Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-08-12MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 1976 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Brush called the meeting of the City Council to order at 7:07 p.m. on Thursday, August 12, 1976, in City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE - Councilman McPherson III. INVOCATION - Mayor Pro-Tem Mullins IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman McPherson Councilman Mullins Councilman Newbrander Councilman Seidler Mayor Brush Also Present: Harvey L. Hurlburt, City Manager Jeff Patterson, Acting City Attorney Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services Hunter Cook, City Engineer V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS Appointments to Parks and Recreation Commission. Mayor Brush asked that this item be held over to the next Council meeting of August 26, 1976. The Council had no objections. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the July 22, 1976, City Council Meeting. Rec: Approve as written. B. CLAIMS & DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Register 8-1 dated 8/12/76 $1,823.96 Demand Register 8-2 dated 8/12/76 $146,650.97 Rec: Approve as submitted. C. LETTER from Mr. Terry Heuer Regarding the City's Position on a Drive-Thru Facility in Conjunction with a Sit -Down Restaurant. Rec: Receive and direct the City Manager to advise Mr. Heuer that his proposed use of the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Painters Path is unac- ceptable to the City. D. LETTER from the City of Costa Mesa, California, Requesting the adoption of a Resolution Opposing the Inadequate Television Coverage of the Orange County Elections. Rec: Receive and file. August 12, 1976 Page 1 E. LETTER from Mrs. Leigh Williams, Palm Desert, California, and City Manager's reply. Rec: Receive and file. F. REQUEST from Mrs. Velma Solis, El Paseo Merchants Repre- sentative, for Permission to Conduct Annual Sidewalk Sale. Rec: Approve request and adopt Resolution 76-103 estab- lishing conditions. G. LETTER from Robert E. Johnson Offering Support of the Proposed Sign Ordinance and Mayor's Reply. Rec: Receive and file. H. LETTER from Mrs. Florence F. Hofmeister relative to Caravan Yellow Cab service and City Manager's Reply. Rec: Receive and file. I. LETTER from Mayor Rawitzer of Rancho Mirage Relative to Recreation use of the Whitewater Channel. Rec: Receive and file. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Mullins seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing to begin Proceedings Under Chapter 27 of the 1911 Act to have Sidewalks Installed on Ten Parcels of Property in the Commercial Area. Mayor Brush declared the Public Hearing open. City Engineer Cook explained that this was the second phase of the installation of curb and gutter and side- walks in the downtown area of Palm Desert. He stated that staff had only received two comments back from the required notices that were sent out and both of them were from neighboring parcels. The first letter, from Mr. Lawrence, Denver, Colorado, was a letter of agreement. The second letter from Mr. Bromley requested that his par- cel be removed from this phase and added into a subsequent phase. Mr. Cook stated that he felt Mr. Bromley's request was a reasonable one. Mr. Cook ended his presentation with a recommendation that the City Council, by Minute Motion, direct the Superintendent of Streets to proceed with the installation of the previously noticed public improvements in accordance with Chapter 27 of the 1911 Act. Mayor Brush asked for input in FAVOR of the above. MR. BEN BARNUM, 74-105 Setting Sun Trail, stated he was present on the behalf of Mr. Bromley to request that the discussion reference his parcel be deferred until Mr. Bromley's return from Canada in October. MR. EDWARD BENSON, 1106 Sandpiper, spoke to the Council on behalf of Mr. Bill Sorenson, who is the owner of three stores on San Pablo. Mr. Benson stated that due to the problems that had been encountered reference the "settling" of the three stores on San Pablo, Mr. Sorenson was requesting that the Council hold off on any decisions until a future Council meeting in order to give him time to solve the problems of re -building the stores, etc. Mr. Cook stated that he felt the above request was reasonable August 12, 1976 Page 2 Mayor Brush asked if there was any further input in FAVOR of the issue. Being none, he asked if there was any input in OPPOSITION to the issue. Being none, he asked the Council if they had any questions of staff. Councilman McPherson asked staff just exactly where we are now as far as the actual construction of the sidewalks. Mr. Cook stated that the notices had been sent out to the affected property owners. He further stated that the pro- perty owner would have sixty days to install the required improvements after receiving the notice to proceed. He also explained that if they were not installed by that time, the City may proceed with their installation at the owner's expense; the cost becoming a lien against the property. There was a short disucssion reference the amount of time allowed for each phase - that time being one phase initiated per month. Councilman McPherson indicated that the Council could remove the Bromley parcel and simply add it to a subsequent phase or as a separate phase. Mayor Brush declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Seidler moved to direct the Superintendent of Streets to proceed with the installation of the previously noticed public im- provements, excluding the one lot owned by Mr. Bromley and the one lot on the southeast corner of San Pablo and San Gorgonio Way, in accordance with Chapter 27 of the 1911 Act. Councilman Mullins seconded the motion; carried unanimously. B. TRACT 5796 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES. Review of Tentative Tract Map for a 130-unit planned residential subdivision on a 36-acre parcel in the Ironwood Country Club project, located south of Portola and east of Mariposa Drive (PR-7). Mayor Brush declared the Public Hearing open and called upon staff to present their evaluation. Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Council. His report included a background of the request which de- tailed the location, size, zoning, etc. of the project. Mr. Williams mentioned that a portion of this map covers an area that was once Tract 5795, which the City Council approved last September. Since that time, the Silver Spur Associates had revised the plans and re -submitted a map for the entire area east of Mariposa Drive. He further stated that the major discussion by the Planning Commission dealt with whether a sidewalk should be required on Portola as a condition of the Tract. Mr. Williams alst stated that the staff and the Planning Commission felt that this map was a great improvement over the previous map and therefore recommended its approval by Resolution 76-99, subject to 23 Conditions of Approval. The recommendation was based on the fact that the map conforms to the existing and pro- posed development in the area and conforms to the Palm Desert Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act, as amended. Mayor Brush asked if the applicant was present. DON SHAYLER, 73-893 Highway 111, Engineer for the project, addressed the Council expressing his concern, on behalf of the applicant, reference Condition of Approval No. 3, which related to the installation of a pedestrian way. He stated they requested that Condition No. 3 be deleted due to the following reasons: 1. There is no strong demonstrated need for sidewalks in the area. 2. Estimated cost element of $125,000 at today's con- struction costs. August 12, 1976 Page 3 3. A large portion of Portola Avenue is within the City limits of Indian Wells. 4. Landscaping, utility, and security systems had already been installed and the installation of a pedestrian way would mean tearing these systems out and then having to re -install them. Mr. Shayler then presented several photos of the area in question to the Council. He also stated that the applicant was in complete agreement with the remaining Conditions of Approval. Mayor Brush asked for input in FAVOR of the request and there was none. Mayor Brush then asked for input in OPPOSITION to the re- quest and there was none. There was a brief discussion regarding Condition No. 3. Mayor Brush declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Seidler asked that staff review the need for sidewalks on Portola and look into the entire project as it fronts on Portola. Further, he suggested the deletion of Condition No. 3. Mayor Brush concurred with Councilman Seidler. Councilman McPherson moved to approve Resolution 76-99, subject to 22 conditions with the deletion of Condition No. 3. Councilman New - brander seconded the motion; carried unanimously. Councilman Sediler asked if he could interrupt with a com- ment reference the above Tract Map. Mayor Brush agreed. Councilman Seidler asked that it be noted for the record that this was a great improvement over the last Tract Map that was reviewed by the City. He further stated that an excellent job had been done by the Ironwood developers in working closely with the City on this project. Mayor Brush also commended the developers. C. TRACT 8071 - JOMO DEVELOPMENT. Review of a Tentative Tract Map for a 4-unit planned residential development on a 0.4 acre parcel on the west side of Ocotillo Drive, between Tumbleweed Lane and Verba Santa Drive (R-3 (3) S.P.). Mayor Brush declared the Public Hearing open and asked staff for their evaluation. Mr. Williams gave a detailed report reference the request. Said report contained a complete background of the project and also explained that the Design Review Board and Planning Commission had already given preliminary approval of the grading plan, floor plan, site plan, and elevations for the condominium units. He further explained that Council approva of this map and the final tract map would enable the developer to proceed with the construction. Mr. Williams ended his presentation with a recommendation that the Council approve the project, subject to 17 conditions. Mayor Brush asked if the applicant was present. Being no one present, Mayor Brush asked if there was anyone who wished to address the Council in FAVOR of the project. Being none, he then asked if there was anyone who wished to address the Council in OPPOSITION to the project. Being none, he then asked if the Council had any questions of staff. August 12, 1976 Page 4 Councilman Seidler asked if there had been some problems with the main swimming pool being too close to electrical overhead wires. Mr. Williams answered that the Design Review Board, during their review of the project, had deleted the pool from the plans due to the electrical overhead problem. Mayor Brush then declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Newbrander moved to approve Resolution 76-100, subject to conditions. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried unani- mously. D. CASE NO. 14C - THE VILLAGE BOOTLEGGER. Consideration of whether of not the business license of the Village Bootlegger Store at 73-460 Highway 111 should be revoked for non-com- pliance to the conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 105, covering the installation of a business identifica- tion sign at said address and failure to obey a Stop Work Order issued by the Department of Building and Safety. Mayor Brush declared the Public Hearing open. Jeff Patterson, Acting City Attorney, explained that the City Attorney's office had filed an action against the Village Bootlegger and a preliminary injunction to remove the sign for 7 or 8 violations of the City Code. He further stated that the matter had been scheduled for hearing in Superior Court on last Tuesday (August 10, 1976) and that the matter had been continued until September 3, 1976, upon a request from a representative of the Village Bootlegger. Mr. Patterson also stated that since the City was in liti- gation on this matter, the Public Hearing should not be held at this point. Councilman McPherson suggested closing the Public Hearing Mayor Brush closed the Public Hearing. Counci,lman McPherson moved to table the matter pending the outcome of litigation. Councilman Seidler seconded the motion; carried unani- mously. VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 76-93 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76-51, RELATING TO CHARGES FOR FURNISHING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS. (Continued from July 22, 1976.) Mr. Hurlburt explained the recent State Legislation per- taining to this matter. Councilman Newbrander moved to waive further reading and adopt Recolution No. 76-93. Councilman Mullins seconded the motion; carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 76-97 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75-73, ADOPTING A VACATION POLICY FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Mr. Hurlburt explained the Resolution and stated that it represented no change to vacation procedure but merely re- vised the list of employees subject to the Resolution. Councilman McPherson asked who had been added to the list. Mr. Hurlburt answered that the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency and the City Engineer had been added. He also stated that several of the titles had been changed for some of the department heads. Councilman Seidler stated that since the next item on the Agenda was of a similar nature, he felt the Council should discuss both items August 12, 1976 Page 5 at a future study session. Councilman Seidler then moved to table this item until such time as the Council could review both matters together and come to a decision. Councilman Newbrander seconded the motion; carried unanimously. C. RESOLUTION NO. 76-98 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 74-12, ESTABLISHING WORKING CONDITIONS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. Councilman Mullins moved and Councilman motion to table this matter until such time as both matters together and come to a decision. Seidler seconded the the Council could review Motion carried unanimously. D. RESOLUTION NO. 76-104 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT FOR RESURFACING OF 13 STREETS AND APPRO- PRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS. Mr. Cook explained to the Council that a Change Order was required to cover additional work as a result of the in- stallation of a sewer on Joshua Tree Street and additional work at the intersection of 44th Avenue and Portola. Councilman Seidler moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 76-104. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried unanimously. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 130 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 61, RESTRICTING HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION. Mr. Hurlburt explained that this Ordinance had been revised to make it possible for homeowners to start work earlier in the day during the summer hours. Councilman McPherson moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 130. Councilman Newbrander seconded the motion; carried unanimously. B. ORDINANCE NO. 131 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 66. Mr. Hurlburt explained that this Ordinance merely clears the books of an Ordinance which no longer has an impact on the City. Councilman McPherson moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 131. Councilman Mullins seconded the motion; carried unanimously. C. ORDINANCE NO. 128 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCES 93 THROUGH 99. Mr. Hurlburt stated that since a lot of time had been spent discussing this subject at the last Council meeting, he would prefer not to go into detail at this time and stated he was open open to any questions that the Council might have. August 12, 1976 Page 6 Councilman Seidler stated that since he wasn't at the last meeting, he had some questions pertaining to the creation of the new Professional -Office Zone and the uses which were permitted and prohibited in said Zone. Councilman Seidler then asked Mr. Williams if the new Zone specifically prohibited retail uses. Mr. Williams answered yes. After a short discussion reference the new Zone, Mr. Williams explained that if the Council decided to make any changes, they would have to go back to a first reading of the Ordinance. Councilman Seidler felt that SECTION 7 of Ordinance No. 128 should be removed. Councilman Seidler then made a motion that SECTION 7 be deleted and Ordinance No. 128 be approved and passed to second reading. Council- man McPherson seconded the motion; carried unanimously. X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of a petition received from the residents in the Fairway Heights area objecting to the construction of a chain link fence at the residence located at 74-941 Borrego Drive. Mr. Williams explained the fence situation to the Council. His explanation includes copies of the protest petition which had been received, photos of the fence in question, and the recommendations of the Design Review Board from their meeting of August 10, 1976. He further stated that staff's recommendation was that the Council accept the petition and overrule the protest. Also, that the matter of chain link fencing in residential areas be referred to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for recom- mendations as a part of the fence standard ordinance which is presently under consideration. ROWENA RAY, the owner of the fence in question, addressed the Council and explained that she had made numerous at- tempts to come to some sort of agreement on fencing with her neighbors; but she was not very successful. She stated that she liked the fence. Councilman Seidler stated that it appeared that the City had reviewed the fence, the fence was put in with a permit, installed properly, met City Standards, and the City staff had reviewed it again since it was put up. Councilman Seidler moved that the Council accept the petition as provided by some of the neighbors in protest of this fence but overrule their protest and close the matter. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried unanimously. B. Request from City Manager for authorization to employ a temporary Planning Technician under the CETA I Senior Work Experience Program. Mr. Hurlburt explained the CETA position which the City was requesting authorization for and stated that the CETA funds would only be available to the City for a month and a half; therefore, he was requesting approval at this time. August 12, 1976 Page 7 Councilman Seidler moved to approve the request. Councilman Mullins seconded the motion; carried unanimously. C. Request for approval of a Future Improvement Agreement for the installation of public improvements at 45-915 Verba Santa Drive. Mr. Hurlburt asked Hunter Cook to explain this new concept. Mr. Cook reviewed with the City Council their requirement which had been established for the installation of curb and gutter in certain areas. While these requirements are in the long range context very valuable to the City, it is not always practical or in the best interest of the City to install these improvements on a piece meal basis. Therefore, a new Future Improvement Agreement form was brought about. After a short discussion, Councilman Newbrander moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the Future Improvement Agreement deferring certain improvements at 45-915 Verba Santa Drive to some future date. Council- man Mullins seconded the motion; carried unanimously. XIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Consideration of a Revised "Committee Composition" for the Solar Energy Committee. (Continued from July 8, 1976.) Mr. Hurlburt explained that the primary change in this was the method of selection of the Chairman and Vice -Chairman. Councilman McPherson moved to approve the above "Committee Com- position" as recommended. Councilman Mullins seconded the motion; carried unanimously. B. TRACT 5277 - DESTINATION RESORT CORPORATION: Review of a second time extension of a Tentative Tract Map for a resi- dential subdivision on a portion of the Shadow Mountain Resort and Racquet Club, located east of San Luis Rey and south of Shadow Lake Drive (PR-7). Mr. Williams explained that the developer had given the City staff satisfactory evidence that he was actively pursuing the development of Tract No. 5277 in accordance with the conditions of approval. He further explained that due to delays beyond the developers control, they would be unable to record the final map prior to the expiration date for the tentative map of August 28, 1976, and that according to County Ordinance No. 460 under which this tract was being processed, the expiration date may be extended one additional year. He further stated that staff recommended the Council extend the expiration date for Tentative Map for Tract 5277 to August 28, 1977, by Resolution No. 76-101. There was a short discussion pertaining to structure height. Councilman McPherson moved to adopt Resolution No. 76-101 ex- tending the expiration date for Tentative Map for Tract No. 5277 to August 28, 1977. Councilman Seidler seconded the motion; carried unani- mously. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ROWENA RAY, 74-491 Borrego Drive, addressed the Council with a question pertaining to sewer installation along Borrego Drive. She stated that she had learned from her neighbors that the cost for installation of sewers was $1,250 and that they felt since she had a septic tank, she shouldn't pay to get hooked up. She wanted to know why the expense of the sewer if we're not going to pay and get on them. Also, she wanted to know if the pipes shouldn't be used. Mr. Hurlburt stated he was not familiar with the situation. Mr. Williams explained that the sewer line was installed for some new construction that recently occurred on that street and that probably the people Mrs. Ray had talked to were the existing re - August 12. 1976 Page 8 sidents at that time. He further explained that sewer hookup was not mandatory and that most of the residences in the area were new and had good septic tanks. Mr. Williams further ex- plained that the sewers wouldn't deteriorate from lack of use and that there were approximately four residences using the sewers at this time. There was a short discussion reference the cost of sewer instal- lation and sewer charges. XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER None B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Councilman McPherson asked what the anticipated date for the notice of completion on the Alessandro project was and if it had been filed. Mr. Cook stated the project was not yet complete but it should be complete, with the cleanup, by the end of next week. He further stated that at the end of that time, at the next Council meeting he would be coming to the Council for their acceptance of the project and upon that time he would file a notice of completion. Councilman McPherson made a comment that the project looked great and Alessandro really has improved but he did have a question. Councilman McPherson wanted to know why the curb and gutter was not carried around the radius of the curve onto Deep Canyon. Mr. Cook explained that the reason for that is they weren't exactly sure where the westerly right-of-way line of Deep Canyon was ultimately going to be and in fact felt that it would be better to install those at the time that the im- provements were put in on Deep Canyon rather than to have to tear some of them out at a later date. Councilman Seidler asked if the costs were subtracted. Mr. Cook explained that they were never in the design. Councilman McPherson suggested that the Council concur that the Engineering Department might look into establishing the westerly property lines. He further requested that staff bring a report back to the Council reference completion of the project. At 8:35 p.m., Mayor Brush asked that this meeting be adjourned until after the Redevelopment Committee meeting. The meeting was reconvened at 8:43 p.m. and the Council immedi- ately adjourned to an Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. The meeting was reconvened from the Executive Session at 9:57 p.m. and called to order by Mayor Brush. Mayor Brush stated that in Executive Session the Council had discussed the office of the City Manager and asked if anyone would like to make a motion. August 12, 1976 Page 9 Councilman Newbrander moved that the Council remove the City Manager from office effective 30 days from today and that. he be suspended from duty immediately. Councilman Seidler seconded the motion. Mayor Brush then asked if there was any discussion. Being none, he called a roll call vote on the motion. The following is the result of the roll call: AYES: McPherson, Mullins, Newbrander, Seidler, Brush NOES: None Mayor Brush then stated the vote was unanimous. Mayor Brush read the following statement to Mr. Hurlburt: "YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert does hereby terminate your services as City Manager of said City, to be effective 9-11-76. You are suspended from duty forthwith. This notice is given in accordance with Ordinance No. 17 of said City. DATED: August 12, 1976. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOEL BRUSH, Mayor City of Palm Desert, California" Mayor Brush then stated: "In accordance with the terms of the Ordinance, I am going to hand you a copy of this notice." Mayor Brush then handed a copy of the notice to Mr. Hurlburt. Mayor Brush further stated: "I think it's very obvious to every- one concerned here tonight that the Council has taken an action which is very serious in nature. The decision made and the action taken here this evening came only after months of consideration on the part of all mem- bers of this Council. It is felt by the Council that communication no longer exists between the City Manager and the Council. The Council also wants to assure members of the staff that it has every confidence in their ability to continue to perform their responsibilities with the same dedi- cation that they have shown in the past." Councilman Seidler moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Hurlburt stated: "Mr. Mayor, you're not even going to give me the privilege of making a statement?" Mayor Brush answered: "No, I think we will adjourn the meeting and you will be given an opportunity to make any statements that you wish." Mr. Hurlburt stated: "I will file everything in writing as ac- cording to the Ordinance but you might as well know right now, I want a full list of charges in detail, I want the press to know it, and I want the members of this public to know the flimsey basis on which you make your major decisions such as this. I will ask for a hearing, public." Mayor Brush stated: "That is fine, we will take any action in accordance with the terms of the Ordinance. The meeting is adjourned." XVI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was djourned at 10:00 NOEL J BIj,PlSH , MAYOR August 12, 1976 Page 10