HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2000-07-12 i
�
�
�
� = f �;:� � `a'
�
� C�thedr�l : it
,
�
� CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
:3 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL
� SITTING AS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
� THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
T
9
WEDNESDAY� JULY '12, 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 July 12, 2000, at the 3:00 p.m stuay
; 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.
F ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers/RDA-CSD Board Members Kathleen De
;
z � Rosa, Robert Gomer Gre or S. Pettis M r
� g Y , ayo Pro
Tem/RDA-CSD Board Member Sarah Di Grandi, and
Mayor/Chairman/President Gary L. Amy
Absent: None
STUDY SESSION ACTION:
Normally, no action is taken on Study Session items; however, the City Council does
reserve the right to give specific policy direction and to take specific action as �
necessary. The following motion/direction was made by the City Council at this �
Study Session on the specific item noted below: ,
Study Session Item Added Starter: Discussion of proposed Arbours
Residential/Retail Project on property on the south side of East Palm Canyon and
request to direct staff to negotiate with the developer regarding proposed
project.
RDA Board Member Pettis made a motion, seconded by RDA Board Member Di
Grandi, carried by a 5-0 vote, to direct staff to negotiate with the developer of the
Arbours Residential/Retail Project and to execute a 60-day Memorandum of
� .� Understanding, to be accompanied by a S50,000 deposit. Motion was adopted by
Minute Order No. R-804.
�
�
P
, �
�
I
`` CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
�,; JULY 12, 2000
PAGE 2
I
$ AGENDA FINALIZATION: The following matterwas not described on the duly noted �
agenda for this meeting, but required immediate action which could not ��
reasonably wait for the next regular meeting. Mayor Amy made a motion,
� seconded by Councilmember Pettis, carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember De
Rosa voting no, to add the following item to the Consent Agenda for Council
discussion:
� Consent Agenda Added Starter/Item No. 6.A: Approval of expenditure of 5300
from Council Contingency Fund to sponsorAdam Williamson, Cathedral City, atthe ,
63r All-American Soap Box Derby in Akron, Ohio, on July 22, 2000. j
;
�
3
# Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi made a motion, seconded by Mayor Amy, carried by a 5-0
; vote, to approve the 5300 expenditure from the Council Contingency Fund by I
: Minute Order No. 3151.
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government
# Code Section 54956.8. (Susan Moeller)
° � Property:
� Location: 68-736 Buddy Rogers Avenue ;
:i Negotiating Partier.
Agency: Redevelopment Agency
Property Owners: Palm Canyon Partners
Under Negotiation: Terms of Disposition and Development
Agreement '
, ,
� 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO
-� LITIGATION pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, Subd. (b)(1). i
, (Susan Moeller) '
- Number of Cases: One
3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government
� Code Section 54956.8. (Paul Shillcock)
� Property:
' Location: Approx. 95 Acres of Land Situated on the South Side of
; E. Palm Canyon Drive, South and West of the Existing
Days Inn Suites Facility.
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Redevelopment Agency
; � Property Owners: Donald Ballard (d.b.a. Desert Associates)
� Under Negotiation: Amendment to Disposition and Development
� Agreement
�
�
�
S
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
�r J U LY 12, 2000
PAGE 3
4. PERSONNEL MATTER pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. (City
Manager)
Issue for Discussion: 1) Cathedral City Public Safety Management
Association (CCPSMA); 2) Cathedral City Professional Firefighters Association
(CCPFFA); 3) American Federation of State, Countyand Municipal Employees
(AFSCME); and, 4) Unrepresented Employees.
5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8. (Warren Bradshaw)
Property:
Location: Scattered, Single-Family Home Lots Generally
� �
�
Located Between McCallum Way and 33ra
g Avenue Between Landau Boulevard and Date �
Palm Drive.
Negotiating Parties:
. Agency: Redevelopment Agency
Property Owners: Redevelopment Agency
Under Negotiation: Disposition of Properties
� 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 hear
Closed Session Agenda matters pursuant to above noted statutes.
�
= CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None.
,
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
� Bill Cohen, Cathedral City - Thanked City Council for the support
� letter regarding the remote control airplane field. Also, stated that
� the Fountain of Life Celebration was an attribute to the City which
$ should quell the naysayers of the past. He also congratulated the
artist for a job well done.
� Keith Davis, Cathedral City - Noted that a short time ago, some
street name changes were brought before the Council for '
# discussion. At the end of the discussions, the item was tabled until
City Staff could come up with a solution regarding street name
; changes in the City. He encouraged City Council to see that the
� street name changes get processed.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
� Councilmember De Rosa - Thanked everyone for attending the
; �` Fountain of Life Festival and thanked staff for all the preparation
which resulted in a tremendously successful event.
:�
� CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
� JULY 12, 2000
PAGE 4
_ � Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi - Reiterated Councilmember De Rosa's
comments and also wished to thank the sponsors of the Fountain
of Life Festival.
� Redevelopment Director Susan Moeller - Reminded everyone that
the entire event vvas paid for through sponsorships and again �
thanked those who contributed. '
� Councilmember Comer - Stated he was very pleased with the
success of the Fountain of Life Celebration and noted that the '
Fountain was not only for the children, but adults to enjoy as well '
� Mayor Amy - Thanked staff (Michael Mingee, Julie Baumer, Susan
Moeller, Tony Barton, and Lynn Mallotto, who chaired the event,
etc.) for putting the Fountain of life Festival together with such
successful results.
PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS'
Mayor Amy introduced Adam Williamson, a resident of Cathedral City, who is
representing the Valley at the 63ra All-American Soap Box Derby in Akron, Ohio, on
July 22, 2000. Mr. Williamson briefly informed the City Council and the audience
about his participation in this event in past years. Mayor Amy announced that the
� City Council, on behalf of Cathedral City, was presenting him with a$300 check to
assist with travel expenses for his trip to the Derby.
CALL FOR CORRECTIONS/APPROVAL OF MINUTES'
Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gomer,
carried by a 5-0 vote to approve the Minutes of City Council/Redevelopment
Agency Meeting of June 28, 2000, as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Pro Tem/RDA-CSD Board Member Di Grandi made a motion, seconded by
Mayor/Chairman/President Amy, carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve Consent Agenda
Item Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6. Consent Agenda Item No. 3 was approved by a 3-2 vote, with
Councilmembers De Rosa and Gomer voting no.
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 52,053,113.53 for the month of May, 2000 by
Minute Order Nos. 3148, R-805 and C-332.
2. Assessment of Tax Liens against properties for nuisance abatement costs �
was approved by Resolution No. 2000-40. �
� �
3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish locations and standards for �
Outdoor Advertising Displays was approved by Ordinance No. 529. (2"a �
Reading) �
a
�
�
�
_ i
�
�
I
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES I
JULY 12, 2000 '
� PAGE 5
4. Approved Memorandum of Understanding by and between the City of
Cathedral City and the Cathedral City Police and Fire Management
Association by Minute Order No. 3149.
n in b and between the Cit of �
5. Approved Memorandum of Understa d g y y i
Cathedral City and the Professional Firefighters Association by Minute
Order No. 3150.
6. Adopted Resolution No. 2000-41 establishing No Parking Zones on
portions of Perez Road, south of Palm Canyon, and on Palm Canyon Drive,
west of Perez Road.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
' I
7. Ritz Carlton: A request to certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact �
Report for the Ritz Carlton Golf Course (SCH No. 99091026) and approve �
Tentative Parcel Map 29719 to subdivide 1,017 acres into 11 parcels and
amend Conditional Use Permit 96-223 for a golf course development with
related facilities generally located south of East Palm Canyon Drive in the
east Cathedral Canyon Wash, within the jurisdictions of the Cities of
� �r Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage. (Cynthia Kinser) (Attached as Separate
Document)
Report was given by City Planner Cynthia Kinser - The golf course is
generally located south of East Palm Canyon and between the levee on the
east side of the Cove, basically in the East Cathedral Canyon Wash and
going up through a portion of the hillsides on up to the Ritz Carlton facility
in Rancho Mirage. The golf course was originally approved on November
� 12, 1997, and at that time, there were a variety of permits that were
required with that approval, including the Environmental Impact Report
that was certified at that time. It was required that various permits be
obtained from the State Fish and Wildlife Department and from the U. S.
Corps of Engineers. After the project approval, the applicant went
forward to obtain those permits required from those agencies and, in
March 1998, the Peninsular Bighorn Sheet were listed as an endangered
; species, which required the renegotiation of the permitting process and,
therefore, reevaluation of the project in order to get the permits from the
agencies. Due to that, and it was through the beginning of this year, that
negotiations were processed...basically from May 1998 thru March of
2000...to get the permits that were necessary and which boiled down to
a redesign of the project. That redesign was removing 50 acres from the
�,, southerly end of the project and then the applicant leased an additional
14 acres at the north end of the project from Cathedral City, thereby
lessening the impact on the Bighorn Sheep, but nonetheless changing the
project enough that a supplemental Environmental Impact Report was
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
�if PAGE 6
required, an amendment to be made to the Conditional Use Permit, and
preparation of a new Parcel Map. Those are the applications that are
before the City Council tonight...an amendment to the original approvals
based on the Federal Government's requirements for permits and
negotiation for mitigating the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. City Planner
Kinser referred Council and the audience to renderings on the wall which
display the golf course design, the Parcel Map, the grading exhibit that �
provides a rendering of the before and after of what the grading will look
like and the site plan and building elevations of the maintenance facility
and a copy of the original approved golf course plan. Ms. Kinser noted that
this went to the Planning Commission last month and at that time, the
Planning Commission did not take action on this project. We were still in
the midst of the 45-day review period which is required on Environmental
Impact Reports to allow the public to review the documents, provide
comment and we had the Planning Commission hold their hearing during
that 45-day period and, therefore, we did not have final approval
documents before the Commission and we did not have the Commission
take action. We used that meeting as an opportunity to receive comment �
and input on the project. So there is information that we were hearing �
about at that meeting that was evaluated since the Planning Commission
� meeting and we are now providing to the City Council for final review and
determination. The Ritz Carlton Golf Course basically will be having its
access from Frank Sinatra Drive in Rancho Mirage and will have access from
across the Ritz Carlton Hotel. The first hole is at the top of the hill in the
Rancho Mirage area. We had questions that came up at the Planning
Commission meeting...questions that preclude residential development
within the projectand questions aboutwhy does the plan show residential
units around the first hole. To clarify that particular matter, the residential
lots that are shown are part of a separate project (The Mirada Project) with
a separate Environmental Impact Report that is being reviewed and has
been approved by the City of Rancho Mirage and it is now a part of this
project. To make it clear, there are no residential proposals within this
development. After this first golf hole, then the development terraces
down into the East Cathedral Canyon Wash and there is no access for the
players of the golf course from Cathedral City into the golf course. It is all
in Rancho Mirage so there are no traffic impacts in that regard on
Cathedral City. There is, as she mentioned earlier, some added acreage to
the project. It was basically 14 acres at the northerly end of the project
which is where the maintenance building is now located. The maintenance
building is even with ��D" Street, but the actual access point into the
maintenance building will be from "H" Street and there will be a driveway �
� down to the maintenance building. One of the other questions that has �
come up is why is the access coming from "H" Street as opposed to "D" �
Street or some other street that would provide direct access. The �
�
f
�
�
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
� JULY 12, 2000
PAGE 7
reasoning for that is "H" Street is the lowest point of the levee and also has
the widest width so it is the best for construction trucks to get access over
the levee. The construction access for the overall project will be from "C" '
Street. There has also been the question as to why is the "C" Street �
construction access only temporary; why is it not a permanent access for
the maintenance facility. The reason for that is that we have MOU's on
various projects for future redevelopment applications and that particular
section of "C" Street may not exist in the future. Therefore, the "C" Street
access will eventually go away and future continued access will be from "H° �
Street. The Environmental Impact Report identifies that about 100 trips a �
day may occur onto this site, but it will be for employees only and
deliveries of maintenance equipment. City Planner Kinser displayed a
rendering identifying Cove residences, the fevee that is directly adjacent
which varies in height from 7- 8 feet basicalfy, and the golf course which
is shown throughout the area. She noted that previous development was
designated in the northly portion which has now been removed from the
development and is no longer part of the project. The development now �
starts at the last road in the Cove area and continues northward. Overall �
the project, therefore, has less significance in terms of overall impact �
� because it has gone from a 191-acre project to a 157-acre project. One �
other question that came up during the Planning Commission meeting was
that there was no lakes ever provided in the original project. This project
provides a lake and there was concern about where that came from.
Actually, if you refer to the exhibit (which was on the walU on the original
project, there is a lake and three pond facilities, so there are actual creek,
pond and lake facilities in the original project. This particular project
reduces that down to one lake facility. Overall, in terms of water being
provided to the facility, there is a condition providing for the Desert Water
Agency to provide a water line for reclaimed water to serve the site and �
water the golf course. �
At this point, Councilmember Pettis requested the City Planner to point
out the Cathedral City boundary witn regard to the location of the go{f
course. She complied with the request. Mayor Amy stated that he
believed the point Councilmember Pettis wished to make is that this is a
joint City project; tnat a portion of it is in Cathedral City and a portion is in
Rancho Mirage and they have issues they are dealing with, including ;
housing, which we have absolutely no control or jurisdiction over. Then �
there is the northern part which is the golf course. �
Overall the Parce! Map for the development is 1,017 acres of which a �
�,r smaller portion is in the City of Cathedral City; the remainder is in Rancho �
Mirage. In her staff report, she has identified of that 1,017 acre Parcel Map, '
852 acres is to be undeveloped and there are properties within Rancho �
�
�
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
�jr PAGE 8
Mirage that, due to separate agreements, are required to become part of
the Coachella valley Mountains Conservancy. Only 157 acres of the total
1,017 are to be developed for the golf course. Of that 157 acres, 64 is in
Rancho Mirage and the remainder is in Cathedral City. There were also a
couple of lots identified on the Parcel Map (Lots A and B) if you look at it
closely, and basically, that is the levee for the flood control channel. She
noted that the levee is not a part of the leased area that the developer is
leasing. The developer is leasing the property from Cathedral City and
Rancho Mirage respectively and the levee itself is not part of the project.
She stated that she makes note of that because during the Planning
Commission meeting they heard a lot of questions about what is
happening with the trail systems in this area. Right now, there are no
formalized trail systems in this area, but there are a lot of residents in the
Cove that do walk into the wash and then proceed up into the hillsides and
then on to some of the more formalized trails. There is a condition of
approval, which I am sure the applicant will address that is an original i
condition of approval that requires that the developer cooperate in the
development of a trail on top of the levee. Again, the issue is that the �
levee is not part of the project and it is controlled by the Riverside County �
, � Flood Control District, so there has always been some ambiguity from 1997 �
to the present as to what cooperation means for something that is outside
of their project boundaries and outside of their lease boundaries. Based
on current agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Game and
the U.S. Corps of Engineers, there are conditions on this project to help
preclude human or dog intervention into the Bighorn habitat area, which
is pretty much all the mountains if you heard all the press, and they are
required to provide marshals on the property to prohibit people from
going into the Santa Rosa Mountains. They are also conditioned to put up
the continuation of the fencing that Rancho Mirage has already been
putting up to help preclude either the Bighorns getting onto the golf
course or us getting into the Bighorn habitat. The applicant is requesting
that Condition No. 15, that was an original condition of approval, be
eliminated as it may conflict with those federal agreements. Staff, based
on the circumstances that this is not a part of the project boundary, does
not disagree with the removal of that particular condition. We do want to
highlight it because it was an issue that came out from many residents at
the Planning Commission meeting. With regard to Condition No.15, there
are three resolutions attached. The first resolution is regarding the
supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the second resolution is...
� Mayor Amy interrupted Ms. Kinser to recite the wording of Condition No.
15 for the record: "The developer is required to cooperate in the
development of a trail system along the east Cathedral Canyon Channel
levee and to participate and properly signing and demarcating the trail
3
i
; CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
; JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 9
system to the extent applicable. Any trail system designated to serve the
areas adjacent to or within the project shall be properly designated on the
Parcel Map prior to recordation." Mayor Amy noted that he wanted to
note the condition for those who may perhaps want to come forward for
public comment.
�
' City Planner Kinser went on to state that with the 18 holes of golf, there
is also a maintenance facility which she mentioned earlier would have
access from "H" Street. She advised Council, if they had their i
Environmental Impact Reportwith them which was distributed previously,
part of that report is that they are putting the maintenance facility into
� tne wash and out of the flood plain. This means that the site has to be
t raised. The building pad is being raised 11 feet above the current
elevation of the wash. In the EIR, it shows a diagram of about how much
of the structure you would see. You do see the upper portion of the
structure for the residents in the area. The building has been designed so
that it is reversed, basically facing the mountains, so that there is no open
base that would face the residents and there is a condition of approval for
; final landscaping and irrigation plans to come back to the Architectural
� Review Committee for review and approval to insure that it is nicely
landscaped. City Planner Kinser stated that going along with the totality �
of this project is the Supplemental EIR. She announced that she would be
having John Criste with Terra Nova, who is the environmental consultant,
give a brief overview of what the Supplemental EIR reviewed. She then
requested that the City Engineer, Dave Faessel, come forward and give a
report on the grading. Ms. Kinser referred to some renderings on the wall
one of which displays a 3-D grading analysis; another of the renderings
shows what the area looks like now and another shows what it will look like
after the project has been graded. �
City Engineer Dave Faessel stated that he would like to go over the grading �
concepts generally so that we are all aware of what was originally
contemplated and what is now proposed. He referred to the Tv screen
which displayed a sheet from the 1997 EIR entitled "Grading Concept for
Course Construction" and noted that the yellow coloring is the areas that
are the cut and fill areas that would be affected by the grading. Going
from south to north, you can see the areas affected. Now the original
grading concept back in that time, prior to the development of any
detailed grading plans, they were talking about 650,000 yards of
grading....that is cut and fill to build the golf course. That is what is shown
here. This is a concept back in 1997 because they did not have tne final
� grading plans worked out. As you know, the course moved to the �
south...some other changes were made as they got further and further �
into the development of the course, the developers discovered the
CC/RDA/CSD MiNUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 10
various restrictions and physical problems of the area that they were
� working against. As a result, the new grading concept is as shown here (he
displayed the two sheets side by side). Starting at the southern end, you �
can see that large acreage has been removed from the plan and now the �
` grading plans start about here (he pointed out the location via the map) 1
� as compared to further south. As we go north, you will see some added �,
' changes of grading. The newest 14 acres tnat has been added to ;
compensate for the 50 acres at the south end goes up here (again he 1
pointed to the location on the map) up to "D" Street. Comparing the two a
concept plans side by side, you see some changes which are pretty much �
a trade-off...a balancing act...where they could not grade at the south end, �
_ they moved elsewhere. Generally speaking, the area affected by the �
grading is identical...there is five acres difference. The new plan is 148 �
; acres affected by the grading where the original plan had about 153 acres �
' affected by grading. Now as to the quantities, the original concept, before
any detailed p{an was developed, was 650,000 yards. The plan that was just �
submitted about a month ago for first engineering plan check, the grading �
plan shows 1.2 million yards. At first glance, you might say that is a lot of
f
additional cut and fill; but it is afl occurring in exactly the same area, more E
or less. The elevations up the hill...for instance, on the original concept �
� they went way up to here (he pointed out the location on the plan); and
now they are going up to an elevation of about 700 where in the earlier
plan they would have been up about 650; so it is only about a 50-foot
difference. The grading in here (pointing out the location) goes up about
the same elevation. He stated that he is now talking about what the Cove �
resident might see from the Cove as to how high up the hillside they are �
going. In this area, it is all about the same, there is little or no difference �
in grading elevation. He wanted to stress that based on detailed plans, the
physical restrictions they were dealing with up there...additional grading �
became required and what that grading consists of is rounding off some �
of the corners to correct elevated areas for tees, to create fill over in this �
area, adjacent to where a residential development is proposed in Rancho �
Mirage. There will be a lake in this area (he pointed out the location on the
plan) and some of the fill is to create some earth to hold the lake. He �
wanted to make everyone aware that, for the record, although the original �
concept showed a lot less grading, the grading is still occurring in exactly
the same area, the same acreage is being affected. The same mitigation
measures will apply to the additional grading; that is, watering, dust �
control, re-vegetation of the hillsides. There will still be slope and �
contoured grading...it is not going to be just a stair step cut and filf slopes i
like you see in hillside subdivisions. This is all going to be under the �
� direction of the landscape architect and the golf course designer, as well �
as the engineer. He informed Council that the engineer for the developer �
was present at this meeting and may be able to shed more lignt on the
�
�
d
}
� CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
�
JULY 12, 2000
�i PAGE 11
� grading concepts.
�
City Manager Bradley requested City Engineer Faessel to comment on the
mitigation measures that were anticipated in 1997 compared to what will
4 happen now with the increased volume of grading that will occur.
� City Engineer Faessel stated that the mitigation measures will be the same;
� however, as there will be more grading so there will be more mitigation
measures. There will be deep watering of all the area proposed to be
' graded. There will be dust control; there will be re-vegetation of any cut
� or fill slopes; they will be required to get the necessary grading permits;
`; to pay the inspection fees. This will also be under the scrutiny of the City
� of Rancho Mirage. They will have to get the necessary permits from the
� State WaterQualityControl Board in Rancho Mirage, the MPDES permits and
; also working under the Corps of Engineers 404 Permit, which is sensitive to
the affects on surface flow and the so-called waters of the United States '�
which are affected here. �
Councilmember De Rosa questioned the City Engineer noting that he had
� stated in the original plan 650,000 yards of dirt would be moved and now �
a � we are looking at 1.2 million yards of dirt. If we are moving around the
same amount acreage wise, why have we almost doubled the amount of
;; dirt that is moving? �
�
� Engineer Faessel responded that it is the same number of acres, but it is ;
different acres. The contour and the character of the grading is changed ;
so there into more cut and more fill to create a workable golf course. By
� the way, a million yards to create a golf course is on the low side when you �
� look at golf course grading. �
�
R
= Councilmember De Rosa stated that if she would overlay the plan showing
. the existing with the proposed what would she see?
Engineer Faessel stated that you would have to hunt for the difference on
that exhibit. He informed Council that the engineer for the developer
� could probably better explain this to you. He noted that View 1, which is
= up near the north end approximately opposite "H" Street or so, is the
' existing view. The proposed view shows the green for the fairway and
greens and you will see if you look closely, you will see some still area,
which is not in the first picture. He also pointed out the area where the
� lake would be. He noted that in the next set of pictures, once again, it is
difficult to see a major difference other than the creation of the fairways �
and greens. �
�
�
�
z
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 12
; Councilmember De Rosa asked if the lake they are proposing is an irrigation
lake?
�
Engineer Faessel stated that he did not know the answer to that question. j
�
� �
� Councilmember Pettis stated that in reviewing the Conditional Use Permit, j
he didn�t notice anyadditional discussion on water and you mentioned the 3
excessive watering. He requested Engineer Faessel to give a little more :
detail regarding the pre-construction watering. e
Engineer Faessel responded stating that pre-construction watering, of �
; course, is to wet the ground so not to create dust. There is also a �
condition in the E!R to wet the ground so that movement does not create �
� dust, thereby freeing any kind of spores that may be in the earth, thereby �
killing two birds with one stone. �
�
Councilmember Pettis inquired as to whether there is a specific amount of �
depth that the water must soak down? �
�
; � Engineer Faessef responded yes, that he believed that the ElR and the Soil �
; and Engineering Reports specify a minimum depth for deep watering. �
�
Mayor Amy requested to know who monitors the watering to ensure that �.
this watering takes place during pre-construction. �
Engineer Faessel responded that it will be monitored by two cities, the �
Southern California Air Quality Control Board, who I am sure will be looking �
over everybody's shoulder on this project; as well as the State Water �
Quality Control Board, who takes part in this as well. Also, this is not the �
low-desert blowsand, this is much more granular and heavier material, so �
he felt that we would not see the same problems as on the lower desert �
�
areas.
{
�
John Criste of Terra Nova stated that they were retained by the applicant �
last year to assist in preparing the Supplemental EIR to address some of tne �
changes that the modifications required by meeting the requirements of �
the resource agencies brought about. Staff has pointed out that we have �
had a lot of consultation in preparing this supplemental document and, as �
a supplemental EIR, this is a fairly substantial doorstop. He noted that they �
tried to do a fairly thorough job. We sent out a Notice of Preparation last �
� fall to about 70 agencies and public interest groups. We went through the ;
City's mailing list on the earlier EIR to make sure that local residents who ¢
had spoke to the issues in the Cove, also got copies of the Notice of =
Preparation and several got copies of the EIR itself. We thought we need £
t
�
�
�
�
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 13
f
to be careful in preparing the Supplemental EIR because it was just that; it
` was supposed to simply supplement and fill gaps between the previously
approval that Council did in 1997 and the current application that is before
you now. We addressed those issue areas that we identified in our initial ',
� study checklist and Notice of Preparation that were areas of greatest I
concern that needed to be revisited. These included land use
� compatibility, traffic and circulation, hydrology, water resources and
� quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and visual resources.
; In this regard, we spent literally tens of hours on the site surveying the �
site, taking photographic surveys, looking at the effects that we thought �
' the grading plan was going to have. We had the traffic engineer, who also �
� did the noise analysis on the original application, revisit the issues and the �
� relocation of °H" Street and the possible inter-traffic generation...what the �
� effects would be both in Rancho Mirage at the clubhouse site and the
� maintenance building. We had two separate hydrology runs done by two
�
very well-known and well-respected firms. The latest version is now in
review at County Flood Control and they are going over their concerns and
trying to help with refining. Water resources, as you know from the earlier
EIR there is an agreement by the applicant and the Desert Water Agency �
�� to use tertiary treated water for the long term irrigation at the golf course �
�� and pfanning on that is moving forward. With regard to biological �
resources, we looked at this in two veins. We have the 14-acre site which
was new to the project, which is on the most northerly end. Our biologists
afso visited the issues associated with implementing the Fish and Wildlife
Service and Fisn and Game requirements, including fencing, etc. Itwas also
the same biologist who helped us with the MCO Properties EIR, so we have �:
had some good correspondence there and also we conferred with the �
resource agencies at length; Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife; the Sierra �
Club was notified and also sent a copy of the EIR as well as the Notice of �
Preparation, etc. The Cultural Resource issues...we had another cultural �
survey done...which was the 3rd or 4th in the immediate area...and the �
results were negative. We had some measures just to make sure that if we
ran into anything that they would not get damaged or destroyed. Noise
impacts were well monitored early on and it was again determined that
nowhere either in the area of influence of the project or the immediate
vicinity are there going to be any adverse impacts that we weren't able to
address and more than adequately mitigate. With regard to visual
resources, we really identified probably the most important area new to
the project was the relocation of the maintenance building in the most
northerly Cove area. That has been reviewed by the City. I do not know �
if that has been to the Council yet. It has been refined since we have done �
� the draft EIR. A couple of other points probably worth mentioning is we �:
have a net reduction in the area, the surface area of the golf course �
project itself....44 acre reduction in area. He thought City Planner Kinser �
�
�
�
�
�
�
S
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
' JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 14
�
� and City Engineer Faessel had done a good job talking about the
differences in grading numbers. With regard to the concern on the
residential in the project area, as you may remember, the golf course
driving range in the original proposal included taking a portion of the MCO
� Properties townhome site, which already had entitlements by the City of
� Rancho Mirage for 90 condominium units on that site and as a cooperation,
� if you will, between MCO to help the Ritz meet the requirements of the
Federal Government especially, but also the State Government, to mitigate
' impacts to Big Horn Sheep, they modified that plan and reduced it to, he
believed a total of 49 units. All but eight of those will be singfe-story, ;
single-family units instead of the 90 original and that one hole of goff. ;
� Councilmember De Rosa stated that she did not see anything in the pfan �
� about scalping. �
�
� Mr. Criste responded that there has been discussion and I know the �
developer is looking at the new strains of grass that are becoming
available, but which are not production grasses yet to try to reduce that.
Apparently, there is a wide interest in the industry because of the awful lot
of cost in over seeding, but at this time he didn't believe that those �
mechanisms were in place. That is, that those products are available right '
� now to see if they would address that issue. This is kind of a links course �
� and the amount of turf area that needs to be scalped and reseeded is �
�
; substantially reduced. There is a lot of desert area that remains either
native desert or re-desert-landscaped areas that won't be disturbed after
the initial replanting occurs.
�
Councilmember De Rosa stated that she sits on the E&E for CVAG and that �
� is one of the issues that they are reviewing with the Golf Course �
Manager's Association and she believed that the City Of Indian Wells
successfully is not scalping. They have put into place a mechanism where
tney don�t dry the grass out, they cut it real low and then seed right over
it. She stated that she would appreciate that being investigated so tnat
this course may never have to be scalped.
Mr. Criste responded that the Council may so order that. �
�
Councilmember Gomer stated he has a question regarding the re- �
vegetation of the hillsides where it has been cut. Tnere is also a process by �
which the rock can be stained to match tne original area and he assumed �
that is included in this plan. �
�
� Mr. Criste responded that it is included as a mitigation measure to re- �
contour into the natural terrain and then to use a native mix of materials �
both in terms of seed and plants to re-vegetate to emulate the natural �
�
F
�
�
;
k CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
;
JULY 12, 2000
PAGE 15
�
� vegetation on those slopes.
;
City Planner Kinser advised Council that what they had before them is a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with a resolution that has
been revised and passed out to you. You also have the Conditional Use
Application with its Conditions of Approval within that resolution; and the
� Tentative Parcel Map and the resolution within that. Ms. Kinser stated that
she would also like to add one other comment. There was a Condition of
Approval that seemed to be pretty controversial at the Planning ;
Commission meeting. It was an original Condition of Approval that F
�
required that there be dense landscaping basically along the levee to �
preclude the residents from seeing the golf course. Based on the �
? comments that were made from new residents, we have eliminated that
` Condition of Approval so that those residents who do live in the Cove will �
be not be obstructed from having a view of the golf course. In addition, �
Ms. Kinser wanted to mention that there is an attachment to the Staff �
Report called "Summary of Related Agreements". What we have
attempted to do is...there has actually been a lot of involvement in this
project by a variety of agencies and groups and we have briefly �
summarized the provisions of some of those agreements just so that you
�,► can see there are a lot of hands involved in this project. Afso, there is quite
a lot of duplication in some instances and in some cases where there is
enough duplication, I didn't bother to reiterate them in the Conditional
Use Permit. Some of the things such as in our own parallel lease
agreement, we have provisions regarding the time frames of operation
and since you will be approving that lease...you did approve it in terms of
form and content previously, but the lease for the property has not yet
been executed, so that will be something that will be coming to you at a
later date and must be adopted or approved and signed before they can �
commence any work on the property. We did summarize quite a bit of the �
conditions just so you that you can see what all is out there between the �
Settlement Agreement, Amended Settlement Agreement, Lease
Agreement, Parallel Lease Agreement, Army Corps of Engineers Permit,
California Department of Fish and Game Stream Bed Alteration Agreement
and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion. Then, of �
course, there witl be the action you will take tonight which will include all ¢
the mitigation measures within the Supplemental EIR and tne Conditions �
if approved are attached to the resolution. She noted that there is quite �
a bit of documentation here. r
Councilmember De Rosa asked if the lake will be an irrigation lake?
� Cit Planner Kinser res onded.. "yes it is".
Y p �
�
x
Councilmember Gomer requested to know if the applicant has indicated �
�
�
�
�
:� CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
h JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 16
;
� when they would be prepared, in the event that this goes forward, to
� begin construction and the length of construction.
City Planner Kinser responded that if she recalled correctly, the applicant
= would begin construction in March 2001 and be open in December 2001,
;; but she wished to let the applicant clarify that timing. She noted that the
� applicant has, as part of the Settlement Agreement, a provision that they
° must be open by December 30th of 2001, so that is a deadline they have.
She wished to mention their part of the Lease Agreement, which is not
part of your approval tonight, in terms of fiscal impact, we have a lease i
payment of 5125,000 while the project is under construction. The Parallel �
�� lease revised that figure and it is $250,000 while they are under
� construction and then $250,000 lease payment for the life of the project.
� In addition, they commence in the second year with a percentage of the
� green fees up to a maximum of 4% starting in the eighth year of
operation, so there is a fiscal impact that the City will be generating from
the project.
Councilmember Pettis requested to know if Mayor Amy would prefer �
� specific questions on conditions now or would he rather wait until after �
z public comments?
�
� Mayor Amy suggested that they put the conditions out now so that they
may respond to them.
Councilmember Pettis referred to Page 4 of the Summary of Related t
Agreements. He referred to Section 3, Subsection (d)(3): Tennis Court �
�ighting. He noted that this was an issue many years ago and it seemed to �
have been resolved a number of years ago and the lights got turned off �
and when the course got delayed, the lights went back on. He noted it is
mentioned a couple of times and he is concerned that the hotel
understand that this is not an on-again, off-again thing. He stated that we
are signing these agreements and we want them to be adhered to through
the entire process of this and not change because of other external things.
He referred to Page 5 regarding street improvements...refurbishing ofany �
existing streets located in the City be dictated by the CEQA Review Process. �
He requested that staff elaborate on that and requested to know who to
determine what the street is, whether its "H" Street or "C" Street now and �
what it is at the conclusion of construction and how the City will be made
whole from that. �
� �
�
City Planner Kinser stated that Council might want to have the applicant's �
representative address some of those questions and that might be more �
�
�:
r
�
M1
i
� CCiRDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
�r PAGE 17
appropriate as these are previous agreements that she was not involved
� in and they have just been summarized in this report.
Councilmember Pettis also noticed a couple of places in the report that '
mentions that there will be a maximum of 5-ton gross vehicle weight going
� through on either "C" or "H" Streets unless advance notice to the City is
� given. He wanted to know what advance notice means and how often.
� Advance notice doesn't mean advance approval, it just means telling us its
going to happen. He wanted more clarification on that. He referred to j
Page 12 regarding the Department of Fish and Game Stream Bed Alteration �
� Permit. Section B talks about an eight-foot high perimeter fence around
� the golf course. How do we adjust that to our Municipal Code that forbids
� chainlink fence? Do we not have to do a variance on that? Is that fence
= going to be colorized so that it blends into the landscape and is not just a
� stark gray metal sticking up? He referred to Conditional Use Permit No. 96-
' 223A, Page 9. He noted that this is not a question, but more that it be out
;
there for the public to know. It says that the Conditional Use Permit
x approval will be for two years from the date of the action of the City
Council. If the project is not commenced within that period or the period �
� � is not extended, then the Conditions of Approval will become null and
� void. He stated he presumes that is of tonight's vote, assuming it is
approved.
City Planner Kinser responded to the question on the Conditions of
Approvaf with a yes.
Councilmember Pettis referred to Page 12 of the same document. It talks �
about solid waste, green waste, etc. Who is getting the waste stream from �
this project, both construction and ongoing maintenance? Does Cathedral �
City get credit for that or does Rancho Mirage get credit for it? He
referred to Page 16, No. 29, Subsection (e). Down lighting and accent
landscape and building lights being placed throughoutthe project and tne
�
entrance lighting along Terrace Avenue. The next page talks again about
the light poles being removed from the tennis area, not just turned off. �
Is the lighting going to be on C or H Street? �
�
City Planner Kinser stated there will be just some lighting for security
purposes on "H". Whatever is needed to see the entrance into the gate,
but notning substantial.
�
�
Councilmember Pettis noted that it states again on Page 17 about the �
� tennis court lights and specifically says that the poles will be removed, not �
just turned off. He stated that those are the questions he has for the ,
applicant. �
�
�
�
�
�
� CCiRDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE '18
Councilmember De Rosa also requested that she would like the scalping
issue addressed when the applicant comes up to speak.
,
Councilmember Gomer stated he feels all the questions have been asked,
but he had one additional regarding a gate at the maintenance facility
? entrance. He assumed that it would be gated.
i
City Planner Kinser stated there would be a gate at that entrance. She
noted that a plan for that has not yet been submitted.
�
Emily Hemphill, an attorney representing the applicant, spoke in response �
to the questions placed by the City Council. With regard to the question �
from Councilman Pettis regarding the condition of the street and how �
would tne City be protected. Under the terms of the Parallel Lease, one of
the things that the two Councilmembers (Councilmembers Pettis and De
Rosa) negotiated was the requirement, as was held in the Conditions of
Approval, that any damage to the streets in the Cove that is caused by tne
project have to be repaired. The construction vehicles were the primary
concern and what the Parallel lease does require is that prior to initiating �
activity, City Staff and project staff, together, go out and do a video survey �
� of the streets that will be used for the project in order to record their pre- �
construction condition. The Lease also requires at the close of
construction, we do the same thing again so that we can clearly document
what has occurred on the streets and then damages caused by any
construction vehicles are the responsibility of tne developer. Under
constitutional limitations, we can be conditioned to fix anytning we break
and that is exactly what we have. We tried to come up with a good survey
mechanism to make sure everyone is protected. In terms of advance �
notice when larger vehicles will be required to go in, this is not an every
day occurrence; it is an unusual occurrence, but looking at the fact that �
tnis is a 99-year lease, it was difficult to say that we would never have those
types of vehicles occasionally for deliveries, etc. She stated she would
suggest to Council that we make an effort to give a few days advance
notice so that the City staff can advise us any kind of safety precautions
tnat they would like us to take to make certain that tnose occasional �
vehicles don't cause a problem for the folks that are living in the Cove or �:
utilizing the streets in tnat area.
Mayor Amy asked Ms. Hemphill to give Council an example of what an
extremely large vehicle would be. E
�
�r She referred the answers to that question to the engineers who would �
respond shortly. Attorney Hemphill noted that in regard to the fence, it �
would be colorized so that it disappears into the hillside. We nave seen a �
;
�
i
�
�
�
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 19
lot of these kinds of examples with what folks are trying to do with the
sheep fences that are going up behind Thunderbird in Rancho Mirage. Its
that kind of a fence. The design of it is subject to the City's approval, as
well as the approval of U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, the California
" Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers, the City of
� Rancho Mirage, and the Riverside County Department of Flood Control.
� She noted that as to the credit for the green waste; a very interesting �
' question...it has never come up before and she did not know what the �
� answer to that might be. Her sense of it is that they figure out how much �
I
land is in Cathedral City and how much land is in Rancho Mirage and split �
the credit proportionately, but that is just an idea. However you folks �
� want to do it, it would be just fine with us. �
; �
�
4 Councilmember Pettis stated that if that be the case then Cathedral City
� wants the cred+t.
Attorney Hemphill stated that the lake is a lake for irrigation. The property
is being irrigated by reclaimed water from the Desert Water Agency; we do
have that agreement. The lake will act as a reservoir for those irrigation
waters so that we can make the irrigation system work in the most �
� � F
z efficient fashion possible. We are very much aware of the lighting �
3 limitation and do intend to comply with them. As to the scalping...at this
point, we have not had any type of firm information provided to us that
the non-scalping procedure is an effective way of treating golf courses;
however, the applicant certainly, like any other golf course operator, is
interested in reducing costs wherever possible, so we will be more than
pleased to participate in the efforts that CVAG is working on to see if we
can make this a viable alternative. As John Criste indicated, this is a links �
course, and while she doesn't golf, she is unfortunately married to
someone who golfs constantly and a links course, she has now learned, is �
one unlike a lot of golf courses you see where the entire golf course is
grassed, even the parts outside the fairways are grassed. In a links course,
what you have in between the fairways and the actual playing areas is the
natural environment itself, so there is much less turf area on a links course �
than you have on a normal golf course. �
Attorney Hemphill referred to a letter received by City Planner Cynthia
Kinser from the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. Tnis
organization is on quite a quest to challenge any project that is in or near
sneep habitat and we did receive a copy of their letter this afternoon
about �0 minutes to 5:00 p.m. She noted that she does not have a written �
response, but would try very quickly to give a verbal one. On the first page =
�„► of their letter, under paragraph one, the gist of the paragraph is that the �
Supplemental EIR that you are looking at now, does not look at the whofe �
project, but only the modifications and snould have looked at the entire �
�
�
�
�
� CCiRDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
�i PAGE 20
�
project. This ignores the CEQA guidelines that provide for a Supplemental
= EIR When a project is modified in such a way that there may be potential
impacts to examine, but it is not necessary to re-examine the entire
project. CEQA provides for two different forms..the subsequent, which
� basically says our previous EIR is no longer applicable and so we are going ,
� to look at the whole thing again. CEQA also allows for a supplement that
' says that our previous EIR is still good; however, we have made some i
; changes and we are analyzing those changes. We have taken this second I,
approach. When we first began this, we contemplated simply doing an '
amendment to the EIR which CEQA also permits when the impacts are not �
� increased. Because this project is made significantly smaller, we did �
� consider the amendment and rejected it in favor of the much more �
;' detailed Supplemental EIR that is before you now and that is a permitted �
situation in circumstances like this where the modifications significantly �
reduces the impacts to sheep habitat. In several locations within this
letter, the attorney for the Southwest Center, indicates that we are having
the permanent loss of occupied sheep habitat. It is not correct to say that
the project area is occupied sheet habitat. She brought copies of the
biological opinion with her and has provided them to Council. It includes �
� an exhibit on the back of it that shows Big Horn Institute's telemetry siting �
of B�g Horn Sheep. You will find no siting on the pro�ect site so to say that
it is occupied sheep habitat is not a correct statement. The Center for
Biological Diversity also indicates that the primary mitigation for Big Horn
Sheep is the fence and nothing could be further from the truth and at the
risk of boring everyone to death, there are numerous measures that were
implemented and in her view the primary one is having to eliminate 58
acres from the project. We have eliminated those 58 acres, we have
agreed at the insistence of the Wild Life Agencies to construct a fence; we
have agreed to provide an endowment for research for sheep
augmentation in the amount of a half-million dollars; we have agreed and `
already purchased 495 acres of sheep habitat which we will be required to �
place in a conservation easement in perpetuity for the preservation of the
sneep; a portion of it is the Dorly property which is right at the mouth of
Cathedral Canyon at the south end of the project; there is also 152 acres
near Haystack Mountain and 160acres in MartinezCanyon, all ofwhich have �
been approved by botn Wild Life Agencies. We have been required to �
employ marshals to make sure there are no intrusions from our golf course �
into sheep habitat; we are prohibited from grading near the lambing area �
throughout the lambing season from January 1st to June 30th of each
year; we are not permitted to construct a golf course that even permits t
galleries on the holes that are nearest the sheep habitat to avoid excessive �
�,r people near sheep habitat; there are also several measures which are �
included in the Settlement Agreement which will also benefit sheep p
habitat, including payments of S50,000 a year for 99 years to the Mountains `
�
�
�
�
�
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
�+ PAGE 21
Conservancy; the payment of $1.6 million dollars to the Mountains
Conservancy for the use of the Rancho Mirage acreage; and several other
things such as the opportunity to utilize the hotel and/or golf course
facilities and/or get a payment of $25,000 every year at their choice. All of
those financial payments to the Mountains Conservancy would, of course,
be utilized for their primary mission, which is to preserve the mountain
habitat where Big Horn Sheep are found. So to say that all we have done ,
is build a fence is to understate it considerably. Again, they are talking in
the letter about the various impacts and they make the statement that the �
biological opinion indicates that one sheep will be killed as a result of this �
project. In fact, that is an incorrect statement. The biological opinion does �
not make that statement and, in fact, it says..."we anticipate that zero
Peninsula Big Horn Sheep may be directly injured or killed as a result of
activities associated with the construction and operation of the Ritz
Carlton Golf Course". So their statement that one sheep will be killed as a
result of this project is incorrect. The biological opinion does not say that.
They are also insinuating nere that because of an alteration in habitat of
the sheep that under California law you are required to reject this project
because that is a take. That is also an incorrect statement of the law.
Under the Federal Act, a take of sheep includes harming or harassing a �
� sheep and includes loss of habitat. The Federal Agency has examined this �
and has issued the permit because of the extensive mitigation and that is
within the Federal Law. Under the State Law loss of habitat is not
considered a take of Big Horn Sheep and, in fact, there is an Attorney
General�s Opinion thatwas issued in May of 1995 that specifically states that
State �aw does not prohibit indirect harm to a state listed endangered or �
threatened species, by way of habitat modification. She stated she had a
copy of that document available to provide to the City Clerk for inclusion �
in the record. In the letter, they are talking about the fence as though the �:
project is centering on our benevolent effort. She pointed out, as she told �
the Council when they met several years ago, it was not our choice to put
up the fence. The fence was mandated by the United States Fish and
Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game. Its location is also
mandated by those agencies. Tne loss of habitat that is involved in the
fencing is an interesting question because everybody talks about it and yet �
you drive a little further down Highway 111 and they are all putting up
fencing to keep the sheep away from Highway 111, to keep the sheep
away from Tnunderbird, because they saY eating grass hurts them. Putting
up this fence keeps them off the existing lawns at Mirada, keeps them off
the existing lawns at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, keeps them off the existing �
landscaping at the Rancho Mirage City Hall, keeps them away from Frank �
� Sinatra Drive and keeps them away from Highway 111. I think that there ,
are certainly over-riding considerations that indicate that the fence has �
some benefits in terms of the sheep. It not only protects them from the �
�
�
�
�
�
�
F
� CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 22
highway traffic, but it also eliminates some of the maladaptive behaviors
that they have adopted, including feeding off turf grass which apparently
causes some sort of viral problem. The Center indicates that the biological �
opinion prepared by the service is not a CEQA document. While it is not a
document mandated by CEQA, it is the result of two years worth of analysis
� and to simply ignore it would be ridiculous. They are also saying that the
biological opinion's findings does not equate to a finding that there is no
significant impact. By the same token, it does not equate to a finding that
there is a significant impact. Quite the contrary, it equates to a finding �
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finds the impact acceptable in light `
; of the mitigation measures that have been imposed on the project. The �
� other issue she wished to hit upon was the issue of lambing area. The �.
lambing area is in the hillside above the area that was given up on the
south end of the project. Lambing area is protected in several ways...of
� course the fence, as indicated earlier the limitation of no galleries there,
no permitting golfers to intrude beyond that point. There are also berms
in areas to prevent a sheep from standing in the lambing area....when they
look down on the golf course, they cannot see it and that is part of the
berming effort included in the grading plan and are mandated by the U.S.
� Fish and Wildlife Service. Based upon these comments, she does not �
believe that the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity's opinion
presents an accurate statement of the law. It certainly does not present
; an accurate statement of the project. As she had indicated, it clearly mis-
states and instead quotes the one sheep being killed which is the biological
opinion given to Mirada, not to this project. So, the inaccuracies in terms �
of facts and inaccurate statements of law indicate that the conclusions are �
also questionable. In Council's decisions this evening, CEQA requires you to
base your decision based on substantial evidence. You have looked at two �
to three years of analysis on this issue and I don't think a letter received
ten minutes before 5:00 p.m. this evening that does not provide additional �
analusis can be deemed to be substantial evidence upon which one would
contradict three years worth of analysis. She noted that is her response in
terms of the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity's comments. Finally,
with regard to tne Conditions of Approval, as CYnthia indicated, we are
requesting that Condition No. '15 be deleted, whicn is the issue regarding �
tne trail system. Under the leases, the golf course property cannot have
trails on it for obvious safety reasons. People maV get injured from flying �
golf balls, etc. We do not have any other property to control other than �
the golf course property. Olympus does not have any objections to trail
systems in the hillsides. We are, however, required under our Stream Bed �
Alteration Agreement to make sure that nobody goes from the golf course �
�r into tne hillsides. Therefore, in order to comply with the requirements of �
that permit and since we really don't have much that we can cooperate �
with anyway, since we don't have any property, we would ask that ;
E
�
�
` CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
�,► PAGE 23
!
Condition No.15 be deleted. She noted that they are asking for one other
slight modification in Condition No. 9 to the Tract Map. This condition
indicates that prior to grading or building permits, clearance must be
obtained from tne City Planner and City Engineer. No clearance will be j
issued for any form of construction, including rough grading, site
scarification, clearing and grubbing, until the final parcel map is recorded.
In consultation with the project engineers, they have indicated that it is ;
typical for certain types of rough grading activities to be begun before the �
final map is recorded if all of the bonds have been properly posted. t
Therefore, we would request tnat Condition No. 9 be modified by crossing �
out the wording which states "until the final parcel map is recorded" and �
replace it with until the appropriate bonds and other security are posted �
with the City as required by the City". �
Councilmember Pettis requested to know what page she was reciting �
from.
Ms. Hemphill noted it was on Page 10...its for the Parcel Map. It is way at
the back of your packet. She noted that it is also in the Conditional Use g
Permit. �
� �
�
City Planner Kinser noted that the condition is noted on Page 9 of the �
Conditional Use Permit Resolution, Condit�on No. 3.
Mayor Amy directed a question to Attorney Hemphill noting that she had �'
made several references to the lambing area to the extreme south of the �
golf course. It has been identified as a lambing area, but has there been r
evidence to indicate that any lambing has taken place? i
�
�
Ms. Hemphill replied in the negative. She noted that when she spoke with `
the California Fish and Game about this, they indicated that there are �
approximately eight lambing areas in the vicinity and there had only been
only two or three lambs born. She stated she posed that question. Their
definition of a lambing area has nothing to do with its use...it is its
potential suitability for use in the future in the event the herd is mobile �
and grows. �
�
City Planner Kinser indicated that she and the City Engineer have a �
concern. There are lots of Conditions of Approval, some of which do need �
to be met before grading occurs. We might be willing to make the �
� language more flexible so that the City Engineer and City Planner have a ;
little more flexibility to determine whether bonding is enough orwhether r
certain conditions have to be met. But, we are a little concerned because �
of the amount of conditioning and bonding and mitigation that is �
�
�
�
[:
CCiRDA/CSD MINUTES
� JULY 12, 2000
PAGE 24
required with this plan.
Attorney Hemphill stated that she feels they could probably live with what
Cynthia is suggesting. The concern is that the final map does not get E
recorded until you have done a whole lot of things and this project, as you �
know, is unlike most pro�ects in that rt is a time bomb tick�ng. We cannot
put the initiation of construction off for too long because it must be open
and operating by December 31, 2002, and we cannot grade in a large
portion of it for nalf of the year. So, while we certainly have no desire to �
skirt the requirements of the City, waiting until the final map is recorded
is a little bit onerous and perhaps what we could do is put in place of that �
°until the bonds are posted and the Community Development Directorand �
City Engineerapprove issuance of rough grading" and those sorts of things. �
City Manager Bradley requested City Planner Kinser to briefly comment on
the letter received from the Center for Biological Diversity this afternoon.
�
City Planner Kinser stated she appreciated Attorney Hemphill's response �
to the letter. She further noted that staff concurs with her comments and �
we have provided a modification to the resolution which we passed out to 4
� Councif based on discussion with the applicant's attorney and the City
Attorney. We have provided a statement of over-riding considerations
that we have added as an attachment to the resolution which was also
distributed to you earlier today. It basically just reiterates that there are
no outstanding impacts with regard to this development.
�
�
;
The Public Hearing was opened: �
� David Matthews, Cathedral City - speaking to express his
concerns about the Supplemental EIR you are being asked to �
approve for this project. A Supplemental EIR is totally €
inadequate to address the major changes that have been �
made in this project since the original EIR was presented in
1997. This supplemental only analyzes the 14-acre addition
to the project. There is significant visual impacts created by a
tne new course design that were not addressed in the 1997 �
EIR and are not addressed in this supplemental EIR. City Staff ;
have expressed concern and I quote: "The grading impacts �
shown on the current plan are much more significant to the �
actual slopes and hillsides than either of the earlier versions.
„
He noted he is submitting a copy of a memo written by Jerry �
Jack, Engineering Associate, that documents these concerns. �
�,► The view point exhibits provided by the project design =E
engineer do not portray these significant visual impacts. He 3
noted he is speaking of the document Council was given just �
;
�
�
�
�
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 25
a few minutes ago (the color overlays). Cathedral City staff
are preparing cross sections to provide a visual '
representation of conditions before and after the proposed �
grading. However, these will not be completed until next �
week at the earliest. Because these cross sections are not
completed and because the Supplemental EIR does not
analyze the significant course design changes, you have not
been provided sufficient information on the visual impacts �
to make an informed decision at this time. It appears that �
during the de-annexation of a portion of this project, the �
City limits were carefully drawn to keep the hillside portions �
out of Cathedral City; and tnerefore to exempt them from �
our Hillside Ordinance. This fancy maneuver does not reduce �
the significant visual impact the project will have on the
residents of Cathedral City. He urged Council to treat this as
tne new project that it is by requiring an Environmental
Impact Report that analyzes the total impact of the entire
revised project and not just the comparatively innocuous
addition of 14 acres in the wash.
� Bill Cohen, C�thedral City - this fat man is not ready to sing.
�' Our Cathedral City Mountains Conservancy recently had the
opportunity to review the Supplemental EIR report for the �
proposed Ritz Carlton Golf Course. Our long-standing
objections to the golf course are well known and a matter of
public record. However, after looking over the report, we
found several items that were never part of or never
mentioned in the original report. One of the things he had �
asked for from Cynthia was a copy of the original Conditional �
Use Permit. He was told it could not be found. Some of the �
things that he questioned could only be answered by
analyzing the original CUP which he was not privy to. He
thinks that all of the things that other people have �
mentioned...all outstanding items should be addressed. He
thinks that before the plans are approved, these things need �
to be brought forth. His concern is that the golf course will �
go in regardless of what he says or does, but it should be �
done the right way. �
� Gene Touchet, Cathedral City - stated, as a Planning �
Commission�r, he was not permitted to partake in the �
discussion before the Planning Commission because his �
� residence is too close to the project. There are some F
questions that he would like to raise. He is concerned about �
the traffic during the construction and also after the �
completion of the project. If they use "H" Street, how are �
�
fi
E
fF
�
�
€
�
�
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
� JULY 12, 2000
PAGE 26
they going to get to the "H" Street entrance. Are they going ;
to go up van Fleet, are they going to go up Cathedral �
Canyon? He has not heard anyone say anything about that �
one way or the other. Either way, it will be bad because we
� all know that Van Fleet is very narrow and there are a lot of
children who play in thatarea. Cathedral Canyon is not much
better. We want the streets to be better as they do not look
so hot right now. Regarding MOU's, they change. He �
strongly urged Council to go with the "C" Street access �
rather than to honor this MOU because later on this evening €
you are going to be asked to amend an MOU that you have �
entered into and an MOU is a wish list. Whereas, this project �
is going to go forward and will , be an actuality, that MOU �
where you are giving access on H Street might never occur. �
So there you are, you are stuck with naving people drive all �
the way to "H" Street when you coufd have had them on ��C"
Street because the MOU might never come to fruition. 100
trips a day might not sound like very much to somebody
who lives on a busy street, but 100 more trips a day on Van
� Fleet or on Cathedral Canyon and certainly on 100 more trips £
a day on "H° Street is going to impact the people living there. �
He noted that 4% of the green fees in eight years....Rancho
Mirage is going to get the bed tax from this, they are going
to get a lot of good stuff from this and they are going to get
this housing development of 49 units and we are not going
to get very much besides 4% of the green fees and have to -
wait eight years for that. He felt we should get more out of �
the project because they cannot do it without us. We will �
get 5500,000 in a couple of years and that is great, but, as Mr. �
Cohen said, its a done deal, but he feels we need to look a &
little more carefully at the traffic patterns that are proposed �
because Council's names are going to be held in contempt �
and in vain by people 20 years from now. �
� Bob Hillery, Cathedral City/Indian Wells - stated he is not here
before the Council this evening to either endorse or to �
object to the proposed golf course. He is before you to �
object to the construction within the City of that portion of
the golf course which violates hls road rights over right-of- �
way along the one-half section line of Section 4 between the
quarter corner and his 4-acre parcel which is located in the �
City of Rancho Mirage. In addition, Rancho Mirage has �
� proposed to fence my property on three sides. The Councif
�
is fully aware that there exists a contract between Federated �
Development Company and/or its successors that could �
r
�
�
�
�
f CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 27
mitigate this problem. The contract is very clear that it is for
the benefit of Cathedral City. Had it not existed, he noted he
would have taken legal action to prevent the deannexation �
of this parcel at that time. He stated that his attorney has �
furnished a copy of the contract to the attorney
representing the Mirada project. So far, we have not
received a reply. He noted that he was certain that Council
is aware that under law, one cannot be denied ingress and �
egress to and from his property. The law is quite clear and �
if I do not object now, I could lose my right to take legal
ti action at a later date in a court of law. You are also aware, of ;
course, that I have been objecting right along and I also am ;
objecting in Rancho Mirage and will appear before their �
Planning Commission tomorrow night. He noted he has �
owned this property for 32 years. This problem can and �
should be mitigated by Federated Development. Although
Cathedral City is not a party to this contract, the contract
states very clearly that it was drawn for the benefit of
Cathedral City. He does not believe that had the contract �
� not been drawn at that time, the City Council would have ,
proceeded as they did. He stated he has no intention of €
giving up his right-of-way. The replacement of the right-of-
way, if one comes, must be of equal utility to the one that I
own now. Everyone is aware that this matter of ownership
is not a simple easement, it is a right-of-way which is granted �
by the deed which I received when I purchased the property �
32 years ago. He hopes that Council will consider tnis and �
take it up with the City's legal counsel and, if possible, take �
it up with the proponents of this project because he feels it �
has reached the point now wnere it has to be mitigated if �
we start moving dirt on his easement.
� Brad Hammer, Cathedral City - stated he lives right along the
levee after just having their new home completed. Their
reasons for having bought a lot there was because it is 275 �
feet along tnat levee and guess what we look out to...tne ;
beautiful mountains. What is of real concern to me is that �
they plan to contact each home owner in regards to trees �
and the planting of as many as you want. He stated how �
about contacting each homeowner and not planting any �
trees if we don't want them. He noted that he would hate �
to lose the view of the mountains. He also noted that he `
� �;
Ioves the idea about scalping. Another concern was the �
watering and as the water will be coming from the sewer y
plant, what will it be putting into the atmosphere next to all #
s
�
�
�
3
CCiRDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
�i PAGE 28
the homeowners.
� Keith Davis, Cathedral City - he advised that he is encouraging �
a yes vote tonight. He noted that he is in favor of this golf
course and has just a few minor concerns. He noted he had
submitted a letterto the Planning Commission regarding the
issue of walking along the levee which has been solved for
me. The issue of foliage blocking our view of the mountains
is a concern. He lives right against the mountains and it is
important to him that he gets to keep that view. ff anybody �
in this room bought a house up there and lived right there �'
facing the mountains, you wouldn't want to lose your view �
from a bunch of trees. He stated he wanted to thank
Councilmember De Rosa regarding the issue on the scalping �
of the grass. That is important because of his allergies. He �
thanked Councilmember Gomer for bringing up the issue of �
scarring because over by the Rim Rack vons it really looks �
bad. He stared he appreciated Attorney Hemphill�s input
and has listened to very well spoken reports for the last
three or four years from her and feels more confident about �
� the things she spoke about. He felt that Councilmember -
Pettis's issue of green waste is very important as well. �
Regarding the letter from the Center for Biological Diversity, �
he stated that he lives at the top of Dorn so its about half
way along the golf course and has lived there eight years and
has never ever seen a Big Horn Sneep. He noted a neighbor
who has lived there for some 21 years and has only sited one �
Big Horn Sheep a very long time ago. He cited Attorney �
Hemphill's report that the radio collars the sheep wear
indicate that they do not go in the flash flood channel. He
feels that the golf course is excellent use of this area. `
�
� Jim Condon, Cathedral City - stated that he was not going to �
say anything tonight, but feels that all the negotiations, �
planning, etc., is over with. He does feel that the years of �
effort that various groups have put in on this project to �
bring it into line, to do what we can to protect the �
sheep..our own habitat here in the mountains..has paid off F
handsomely. He felt we probably have a very good deal for
everyone concerned. As good as we probably can get. He
noted that it does not mean he is happy with it, but there is �
one thing he wanted to mention wnich is, it states �
� specifically in the agreement under which we are supposedly F
working that there will be no residential development on
the golf course. It does not state that some other company ;
cannot build homes on the golf course...it says there will be `
�
�
�
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
� JULY 12, 2000
PAGE 29
none...there is going to be some. Why is that allowed? How
is it mitigated in the agreement? One other thing he wished
to mention and it might be a bit premature on this, but we �
are talking about the money that is coming to Cathedral City �
tonight. This land you are renting to a private concern was
given to the people of Cathedral City for recreation
purposes...for their benefit. Could I suggest that the monies ;
derived from this be dedicated to this same purpose...not �
just dumped into the General Fund and used at your
convenience. But to dedicate those monies to the �
recreation and betterment of the life of the individuals of �
Cathedral City through recreation and supporting individual �
€
life improvement. If you would consider that it would be �
appreciated. He felt it is a worthwhile thing that should �
work. �
� George Stettler, Cathedral City - Noted he has approached
the Council before on this project. He had been
; representing the Cathedral City Chamber of Commerce. He
stated that he is not representing the Chamber tonight, but
representing himself as a business owner and resident of �
� `
Cathedral City. He felt tihis project to be very important to �
the business community, especially the downtown project,
since its inception. He applauded everyone and the
developer for the efforts that have gone into the mitigation
and research of this project to make sure that it is going to
be an outstanding projectand will have little negative effect �
on the environment. He felt that was what the Council has �
before them tonignt. Our downtown area may never again �.
enjoy the benefit of a first-class hotel and a championship
golf course to draw people to our downtown if this project �
is not approved. There is no where else in our downtown
area where we are going to be able to put a great hotel and
a great golf course together. He thinks the financial impact
of this type of development to a community is great...you �.
don't have to look too far for an example. All you have to �
look at is the Desert Marriott and the other two courses...just �
look at the economic benefits that those courses and hotels �
have brought to that community. The effect of tne Ritz �
Carlton Golf Course will be very beneficial to Cathedral City �
�
as it will be a first-class operation because it is a first-class ;
��- hotel. He felt Council and staff have done a great job �
�r negotiating and we will reap some financial benefits. He F
applauded Council and staff for all the work they have done. �
He urged Counc�l to approve the documents before them �
�
�
�
�
CCIRDAJCSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 30
this evening.
Public Comments were closed. j
�
�
Councilmember Gomer wished to follow up on Mr. Hillery's questions on �
tne right-of-way of his property whicn he has indicated. He wished to also
ask regarding the traffic circulation study re the entrance to the
maintenance area...whether or not that is possible to study and have �
some flexibility after construction is done to see whether or not that could
be retained from "C" Street. �
�:
Councilmember De Rosa stated that the homes around Mirada need to be �
addressed.
�
�
�
Attorney Hemphill responded to concerns by public speakers and Council. �
1) Mr. Matthews indicated his belief that a Supplemental EIR is not �
adequate and that a full EIR is required. As was indicated earfier, under the �
CEQA Guidelines under the Conditions that we are experiencing here, �
; where the modification reduces impacts, a Supplemental EIR is almost �
overkill because you could have done it with an amendment. We chose to
do the supplemental so that we would not be exposed to the risk of �`
� people criticizing us for not adequately studying it and we did do a very ¢
thorough analysis of it. It does look at the modifications to the project and
how those modifications change the impacts and so concludes that the
impacts are not significant. With regard to the memo that he provided
from .lerry Jack, she spoke with Mr. Jack and Cynthia Kinser and the
concern was that the grading could increase visual impacts on the hillside. �
As a result of that memo, the visual study that you were handed this �
evening was conducted and was done so thatwe could provide a viewshed ;
impact analysis that Jerry Jack required. As you can see from those '
photographswhichwewentthroughearliertonight,thevisualimpactsare �.
not significant. It is difficult to see that there is a great deal of change �
that would be happening there. Therefore, she believes they have
responded to the memo from Mr. Jack and Ms. Kinser's discussion of the
grading plan indicated that staff is satisfied with the grading analysis. 2)
Mr. Touchet is concerned about traffic during construction and would �
prefer "C" Street be used for the permanent construction access. From the �
project's standpoint, we don't have a problem if you want to make "C° �
Street the permanent maintenance access. In fact, she believes they �
requested that in the beginning and it was moved to "H" Street to �
accommodate the City's development plan for that side of the levee. We �
have found a way to make "H" Street work, but if you want to move it back ;
�
to "C" Street, we can live with that. We just need to know before we �
actually build it. She envisioned that most of the traffic would use E:
Cathedral Canyon and then over on "H". If the City wishes to designate a z
�
�
�
�
CCiRDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 31
shorter route, they would be happy to cooperate. Sne noted that the
other thing we have to remember here is this is not the access; it is the
route for the employees going to the maintenance building. Mr. Touchet
also brought up that the benefits to Rancho Mirage were quite obvious
and the ones to Cathedral City were not. She thought that funny as she
� got the same comment from someone in Rancho Mirage today. The City
of Cathedral City gets 5250,000 a year during construction; minimum rent
for 99 years is $250,000; you begin getting percentage rents in the second �
year; they go up faster than they did...a half point each year until it tops �
out at 4% during the eighth year; there is also a COLA kicker on the
;
guaranteed minimum which kicks in half way through; we also provide
S'I60,000 to the City for the 19th hole project which is in the form of a zero �
interest loan which we essentially get back in the future as credits against �
percentage rent; we also have to provide advance tee times for a luxury
hotel to be built in your downtown area in an effort to help with your �
economic development efforts; we also provide a 15% discount on greens
fees for Cathedral City residents; and you also get to use the golf course
free once a year for Cathedral City to use to raise funds or just let the
residents play for free. In addition to the lease payments, you are also
� getting property tax. Right now, this property is publicly owned, so it is
not taxed. Since we have a 99-year lease, we will be paying possessory
interest tax plus the related benefits that happen as a result of the people
coming to the community, getting acquainted with the community and
getting acquainted with some of the exciting things that you are doing
here now. 3) Regarding Mr. Hillery's concern, we are very much aware of
Mr. Hillery�s easement as the owner of what in legal jargon is called "the
servient tenement". In other words, the property that the easement sits
on. Our obligation is to make sure that the easement is not blocked and
is useable and we certainly will do that. The existence of an easement on �;
a piece of property does not preclude its development. As to the contract
between Mr. Hillery and Mirada, while she has never seen this document, �
she noted she had heard of it referenced before and she stated she would
love it if Mirada would give Mr. Hillery an easement according to that
contract because she believes it makes life easier for everyone. She stated z:
that she cannot force that issue and noted she is aware of the easement i:
as is Olympus and they are prepared to honor it as required by law. 4) �
Regarding concerns of trees on the levee brought out by Mr. Brad �
Hammer. The trees were put on the levee because when we were here a �
couple of years ago, all the folks commented that they did not want to
have to look at the golf course and could you please landscape it. This
year, everyone is saying why are you blocking our view and can you get rid
� of the trees. She stated that they can get rid of the trees. The �
requirement that the City Council originally approved was that we would �
consult with those folks living in the Cove neighborhood. We are ,
e
II
�
5
�
�
f
3
CC/RDAICSD MINUTES
� JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 32
� committed to doing that and we will be as absolutely accommodating as
we possibly can. If folks do not want a line of trees and have changed their
minds then we can certainly make those adjustments. We talked about the
scalping already so she noted she would not repeat it in the interest of
` time. Regarding reclaimed water, she noted they had yet another meeting
with Desert Water Agency just last week to make sure everyone is on board
with this. All of the testing of reclaimed water at Desert Water Agency
indicates that it is extremely safe. California law requires that whenever
a golf course can economically use reclaimed water, it must, and we are. �
There is no odor that comes off it, it is not foggy, it looks just like drinking �
� water. Desert Water Agency invites you to tour their reclaimed water �
? plant because they are really, really proud of this. Therefore, she does not
think anyone needs to be concerned about negative impacts from �
reclaimed water. Also, if there is any degradation in the quality of the �
tertiary treated water, the DWA Agreement does require them to do a
blending process where they add potable water to make sure the quality
of the water is appropriate for the use intended. 5) Mr. Davis's concern
about the trees has already been addressed. 6) Mr. Condon mentioned the
residential development again. The way the lease reads is that there shall
� be no residential development on tne golf course property or on adjacent
propert controlled b the lessee. We do not control the ro ert that �
Y Y p p Y
Mirada builds their houses on. There is nothing she can do to stop them.
The one upside is that this modification takes their townhouse site from
90-some units down to 40-some units, so it does reduce them.
City Manager Bradley stated given the nature of the comment that was d
made, we should have City Engineer Faessel address .lerry Jack's memo �
and the timing of that; what the concerns were at that point versus what �
we have before us this evening. ±
City Engineer Faessel stated that Jerry Jack wrote an in-house memo on e-
mail comparing the first grading plan that was submitted in 1998, which is
before the golf course moved to the check print of tne golf course we
received this past June. His comments comparing the two are based on ,'
the 1998 versus the June, 2000 plan. The 1998 plan, of course is caput �
because the golf course changed location and changed the character. �:
Compared to that plan, indeed there are more serious grading changes, �
but that is because the upper most portion of the property where there �.
are several holes on flat land has disappeared and now the golf course is �
being moved down into more restrictive land. In fact, Jerry said that in his
� memo..."in short, the grading impacts shown on tne current plan are much
more significant to the actual slopes and hi{Isides than the earlier version.
This could be contributed to the fact that the course is now more compact
due to the Big Horn Sheep Agreement and also to the fact that the �
�
�
�
� CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
� JULY 12, 2000
PAGE 33
' designers are trying to balance the cut-fill earthwork qualities on site." He
noted that we agree with this comment, but conditions have changed
necessitating the difference in grading plans.
�
City Planner Kinser wished to comment on Condition No. 3 from the
Conditional Use Permit and the other condition in the map regarding the
timing of grading not being until the final map is recorded. If the Council
would like to modify that condition, what staff would be satisfied with is
just putting a comma at the end of the sentence and adding..."or until such
time as conditions which allow grading are met". That would be the ;
modification to both the CUP and to the Tentative Tract Map condition. �
In addition, we presented quite a bit of information, but during my �
presentation I stated that the condition regarding the fandscaping �
appeared to be rather controversial at the Planning Commission meeting;
therefore, she noted that she has deleted that condition of approval. So
the condition that requires that the developer consult with the various
homeowners and to institute landscaping where necessary is actually
eliminated so that is a mute point unless Councif wishes to resurrect the
language and put it back in.
£
�
� Councilmember Gomerwished to have a follow-up response regarding the
possibility of changing the maintenance entrance permanently to where
the construction entrance is going to be on "C" Street. �
City Planner Kinser responded that she would let Redevelopment Director
Moeller respond in that it gets involved with a couple of MOU's and we
don't have the final design of those projects necessarily �
�
Councilmember Pettis stated that he would take the heat away from the �
�
Redevelopment Director because this was an ongoing discussion that the �
Council Subcommittee did. It was two very specific reasons that the �
Subcommittee brought forward to change this location. One is the �
narrowness of "C" Street and the width of "H", but also because ��C" Street
as we know it will not exist and we have no idea how it is going to end up. �::
To put a condition of use on a street that we already know is going to �
cnange dramatically doesn�t seem to be in the best interest of anyone �:
when we would have to cQme back in a year or 18 months and completely �
change it again and have to look at new sitings. At one point in the �
discussion, it was discussed whether we would be able to do an access �
from Date Palm onto the property and it was decided that it was not �
� available to do. We also looked at the possibility of using van Fleet and :
coming up to where it connects to "C" there and there was significant {
concern because of the nature of the neighborhood there and tne �
number of children all the way along van Fleet where it would create more s
�
&
�
CCiRDAJCSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
�,, PAGE 34
of a hardship to the neighborhood than coming up Cathedral Canyon.
That was the decision that was made early on through negotiations of the I
Subcommittee more so than staff. ;
�
Mayor Amy suggested that the requested amendments be identified.
City Planner Kinser noted amendments as follows:
- On the Conditional Use Permit Resolution on Page 9, Condition No.
3: Adding a comma and language stating -"or untif such time as
conditions which allow grading are met".
- On Page 10 adding the same language as noted for Condition No. 4
�
3. £
€
�
- On Page 10 of the Conditional Use Permit Resolution: Applicant is �
requesting Condition No.15 be deleted regarding the trail system �
on the levee and staff has no objection to that based on the �
circumstances. �
- On Page 11, Condition No. 19 with regard to the solid waste �
management plan; this is requiring a plan to be submitted so we �
� will make sure that Cathedral City wi11 get its appropriate allocation s
of waste on this matter. It is planned to be done. �
Councilmember Pettis requested thatwhen staff addresses the solid waste
management plan to please include not only the green waste, but the solid
waste that is coming from this project, as well as the construction waste �
so we will be able to capture all of it and not just the end product that is �
going to be used for daily fill.
}
City Planner Kinser stated that they would add construction waste and ;
solid waste to Condition No. 19. ;
�
�
- Page 16 of the Conditional Use Permit Resolution, Condition No. 29 �
E. wherein inadvertently the word "Terrace" is still noted. This �;
should be changed to "H" Street.
Ms. Kinser stated that this reflects all the changes to the Conditional Use �
Permit Resolution unless Council has any others. g
�'
Councilmember Pettis referred to the tennis courts and the lights. He �
noted that the first one mentions four westerly courts, which is what ��
�,,,r there are there. Page 17 mentions two, so if we can make sure the number r
is the same in both conditions. Councilmember Pettis also requested that ;
the City Attorney review if we have to do anything in order to change our �
�
�
�
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
�r PAGE 35
own internal ordinances/variances, etc., so that we are not in violation of ,
our own Municipal Code.
i
Mayor Amy asked about the sales tax issues and if the developer would be �
having a food/beverage cart that will be going on the course? �
Attorney Hemphill responded that the sales tax issues are addressed in the
leases as opposed to this document. �
Mayor Amy stated that all sales tax from the beverage carts will be located ;�
in Cathedral City. �
F
�
Councilmember De Rosa stated she would also like to add in the �
Conditional Use Permit or wherever appropriate, that every measure will §
be taken to mitigate the scalping. That the developer will work with CVAG �
with Dr. Emily Nelson and with the Golf Course Management Association to �
eliminate scalping where possible. �
Councilmember De Rosa mentioned tne issue of water brought up by Mr.
Hammer. She noted that having seen a lake that used as an irrigation �
� system, it is much more beneficial than just to have a lake sitting there Y
because a lake will drain and refill constantly so the water will always look �
fresn and clean whereas if you look at some of these lakes that sit and tne
filtration systems are not that good. This is the best way to do that. She
also wanted to respond to Mr. Condon. She believes it is a great idea and �
Council should consider using these dollars, if possible and appropriate, f�
toward recreation. She noted that she certainly couldn't make any �
promises, but feels it is a good point that he brought forward and should
be considered. i
�
Mayor Amy desired to make a comment to Mr. David Matthews about the �
hillside ordinance and the appearance of trying to circumvent it. He just �
wanted to remind the audience that in 1996 Measure "Y" was in the City �
about hillside development and it was quite a heated debate and it was a
contested campaign. Measure "Y", had it passed, would have prohibited
any development on hillside and pretty much quashed the golf course. It �
was defeated overwhelmingly by a 3 to 1 margin. After the vote, Mr. Pettis �:
drafted and I co-sponsored the hillside ordinance tnat we currently have. �
That was in recognition to those who were opposed to certain issues and �
in the Cove who wanted to continue at least some preservation, so he �
� noted that those lines were drawn before this Council we took into
consideration all of those aspects and drafted that ordinance and it was
adopted by the Council and will be maintained as much as possible. That
is why the nillside in Cathedra! City, that we are looking at the west side of
�
CCiRDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 36
i
the Cove for protection of it and the extreme south side of the Cove is in
Palm Springs, so we have very little hillside; but we still adopted the �
ordinance. ;
Mayor Amy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gomer, carried s
by a 5-0 vote to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-42 Certifying the Final �
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Ritz Carlton Golf �.
Course (SCH No. 99091026); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-43 Approving �
Tentative Parcel Map 29719 to Subdivide 1,017 Acres into 11 Parcels; and, �
3)Adopt Resolution No. 2000-44amending Conditional Use Permit96-223 �
for a Golf Course Development with Related Facilities. �
�
8. Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the �
Redevelopment Agency and Gemstone Properties, Inc. �
Report was given by Economic Development Manager Paul Shillcock. �
�
�
Public Hearing was opened and closed without comment.
CouncilmemberlRDA Board Member Pettis made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro
� Tem/RDA Board Member Di Grandi, carried by a 5-0 vote to adopt Resolution No. �
�
2000-45 of the City Council of the City of Cathedral City consenting to the �
execution and implementation of a Disposition and Development Agreement by
and between the Cathedral City Redevelopment Agency and Gemstone Properties,
Inc.; and, to adopt Resolution No. R-306 of the Cathedral City Redevelopment
Agency approving a Disposition and DevelopmentAgreement byand between the
Cathedraf City Redevelopment Agency and Gemstone Properties, Inc. �
�
�
9. General Plan Amendment 00-72 and Change of Zone 00-98: A request to �
change approximately 40 acres of land from OS/C (Open Space-Cemeteryl �
to BP (Business Park) in the General Plan and from €
OS (Open Space) in the Zoning Ordinance and map to NBP Weighborhood �
Business Park - Transition), located on the northeast corner of Davall Road
and Ramon Road. (Cynthia Kinser) (1 Reading - Continued from City
Council Meeting of 6/28/00 - Will be Continued to City Council Meeting q
of August 9� 2000) �
�
Report was given by City Planner Cynthia Kinser. �
�
�
e
Public Hearing was opened and closed without comment. ��
�
- Councilmember De Rosa made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi, �
� carried by a 5-0 vote, to continue discussion of this matter to the meeting of
August 9, 2000, by Minute Order No. 3152.
�
�
#
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES �
� JULY 12, 2000 i
PAGE 37 �
10. Disposition of real property acquired by the Redevelopment Agency with �
tax increment funds to Coacnella Valley Housing Coalition for the purpose �
of constructing 10 affordable, single-family homes on scattered single- �
family home lots, generally located between McCallum Way and 33� �
Avenue between Landau Boulevard and Date Palm Drive. �
Report was given by Housing Specialist Warren Bradshaw. �
�
Public Hearing was opened and closed without comment. �
Councilmember/RDA Board Member Gomer made a motion, seconded by �
Councilmember/RDA Board Member Pettis, carried by a 5-0 vote to Adopt
Resolution No. 2000-46 consenting to the execution of a Disposition and
DevelopmentAgreementforthe disposition of propertyacquired with affordable
housing funds, by and between the Redevelopment Agency and Coachella Valley
Housing Coalition; and, to Adopt Resolution No. R-307 approving the execution
of a Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the
Redevelopment Agency and Coachella valley Housing Coalition for 10 single-family
lots to be used for 10 affordable single-family homes.
�
�
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS: �
�:
�
11. Approval of Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Operating Budget. (Dudley Haines)
tBudget Document Distribution at Meeting)
f.
Report was given by City Manager ponald Bradley. �
f
�
Public Input was opened and closed without comment. �
�
�
Councilmember/RDA Board Member Comer made a motion, seconded bY �
Mayor/Chairman Amy, carried by a 5-0 vote, to continue discussion of this matter �
to a Special City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting to be held on July 19, �
2000, at 6:30 p.m. in the Study Session Conference Room by Minute Order Nos. �
3153 and R-806. �
�
�
12. Approval of the proposed Business Resources Program aspect of the �
Cathedral City Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Partnership �:
Program 2000-2001. �
Report was given by Economic Development Manager Paul Shillcock. �
�
�,r Public Input was opened:
� Patti Drusky - Executive Director of the Chamber of
f
Commerce - stated that it is the Chamber's desire to 5
�
a
�
�
�
f
�
�
i�
i
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 38
continue the Economic Development Partnership with the
City of Cathedral City which positively impaCts the business
community and urged Council's approval of this request.
Public Input was closed. �
�
Councilmember De Rosa made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi,
carried by a 5-0 vote to approve the proposed Business Resources Program for
2000-2001 by Minute Order No. 3154.
13. Chamber of Commerce request that Cathedral City be a sponsor of the �
Diversity Festival in 2001 dismissing non-recurring fees including permits, �
police, fire and public works. �
�
Report was given by Patti Drusky, Executive Director of Chamber of
Commerce.
Public Input was opened and closed without comment.
Councilmember Gomer made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi,
carried by a 5-0 vote to approve the Chamber's request that Cathedral City be a
� sponsor of the Diversity Festival (to be known as the Kaleidoscope Festival for =
2001) and adding an amendment that there be a staff liaison for the Chamber to �
work with. Approved by Minute Order No. 3155. �
14. Approval of Waste Management of the Desert's request for a rate increase �
on commercial accounts to be effective August 1, 2000. t
F
�.
�
Report by Special Projects Manager Deanna Pressgrove �
;
Public Input was opened and closed without comment. �
�
�
�:
Councilmember Gomer made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi, �
carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councifinember De Rosa abstaining as she owns stock �
in Waste Management of the Desert, to approve the Waste Management rate �
increase by Resolution No. 2000-47. _
15. Proposed Resolution to approve 1 and Restated Disposition and �
Development Agreement with Equilink, Inc., Entertainment Leaders, Inc., �
and Desert IMAX, LLC. �
�
This matter was pulled to be heard at the next regular meeting of August �
�
9, 2000. No Action Was Taken. �
16. Consideration of Extension of Memorandum of Understanding with LINC �
Housing.
�
J
CC/RDA/CSD MINUTES
JULY 12, 2000
� PAGE 39
Report by Susan Moeller, Redevelopment Director.
Pubiic Input was opened and closed without comment.
Councilmember Pettis made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Grandi, �:
carried by a 5-0 vote, to extend the MOU by Minute Order No. R-807. �
�
ADJOURNMENT: �:
k
There being no further business for discussion, tnis meeting was adjourned to a z
Special City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board meeting to be held on July 19, �
2000, at 6:30 p.m., in the Study Session Conference Room. The regular meeting of �
July 26, 2000 has been canceled due to lack of quorum. The next regular meeting
will be held August 9, 2000.
�
�
�
�
�
�
� ' �
Donna M. Velotta �
City Clerk �
�
�
¢
�
{
k
E
E
�
�
�
t
�
1
�
!
�
�
� F
s
i
`t
e
e