Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-22MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 1975 PALM DESERT MIDDLE SCHOOL I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council was called to order at 7:03 P.M., on May 22, 1975, by Mayor Henry B. Clark, 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 Others Present: Harvey L. Huriburt, City Manager Dave Erwin, City Attorney Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Councilwoman Benson moved and Councilman Aston seconded that the minutes of the City Council meeting of May 8, 1975, be approved as submitted; carried unanimously. VI. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment to Citizens' Advisory Committee to replace Ronald S. Gorman Mayor Clark moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that BILL HOBBS be appointed to the Citizens' Advisory Committee vacancy; carried unanimously. COUNCILMAN BRUSH MOVED AND COUNCILMAN ASTON SECONDED THAT COUNCIL ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7:06 P.M., TO DISCUSS PENDING REFERENDUM LITIGATION; carried unanimously COUNCIL RECONVENED TO REGULAR MEETING AT 7:51 P.M. Mayor Clark requested City Attorney, Dave Erwin, to summarize the results of the Executive Session regarding the referendum on the General Plan. Dave Erwin advised that the judgment rendered in Superior Court, Indio, determined that the General Plan was a legislative act and subject to referendum, and that the judgment did suspend the General Plan. The three alter- natives open to Council were 1) rescind the General Plan resolution; 2) call a special election for the purpose of placing the General Plan on the ballot; 3) appeal the judgment. He also advised that the only way the City could be eligible for the funding available to them this year was by a successful vote on the General Plan. To accomplish this, an election must be held within a certain time frame, which calls for an early election. Mr. Erwin advised Council that action should be taken tonight. City Manager, Mr. Hurlburt, advised Council that if they approve the election by ordinance tonight, it would be reported to the County tomorrow, May 23, and the earliest election date would be July 8, 1975. As a special favor to the City, the County would count the votes on July 9, and put the City in a position to canvass the votes on July 10. The first reading of the Redevelopment Agency Plan is scheduled for July 10; the second reading for the 16th of July; filing of the Plan on July 17. This is an absolute minimum time schedule and would require special meetings prior to May 27, to firm up on arguments to be sent out with ballots. May 27, is the last day the Elections Department will accept that information from us. Councilman Aston moved and Councilman Brush seconded the adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 77, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING A NOTICE OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT ON THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1975, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB- MITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, A PROPOSITION REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF SAID CITY, and authorized the City staff to proceed with necessary business to be conducted with the County to handle this special election; Mr. Erwin read ORDINANCE NO. 77 in full for the benefit of the public and the press present. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request by SMITH ELECTRIC for an in -progress payment for installation of traffic signals at the inter- sections of Portola and El Paseo, and Portola and Avenue 44 Rec: Authorize City Manager to make in -progress pay- ment to Smith Electric B. Case NO. TRACT 5357/HOME BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORP., consideration of a request for time extension of one (1) year to file final tract map Rec: Set for public hearing on June 12, 1975 C. Notice of intention to circulate petition seeking INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA Rec: Receive and file D. Letter from Riverside City Hall advising adoption of their resolution supporting the creation of a South Coast Air Quality Management District as proposed by Assemblyman Lewis on Assembly Bill 250 Rec: Receive and file Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Aston seconded that the Consent Calendar be approved as presented; carried unanimously. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING A. Application of the PALM DESERT CAB COMPANY and the CARAVAN CAB COMPANY for a permit to operate a taxi cab business Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that the hearing for a taxi cab franchise be continued to the meeting of June 12, 1975; carried unanimously. B. Case NO. CUP-03-75/LURIA DEVELOPMENT CO., consideration of an appeal filed by applicant to rescind the require- ment of an EIR for a 1.00-unit planned residential development on a 20-acre site located east of Portola, north of El Cortez, and approximately 400 feet south of Goleta Avenue (R-1) Paul Williams advised Council that this item had been continued from the meeting of May 8, to allow the applicant to provide response to findings of the staff that the project be submitted to the City for evaluation and then to Council for review. The question is whether the project proposed requires an EIR. Mr. Williams advised that staff notified the applicant that staff is of the opinion that an EIR is required because 1) of the effects of the development on the date grove in which the project is to be constructed; 2) traffic circulation effect of the development; 3) number of school children generated from the development; 4) effect on the animal habitat in the date grove. The response from the applicant is so long that in order to be properly reviewed by staff and Council, the request was made to continue the matter to the meeting of June 12. GEORGE RITTER, 73-109 HIGHWAY 111, Architect, advised that LURIA was willing to continue the matter as requested by staff; however, he requested that any further requirements be mentioned so that expedition of reply could be accomplished. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded that CASE NO. CUP-03-75/LURIA DEVELOPMENT CO. becontinued to the Councilmeeting of June 12, 1975; carried unanimously. C. Consideration of a proposed ADANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF NORTH PALM DESERT DRIVE - located at the northeast corner of the intersection of De Anza Way and north Palm Desert Drive (San Carlos Avenue) Paul Williams stated that after discussion at the last meeting, it had been found that a number of steps would have to be taken before Council could act on this matter. Mr. Williams requested that the matter be con- tinued to the meeting of June 26, as this item needs review by the Planning Commission before Council, for compliance with the General Plan. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded that this matter be rescheduled for the meeting of June 26; carried unanimously. IX. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 75-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CLAIMS & DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY Councilman Aston moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded that RESOLUTION NO. 75-42, approving claims and demands against the City Treasury in the amount of $50,701.68; carried unanimously. X. ORDINANCES For Introduction: A. ORDINANCE NO. 76 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 24, TIME TO APPEAL Mr. Hurlburt advised that action on this Ordinance would be broken up into two actions; one to pass Ordinance No. 76, changing the notification time from seven (7) days to ten (10) days; and two, passage of Resolution No. 75-45, to split the 25 percent overhead costs into three portions, as stated in the Resolution. Regarding Ordinance No. 76, Mr. Hurlburt advised that all Coachella Valley cities have an abatement time of ten (10) days, and that for purposes of standardization, Palm Desert should also allow ten (10) days. However, with an administrative extension of from two (2) to five (5) days, plus the time involved in getting the contractor on the job, the actual time lapsing until the work is commenced will probably run into 18 to 25 days total. Regarding action on Resolution No. 75-45, splitting overhead costs into three portions as stated in the Resolution. Mayor Clark also advised Council that Frank Allen, Code Enforcement Officer, has stated that 50 percent of the lots needing abatement in Palm Desert have been taken care of, and that within the next six (6) months to one year, the rest of the unattended lots will be in order. Councilman Aston moved and Councilman Brush seconded that ORDINANCE NO. 76 be passed to second reading; carried unanimously. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded that RESOLUTION NO. 75-45 be adopted; carried unanimously. For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 75 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY Mr. Hurlburt advised that Council Chambers would be completed about the middle of June, and that adoption of this Ordinance at this meeting would enable Council to meet in new Chambers at their meeting of June 26. Mayor Clark informed Council that the Desert Sands Unified School District is interested in holding their school board meetings in new Council Chambers, and that since they have let Council use their facilities, a reciprocation would be in order. Councilman Aston moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded that ORDINANCE NO. 75 be adopted; carried unanimously. Councilman McPherson requested advice from the City Attorney as to the correct procedure to ban smoking from any meetings in the new Council Chambers. Dave Erwin advised that a resolution would be required. XI. CONTINUTING BUSINESS A. Consider matter relative to General Plan referendum Handled by Executive Session at start of Council meeting. B. CASE NO. 10C - Consideration of plot plan for the development of Phase III expansion of the Palms to Pines Shopping Center on property generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 111 and Plaza Way Paul Williams advised that the applicant has further developed his plan and has submitted a new detailed plot plan. In addition, they have filed a sign con- cept for the total comples, which has been reviewed by the Design Review Board. As regards the signing, Mr. Williams advised that the DRB is the only body to have reviewed that portion of the program, and they recommend that the sign program be adopted only i.n location. The DRB and Planning Commission will review as part of construction drawing Mr. Williams further advised that it is staff recommend- ation that the City Council by RESOLUTION NO. 75-36 approve the applicant's plot plan and architectural concept including the sign concept for Phase III of the Palms to Pines Shopping Center, subject to con- ditions attached. ROY CARVER, developer, Phase III, Palms to Pines, com- plimented the DRB on their professional knowhow and their understanding of some of the problems developers have. His only objection was with with he termed "fine-tuning in conditions of approval." Regarding Item #5, undergrounding of utilities, Mr. Carver questioned the reasoning behind it being required for their complex, when the rest of the complex has above ground utilities. Mr. Carver suggested that the rest of the complex should be undergrounded and that property owners should split the cost involved in undergrounding the entire complex, or that he be allowed to forego underground utilities as the rest of the com- plex had done. During discussion by Council in regards to this item, it was noted that the entire Palms to Pines is above ground (utilities), and that the project was originally County approved. Mr. Carver stated that he would be willing to pay for his share if a district were formed by the City. Mr. Hurlburt advised that it would be many years before there would be sufficient monies to spend on that particular area, and the City would stand the chance of overground lines for a long time, if they weren't undergrounded now. Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that RESOLUTION NO. 75-36 be approved subject to the conditions as set forth in the attachment; carried unanimously. C. Consideration of petition filed by J. E. SIMPSON indica- ting an objection to the operation of ELLIS J. BRACE, 45-896 San Luis Rey, acupressure and physical therapy. Paul Williams advised that Ellis Brace is in full com- pliance with the City ordinance, and that Mr. Simpson should be so advised. Mayor Clark informed Council that the restrictions are being worked over and that they are being tightened and strengthened. Paul Williams stated that the PC is trying to clean up residential zones. Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that the Council find the operation in conformance with the present zoning ordinance and directed the City Manager to notify Mr. Simpson; carried unanimously. XII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of acceptance of a Deed of Easement from PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REALTY COMPANY for a 14' wide portion of Portola Avenue between El Paseo and Larrea Street to be utilized by the City for installation and mainten- ance of traffic signals at the intersection of El Paseo and Portola Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that the Deed of Easement be accepted and directed the City Clerk to record the easement agreement and payment of $1 be authorized; carried unanimously. B. Consideration of bids received for the City's FOG SEALING PROGRAM for this year Paul Williams advised that 24 streets in Palm Desert were being sealed under this program, and that the estimate from Crown Asphalt Coating Company is $500 under the estimate as outlined in the City's budget. Councilman McPherson requested that the program be coordinated with the Water District until water work is completed on any roads to be sealed, rather than seal them and have to do it over. Councilman Brush moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded that the City accept the low bid of $5,700 from Crown Asphalt Coating Company for the City's Fog Sealing Program and authorized the Mayor to sign the contract; carried unanimously. C. Request from RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM for City support in the amount of $1,514 Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that until such time as the City has established an inventory of sociological needs and a policy relative to financial support of non City services, the City not approve requests of this nature; carried unanimously. D. Letter from IMPERIAL, RIVERSIDE & SAN DIEGO COUNTIES COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING ASSOCIATION requesting allocation of funds in the Palm Desert 1975-76 budget to them, based upon $.03 per City resident; such funds to be used as "matching" funds Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that until such time as the City has established an inventory of sociological needs and a policy relative to financial support of non City services, the City not approve requests of this nature; carried unanimously. E. Request from WILLIAM J. ELLIOTT, COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION, Beaumont, regarding parking relief at 73-820 Avenue 44, where dwelling was destroyed by fire Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded that Council take no action and that William Elliott be notified that this request must be filed as a variance to be processed through the Planning Department to the Planning Commission; carried unanimously. F. DONNA E. DREWS, Parcel No. 625-021-001, Goleta. Abate- ment costs in the amount of $692 plus administrative charges of $173. Check received from Donna Drews for $692, requesting waiver of the $173 administrative costs, as she was out of town when Notice to Abate was received and her landlord signed registered letter Mr. Hurlburt requested that this item be removed from the Agenda to be handled administratively, in view of the fact that Council approved RESOLUTION NO. 75-45. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. ROLAND F. SWEET, 75-537 PINYON STREET, PALM DESERT, delivered a statement regarding the ridiculousness of the situation wherein a splinter group was trying to represent the majority of citizens in Palm Desert in demeaning the value of the General Plan. Mr. Sweet stated that he has three developers interested in build - in Palm Desert, but because of the suspended status of the General Plan, they are unable to go ahead with their plans. Mayor Clark asked Dave Erwin to reply to this statement by Mr. Sweet, and Mr. Erwin advised Mr. Sweet that there was nothing to restrict his developers from pro- ceeding. Mr. Sweet advised Council that the general public is not qualified to decide on the validity or correctness of a General Plan; that the City has qualified, competent personnel, with the best interests of the City and citizens in mind. The complete text of Mr. Sweet's comments are attached to the original minutes of this meeting. XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. City Manager Non e B. City Attorney None C. Mayor and City Council COUNCILMAN McPHERSON requested information as to what was being done about the flies and mosquitos in the Valley area, and asked whether or not staff could get in touch with the Mosquito Abatement District for a progress report. Mayor Clark stated that six or eight months ago the City appointed a member to the Mosquito Abatement Commission and suggested that a question of this sort be directed to our appointee. Councilwoman Benson advised that there is a report on file as to the progress made last year and what will be done this year. Mayor Clark requested that staff get a report from the Commission and/or the Mosquito Abatement Board. COUNCILMAN McPHERSON requested that staff prepare a resolution prohibiting smoking at any meetings held in the new Council Chambers. COUNCILMAN BRUSH expressed concern about bike riders on Portola Avenue north of Haystack Road, where the road narrows and riders are too close to cars traveling north on Portola. Paul Williams advised that the narrow part of Portola is Indian Wells property, and that staff would look into the poss- ibility of an agreement with Indian Wells to widen the road at that point. COUNCILMAN BRUSH commented that in connection with the referendum and the letter circulating in the community wherein the Referendum Committee suggests that certain changes can be made in the General Plan, and that all the City need do is sit down with the Committee and make those changes; it is his opinion that if Council makes changes to accommodate three or four people, the acceptability of those changes to the balance of the community is questionable, and that the Council is agreeing to government by a very small minority in the community. It is his feeling that Council had no other choice than to set an election, and that not it is up to the citizens of the community to decide who is to run the City Government - the elected officials or a splinter group such as the Concerned Citizens. The complete text of Councilman Brush's comments are attached to the original minutes of this meeting. XVI. ADJOURNMENT Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Aston seconded that the Council adjourn at 9:20 P.M., and reconvene Tuesday, May 27, 1975, at 5:00 P.M., in the Palm Desert City Hall, for the pur- pose of Executive Session to discuss the referendum election on the General Plan; carried unanimously. ATTEST: HENRY B. ARK, MAYOR ,/A HARVEY L. HUR T, City Clerk -u- Verbatim excerpts- City Council Meeting - May 22, 1975 CLARK: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to discuss any- thing not on the Agenda? Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, I have a statement I would like to make.... CLARK: Would you give your name and address My name is ROLAND F. SWEET, 75-537 Pinyon Street; I am a registered voter and a taxpayer in the City of Palm Desert. I would like to ask the Council to give me more than 5 minutes because I feel what I have to say cannot be said in 5 minutes.... CLARK: We've never really limited anyone, but if your remarks are to the point, then we'll listen to you SWEET: Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, and Mr. Mayor, I received a letter from the Palm Desert Referendum Committee, which in my opinion, is the greatest piece of demagoguery that I have ever read; and I feel that as a citizen and a taxpayer in this City, I want to comment on it. And, I particularly direct my remarks to the Press. This letter, in effect, and the issue that this group takes up presents a proposition before this incorporated City that the elected officials are not competent to run the City, and that this splinter group, composed of less than 5% of the population should be in a position to second guess the progress of the City. Now, as a taxpayer, I strongly object to this, and I want my remarks to go on record I am now referring to the letter I received. The first statement in this letter is that the General Plan should establish clear and precise policies which would govern future land use in Palm Desert. Now, I have been a developer and in the Real Estate business for 40 years, and there is no such thing as general plan. The name of the Plan is a General Plan. This is a general guide to the future progress of the City. Outside of the Lord, there is nobody who knows exactly what is going to happen in the future. The General Plan cannot be clear and precise. It can only be general. Now, this splinter group and this letter is signed by David E. Bond....asks for several things that as a citizen I strenuously object to. One of these things that I think is absolutely incorrect is that the City create a moratorium for four months out of the year, from any action on subdivision, zoning, General Plan revisions, because the part-time citizens who signed this petition are not in this community during this time. Now, as far as I am concerned, this disenfranchises the rest of the citizens who live here all year. The next thing that I am seriously objecting to here is that they are petitioning here that one of their desires and criticisms of the General Plan is that it really have two residential classifications .... a density of 1 to 3, and 3 to 5, so what they are saying in effect is that they don't want any apartments here in this City. They further go on and say that they don't want any subsidized housing. Now, that means that the fellow who waits on you in the service station, and the grocery clerk, and the service people in this community, are not entitled to live here! Now, this is not democratic. It is not proper and it is not right. In fact, it is illegal. I think there are many cases in the United States where cities have tried by zoning lot sizes and other restrictions to limit the financial capacity of the citizens who live in their area. In every case that I am aware of, this has been declared illegal. Now, I represent my business, which is the Real Estate business. I represent, at the present time, three developers who are seriously interested in this community.