Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1981 - MINUTES CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1981 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Doyle, in the Large Conference Room, City Hall , 3200 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, on Wednesday, December 15, 1981 , at 2:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Field, Ortner, Rose and Mayor Doyle Absent: None (Note also present: Tribal Councilmembers Larry Pierce, Barbara Young, Sue Young, Richard Milanovich, Maraino Patencio and Chairman Ray Patencio; Tribal Council attorney, Art Buntz and Planner Rod Hanway) 1 . JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGES APPEAL RE: INDIAN LANDS (RAY PATENCIO) Mayor stated the purpose of the joint hearing was to consider appeal by Ray Patencio, as Chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, regarding City Council actions relating to General Plan Amendment Case 5.0198 and Zone Change Case 5.0197, initiated by the City Council on behalf of said Chairman, at various locations in Sections 12, 14, 18 and 22; after which, he turned the meeting over to the Tribal Council Chairman. Tribal Council Chairman stated that due to conflict of interest, he would abstain from participation and voting, and turned the meeting over to the Vice-Chairman. Vice Chairman stated that she would abstain from discussion (149) and voting relating to a parcel on Amado Road in Section 14; after which, she inquired if City staff wished to give a report. Director of Community Development stated that he did not have a report to give and understood the Tribal Council desired to discuss the two cases, and he would respond to that discussion, as called upon. Mayor noted that the City never received any official correspondence as to the items to be delineated in the discussion, and perhaps, after hearing the case presented, the City staff may wish to respond. Rod Hanway distributed copies of Indian Planning Commission report, findings and recommendation to the Tribal Council , including details as to the nature of the appeal . He reviewed section by section the parcels being appealed, summarizing the key issues pertaining thereto; after which, he read the findings and recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission (copy of said report, findings and recommendation on file in the Office of the City Clerk) . Director of Community Development stated that in those portions of the recommendation where there is a difference between the General Plan and Zoning, a conflict is created with the State Law, in terms of compatibility between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and questioned whether the consistency issue is being addressed, e.g. , in Section 22-B, recommendation is to amend the General Plan to show high-residential (43) , but to leave zoning which is RTP, which has a maximum density of 8 units per acre; and he considered that to be inconsistent. Council Minutes 12-15-81 Page 2 1 . JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - INDIAN LANDS GENERAL PLAN & ZONE CHANGE APPEAL (Continued) He also stated that in terms of Section 14, it is recom- mended that the zoning reflect R-2 (which allows up to 15 units per acre) but that the General Plan reflect high-residential (43) . In answer to question by Tribal Councilmember, he stated that the State Law does not state that general plan and zoning must be exactly the same. Mr. Hanway stated that the issue of consistency appears to be a judgement call and that it can be viewed in both cases as the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance being consistent, since both are dealing with medium to high density and the only difference is the specific: number of units in the zone; that it was not necessarily inconsistent because of the number of units, the only difference being in terms of absolute numbers and not a substantial difference in uses. In answer to question by City Councilmember, Mr. Hanway stated that the appeal filed was on all items riot approved by the City Council as applied for. Tribal Councilmember Pierce stated that the Indian Planning CONT 'D Commission recommendation was to drop the appeal in terms (149) of zoning for a portion of Section 14, leave it: as it exists, and amend the General Plan to the higher density of the R-4; and that such was not inconsistent, since the land was being used in a density less than what: the General Plan would allow. Vice Chairman declared the hearing open. Ray Patencio, 1707 Capri Circle, appellant, stated that the appeal is requested on the basis of Mr. Haruway's presentation; that this project has been in process for several years; that he did not see the inconsistency issue; that he believed it is a plan that the Community can live wi'th; that if the findings and recommendations are taken into consideration, he did not believe that a conclusion could be reached that it would be inappropriate for the community; that it will allow the community to grow in a fine manner and even better in the future; that he wished to reassure the City Council that this would be the only large-scale zoning recommendation and it will not be done again, and that if the City is challenged, the Tribal Council would support the City Council ; rind although he was not in total agreement with the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, if it will make it more acceptable for both Councils, he is agreeable with that outcome. In answer to question by City Councilmember, Mr. Patencio stated that he felt more was given by the Tribal Council than it had expected; that original proposal ran into an impasse, and there was a considerable giving-up on the succeeding review; and that the Indian Planning Commission recommendation is a further concession from that: which was requested in the appeal . rrry�,i� Council Minutes 12-15-81 Page 3 1 . JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - INDIAN LANDS GENERAL PLAN & ZONE CHANGE APPEAL (Continued) In answer to question by City Councilmember, Mr. Pierce stated that the Tribal Council is on record as being willing to look at the M-1 standards, but not to amend those only to recreate M-1-P. Mr. Hanway stated that there have been preliminary discussions with City staff to arrive at something mutally acceptable, and it was his understanding that a draft revision has been prepared. In answer to question by City Councilmember, Director of Community Development stated that he did not see a General Plan amendment which allows building up to a certain number of units as compatible without amending the Zoning Ordinance; that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would reflect different things, with the General Plan reflecting something broader than what the zoning shows; that the General Plan reflects the type of land use and general densities, and the Zoning Ordinance places detailed development standards on the land, which should be consistent; that the General Plan does not carry with it specifics as does the Zoning Ordinance; that it is CONT'D inconsistent to show up to 43 units on the General Plan (149) and up to 8 units on the Zoning Ordinance for the same parcel , and, if challenged, the State could require the City to bring that into consistency, and if it did not do so, the State has the ability to disallow processing of subdivision maps. Tribal Councilmember Pierce stated that if the proposal is inconsistent, there must be other inconsistencies which now exist; that he did not see any inconsistency in allowing 12-15 units if the General Plan allows up to 43, but could see an inconsistency if the situation were reversed. There being no further appearances, Vice-Chairman declared the hearing closed. Tribal Councilmember Pierce stated that the use on the mobilehome site (Section 22-B) is less than what the General Plan would permit; and if that use were abated, then request for change of zone could be made to bring it in line with General Plan. Mayor stated that there has been considerable discussion relating to commercial use on 14-D vs. that which it is now zoned; that regardless of the use, there will be a lot of traffic generated, but commercial would generate more than a residential use; that he did not think justification has been given to change to a C-1 use, in that he has not seen any traffic studies and he believed that once such an analysis were made, it would be found that the problem would be compounded, particularly, when considering the density along Ramon Road; and that the intersection at Sunrise will be further impacted if the property does not share ingress and egress with the corner parcel . He stated that it would be better if there were a commonalty between the two uses, and a sharing of access, however, he was not aware whether the possibility exists to cross the flood control channel . Council Minutes 12-15-81 Page 4 1 . JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - INDIAN LANDS GENERAL PLAN & ZONE CHANGE APPEAL (Continued) Mr. Hanway stated that he has not contacted the Fldod Control District, but was aware of other channels crossed in a similar fashion and he did not think that would be a problem; that the problem is that the property owner is left to the mercy of his neighbor for obtaining access and joint development; that a traffic study has not been done, but the Indian Planning Commission did not CONT'D believe that the difference was significant enough for (149) denial . In answer to question by Council , Director of Community Development stated that a traffic analysis would not be made on a parcel of that size; that it would be subject to architectural review; and that it would have to be 10 acres or more to be subject to environmental review. Tribal Council Attorney stated that traffic study would come under the environmental assessment made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the lease development. There was no further discussion, Vice--Chairman stated that the Tribal Council would makes its decision within 30 days. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor declared the meeting adjourned, after which, Council convened in study session. JUDITH SUMICH City Clerk