believe that it is in either your interests or ours to make the entire dedication at the present time. First of all, we've fully protected the City with the incremental dedication with a nondisturbance agreement. Until it's dedicated, we can't disturb it. Secondly, because the Bighorn Sheep, because frankly we need to go back...the developers of this project will have to go back to both Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service for further permits at the time the 404, the 404 permits from the Corps of Engineers are required...to be very frank, we want to be...once it's given, it's given, and it puts us, very frankly, at a very difficult position with Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife if all of our mitigation is already on the table...we can't give any more, we don't have any more to give. And our development agreement provides that we should get credit for all of this. So we think it's fair, the City is fully protected and very frankly, while I recognize Mr. Crites does not have the ability to bind this City Council, the _ arrangement with respect to dedicating it in increments was negotiated with him on the site and at the time at least, and I don't think it's changed since that time, he agreed that that would be an appropriate way to do it. 7MB And you're using the dedicated open space as a bargaining chip for somebody else rather than giving it to us. PS No, ma'am, no, no, you get it. Keep in mind, we can't put a stick in the ground, no development may occur for any, for any parcel of that property until we dedicate a proportionate share of the open space. The very first...well, we will first give 100 acres. The very first subdivision map that comes in to you, at that time and before we can, before we can put a stick in the ground, we've got to dedicate a prorata portion of the balance, and so forth, on down until it's all dedicated when the final phase is developed. So there's no risk to the City. We can't develop, we can't put a stick in the ground, we can't do anything there until we make the incremental dedication. RAS Question. Why didn't you go to Fish and Game before you brought it to the City? PS Because, well, first of all, keep in mind we have been to both Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife. We have a certified EIR. We have a certified EIR. We will be required, because of the terrain there, to get a section 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers. We're not in a position to do that, and they will send it back, we won't, they will send it back to Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife. The reason is, we can't get there yet because that will happen at the time of the 404 permit. We're just not in a position. That will happen as each tract 63 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * i1 AIIinii "C map is processed through the City. And, again, I think it's really important to understand, this City keeps its finger on the button all the way through. We are inextricably tied to you, nothing will happen until the dedications are made as required, and it's assured by both your ordinances as well as the development agreement. RSK I guess you haven't convinced me yet why you can't give us the whole thing because you say well when you do it, then it's finished. Well, when we approve the development agreement, the City's done our part, too. PS No, sir, it's not. RSK Your reasons why you can't just...I guess I haven't bought them. PS Mr. Mayor, first of all you're not finished with this project when the development agreement is signed. Every part...as we bring subdivision maps before you, we've got to go through both Planning Commission and City Council approval. The dedication of the land will happen cotenminously with the approval of those maps. So, it isn't...you're not signing away...we can't...we're not going anywhere. Those dedications will occur as a condition of each of those maps and the dedications will be made. We are required to make the dedications pursuant to the...at that time by the contract. TM The City isn't the only one in charge. RSK Well, right now we are. TM No...I understand. But what I mean to say is, if you could guarantee us, if you could guarantee us safe passage with the 404 permit, with all of the drainage issues that are... State issues, Fish and Game issues, and the drainage issues, which are...the Army Corps of Engineers, etc., if you could guarantee us safe passage, that would be great...I'd love to do it tonight. You can't do that. JMB Well, that's what I said. You're holding back as a bargaining chip with them rather than giving us the land, and any other developer that we've had that has given open space gives open space. You're using it as a condition to get what you want from Fish and Game, and you're using us. PS No, ma'am, we don't have anything more to bargain with. Again, once we've made this dedication to the City, once we've made the dedication to the City, if we go back to...if the Corps of Engineers goes to Fish and Wildlife and the Fish and Wildlife Service says 100 more acres, we don't have 100 more acres, we don't have it. We're not using it to bargain with, all we're saying is that once we've given it, it's gone. We're not using it as a chip, we are 64 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Wisaasairl required by both the agreement, both the development agreement and the specific plan to make the dedication at the time that the...that the maps are processed through the City. I'm having a difficult time understanding what the risk to the City is...there isn't any. We see zero... RSK And I don't understand what the risk is to you. PS Because, well as Mr. Miller said, we're not through yet, we've got to go back...and we can't go there, is response to Mr. Spiegel, we cannot get to those other agencies yet, we have to get this done, and then such time as the specific development is proposed, we will go back to the Corps of Engineers who will, by law, be forced to go back to the Fish and Wildlife Service and who may impose additional conditions. That's all we're...that's the only position we're asking you to ask us to take. It's not a...it is not an impure bargain, it's not a bargaining chip, it merely gives us the only thing we have. We are dedicating...90% of this project right now is open space. In fact, 91% of this project is open space. You had Bighorn in here tonight talking about a density of about one unit per acre. Ours is 151 units on 695 acres. Again, we think if you compare any of these things, this project compares favorably to anyone; however, once it's gone for us, it's gone. We don't have anything else to bargain with, and all we're asking is your consideration, your consideration in making these dedications in stages. JMB Well, I don't understand. We seem to be talking in circles to me. If you don't have anything to bargain with, what you bargain with is the open space that you said you're going to dedicate to the City of Palm Desert, and if you really and truly are going to dedicate those acres, dedicate them. Don't play games with them. PS Well, we don't think it's playing games. We don't think it's playing games, and we think that by requiring the current dedication you would put us in a very difficult position with the regulatory agencies and, frankly, we don't think that's fair. JMB Is it fair to say you're going to give the acreage and don't? PS Well, wait a minute. We're not...again, the issue is we can't develop an acre without making the dedication. That's the truth. There is zero risk on the part of the City. JMB Then if it's zero risk, give us the acreage now. PS I guess I'm not making my point very clearly. RSK It isn't to me, either. 65 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * L CI-unix NC' PS Well, the issue is...first of all, there is...before we may develop, we must make the dedication. That is the fact, it's clear. Excuse me. If we don't develop, if we don't develop, or if we were prevented from developing from the Fish and Wildlife Service, there would be no dedication. That is the truth. If we were prevented from developing by the Fish and Wildlife Service, that...there would be no dedication. That is the position we want, and we would hope that you would grant us that. Thank you. RSK Did that (unclear). Let's see, was there anybody else that would like to speak? Let's see, you spoke once before, didn't you? RR Yeah, I just want to clear the issue for you. What it is is if they can't make a deal with these other government agencies, then they have no deal and they'll sell their property or give it to someone else. But meanwhile you'll get 100 acres for nothing anyway. Just by approving their thing you get the 100 acres just for signing the first phase. The City gets 100 acres if the deal never goes. If the deal does go, you get it all. If the deal doesn't go, you get 100 acres anyway. That's pretty good. That's what they're asking you to do tonight. Approve the deal in stages, you get 100 acres just for approving it in stages, and if it doesn't go for some reason, some place, somehow, then they don't give you the rest of the acreage, but the project's dead. RSK We don't get it, either. RR No, you get the first 100 acres. JMB No, he said not until he started developing. PS No, no. First 100 acres you will get immediately. First 100 acres you will get immediately. The balance will be dedicated in proportion to the land as it's developed. JMB (unclear) WHS I think we've drawn this thing out of proportion because if we had a development agreement that protects us also and point out that no matter what happens we get 100 acres out of it, that's pretty good insurance to me that this project...(unclear) RSK Anybody else? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing if Council agrees. WHS I've been mixed up with this program since it started. I feel that it's a program that, once again, our City desperately needs. 151 homes of a higher caliber that's (unclear), beautiful positioning, that harms our hillside not. Unfortunately Buford isn't here, but Buford spent a lot of time discussing the matters that these gentlemen have presented to you. He didn't try 66 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JI A II I IU I "C" to negotiate for us, but he did try to drive a hard bargain, and he is very well...he is mixed up with the Mountains Conservancy, as we all know, so (unclear) trying to force an issue that would assure us winding up with property, which indeed we do. We'll wind up with 100 acres if the program doesn't materialize. If it materializes, we'll wind up with 404 acres, but far more importantly we'll wind up with a development that's beyond most people's imagination. Also, the Palm Desert El Paseo Merchants Association once again are very...I've talked to many of them. This is another reason for bringing more people to shop at El Paseo. It's a beautiful facility that will set our town out as looking...that we also take care of all people, not just the poor and the uninhibited, but we take care of others. I think it's an excellent project. I think the position of the City is excellent. We get 100 acres no matter what happens, and if it goes we'll have the finest program in the Valley plus 400 acres, so I am very much in favor of this project as it's been presented and the opportunity our city has to follow through on this thing as the many years and hours of effort that has been put into it and all of the people that they've worked with and tried to make changes and make it acceptable to us. It's been to the Planning Commission, approved three times, I think it's time for us to sit up and go. And, if necessary, I'll make a motion for that. RAS Well, I'm probably the only one up here that's opposed to the project. I was in 1992 when it was before the Planning Commission, and I am today. The reason I say that, I'm one of the people, Doctor, that live in the lowlands, and if I had my way, there would be no development in the mountains. 20 years ago I lived in Studio City south of the Boulevard, and you didn't know there were mountains there because all you saw were houses. Now, true, this development is in some sort of a cove because I was up there, and you can't see the homes, but at night you're going to see the halo effect as you drive up Highway 74. And there are going to be houses that are going to be developed off of this development. It's going to happen, and I just don't want to see any homes developed in the mountains. My own personal feeling. JMB Well, don't think you're sitting up there alone because I don't like it, either. And though they did relocate some of them, there are still some homes that are dubious in there, and I still feel that if you're going to give something, you give it or you don't. So, I'm not in favor of it either. RSK I assume you can count. PS May I speak? RSK Yes, please do. PS We're pretty good at counting. And I guess the...what we frankly at this point would like to do is have the matter...because we have dealt with Mr. Crites for the last two years...year and 67 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DUNE 26, 1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * p.A n u, i "C" a half on this issue, and because he might bring some clarity to some of the things we've been discussing, the question to you is if it would be appropriate to have the matter continued until July l Oth until he could join in the discussion and, again, bring some clarity to some of the questions and some of the issues which have been raised tonight. RSK I was opposed to continuing the other one, even though Mr. Crites requested a continuance, but in this case, it appears he might provide some information to (unclear) make some agreements... (unclear) RAS He lives in the mountains. Wouldn't he have to abstain? Wouldn't he use the road that's going in? WHS He's not connected to this project at all. JMB No, but it would be interesting to get his insight because the last conversation I had with him when I said I don't understand why they can't dedicate the whole thing, he said I don't either. WHS Okay, I move for a continuance of this matter until the next meeting, which is July the l Oth. RSK July loth. WHS To give the opportunity of Mr. Crites to (unclear) RSK Would anyone like to second that? JMB I'll second it. RSK Any other discussion? Please vote. SRG The motion carries a 3-1 vote, with Councilman Spiegel voting no. RSK Okay, that takes us to the last opportunity for anyone in the audience that would like to address the Council... 68