Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-03-19ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 19, 1975 PALM DESERT MIDDLE SCHOOL I. CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Clark at 7:07 P.M. on March 19, 1975 at the Palm Desert Middle School. II. PLEDGE III. INVOCATION IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman CHUCK ASTON; Councilwoman JEAN BENSON; Councilman NOEL BRUSH; Councilman JIM McPHERSON; Mayor HENRY B. CLARK Absent: None Others Present: City Manager - Harvey L. Hurlburt City Attorney - Dave Erwin Dir. of Environmental Services - Paul Williams V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS & APPOINTMENTS A. Citizens Advisory Committee vacancy appointments Mayor Clark announced that no appointments had been made to this Committee but hoped the vacancies would be filled at the next regular City Council meeting. B. Redevelopment Agency Project Area Committee appointments Mayor Clark said it was intended to have 20 members on this Committee, that there are presently 14 members, and that three additional appointments had been made: Wally Bolmeier, realtor; Loring G. Cleaveland, a chiropractor whose business is located on Allesandro on the north side; and Dale Hobbs who is a property owner within the Redevelopment Area. He added that one of the requirements for appointments is that they have their business or are a property owner within the area. Councilman Aston moved, Councilman McPherson seconded that Wally Bolmeier, Dr. Lorine G. Cleaveland and Dale Hobbs be appointed to serve on the Project Area Com- mittee. Motion carried unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. City Clerk report on General Plan referendum petition signature verification. Mr. Hurlburt reported that on February 18, 1975 he received a petition for a referendum on the General Plan. This was sent for verification of signatures, and the County returned them on March 18. Originally there were 672 signatures. Of these, 638 were verified, 34 did not qualify. A total of 345 qualified signatures were needed on the petition to meet the 10% of registered voters required by law. B. Report from City Attorney on legal matters relative to General Plan referendum Attorney Erwin said the Council had three alterna- tives. The first is for the Council to rescind Resolution No. 75-2 which was the resolution adopting the General Plan. This is an action which would not affect parts of the General Plan but is an action which would, in effect, rescind the entire plan. If the Council does not rescind it, it is obligated to call a general election within not less than 74 days and no more than 89 days at which time the question would be presented to the voters as to whether the General Plan should stand or fall. The third alternative - the subject of referendum is one which is available to the voters in the community which would allow them on legislative matters to override the deci- sion of the Council. He had spent considerable time researching the matter and discussing with other municipal attorneys throughout the State. It is his opinion that the provisions of the Elections Code, as it relates to a resolution adopting a General Plan, are not applicable, and that it is not a legislative act that can be the subject of a referendum. His recommendation is that the Council not call the requested election. Assuming the Council should rescind the resolution, the Code sections are very clear that ,rou may not take the same action within one year. Assuninr; it is determined to call an election and the election were successful, that would mean the City Council would not be able to adopt a General plan for one year from that date. Failure of the City to comply with the State Law which mandates the adoption by July 1 could subject the City to many possible problems which have been covered before --possible litigation, stopping building permits, etc. as well as proceeding any further with the zoning ordi- nance or adoption of the redevelopment plan. It is his opinion at the present time that as far as the third alternative is concerned, the General Plan, once adopted by Resolution No. 75-2, was effective and is effective now and until such time as it is rescinded or a general election is successful, it will stay in effect. Councilman McPherson asked if the Council agreed to the changes, could the Referendum Committee withdraw the petition for the referendum, Attorney Erwin said the California law is clear - once a referendum petition is filed with the City, no signatures can be withdrawn from that petition nor can the petition itself be withdrawn - the procedures must follow through to the point we are tonight. Mayor Clark said this is not a public hearing but that it has been the practice to conduct this as an oven meeting whenever possible and he asked the Council whether they wished to proceed with the question or see if anyone in the audience had any comments. Councilman Brush said his personal feelings were that if anyone in the audience could add anything to the matter they should be heard, and suggested it be opened up. The Council was in accord. Mayor Clark said the proponents could speak first. In this case the proponents would be those in favor of the Council proceeding to set an election to consider the referendum not less than 74 days and not more than 39 days from tonight. The people opposed to setting the election in view of the City Attorney's recommendation that it is not a legal referendum would speak second. He asked that comments be held to pertinent comments which might help the Council to reach a decision and asked proponents to come to the microphone and give their name and address. Proponents: David Bond, 44-532 San Pasqual, Chairman of the Referendum Committee, said throughout the entire deliberations they have taken the attitude they are trying to approach the differences of opinion on the General Plan in a normal, rational and sensible basis. They have conducted their efforts in that direction, they met with the Citizens Advisory Committee, and their policy is that there are certain things within the General Plan that can be resolved so that the problems stated with regard to the 81,800,000 are not necessary, they do not have to occur. They too have had legal advice from capable attorneys who take issue with the statement of the City Attorney that you may not file another General Plan within one year. On this basis it states you may not file the same plan. This is the basis on which they are contending that they can meet with the Council and resolve their differences and all the problems can be eliminated and the General Plan can be reinstated. They felt they had done everything within their power in a reasonable and rational manner, provided by law under the referendum to bring their points of contention to the Council. They stand ready and willing, as their letter which they sent several weeks ago stated that by the 28th of this month they could give a complete and total detail of all the items they wish reconsidered in the plan. To date they have had no reply from the Council on that subject. They have met with the Citizens Advisory Committee, the meetings were fruitful to a degree, and they now stand ready to discuss these items and they feel certain there can be a resolution that will not require a general election or freezing of the General Plan for one year. He hoped they would consider the alternate of declaring the General Plan invalid until such time as they can get together and resolve the differences in opinion and reinstated it and go ahead without any more difficulties. Mr. Duncan Reynolds, 74-070 Goleta, said that by making these changes it would not be the same identical plan. He said he had been at the Palm Springs printers that same day, that Palm Springs is laughing at us - they commented that Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells seem to be governing their towns in an organized manner without much friction. He said he had seen too much friction. He voted for incorpora- tion. He signed this particular petition because he wanted to see Palm Desert a village type atmosphere. All of the Council ran in the election for Council with that in mind. He said we are going 100% percent the other way. He said he would be leaving here after 16 years and regrets it. There were no other proponents. Opponents: Mr. Steven Moore, 43-700 Carmel Circle, President of the Carpenters Local in Palm Springs, said construction is dead, that he can't say who is right but if this should happen that the plan couldn't be adopted and is in stalemate for a year and Palm Desert would lose the building permits, Palm Desert is going to die. He said he had not had a union job since before Christmas. They have 100 members of their local in this area. He said he would like to see it settled and create a City functioning on its own without all the little bickering. 3 Mr. Bob Hubbard, 1707 Sandpiper, said he still lived in Palm Desert and his main investments are in Palm Desert. He said he headed a group of 250 citizens who spent two years in getting the City incorporated. He thought every- thing was better now than it was under Riverside County. He said he was astounded over the Referendum Committee because he finds himself unable to recognize any name of the Referendum Committee that has ever done anything for the City. One of the gentlemen, Ed Peck, did a very good job on the McKeon project some years ago. In checking who the sponsors are it appears that they are people here part of the year, that in most cases have nothing but a house and have the right to express their opinion, but for 6 members to say to the City Council they will sit down and tell them what they want and if the Council will not do it they will cause all this unsettlement --he thought it was time that we get responsible citizen participation and not single- minded people who will not listen to what has been planned. Most of the meetings with the Referendum Committee they have listened to officials telling what the General Plan is, etc., and to this point nobody from the Referendum Committee has shown up at one public meeting. This to the point where it is government by 6 individuals who have distributed a referendum which is inaccurate in every respect. He said people don't take the time to read and understand what it is. The people who have heard the facts can't believe they signed the petitions. He could go out and get petitions against motherhood. Mr. Hubbard suggested the Council go ahead with the recommendation of the City Attorney at this time. Mr. Warren Bailey 1303 Sandpiper, also one of the Incorporation Committee, said since that time it has been his intention to stay away from politics, however, he feels he must now speak against the leaders of the Referendum Committee who have used devious methods in obtaining signa- tures to the petitions. They are using tactics of political harrassment and it is time they cease their activities and get behind and support their political leaders. He too believed an illegal procedure was being done in calling for an election. Mr. Jack MacFadyen,73-074 Shadow Mountain Drive, said he was a member of the Incorporation Committee and they have remained in the background because they did not want to inflict themselves into City government and have somebody say they put it together and now they want to dictate how it is to be run. He said they of the anti -Referendum Committee have had legal counsel and believe the referendum is illegal. Mr. MacFadyen said if the Council sets a vote for the referendum, "we" of this Committee will file suit against the City and its officers to stop a vote on this issue. The City must be restrained from conducting an unlawful referendum election brought on by vexatious litigants. Mr. Anthony Kane, 46-215 Goldenrod, also one of the Incorporation Committee, said he represented the Citizens Action Committee who has taken a study of the pros and cons of the Referendum Committee. They saw a letter sent out by the Referendum Committee which implies that the City Council and the Citizens Advisory Committee do not know what they are doing. He agreed that the referendum does not apply to the question of destroying a City plan. The Mayor closed the hearing. Mr. David Bond objected and said when he called he was told they could not speak tonight and added that everyone had come with prepared statements tonight. The Mayor said the hearing was closed. Councilman Brush said he was going to give Mr. Bond a chance to speak because he had some questions to ask him. Councilman Brush said Mr. Bond had mentioned a new plan could be adopted in time to qualify for the redevelopment. Mr. Bond said there had been delay. Several weeks ago they sent a letter to the Mayor stating they would have all conditions prepared and ready for presentation by the 28th of this month. The time remaining is sufficient time to discuss these items and insisted that the General Plan can be changed without waiting for one year if those changes are essential. Councilman Brush said he had asked on many occasions what changes were wanted and no partial list even had been submitted. Mr. Bond said the Mayor had said he did not want partial presentations, that he wanted the whole thing in total. Mr. Bond said he felt he had been outmanuevered when they had called specifically to see if they could address the Council and were told no. His attorney was told by the City Attorney and as a result they had no attorney present. Mayor Clark said the Council members had decided, in view of the interest, they would throw the meeting open. It is not a public hearing. Attorney Erwin said he talked with Mr, Burrell several times, that he had called this noon to ask if it were a public hearing and he was told no but that if there were matters of interest and people in the audience wished to speak, they were permitted to do so. Councilman McPherson asked Mr, Bond what their alterna- tives were. Mr. Bond said that in their opinion when the General Plan is rescinded it can be reinstated by making changes and it can be done before an election is required. Councilman Brush said assuming they came up with five changes, that the Council could make those changes, could they withdraw the referendum? Mayor Clark said he had told Mr. Bond that he had started an irreversible action. The attorney has made it clear that the wording in the Referendum Committee said they were giving the Council two alternatives, one, rescind the General Plan, two, call an election. Mayor Clark said it is surprising that a group of people can say if you make my five changes then it will be all right. He was sure a lot of other people would not agree with those changes. Because it suits the Committee's wishes to make a number of changes, the balance of the community would have to be con- sulted. Obviously it is a long procedure of public hearings that other people would have the same opportunity to advise the Council what changes should be made. Councilwoman Benson asked if it could be invalid for 60 days, changes made and put back into effect. Attorney Erwin said no, the action tonight as far as what you can do is to rescind it in total. He said he was talking about anything subject to a referendum - either rescinding the Council action or setting it for an election. 5 ATT ST : --� HEN Y B. C/ARK, MAYOR Councilwoman Benson asked Mr. Williams, since the plan was adopted by a resolution when could the first amendments be adopted to resolve the problem? Mr. Williams said any citizen could file for an amendment to the (eneral Plan up to a maximum of 3 times a year. The City has not established any timetable, logically it would be on a quarterly basis. Councilman McPherson asked about the time of certifying the signatures. Attorney Erwin said the 30-day time limit was met. Councilman McPherson asked if a decision had to be made tonight. Attorney Erwin said the inference is the Council will make a decision tonight. Councilman McPherson said Mr. Bond had said in 9 days they would have their recommendations. Attorney Erwin said the Code does not state one way or another but it is inferred that action will be taken tonight. Councilwoman Benson commented concerning Mr. Hubbard's statement that the 638 people who signed the petition had never done anything for the City, and she said she had seen some very find names on the list. Mayor Clark said the statement referred to member,¢of the Referendum Committee. Councilman McPherson moved that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Attorney and agree that the referendum applies to legislative actions, that the resolution was an administrative act and, therefore, not subject to referendum and the Council could not set an election. Motion was seconded by Councilman Aston and carried by the following vote: AYES: Aston; Benson; Brush; McPherson; Clark NOES: None ABSENT: None VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None VIII REPORTS & REMARKS A. City Manager - None B. City Attorney - None C. Mayor & City Council Councilman McPherson said he would urge anyone that has any doubts or changes to the General Plan that they proceed through the General Plan amendment to make the changes. There will soon be regular application forms to amend the General Plan. Councilwoman Benson said that whether she was for or against the Referendum Committee she hoped people would come out to Zoning Ordinance meetings. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M. ary'Pat er, Deputy City Clerk 6