Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2000-05-10 ( �. �: "�,"','�� y � C�thedr�I it� ; CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL � SITTING AS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND � THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT � � � WEDNESDAY� MAY '10, 2000 „ ?� � This meeting of the City Council, also sitting as the Redevelopment Agency and � Community Services District Boards was called to order by Mayor/Chairman/President .� Gary L. Amy in the Council Chamber at 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City, � California, on May 10, 2000, at the 3:00 p.m. Study Session with Roll Call of all � members present. The regular evening meeting at 7:30 p.m. was opened by ° Mayor/Chairman/President Amy, with invocation by Councilmember/RDA-CSD Board � Member Gregory S. Pettis, followed by the flag salute led by Mayor Pro Tem/RDA-CSD = Board Member Sarah Di Grandi. � � � ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers/RDA-CSD Board Members Kathleen De � � Rosa, Robert Gomer, Cregory S. Pettis, Mayor Pro � Tem/RDA-CSD Board Member Sarah Di Grandi, and � Mayor/Chairman/President Gary L. Amy Absent: None � CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ? 1. PERSONNEL MATTER pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. � (Mike Owens) Issue for Discussion: 1) Cathedral City Public Safety Management Association (CCPSMA); and, 2) Cathedral City Firefighters Association (CCFFA). F � ; 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. (Warren Bradshaw) � Property: � Locations: 1. 68517 Grove Street � 2. 68528 "A�� Street, (aka 68521 Grove StJ 3. 68941 Buddy Rogers Avenue 4. 68904 1 st Street 5. 68579 "A" Street 6. 68825 & 68831 "C" Street � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 $ PAGE 2 � Negotiation Parties: Agency: Redevelopment Agency � Property Owners:1. Helen Holmes � 2. Jerry A. Gasbarra � 3. Marilyn Jorgensen ; 4. Roger Smith, Jr. � 5. Alex lan Booker � � 6. Esteban Perezchica (Sale of City � � Property) s � Under Negotiation; Proposed Property Acquisition/Sale , � 3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to , Government Code Section 54956.8. (Susan Moeller) ' Property: Location: 68-736 Buddy Rogers Avenue � Negotiating Parties: � Agency: Redevelopment Agency � Property Owners: Palm Canyon Partners , Under Negotiation: Terms of Disposition and E Development Agreement ; r Pending litigation cases listed below are all those in which the City is currently involved: � 4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LlTIGATION E pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, Subd., (a): A. The People of the State of California v. Dennis Brennan, individually; Dennis Brennan as managing agent for �; CopyCo, a sole proprietorship business entity; Suzanne Newman, individually; Suzanne Newman doing business as CopyCo, a sole proprietorship business entity; � Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Case N0. INM 102588. # B. City of Cathedral City v. Jose S. Villalobos, et al; Superior � Court of California, County of Riverside: Case No. I 53395. ;� C. George F. Truppelli v. City of Cathedral City, et al.; United States District Court, Central District of California: Case N0. EDCV99-238RT. D. Tiodoro Hernandez v. City of Cathedral City, et al.; United States District Court, Central District of California: Case No. CV 99-06149 GAF (Mcx). CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 3 E. Ted Dumas dba TNV Towing and Recovery v. City of � Cathedral City, et al.; Superior Court of California, County ,� of Riverside: Case No. INC 011402. F. Roberto Aceituno et al. v. City of Cathedral City et al.: Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Case � No. INC 016051. t G. The People of the State of California v. Private Property fi located at 33639 Whispering Palms Trail, Cathedral City, '� California and Referenced by Riverside County Assessor's Parcel Number 680-421-006; Luis and Sons Construction, Property Owners of Record; Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Case No. !NC 017037. H. City of Cathedral City v. Auto Buyers et al.; Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Case No. INC v 091242. I. City of Cathedral City v. Cathedral Park Properties, et al.; _' Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Case :� � No. INC 092007. � J. City of Cathedrai City v. Laurel Investments, et al.; Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Case N0. 011053. K. City of Cathedral City v. Norwood et al.; Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Case No. INC 089833 L. City of Cathedral City v. Rodas; Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Case No. INC 087033. � M. City of Cathedral City v. Janofsky; Superior Court of � � California, County of Riverside: Case No. INC 079585. N. City of Cathedral City v. Luis and Sons Construction; Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Case N0. INC 016889. Councilmember Pettis made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi, carried by a 5-0 vote, to adjourn to the Study Session Conference Room to ; near Closed Session Agenda matters pursuant to above noted statutes. � :� � CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. PUBLtC COMMENTS: � Merle Malokoff, San Francisco - Spoke to the City's need for senior housing and urged City Council to permit construction of the Mercy Housing Project. ' CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 ; PAGE 4 � � Sister Amy Bailey, San Mateo - urged the City Council to construct the Mercy Housing Project. � Bill Cohen, Cathedral City - announced the need for new �� recruits for Citizens on Patrol. � � Jose Apodaca, Cathedral City - registered his concern that he f ' had not received a call back from the Chief of Police regarding � receipt of an incident report explaining circumstances � surrounding the death of his nephew. � ' AGENDA FINALIZATION: Mayor Amy announced that he had been requested � to pull Item Nos. 3 and 5 from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. City � Manager ponald Bradley pulled Item No. 15 from the �egislative Agenda � stating no action would be taken regarding this issue at this time. i � 1 � COUNCIL COMMENTS: None � � � � :� CALL FOR CORRECTIONS/APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ; Councilmember Pettis made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi, � carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the Minutes of City Council/Redevelopment � ' Agency Meeting of April 26, 2000, as submitted. � a � F CONSENT ACENDA Councilmember Pettis made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi, � carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7. � Consent Agenda Item Nos. 3 and 5 were pulled for further discussion. t 1. Received and Filed Claims and Demands incurred by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and the Community Services District Boards in the total aggregate sum of $2,617,506.70 for the month of March, 2000, by Minute Order Nos. 3126� R-797 and C-330. � 2. Authorized staff to enter into a multi-agency traffic signal agreement � by Minute Order No. 3127. � 3. Proposed Resolution requesting an extension of time for Tentative � Tract Map 28639 for the Rio Vista Village Development, located on 303 acres on the northwest corner of Verona Road and �andau Boulevard. :, :� � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES � MAY 10, 2000 � PAGE 5 ` Councilmember Gomer stated he requested this item to be pulled as it relates to Item Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 under the Public Hearing Agenda � which are also requesting extensions of tract maps. He noted he z,� wished to point out that he was in favor of the Rio vista Project. He wanted to make it publicly known that he feels we have (in the Rio � vista Project) an example of what this City has asked for in the way of � residential development, as it was set forth in the Ahwahnee � Principles and in some of the other projects that have come forth ! j through Planning Commission during the last four to five years. By � pulling this item, he wanted to make a statement for the record at E ° this time, because he will have a different view on the Public Hearing � tract map items. ! � � Councilmember Gomer made a motion, seconded by Mayor Amy, carried by 3 a 5-0 vote, to approve this request by Resolution No. 2000-26. �, x 4. Approved budget transfer of $25,000 of Measure "A" Fund balance to � Miscellaneous Streets Capital Improvement Account #8916 by Minute � Order 3� 28. i ����� ��� ; 5. Authorization for City Manager to enter into a contract with Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., to update the City's Housing Element. Councilmember/RDA Board Member Pettis stated he pulled this item for further discussion because he had concerns about this company's workload and its ability to complete our General Plan and Housing Element projects in a timely manner. Reports were presented by ` Cynthia Kinser, City Planner, and Nicole Criste, Terri Nova representative. Mayor Pro Tem/RDA Board Member Di Grandi made a motion, seconded by Councilmember/RDA Board Member Gomer, carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember/RDA Board Member Pettis voting no, to approve this request ;r� by Minute Order Nos. 3129 and R-798. :� ., 6. Adopted Ordinance No. 524 adopting safety rules regarding the general public's use of the interactive fountain commonly known as the Fountain of Life which is located in the Cathedral City Town square. 7. Approved purchase of a newgraffiti truck in an amount not-to-exceed $25,000; funds to be used are from the Webb-Berger Foundation Grant by Minute Order No. 3� 30. � ; i CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ;� � 8. Century Crowell Communities: Tentative Tract Map 29664, A Request � to Subdivide Approximately 18.9 Acres into 72 Single-Family Parcels; Located South of 30 Avenue and West of San Eljay Drive in the R-1 7.2S (Single-Family Residential with a Specific Plan Overlay) Zone. Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi abstained from taking part in discussion regarding this matter, as the project location is � within the 2500-foot radius of her employment address which � therefore creates a possible conflict of interest. � Report was given by City Planner Cynthia Kinser. Councilmember Gomer queried as to the Specific Plans for both of � these areas. If we were to decide this evening that perhaps we � needed to look at the bigger picture and that is in regards to how the � development in these areas will be altered within the General Plan � after it is updated with some of the other considerations that were � brought forward already and he informed Cynthia that she has given � a good staff report in regards to some of the concerns that were voiced at the Planning Commission meeting and by the Planning Commission. It just seems to me that we have an opportunity here. What type of a burden would this place on the developers if we decided to ask them to come back with new plans that might be more consistent with conditions that we are already planning to compel them to comply with as we go through this development process �: seeing as there is no one knocking on the door right now to actually build on this vacant land. Ms. Kinser responded that at this point in time that the draft General Plan in terms of this general area does not have a lot of new principles to add in terms of this specific area. She noted that if there is specific � direction that the Council would like to be looked at and addressed ,, { r within the Specific Plan areas, we could evaluate that, but she felt staff needs some clarity in terms of what exactly Council would like to see changed in this area in terms of development and that can also be used as direction in terms of making sure that the General Plan � evaluates those details as well. � � � � � f i ; CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 7 Councilmember Gomer wondered how the City Council could communicate that to our Planning Commission as these tract � approvals come through, conditional use permits and all the other ¢ things that the Planning Commission has purview over, so they will have direction that is specific enough. He noted that his concern is � that we are trying to put a bandage on this situation that perhaps it � might be wise for us at this point in time to look at denying these and � � have the developers come back with new plans based upon current � standards and the policy concerns that the Council has. � � City Planner Kinser responded that she feels there is not too much � with the new processes would be much different than what you see I ` here. She thought this would be permitted under the new process. � � She thought that the Council is saying that this is not the type of � £ � : development that we want in this area. She noted that she would like � the Council to provide a little more specificity in terms of what is it i } that you want to achieve in these areas and, in terms of how do we � communicate that to the Planning Commission, she felt that part of ; it is providing information to her. She thought the other part of it is '�; the Commission really enjoyed and so did the Architectural Review ' -� Committee that one time that we got all three parties together for a ° joint study session and found that to be a very fruitful venue. That might be an avenue available for further discussion. Councilmember Gomer asked how much burden on the developers would it be if they had to come back and resubmit if we denied these tracts. City Planner Kinser stated she felt each developer would have to respond to that individually. Some developers are actively pursuing their financing and this would be a big business impact on them. It could affect some major financial obligations. The maps that we have ' before us do involve engineering work in terms of preliminary grading, hydrology; so they have invested time and money on their � projects, so it definitely would impact them. � Public Hearing was opened: � David Hacker, Rancho Mirage with a business address in Cathedral City - Mr. Hacker is representing Century � � 3 � � � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 ' PAGE 8 � Crowell Communities and Cornerstone Developers. He ,� stated they have no problem with the traffic calming � measures that were mentioned earlier by Associate �� Engineer Jerry Jack. Comments made so far seem to address all three of the tracts I am here to represent. � The City has developed a standard for traffic calming � and has discussed this with us and we are willing to implement those into the design of our subdivisions to try to address the traffic issue. This is not an issue that ? we feel will delay anything. Regarding the draft General Plan, it could drag on for quite some time. It is really � unfair to our clients at this point because of the money that is already invested, to tell them that they can only � go forward if his plan fits the community, which it does, with these different measures that the City has ' suggested. He stated that he does not know how many � : people out there can put their businesses on hold until $ the City decides what it is going to do, but he can�t do that. He thought that if there are measures to be implemented, they are willing to work with the City on ` them, but they do ask for these tracts to be approved tonight. He noted that they worked with staff to get to this point, and they would like to see these projects approved, continue to work with staff and they are ' willing to get the traffic calming measures. He stated that he heard the City Planner say that the new General Plan would not change these tracts, so why would you want to put this imposition onto the developer. Mayor Amy interjected at this point that there are a couple of issues before � the City Council at this point. He noted that they had been misinformed and ? he believed that there was a little bit of grit being chewed on because of the � fact that Council was told that this was an extension of an existing tract map ,:� and now we are being told that is not exactly the case, that this is an approval � of a new tract, which is a whole different issue. He stated that part of that r� is we have talked about Specific Plans...that this is our opportunity now to change street designs. We can�t do that if we are extending a tract map, only if we are approving a new tract map. He referred to a street called Walden � where the City has placed two speed humps to calm traffic and the residents � are still complaining because of safety concerns. Then, your developer comes � in and builds at least 150-200 more homes that now all dump onto that street. � 3 3 CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 9 Those citizens now are saying "What did you do to us? You just put calming measure devices in and then you build 200 more homes." This is our � opportunity to make those corrections now. We are given an hour to look �� at this and he feels that is what has happened here, you have been talking to staff, but staff has not been talking to the Council. The Council would like the � opportunity to give staff direction so that the next time they talk to you, you have specific information to work on. He noted that is what he hears Council i is saying. Mr. Hacker responded that if this were an undeveloped ; section of ground, I would agree that maybe a Master E � Plan would be proper, but this plan was laid out originally in the 1980's. We followed the general lot line that was provided at that time. There has been some � improvements made to the design, as far as traffic � t circulation goes. He queried...what are we going to do, a , � these are infill projects. These are not projects that ' exist all by themselves. We are very limited as for what � we are able to do as far as lot design and street design. They follow normal engineering practice. � Mayor Amy stated that the developers' practice is to get as many homes or } as many lots as you can. For an example, you could have all the property � empty out onto 30t" Street and nothing going onto San Eljay. Why should the � people on San Eljay, who have lived there for 10 years, have another 400 � y homes and the traffic impact them. These are the questions that Council has. � Mr. Hacker replied to the Mayor that these tracts will have access onto 30 Street. Tract #2 is landlocked so there is very little you can do except provide a connection within the immediate area. Again, as I have stated that if we were starting with a brand new piece `� of ground, these would be valid issues at this point, but �a he thought that the developers are pretty much locked � into what they can do. As far as putting in as many lots as possible, the developer has zoning laws which he must observe. He is currently obeying all of these laws � which have been set up by the City Council and then to � criticize the developer because he followed these regulations, that is a little different. � ; 4 � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 '° PAGE 10 � � Mayor Amy replied that the Council is not criticizing, but saying that there ; �� may be alternatives here and this is our opportunity to make changes. Most ;:� of the maps that come before us are extensions and we have no opportunity to impact them. These tracts are different, we do have an opportunity to :; make changes here. � � � Ed Knight, Century Crowell Communities - Stated he did i � not intend to speak tonight, because he didn't perceive � any problems in bringing these products before you. � We did clear the Planning Commission with a 4-0 vote ; `; and had staff recommendation for approval. He stated � that he is a little flabbergasted...we had no indication �, ° that Council had any concerns with development in this � � area. We have a General Plan in the City and we ' followed the General Plan. There is a Specific Plan which outlines what should be done with this land. We are � following the guidelines of the Specific Plan. We are � conforming to the Zoning Ordinance and have done everything that staff has asked of us and I am a little , '; dismayed to hear what I am hearing tonight, but �, � instead of just arbitrarily denying these projects ' tonight, he asked that the Council reflect on the possibility of a continuation so that you have time to sit down with staff and see what your concerns are and try to alleviate them. If you deny the projects tonight, °� we have no alternative but to walk from them. We $ don't own the land and we won't secure the title to the land until we gain Council's approval. We don't have the �� time to play around with a General Plan or amendments to Specific Plans. He stated that he understands that Council needs to do this for the City, but we need to move on to other projects. Therefore, from Century's == point of view, if you deny this tonight, we will have to �� abandon this project and let the landowner deal with � the issues you are concerned with. If you see the � opportunity here to continue this to another Council meeting in the future and give us time to work out your concerns, it might be best for both of us. He noted that he was at the Planning Commission meeting and the members of the neighborhood who came out did not speak in opposition of the projects themselves; they had a tendency to support the projects because they are tired of living with all the dirt and sand. They did � _ � ;� � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 ; PAGE 11 ; have concerns about when their neighborhood was going to get a park; they did have concerns about `� where their children would go to school. �� Unfortunately, they need to go down to the school � � board during their public hearings and voice their j concerns with the school board, not at the Planning ; Commission and City Council hearings. Also, their ; concern about the traffic; he found it very ironic that the same people that are complaining about traffic are the same ones that are driving the streets at 35 miles � per hour when the speed limit in a residential zone is } 25. Mayor Amy replied that Mr. Knight's testimony as to the impact of a denial to � f his project by Council tonight is what Mr. Gomer wanted to hear. He noted � , � that Council appreciated Mr. Knight's forthrightness and honesty. � � � Ron Johnson, Trustee with the Palm Springs Cemetery � District - He stated that he is somewhat amazed about � ' what is going on here tonight. About three years ago, � I contacted the City Manager, George Truppelli, offering � the City a 20-acre parcel the Cemetery District owns in the area of these projects before you tonight for $1.00. Mr. Johnson stated that he is here on behalf of the 3 Cemetery District offering to sit down with the City � Manager's office to work out something like 25-cents on ' the dollar on that parcel of land providing it is used for ; a park or even a retention area for the developers, � which would free up some of their other land to put a park more into the center of one of the developments. ; He stated that when he initially moved his residence to ; Cathedral City in 1984, this piece of land was being used ° as a septic surface dump area. The Cemetery District has � gone through all except for the last stage of .� clarification to clean up the parcel from that dumping. All of the tests have come back positive. Mr. Johnson encouraged Council to have a staff inember contact him personally. He will leave the proposal with the City � Manager as an open invitation to perhaps solve some of �. the problems being discussed tonight. The only hurdle � is that the parcel is in the County, but he felt that they � � � ; � i § t � 1 ; CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 ; PAGE 12 t wouldn�t cause any problem if the Cemetery District �� supported the purchase by Cathedral City. � � Mayor Amy responded that the Council was very appreciative and noted that � Council's issue here is that we don't have any athletic fields for our youth. We � don't have a soccer field, we don't have baseball fields, and that is what we � are looking for and is considered a priority in this particular area of the City. ; Cathedral City has the most kids of any city in the valley. Our schools in 3 Cathedral City are all on year-round schedules. None of the schools in Palm � Springs are year-round and we need some activities for these kids. That is why the concentration for a park in this area is being talked about. � � Mike Marix, Builder in Cathedral City - He stated contrary � to the Mayor's suggestion, he does not come in and a leave and by implication has no regrets for what he ' does. We have been building here for 11 years and I � thought I had planned on continuing to build here until � I arrived tonight. He noted that they have Parcel No. 3, � so he was not sure that he was appropriately before � Council, but it sounds like you are going to lump all of this into one rock and throw it over the side of the ship. � He noted that he is in the same position as Mr. Knight. His company has an escrow that is supposed to close in five days for the acquisition of the property. Its useless � to them unless the subdivision map is approved. There ; is financing in place and architecture that is finished for ; 2300 to 2500 square foot homes. Would it create a { hardship? You bet! There has been several hundred thousand dollars spent in their pursuing, as he is sure is ; the case with Century Crowell, what is an already ; approved Specific Plan. The process of redoing a � Specific Plan is a massive undertaking. It takes months ° and months. Mr. Marix stated he has discussed with Ms. Kinser any number of times, minor items pertaining to ` � the planning process. For example, sideyard setbacks. � � She doesn't even have the staff or time to recommend s� those kinds of things to you folks, so the notion that you are going to sit down at any time in the near future, and I suspect that would be in 12 months, and come up with some revisions to these Specific Plans that ; then can be implemented by any of us that are involved ; , S � a 4 t � i � � 5 $ ! t CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES _ MAY 10, 2000 y PAGE 13 S a � out there is wishful thinking. This area was planned in general he believed in 1988 or 1989. The parcel that we have and I suspect the others as well is dictated in � design by what is already around it. We built all those ,� ; homes around Parcel No. 3 and already have sewer � laterals over to the lots that go in there. There is a very � limited amount of land playing with a piece that is that � shape and the same thing applies to the Century Crowell � parcel. He noted that while he does not argue with the � idea that Mr. Gomer has that we need to take a look at � �k land planning, that is a long, weighty, subject that ! = deserves a great deal of consideration. It is not I something that happens in a week or two. Perhaps the �I City Attorney could answer the question as to whether ' 3 or not you can effectively implement what is � tantamount to a moratorium, when you have an � existing, approved Specific Plan for this area. He noted ; that he was astonished at what he was hearing. He felt ; this was the ultimate of coming out of left field with no � � warning. He stated he has no quarrel with good � ��� planning and he feels they have done that. The project !� was created by an environment that was created by this City with its Specific Plan adoption and his company has adhered to that. He felt that it looked as though the � Council was going to throw all of the projects before � � them out in one fell swoop and that is incredible. f Councilmember Pettis addressed Mr. Marix stating that he was prepared to vote in the affirmative on definitely two of the four and probably three of the four projects. I don't know about the 4th project yet because we haven't ; heard from them yet. He noted that his problem with both your tentative map and the 4th one, which can probably be resolved before the final map = comes to us, I believe your density is too high. He stated he knows it is allowed in the Specific Plan, he knows you are allowed to build that many ;� homes on this amount of land, but that is not his problem. He advised that 3� his statement is more a continuation of what he has said to staff for the last two years...our densities allow for too high of a density for his taste and they need to be thinned out some. He reiterated that this is his problem with Mr. Marix's map. It doesn't mean I will not vote for it in the final stage. He felt that Mr. Marix has done a better job than some of the others in providing access for both ingress and egress on your project. He again stated that he � � � > s f � s ' CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 14 was prepared to vote yes on most of these projects and realized that the projects were created under an existing Specific Plan, but felt that the � density is too high. 4� Mr. Marix replied to Councilmember Pettis that he did not disagree with his statements, but the process of re- examining standards and a Specific Plan is very, very lengthy and should be because there are umpteen issues to be examined. Just because somebody suddenly decides that maybe alleys are great ideas, that � should not upset the planning process that has been ` gone through for the past 10 or 15 years in the City. Mayor Amy added that Mr. Marix indicated the planning process and that each of the developers are complying to the current process that is in place. He advised that he has been on the City Council for six years and before that the Planning Commission and noted that the General Plan was started while he was a member of the Planning Commission. City Council has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for six years to modify those plans. So the � frustration is not with you. I have never gotten a complaint on a home that � you have built, you build a quality home. People know that I work with a gentleman who just won $1.4 million dollars on the Greed Show and he bought a Century Cromwell home. The issue is not the builders, the frustration is that our Planning Department is so busy that they cannot keep up with the flow. He noted that he has asked the City Manager to shut the doors for six months and let us get some staff on board. Our City Planner spends more time at the counter handling issues from the developers than �' she can at her desk handling the General Plan, EIR projects for the Ritz Carlton � and the list goes on. The frustration is not with the developers and we are saying, is this an opportunity for the City to just take a breath. We wanted to hear from the developers and that is what Mr. Gomer asked...how would this impact you. That is what the Public Comment section is all about and you have each stated your case admirably. � Mr. Marix responded to Mayor Amy stating that it is � � simply dollars. If you would appropriate enough money to the Planning Department, I am sure they can give you � a General Plan update in a reasonably short period of � time and Cynthia has not programmed me to say that to you. � � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 15 Councilmember Pettis stated that two weeks ago, Council authorized the Planning Department to go out and hire staff. � ;� Councilmember Gomer stated that he would like to add his two cents to what `� Mayor Amy and Councilmember Pettis have said. He noted that he is not here � to beat up on developers. We need family homes, we need homes built in � � Cathedral City; however, there are big issues here that just sort of came � together when all of this came before us. Having sat on the Planning � Commission and being part of the process there is a great deal of frustration � that, unfortunately, you are getting a taste of this evening. He believes his � role on the City Council is to look at the bigger picture and so please do not ' take this as a personal way of saying go away, but he believes there are some issues that need to be dealt with and thanked the developers for being � present. A � � Jerry LaLonde-Berg, Cathedral City - noted that he � attended the Planning Commission and was one of the � members of the public who spoke and appreciated the ; fact that staff did communicate with the Council what } our concerns are. In terms specifically regarding Item ; No. 8 and San Eljay, the two primary concerns that are obvious there are 1) traffic and 2) the grade and the effect the regrading will have on the drainage that is � poor there as we speak. The primary suggestion that '�, � was made was that a stop sign be placed at Cypress or = some other elementthatwould slow drivers down. This � :� is a concern of most of the families who live in that � area. As a general comment, he noted that none of us � � �, lived there when this General Plan was written and none ; of us lived there when the Specific Plan was written. We now live there and we now have our opportunity to r speak about the kind of neighborhood and community � , we want to create. As to the parks, that is another issue , that came up when you talked about Uptown Village ; �� and it comes up even more when we start to talk about � 245 more homes in this neighborhood. It comes up with the question of the land that is being lost now that � we are not purchasing and the funds that have been �, sitting there which he believed was S172,000. We need to make that investment in land now so that we can � have those parks. He suggested that the parks issue be � � � B � � � � j t 7 fi CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES � MAY 10, 2000 � PAGE 16 � � done in conjunction either with Rancho Mirage, but more importantly with the schools and school district. � In his opinion, the logical place for a park in this area is { � directly west or east of James Workman School or ' directly east of Sunny Sands School. He encouraged � a Council to work with the School District and articulate this issue and offered to help any way he could. As to � the water conservation, we should encourage people to � conserve water through the General Plan update or ; whatever we can do as a city so that we can be a leader in the desert in this regard. When we talk about Item � No. 9, what is now Kemper Road which is adjacent to the � school, he believes far more conversation needs to � happen relative to how the intersection of Kemper ' Road and San Eljay is configured. That is going to be a � natural drop-off place for parents. It needs to be t thought about. His final point was about street naming � and he invited the Council to change the name of � Kemper Road to Teachers Road to honor the teachers at { Sunny Sands. ' � John Hacker, Palm Desert with a Business Address in Cathedral City - Stated that Item No. 4 is a little different than the other 3 projects because we made about 4 � different studies with staff. One of the problems that staff had with the subdivisions was that the traffic was � being routed through the subdivision and other � subdivisions. Our plan has no lots fronting on any � exterior streets, so Tortuga, Da Vall and 30 Street have no lots on them and on Da vall and 30 Street, there is i a 20-foot landscaping easement. we could have had lots ; running on Tortuga, but the owner of the property felt � that it would be a much more secure property if we put a block wall in there and not have lots running on , � Tortuga. Of all of the subdivisions being presented to �� you tonight, this has the least yield of any of them. ;� These lots are in the neighborhood of 8500 square feet, ; they are 122 feet deep by 70 feet wide. They are nice , lots and are all up in that area. We are getting a yield of ', 67 lots on 20 acres and we feel that there is a possibility ! it may be a gated subdivision. We are providing our own on-site retention which the Planning Commission � � .� � 's ; � � ; CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 17 suggested we could make into a mini park and which the subdivider was quite agreeable to. Mr. Hacker � stated he has been in this business for almost 40 years � � so in designing subdivisions, if you can keep them self- contained with one access, you do eliminate a lot of problems you have with traffic. Councilmember Pettis inquired as to when the decision would be made as to whether or not this would be a gated community. Mr. Hacker noted that would be determined when a developer is selected. At the present time, the owner has retained me to do a subdivision. There are several people who are interested in buying the property and one of them felt that he might make it a gated community. It is set up so that it will go either way. At present, we are offering the streets as public streets, but he noted his opinion was that it will probably be gated because it is fenced all the way around. There are no lots fronting on any of the other streets and they � feel that this way of doing the subdivision does mitigate many of the problems. He stated that he has done a study of the drainage area and was very pleased to hear the Cemetery District offer you a parcel across the street from this project. The drainage for this entire area would go into that parcel so drainage wise, it would be a good area. It would be an excellent parcel � to make into a retention area and also a playground. Councilmember De Rosa pointed out the retention basin as currently displayed on the tract map and asked Mr. Hacker what he would do with that parcel if the Cemetery District parcel would be traded as a retention basin. = Mr. Hacker noted that the Planning Commission had � requested that the current retention basin be 3 dedicated and given to the City and they would maintain it. He stated that they are paying fees to provide a retention for this entire area which is substantial, but they felt that this would be a nice mini- park. � � � � � � � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 ; PAGE 1$ � , � Councilmember De Rosa inquired whether itwould be feasible or notto make ; � a retention basin into a mini-park. ' `� Mr. Hacker responded that it would be feasible. Mr. � Hacker advised Council that what the plan is right now � ' for the retention basin, regardless of how you look at it, this is the low area. You can't make water run uphill, so � both corners of our subdivision are about the same � elevation so all the water in this area actually will go to � the east and to the north. So if you have a retention � basin, if that's the purpose of your General Plan, that j retention basin is either going to have to be to the east � of this subdivision or to the north of this subdivision. � So, in any event, this subdivision would drain directly ; into the retention basin and the City would end up with £ a mini-park there. You might have to put some fill in, � � but that was my understanding from the Planning � Commission that the parcel would be dedicated and given to the City. = Counci(member De Rosa asked the City Engineer if it would be feasible to �� make this retention basin a park. :� City Engineer Dave Faessel stated that first of all we would have to � review the drainage studies to see what kind of volume is required � for the retention basin and given the size of the lot to see what kind � of slopes that creates and see if there is any useable area left for a park. Off hand, he stated he felt it probably would not be very practical, Possibly some of it could be used, but not the entire lot. We just have to wait and see the figures. ; � Councilmember De Rosa stated that the developer should know going in that the practicality of a park is very limited for this particular parcel. ' Mayor Amy queried if he heard correctly that the requirement is to have a retention basin on site. City Engineer Faessel responded that was correct. Mayor Amy stated that the developer has then fulfilled that requirement, it is just in question as to whether it has a second use or not. Councilmember De Rosa asked if this is a gated community, how does that retention basin then get dedicated to the park. Is it not part of the gated � community? x t } � } � � ; � � t � 1 CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 � PAGE 19 � Mr. Hacker stated that if you look at the Planning Commission approval, one of their conditions is that the � City retain ownership of it. As he noted previously, Mr. � � Hacker stated that ultimately you will have to develop a retention basin in the area. When you develop the � retention basin in the area, which will evidently have to � be across the street or to the north, which is adjacent ' to the subdivision, then it would be very simple to convert that into a park. One thing Mr. Hacker stated he has done...they have several subdivisions in Palm Springs � where they have actually put in a tennis court and we used the tennis court as a retention basin with a dry ' well on the bottom which works very good. This � particular parcel is large enough for a nice tennis court. � ; The City, of course, would be maintaining it and would 1 � lock it up during any rainstorms. r City Engineer Dave Faessel stated that the applicant has stated that several studies have been done on this tract and several of them did � include a proposal that this be a private, gated community. During those discussions, the drainage basin would have been private and maintained by the homeowners association, so if this does end up a private street development, the drainage basin would not become public and, in fact, he aian believe the conditions as written mandate that it become a public basin. Mayor Amy stated that the Engineer's preference would be that it not become public, is that correct? € � City Engineer Faessel answered in the affirmative. However, he noted that this tract, if it is a standard, public street subdivision, there is no absolute need for homeowners association to maintain the one lot. So if it becomes private or not is debatable. � .� Councilmember Gomer inquired if there were sidewalks required on the 'x perimeter of this property. City Engineer Faessel answered in the affirmative. He noted they � were required on 30t" Street, Da Vall Avenue and the interior streets. � � Public Comments Section was closed. � i f I CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 20 Councilmember Pettis instructed staff to go back and listen to the tape so they have all of our comments. �� Deputy City Attorney Charles Green recommended that the City Council vote on each of the four items discussed by separate motion. Councilmember Pettis made a motion to approve Item No. 8, Tentative Tract Map No. 29664, including the revised language in the memorandum distributed by the City Planner, and including the recommendation that staff listen to the tape of this meeting so they have all of the City Council comments pertaining to these projects. Mayor Amy seconded the motion. Councilmember Gomer requested to make the statement that he would very much like to see the Council delay this process and will allow Councilmember Pettis's vote to go and then will continue this to the next item where he will have another chance to speak. City Manager ponald Bradley requested to make the statement that he has heard the motion and the discussion and wants to be clear that Council's motion is consistent with what the discussion was. The motion to approve a tentative map is a very key decision. You are essentially establishing the destiny of what is going to happen on this property. A final map coming back to you and your approval of it is largely a ministerial act and there is not a lot of discretion at the time of final map. So if, as I think I heard, you have some belief that at a later date, you can still come back and revisit this matter at the final map stage, that is far and away too late in the process. The purpose of a tentative map is to get all the issues on the table and to discuss those issues and come to some conclusions. I am hearing some willingness on the part of the developers, or at least one of them, to address issues that are out there. I just don't want there to be any misunderstanding that you believe there is still room to maneuver if this motion is approved. It would be my belief that your approval, in �,� effect, gives the developers the right to try to develop the details of �; the tentative map and as long as they are consistent with what they � represented, it will be hard-pressed for us at staff level to make many changes through the process. � Councilmember De Rosa stated that she would want to make sure that the � traffic does not impact the existing community. Those people are plagued � now and the development up there is beautiful. Every developer has done � ( ( CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 � PAGE 21 S � � a beautiful job, but there is definitely traffic issues and how can we look at ;� mitigating further problems for the people who live there currently. r� City Manager Bradley stated that he would not claim to be a planner ; � by trade so he deferred to the City Engineer and City Planner for = those answers, but typically you either deal with it in a physical way � or you deal with it in an enforcement way. The tentative map � establishes the traffic flow patterns. There may be things that can be done physically later such as speed humps or other impediments put � in the way of traffic, but remember, traffic is like water, it seeks its own level, and unless you design it into the subdivision map itself as � to how you want it to go, it is pretty difficult to turn it off unless you � put barriers up or unless you have a very strong enforcement � program which atthis point the City doesn�t have the police capability ; of being on every street corner. I am not suggesting that you don't � move ahead and vote for these maps because the staff has � recommended these maps. At the same time, I just want to be clear � there is no misunderstanding that your vote tonight means that you � are voting to approve those tentative maps as they stand. That � means that the developers may be willing to work through the ; process with us and fine tune it and modify it and all that, but I am not sure that you are going to see substantial change. ' Councilmember Pettis requested to knowthat if the Council decides, through � this motion, and choose to table this for two weeks or 30 days, can you give � us some comfort level that your staff is going to be able to produce tighter # conditions or changes to these maps that might reflect the discussion that � took place tonight. City Manager Bradley replied that, at the moment, no he could not give Council that comfort level because he sees what is happening in � the developmentworld in this community and it is a bang, bang, bang kind of operation. We have lines at the counter, we have lines on the y " telephone waiting to reach the few people that we have. That is why s s � we have added staff to try to address these matters. Now, what they �� have ideas to try to work on, I suspect the answer is yes. The question is will they have the time to come back to you within a reasonable period of time to accommodate your needs and the needs of the developers...l heard one say he has a 5-day time frame here that he is working with. Others may have more. So, I don't have a good answer for you. I guess I would defer to Cynthia and Dave to see how they � ? # $ :� � � ; - ; ; 9 1 € r i CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 22 would approach this if we were asked to take more time and what �� that would mean. � Cynthia Kinser, City Planner, informed Council that if they have ; specific issues that they want to be addressed....if traffic is one of those items, we could add a condition of approval that says prior to final recordation of the map, which comes to Council, the developers will workwith the City Engineerto introduce traffic calming measures in accordance with City policies. So, if we know exactly what we are dealing with, we can incorporate it into the conditions and have the developers work with staff between now and the time they get their final map and then Council would see those changes presented to you. Councilmember De Rosa stated that in area one, she would like to see the traffic go out to either 30 Avenue or Date Palm Drive, but not go through the neighborhoods that exist now. We have put in speed humps, we have - put in stop signs, but those are after the fact and I am looking to be proactive rather than reactive. Then you have speed humps where police cars are � coming through and fire department vehicles come through having to drive over speed humps in an emergency. Lets be proactive rather than reactive and lets look at the people who are there and the people who are coming in and try to balance a better life for all of them. Councilmember Gomer replied that, unfortunately, we can�t. We have to be reactive based on a Specific Plan that has been in place for 11 years and so this is really a difficult situation and has gotten to the point where I feel that the City Council needs to take a much stronger step. I don�t know that we can � do that in a period of 30 days. I agree with the City Manager on that. Councilmember De Rosa stated that is true, but maybe some of these streets can be closed off and just not opened. � Councilmember Gomer stated that would be asking for some redesign work � here that may or may not take the specific amount of time that we are ;� indicating they might have if we would postpone this for two weeks or even for 30 days. � Councilmember Pettis stated that he is still comfortable with his motion. � Only though because of the developers we are talking about. At least on 8, � 9, and 10. We don't know who the developer is on Item No. 11. On the first � s � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 23 three, we know who the developers are and they have a long history of 3 building here in the City and they are wanting to continue to build in the City, -� hopefully. I think they will be more than willing to work with us and make � some adjustments and changes that fit some of these concerns. However, I understand what Mr. Gomer is saying and I agree with him in the global sense that we are rushing things through. We are not doing a service to the neighborhoods and communities. I think we are behind on the curve regarding this and we need to make sure that staff is empowered to implement things that can take care of the concerns that we have issued today, but at the same time to not chase the developers away that have built quality stock that we have in that area. City Engineer Faessel stated that in answer to Councilmember De Rosa's comments about traffic calming, there are many more traffic calming methods than speed humps. In fact, he noted he would wager that we could do a beautiful job in all of these tracts without using speed humps. There are chokers, there are traffic circles, there are any number of different things as shown in our own neighborhood traffic handbook that could be implemented here and if the Council is of the mind, a condition could be added tonight that � these streets all be designed with a maximum use of such devices. � Councilmember De Rosa replied that is the point she was getting to. This is a beautiful area and we would like it to continue to stay beautiful and we need to take into consideration and respect the people who live there. The developers have done a great job. We want to see them continue building. That is the kind of stuff I would like to see put into a condition of approval and is exactly what she is looking for. � Mayor Amy stated that he thinks from the Council's part in direction to staff is the tail wagging the dog here. A developer comes in and says he has five days to get this through and staff starts jumping through hoops. We are asking staff to slow down and step back and I keep indicating that we need � to close the doors for awhile if that is possible, but he believes that is what � � he is hearing from Council. He noted he doesn't think we could ask =� them...there is much chaos here...l have no bearing on what was actually said and direction and I certainly wouldn't expect staff to come up with rhyme or reason of what our direction was tonight. It went from helter skelter, but I � believe some of the messages were kind of clear. � � � � � � � � i � s E � i CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 ; PAGE 24 ; � � CouncilmemberGomernotedthatregarding issuesthatCouncil mustaddress � as far as providing public services to the new residents who would move into these neighborhoods, we recently were told by the community at large that they no longer wanted to fund certain services through the Community ; Services District tax. We are in a situation now where we are facing a drop of � $3.3 million in funds from next year's budget, which Council will be discussing � here in the next couple of months to be approved by July 1st. Mr. Gomer � stated that he has great concerns about adding new residents to our City and not having a funding source by which we can provide services, let alone '� parks. � � Councilmember Pettis requested to amend his original motion to add two additional conditions; 1) that maximum calming measures be utilized and, 2) � that wherever possible, low water usage landscaping be implemented. . � Mayor Amy requested that, before Council voted on the amendment, � perhaps one of the developers could speak to the low water usage. He would � like to know what that implies or doesn't. § � Mr. Marix stated that he has no problem with that. As � } Council may know, CvWD has a desert landscape plan �� and when we submit plans to them, they require that � we submit an alternate landscape plan that is drought <� resistant sort of stuff. We have some of those kind of � landscape installations throughout our development. � It is not the most popular thing in the world as � demonstrated by the fact that people do not go in and � put them in on their own. However, that policy exists ' through CvWD already. If you are saying we have to do "X" number of yards in a low water style, that is another a matter, but we do have to design them as it stands � now. � = Councilmember Pettis added that he will leave those kinds of details to staff ;� on how they wish to further implement those. He wants that listed in there � and if it is an additional plan of CvwD's and we add it to the conditions that we utilize that, I am comfortable with that as long as its out there and its understood and its in all the requirements at the same time. Mr. Marix stated that as to traffic calming measures, we have already discussed that at some length with staff, ; � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 25 specifically Dave Faessel, and he has given me copies of � all the potential solutions and left it up to us to .� implement one, which he will ultimately have to � approve and we understand that. There is only one street that goes through our development and it will have some sort of traffic calming measure in it by virtue of our prior discussions. Deputy City Attorney Charles Green stated that it is highly desirable in imposing these kinds of conditions that it be specified how the compliance with the condition would be determined. He wished to recommend to Mr. Pettis that his motion require that these conditions be determined by a specific staff inember who has that responsibility because otherwise there is no basis determining when, in fact, they have actually met the requirement. Mayor Amy stated he had a question for staff. Hearing different stories...the Coachella Valley Desert Resorts & Visitors Bureau has a video out now that advertises the valley and the hook is the water. My question is...is there a need for conservation? He noted it was his understanding that we are on a natural aquifer and have more water than we are ever going to be able to use...is this a necessity or requirement that should be put on a developer in this area? City Planner Kinser stated that she continually hears that there is plenty of water from the water districts and they can service the area. This is the thing that we continually hear at a staff level. We have discussed what we should be providing with regards to landscaping for model homes in particular and that is...we should have the developers come up with three different concepts...one for each model home; one is the normal landscape plan, the next a middle of the road plan, and the last is drought tolerant plan. We should encourage homeowners to see a drought tolerant landscaping plan � or one that is more water conserving, which would perhaps allow :� some homeowners to look into it. We are requiring that perimeter � landscaping be drought tolerant now so that it is easier to maintain. Councilmember Pettis requested to add to his amendment, per the Deputy City Attorney's advice, that City Engineer Dave Faessel be the staff person responsible for making sure that his two previous amendments are complied with. � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 26 City Manager Bradley stated that because of the nature of this � discussion and the way it has rambled a bit, he felt it was incumbent upon himself to comment on something Councilmember Gomer said � and that is that in approving these maps, I just need to remind you that the financial structure of this City is not sound right now. We are in a situation where with each lot that we approve, we do not have enough money in our General Fund to support particularly police and fire, but other kinds of general public services that are going to be required by these homes as well. On balance, and looking at development as it occurs, because of the nature of the redevelopment dollar and how it is captured, the City generally benefits from development that occurs. The Rio vista Project did an economic development kind of a study and showed that to be the case. On the overall, the tax base is improved by residential development when you look at the total dollar that is received; however, within the General Fund, we have a structural problem. That structural problem is beyond CSD. In my view, as I have looked at it, it precedes some of the growth and development that is occurring now. It's the nature of how this community was incorporated and relates to many, many other issues, but because of the type of discussion held tonight, he feels it incumbent on himself to simply say to you that in approving these maps, we put further strain on police and fire who will not have the money coming into them naturally because of this development to add bodies or equipment to service this area and that is going to put an additional burden on the entire community to somehowfigure out a solution to this problem. On the short term, we need the OK as we have said because of the current economic development that is occurring and the sales tax growth and various other tax revenues that are coming in at a higher pace than had been expected, but that is likely to be transitory and will not last and so we just need to be aware that there is still a structural problem with this city government and how it finances its delivery of public services. I don't suggest you stop your vote, I simply suggest that you � be aware of that as you think these things through. :� � Deputy City Attorney reiterated Councilmember Pettis' original motion with added amendments: Mr. Pettis moved to approve Tentative Tract Map 29664 with the amendment that two conditions be added to the Tract Map;1) that maximum traffic calming methods be utilized and, 2) that low water use landscaping be utilized where possible and that determination of compliance with those standards i 4 I CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES ' MAY 10, 2000 � PAGE 27 will rest with the discretion of the City Engineer, who is designated as the responsible person for determining compliance. As a reminder, Mayor Amy seconded the motion at the time of Mr. Pettis' original �;: motion. � Mayor Amy called for the question: Motion passed 3-1, with Mayor Pro Tem Di � Grandi abstaining and Councilmember Gomer voting no. Tentative Tract � Map 29664 was approved, with amendments noted, by Resolution No. � 2000-27. � � 9. Century Crowell Communities: Tentative Tract Map 29665, A Request � to Subdivide Approximately 7.43 Acres into 26 Single-Family Parcels; � Located East of San Eljay Drive and North of Cypress Road in the R-1 � 7.2S (Single-Family Residential with a Specific Plan Overlay) Zone. � Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi abstained from taking part in � discussion regarding this matter, as the project location is � within the 2500-foot radius of her employment address which � therefore creates a possible conflict of interest. � As Item Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 were discussed as a group, no further � report was made by the City Planner regarding this matter. ; � ¢ Public Hearing was opened and comments were heard under Item No. 8. See comments under Item No. 8 � Councilmember Pettis made a motion to approve Tentative Tract Map 29665 � under conditions that two conditions be added to the Tract Map; 1) that maximum traffic calming methods be utilized and, 2) that low water use ; landscaping be utilized where possible and that determination of compliance + with those standards will rest with the discretion of the City Engineer, who is designated as the responsible person for determining compliance. � Councilmember De Rosa seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 3-1 ; � �°_� vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi abstaining and Councilmember Gomer � � voting no. Tentative Tract Map 29665 was approved� with amendments � noted, by Resolution No. 2000-28. :� ''� 10. Cornerstone Developers: Tentative Tract Map 29487, A Request to Subdivide Approximately 21.53 Acres into 80 Single-Family Parcels; Located South of 30 Avenue and west of Santoro Drive in the R-1 7.2S ° (Single-Family Residential with a Specific Plan Overlay) Zone. i g i a 1 � � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 28 .;, As Item Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 were discussed as a group, no further i� report was made by the City Planner regarding this matter. � Public Hearing was opened and comments were heard under Item No. 8. See comments under Item No. 8 City Engineer Dave Faessel stated for the benefit of the Council and the audience, each of these four tracts has a condition that the owner, prior to the subdivision recording, file a petition with the City requesting formation of a landscaping/lighting district so that the future owners will be assessed for the landscaping costs, the maintenance, the water, the power, etc., so that structure is set up as a condition in each tract if the City chooses to implement it and set up the district. He noted that the City would form the district and the cost would be borne by the owners by an annual assessment. Councilmember Pettis made a motion to approve Tentative Tract Map 29487 under conditions that two conditions be added to the Tract Map; 1) that � maximum traffic calming methods be utilized and, 2) that low water use � landscaping be utilized where possible and that determination of compliance with those standards will rest with the discretion of the City Engineer, who is design�ted as the responsible person for determining compliance. Councilmember De Rosa seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember Gomer voting no. Tentative Tract Map 29487 was approved, with amendments noted, by Resolution No. 2000-29. Councilmember Gomer made a statement that he was voting no on this particular item based upon the fact that he is specifically not concerned about the development itself, but more in regard to how it impacts the area and the fact that we have issues that come into the larger picture in this particular part of Cathedral City. 11. John Hardy Jones: Tentative Tract Map 29584, A Request to Subdivide � Approximately 19.97 Acres into 67 Single-Family Parcels; Located North :� of 30 Avenue and East of Da Vall Drive in the R-1 7.2S (Single-Family Residential with a Specific Plan Overlay) Zone. As Item Nos. 8, 9, �0 and 11 were discussed as a group, no further report was made by the City Planner regarding this matter. CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 29 Public Hearing was opened and comments were heard under Item No. , ,� 8. See comments under Item No. 8 � .� Councilmember Pettis stated he hesitates to make a motion to approve this tract map for one specific reason and that is that there is no developer for this project. Mr. Hacker mentioned there is a buyer who has done the subdividing and there are several prospective buyers for the project, but there is not a developer yet. He noted he had some comfort level with the previous developers, but in this case there is no one to say he has a comfort level with, that they are going to be able to work with our staff to meet some of the concerns we have expressed tonight because we don't know who actually is going to build this project. He felt that maybe this particular tract map should be held back until there is more input given both on the staff level and the Council level. Mr. Hacker responded by stating that he is not at liberty to state names of the developers, but the developers that are being considered are developers that are developing in the area right now. They are people ° known to you. The situation is that before they go in � they have to get a cost. This particular subdivision, � because of the low yield and the amount of infrastructure that had to be put in, may be quite expensive so the subdividers asked him to prepare a final map with all the sewer and water, etc., so they can get an actual cost on it. � Councilmember Pettis asked Mr. Hacker if he named a developerwould he be ` able to tell him that was the one who wanted to develop this property or not. Mr. Hacker responded that he has been in the City a long time and the people who are going to develop this � property, the ones that are talking to me, there are two � developers right now that are actively working with the .� owner. The owner is from back in Atlanta, Georgia. He had a tentative map that had been approved on this previously, but what happened was with the Specific Plan, those lots were 7200 square feet, so you had to come in and do it. � � � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 30 Councilmember Pettis reiterated to Mr. Hacker that if he could give him the � name of a developer, could he tell if it was one of them that is interested in ,.� this project. � Mr. Hacker responded stating that one of the � developers that is involved has done a gated community in the City of Cathedral City. Councilmember Pettis made a motion to deny the tract map and send it back to staff. � � ; Councilmember De Rosa stated she felt she knew where Mr. Pettis was going � at which point she would need to abstain and requested the Deputy City � Attorney to make a decision. � 3 Mayor Amy stated that there is no solid information on that, its only speculative. Deputy City Attorney Charles Green responded to Councilmember De s Rosa that if the basis for her potential conflict is the identity of a potential developer that is not an issue here, this is just a tentative tract, there is no developer at this point, so he did not believe a conflict would exist. Councilmember Pettis stated he would withdraw his motion. Mayor Amy stated the motion died for lack of a second and requested further explanation from Councilmember Pettis stating that this project looked � pretty straightforward to him. Councilmember Pettis responded that he is concerned thatwe are giving this tract map to a developer who does not want to be identified which sends up red flags. If it is the developer that he believes it possibly could be, it is � someone who the City has had trouble with regardless of where he has built � in this community, whether it is residential or commercial and continues to � have problems in other communities that he builds in. Mayor Amy stated that the question to staff is once the tentative tract map is approved, there is no opportunity to respond if this particular developer � ' happens to appear? CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 31 City Manager Bradley stated that by approving the map, you are � giving a degree of entitlement for the development of that land. '� °� Mayor Amy queried that the developer would then be required to get permits though and is there a process there? City Planner Cynthia Kinser stated that once the map is approved anyone could buy it and develop it. The permits that would go from this stage in terms of any final approvals would be a model home complex. If that was submitted, it would go for review and approval to the Architectural Review Committee to look at the building elevations and the landscape plans. All other aspects related to the map are staff level review and approval with compliance to the conditions of approval. There are no other reviews that would go to a Planning Commission or City Council level if it complies with the project. Mayor Amy made a motion to continue this matter for 30 days until a determination is made whether the project will be public or private and then � to be brought back to the City Council for further review. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Pettis and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember Gomer voting no. Tentative Tract Map 29584 discussion was continued for 30 days and then to be brought back to the City Council by Minute Order No. 3131 12. Ford-Plumley Group: Specific Plan 10-018 Amendment, A Request to Amend an Existing Specific Plan to Allow a Reduction in Side, Front, � and Rear Yard Setbacks for Guesthouses or ��Casitas" and Detached Garages within Planning Unit 5 of Specific Plan 10-018. Councilmembers De Rosa and Gomer abstained from discussion in this matter due to the fact that their residences are in the vicinity of this project. City Manager Bradley abstained from ° participating in any discussion on this matter due to the fact ;;� that his residence is in the vicinity of this project. ,� j � Report was given by City Planner, Cynthia Kinser. Public Hearing was opened and closed without comment. � f � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 32 Councilmember Pettis made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi, _ carried bya 3-Ovote, with Councilmembers De Rosa and Gomerabstaining, to Waive Further Reading and Introduce the Ordinance. 13. Goodwill Industries of the Inland Counties: Conditional Use Permit 00-266, A Request for Approval to Construct a 9,000 Square Foot Addition and Operate a Retail Used Store to be Located at 69175 Ramon Road in the PCC (Planned Community CommerciaU Zone. Report was given by City Planner Cynthia Kinser. Public Hearing was opened: � Greg Whitmore, President and CEO of Goodwill Industries of the Inland Counties, Palm Springs - Noted that Goodwill has been serving the Inland Counties since 1928. Goodwill is about jobs for people with disabilities and other barriers to employment. Their mission is to provide programs and services for this population and assist them through employment, improve their self- € sufficiency and make them contributing members of our communities. It all starts with donations. By diverting possible landfill for potential jobs is an important part of Goodwill. The fact that we enter a community and create this possibility is the first step in this process. We then sell these donations in retail stores that are clean, bright, well-merchandised and staffed with customer friendly individuals who are committed to our mission. He noted he had a call recently, after opening their new store in Upland at the beginning of April, to suggest the store looked just like Niemann-Marcus. This may have been a bit of a stretch, but the store does look wonderful. We offer a shopping experience that is fun, good quality merchandise to purchase at affordable prices. The phrase "Goodwill � Hunting" describes the treasures one finds at Goodwill. ' Revenues from our retail operations support the many � programs and services that we provide. We have operated a retail store and donation center in Indio here in the valley for many years and a storefront � donation center in Palm Desert on Highway 111 since � 1994. € � ! CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 33 Residents of the valley have been asking when we are � going to move into cities like Cathedral City and Palm `� Springs. We originally housed a career center out of our � Indio Store facility, but it soon became necessary to relocate those services in Indio when the services grew. Our career center is now located in Palm Desert where we are able to serve more clients in the Coachella valley centrally. We are also closer to the Department of Rehabilitation with whom we work closely. Many clients are placed in employment sites throughout the valley from Palm Springs to Indio. We will soon offer a welfare-to-work program in the desert, probably here in Cathedral City, consisting of janitorial skills training leading to employment. This program will be offered in collaboration with others, including Campfire, Boys & Girls, and Moreno Valley Community Hospital. He believed operations like theirs, the Salvation Army, Angelviewand The DesertAids Projectand others like us offer very necessary services to the communities in � which we operate. Mr. Whitmore requested that Council approve their application so that they can expedite the building of the retail store and donation center. � Brandon Chatterton, Palm Desert - Stated that he represents the owners of the Cathedral village Shopping Center and they would be very happy to have the Goodwill Industries in their shopping center. He stated that he personally has talked to a number of the tenants and they all seem very upbeat about having them in the center and we would like to go forward with this project. � Susan Morris, Riverside and Property Manager for Stater Brothers Markets - Stated that they have Goodwill � Industries stores in several of their shopping centers. � She has personally managed shopping centers that they � have been tenants in and felt that she would be a good person to address any of Council's issues. She found that they operate a very clean, professional operation. As within any shopping center, there are dumping � � issues..Goodwill handles them immediately. We have € never had a problem with that kind of issue on a long- � � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 34 term basis. Stater Brothers corporately supports Goodwill and is here to ask that you do approve this � new retail store. It will be a great benefit to the � � :� community. Public Comments were closed. Councilmember Pettis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gomer, carried by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Amyvoting no. Conditional Use Permit 00- 266 was approved by Resolution No. 2000-30. LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS: 14. Preliminary 2000-2001 Budget Requests Presented by: - Administration (Dudley Haines) - Police Department (Chief of Police Stan Henry) Two reports were given orally. No action was required for these items. 15. City Manager�s appeal of Planning Division's administrative � discretionary decision denying an application for a Green Channel � Business Identification Sign for CopyCo pursuant to Cathedral City ` Municipal Code Section 2.04.100. This item was pulled by the City Manager. No report or action was taken. 16. Acceptance of Investment Policy. Report by Administrative Services Director � Public Input was opened and closed without comment. Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pettis, carried by a 5-0 vote, to accept the Investment Policy Report by Minute Order No. 3132. � 17. East Palm Canyon Drive Bridge Widening at East Cathedral Channel: � Approval of Change Order for highway extension and sidewalk bridge structure modifications. Report was given by City Engineer Dave Faessel. � € � � � � CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 PAGE 35 Public Input was opened and closed without comment. Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gomer, carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the request for a Change Order by Minute Order No. 3133. 18. Proposed Ordinance changing location of City Council meetings from 35-325 Date Palm Drive to 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City, CA 92234. (�S Reading) No report was given as the Ordinance is self-explanatory. Public Input was opened and closed without comment. Councilmember De Rosa made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pettis, carried by a 5-0 vote, to Waive Further Reading and Introduce the ordinance. 19. Authorization for expenditure of funds in an amount of 573,380 for i costs related to the installation of a sewer main along Buddy Rogers Avenue and electrical and telephone conduits in a portion of "C" Street. Report was given by Redevelopment Manager Susan Moeller. Public Input was opened and closed without comment. RDA Board Member Di Grandi made a motion, seconded by RDA Board Member Pettis, carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the expenditure of funds by Minute Order No. R-799. 20. Authorization to amend an existing agreementwith Katz Hollis adding an amount not-to-exceed $70,000 for services related to the ;;;; amendments to Merged Project Areas No. 1, 2 and 3. �� 4'� Report was given by Redevelopment Director Susan Moeller. Public Input was opened and closed without comment. � s F A RDA Board Member Di Grandi made a motion, seconded by Chairman Amy, � carried by a 5-0 vote, to amend the existing agreement with Katz Hollis by � Minute Order No. R-800. � � � ; t , � � � i i i CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES MAY 10, 2000 ; PAGE 36 21. Authorization for the City Engineer to advertise for bids to furnish �; and install a prefabricated steel bridge across the North Cathedral � Canyon Channel on a foundation to be constructed by the City. � ; a ' Councilmember De Rosa abstained from the discussion regarding � this matter as the project location is within the area of her personal business site. Report was given by Senior Engineer Bill Bayne. ; Public Input was opened and closed without comment. } � Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pettis, ; carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilmember De Rosa abstaining, to authorize � staff to advertise for bids by Minute Order No. 3134. 22. Authorization for the City Manager to enter into a contract with In 2 Lights to furnish, install and store "Sparklight" (mini-lights) along the north side of East Palm Canyon Drive and along Buddy Rogers and George Montgomery Trail and to retain In 2 Lights for the installation and storage of the lights previously approved under separate contract. Report was given by Senior Engineer Bill Bayne. Public Input was opened and closed without comment. Councilmember Pettis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gomer, carried by a 5-0 vote, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with "In 2 Lights" by Minute Order No. 3�35. ADJOURNMENT' `� There being no further business to discuss, this meeting was adjourned at � 12:10 a.m. � . � '%� u� Donna M. Velotta City Clerk