HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-19MINUTES
PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MARCH 19, 1976, 10:00 A.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Brush called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. on Friday,
March 19, 1976, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Member McPherson
Member Mullins
Member Newbrander
Member Seidler
Chairman Brush
Also Present:
Harvey L. Hurlburt, Executive Director
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
III. OLD BUSINESS - Relocation of Trees
Chairman Brush indicated that inasmuch as the project to be discussed was
approved by the Redevelopment Agency and not the City Council, the
Redevelopment Agency was meeting to resolve the problems. He asked
if the meeting had been duly posted and advertised and Mr. Hurlburt
replied that it had been.
Chairman Brush established ground rules under which the meeting was to
be held stating that any disputes which had arisen were honest misunder-
standings and that all parties involved had the best interest of the
community at heart. He stipulated that any participant in the meeting
must be willing to speak on that basis or the meeting wdld be adjourned.
Chairman Brush asked Mr. Michael Buccino, Landscape Architect for the
El Paseo Project, to outline the project and a little of his background
for the benefit of the audience. Mr. Buccino stated that he.had lived
in the desert for 29 years and that he had completed over 45 commercial
projects in the area. He further indicated that the idea for land-
scaping El Paseo was to make it a more personal atmosphere with a
greater human element. He pointed out that the larger palm trees had
been removed because they had a telephone -pole affect in that the only
visible part was their trunks. He continued outlining the project
showing the plans approved by the Redevelopment Agency. The pattern
of landscaping shown in the plans would continue throughout the entire
landscape project.
Member Newbrander asked why the desert decor was not preserved since this
is the desert. Mr. Buccino responded that the oasis in the desert was
more the theme of the new landscaping.
Chairman Bursh invited input from the audience.
Mr. Russ Johnston stated that he had no investments in this area but as a
citizen, he had a few questions. Where will the project go from here: the
circles on the street indicate what; and how will this project affect
traffic circulation? Mr. Buccino responded that the circles on the plans
indicated trees and that as far as traffic was concerned, that was being
handled by the Core Area Committee. He also responded that the landscape
project was being proposed for all of El Paseo.
March 19, 1976 Page 1
Mrs. Marian Henderson, President, Desert Beautiful, stated that she
had been telephoned and asked to attend the meeting. She was
accompanied by all members of the board of directors of Desert Beau-
tiful. She expressed strong opposition to the removal of the palm
trees in that they represented the desert decor; they had been planted
30 years ago and had been carefully taken care of. She stated that
Desert Beautiful had been asked about the beautification program for
El Paseo but that never once had she been informed of the removal of
the trees. She stated that her group demanded the return of the
palm trees and further stated that Desert Beautiful would pay for
any expenses incurred with the return of the trees.
Mrs. Margery Egan adressed the Agency inquiring about the sidewalks
and whether or not their construction had been postponed. Chairman
Brush asked Mrs. Egan to confine her discussion and questions only
to the median strip. Mrs. Egan asked about the economics of the
program.
Mrs. Eunice Pierson stated that she did not feel olive trees were
appropriate for the El Paseo landscaping and agreed with Desert
Beautiful that the palm trees should be returned.
Mr. Bill Hannon addressed the Agency as a property owner on El Paseo
stating that it was the general feeling of the property owners there
that additional landscaping was needed. He said that he was not really
for or against the return of the palm trees and that what he had seen
of the new landscaping, he approved of.
Mr. Robb Claiborne, El Paseo merchant, addressed the Agency expressing
his strong favor of the new landscaping on El Paseo. He stated that
he had discussed the landscaping project with many property owners
and merchants and that they all liked it.
Mrs. Beulah Thompson, Desert Beautiful, addressed the Agency members
with strong support of the return of the palm trees.
Mr. George Minturn, President, of the Palm Desert Property Owners
Association, stated that his association had taken no official
position. He felt that the project should be completed and stated
that he had never really noticed the 30 year old palm trees.
Mr. Bill Hall adressed the Agency stating that he had been on the
Palm Desert Property Owners Association the longest ar that he had
actually watered the trees that had been removed. He stated strong
opposition to their removal.
Robert Lotte, El Paseo merchant, addressed the Agency stating that the
new landscaping was much better and that it had support of all the
merchants along El Paseo. He asked that people not criticize it
until it was completed. He further expressed strong opposition to
the return of the palm trees.
Mr. Roy Kiele stated his concern over the money spent on removing the
trees and then their proposed return.
Mr. Eunice Pierson expressed concern over the maintenance of the olive
trees.
Mrs. Beryl Bines, Kitchen Fancy, expressed support of having the palm
trees returned.
Mr. Harold Bromley, El Paseo property owner, endorsed Desert Beautiful
in the demand for the return of the palm trees.
Mr. Vic Whitmore expressed support of the return of the palm trees.
Mrs. Even Owenby, Realtor, stated that El Paseo belonged to everyone,
not just the storeowners and property owners. She felt that the palm
trees should be returned.
March 19, 1976 Page 2
Mr. Cliff Henderson addressed the Agency expressing his support of
the return of the trees. He stated that he had had the trees planted
over 30 years ago and that much care and attention had gone into their
maintenance.
Chairman Brush declared the hearing closed.
Member Seidler stated that he had come to the meeting thinking he was
to hear input concerning Mr. Buccino's plan which was approved by the
Redevelopment Agency prior to the change in Council. It appears that
this is not the discussion at all, but rather people, including Mrs.
Henderson, feeling that some upgrading of landscaping would be worth-
while with the only question being the return of the tall palm trees.
He further stated that he felt there was a bigger question in that
if Council and the Agency held hearings for public input on projects
and proceeded with action subsequent to the information being presented
at public hearings and then allowed people to stop the work because
they did not like it, all projects would be subject to this type of
problem. He continued that he felt the last Agency had conducted
the proper hearings with the proper input and made the proper deci-
sions, and he was inclined to feel that as a result of that, the
project should be continued. However, the return of the tall palm
trees was the problem at hand.
Mr. Hurlburt stated that of the 11 trees to be removed, the 4 tallest
ones were to. go to the park and the remaining to San Pablo.
Member Newbrander stated that she felt Mr. Buccino should use the
tallest trees in that they do stand out against our desert mountains
and open spaces.
Member McPherson stated that he felt the people should understand that
the trees were not being destroyed, merely relocated to more suitable
areas.
Member Mullins expressed sympathy with both sides in that there was
personal attachment to the palm trees but the City had hired a profes-
sional with an outstanding record in the area and well qualified to
complete the project. He stated it was more an emotional question
now.
Chairman Brush stated that not every one of the trees had to be returned
and that a compromise could be made so that if some were returned, they
could be placed so as to fit into the new landscaping.
Member Seidler stated that it was his understanding that there were 4
tall palm trees, one of which was still on El Paseo with the other three
having been moved temporarily to the Park and not planted. He felt that
Mr. Buccino should take the 4 tall palm trees and work them into his
design on El Paseo so that we retain those 4 palm trees in the approxi-
mate area from which they were taken from within the same block and that
Mr. Buccino proceed with the rest of his plan as outlined, working
around those 4 palm trees.
Discussion followed as the flexibility of the plan and it was decided
that Mr. Buccino had the flexibility within his contract to add addi-
tional trees.
Member Seidler moved to retain within this block the 4 tallest trees and
to have those trees fit into Mike Buccino's present plans the best way possible
with the understanding that Mr. Buccino has the flexibility to add additional
trees if so necessary. Member McPherson seconded the motion; carried unani-
mously.
March 19, 1976 Page 3
Member Seidler moved and Member Mullins seconded to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Brush adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.
NOEL Si/ Bf SH, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
AR E�RLrufri ( xecutive Director
March 19, 1976 Page 4