Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-04-14MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1977 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Mullins called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE III. INVOCATION IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Brush Councilman McPherson Councilman Newbrander Mayor Mullins Also Present: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services Hunter T. Cook, City Engineer Jeffrey Patterson, Deputy City Attorney V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. PRESENTATION of Letter of Appreciation to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for Outstanding Service in the Calendar Year 1976. Mayor Mullins read a letter of appreciation to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for the services performed during the previous year. Captain Neil Adkins accepted the letter on behalf of the Department and expressed his gratitude. He stated that the reduction in crime in our city was a direct result of more citizen involvement and cooperation. B. APPOINTMENT of Mr. Ted Smith as Palm Desert's Representative to the Technical Advisory Committee for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Mayor Mullins announced the appointment of Mr. S. Ted Smith to this Commission indicating that the City of Palm Desert was very fortunate to have an individual with Mr. Smiths' knowledge and background who was also willing to serve his community in this capacity. C. APPOINTMENTS of Mr. Hal Kapp, Mrs. Lela Thompson, Mrs. Ann Carpenter, and Mrs. Pat Anderson to the Newly Created Palm Desert Historical Committee. Mayor Mullins announced the appointments to the newly created Historical Committee, indicating the importance of this com- mittee and thanking the individuals for taking the time and interest to serve their community in this capacity. Mr. Hal Kapp thanked the Council and gave a brief synopsis of what the Committee hoped to accomplish. Mr. Kapp stated that they had already had many offers of historical documents and would be happy to take any others that were available. April 14, 1977 Page 1 Councilman Brush asked whether or not material would be included prior to the City's incorporation and Mr. Kapp assured him that anything pertinent to Palm Desert's history would be included. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the March 24, 1977, Meeting of the City Council. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 77-093 and 77-094. Rec: Approve as presented. C. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Councilman William R. Seidler from the Palm Desert City Council. Rec: Accept resignation with regrets. D. LETTER from the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Congratulating the City on the Traffic Control System on Portola Avenue. Rec: Receive and file. E. REQUEST for Approval of Employee Surety Bonds for Palm Desert. Rec: Approve the bonds as presented. F. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF PALM DESERT from Gordon, Holstein & Ropers, Attorneys at Law, On Behalf of Robert and Lucy Perez in the Amount of $750,000.00. Rec: Deny the claim and instruct the City Clerk to so advise the Claimants. G. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF PALM DESERT from Gordon, Holstein, & Ropers, Attorneys at Law, On Behalf of Augustine and Nellie Rios in the Amount of $350,000.00. Rec: Deny the claim and instruct the City Clerk to so advise the Claimants. H. LETTER from Coachella Valley Television Submitting a Statement of Accuracy on Their Year -End Report of Revenues. Rec: Receive and file. I. RESOLUTION NO. 77-37 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND AVENUE 44. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. Councilman McPherson requested that Item C be removed for dis- cussion under Section X of the Agenda and Councilman Brush requested Item D be removed for discussion at that time. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented with the exception of Items C and D. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE NO. TT9396 - PRELUDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: Consideration of a Tentative Tract Map for a 50-Unit Residential Condominium Subdivision Located at the Northeast Corner of Park View Drive and Fairhaven Drive. Mr. Williams outlined the Staff report for Council. April 14, 1977 Page 2 Mr. Williams stated that the Planning Commission had approved the revised Tentative Tract Map for this development, subject to compliance with conditions limiting the total number of lots to 50. The subject tentative map does comply with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan and it does substantially comply with the City of Palm Desert Code and the State of California Subdivision Map Act, as amended. Mr. Williams pointed out that the Planning Commission had received a recommendation from the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission that the Map be denied on the basis of the fact that the maximum density at Rancho Las Palmas was 3.62 and this maximum density should be upheld. The Palm Desert Planning Commission felt that a correlation between Rancho Las Palmas and Palm Desert did not exist and that the density did conform to Palm Desert's zoning requirements. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open. MR. DON GITTELSON, 9171 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, addressed Council expressing his appreciation to both the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission for their cooperation and assistance. He stated this was their first development in Palm Desert, and he felt the Staff at City Hall was extremely efficient. He expressed no objec- tions to the Planning Commission's or Staff's recommendations and stated they would comply with all of them. Mayor Mullins requested any input in opposition to the project; there was none. Councilman Newbrander asked Mr. Gittelson whether or not he had built anything else in the Coachella Valley. He responded that this was his first development in the Valley. With no further input, Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to approve the Tentative Tract Map by City Council Resolution No. 77-38. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 77-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 75-26 AND AMENDING A POLICY REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF CURB AND GUTTER FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REGARDING CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE COST FOR INSTALLATION OF CURB AND GUTTER IN AREAS WITH EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. (Continued from City Council Meeting of March 24, 1977.) Mr. Bouman reported that this resolution dealt with the City's participation and encouragement of construction of curb, gutters and tie-in paving for new construction and additionally for areas where residences already exist. The resolution is an update of a previous resolution, allowing the property owner in the case of new development to accom- plish the construction of curb, gutter, and tie-in paving in one of three ways: 1) at the time of development; 2) by posting cash payment in an amount equal to the cost of the installation of curb, gutter and tie-in paving; or 3) or the possibility of entering into a binding Agreement with the City for construction at a later date. Mr. Bouman requested that Section 6 be amended to include section (d) "On corner lots, provide for the cost of instal- ling curb and gutter on the shorter side, up to a maximum of 100 lineal feet measured from the curb return to the property line." Mr. Bouman pointed out that the word "minimum" was a typographical error and should be changed to "maximum" on the Council's copy. April 14, 1977 Page 3 Councilman McPherson asked whether or not the City Engineer would be willing to work with just one homeowner and the City thus assume the costs of the engineering work. Mr. Cook responded that the Engineering Department was trying to encourage people to get their neighbors to participate in that it was less costly to do it on a "block basis" and also the project would be more uniform. The curb and gutter was presently costing about $6.00-$6.50 per lineal foot and the tie-in paving was costing about $5.00-$6.00 per lineal foot. The present engineering cost was about $1.00 per running foot. These figures, however, were predicated upon projects for an entire block. Councilman McPherson stated that he felt that the Engineering Department should assist one property owner even if the rest of the block did not wish to participate. Councilman Newbrander moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-36 including the amendment of the word "minimum" to "maximum" in the addition of paragraph 6(d). Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 77-39 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 75-45 PERTAINING TO PAYING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THREE STAGES AND AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF 25% ADMINISTRATIVE COST WHEN RECORDING. Mr. Bouman reported that this would amend the present resolu- tion to assess administrative fees of 25% only at the time when it became necessary to record a lien against property for abatement costs. At the present time, the administrative fees are charged in three phases — 10%, 15%, and reaching 25% at the time of recording. He further noted that no abatement charges or administrative fees were charged the property owner without first proper notification and public hearing. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-39; carried unanimously. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER C. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Councilman William R. Seidler from the Palm Desert City Council. Councilman McPherson stated that he didn't think it would be fair to this body to let an item that affects us all as greatly as the resignation of Bill Seidler to pass merely as an item on the Consent Calendar. Bill Seidler will be deeply missed on this Council; he had a very analytical mind and in Councilman McPherson's opinion, was one of the outstanding councilmen; in fact, the outstanding coucilman on this City Council. He took the role of devil's advocate many times and got the Council thinking about things and leading us in directions that Council wasn't previously pur- suing. As a result of his being on this Council and the Planning Commission, the City is much better for his being here. He stated that he for one would miss sitting next to Bill, and the entire Council was going to miss him. The City, in his opinion, was going to be far worse off without him on this Council; he will be greatly missed. April 14, 1977 Page 4 Mayor Mullins seconded everything Councilman McPherson had expressed. He stated that he had served with Bill on the committees leading up to the time of incorporation and also on the first Planning Commission and the Council. Bill was such a tremendous person; he contributed so much to our community. Mayor Mullins stated that he was truly sorry to see this happen, and that he hoped Council would soon see Bill able to serve with them in some other capacity. Councilman Brush stated he felt the balance of the Council would be happy to make all of the expressions unanimous. Councilman Newbrander stated that there was no doubt that the entire Council would miss Bill. He has done a lot for Palm Desert, and she believed that he had just moved to the City as it became a City — then served on the Planning Commission and then very, very ably as a Councilman. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to accept Councilman Seidler's resignation with the deepest of regrets. Motion carried unanimously. D. LETTER from the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Congratulating the City on the Traffic Control System on Portola Avenue. Councilman Brush expressed his agreement with the letter but indicated that a vehicle traveling north on Portola across Highway 111 could not see the striping on Portola as he crossed the intersection. He asked if the striping could be brought further up to Highway 111. Hunter Cook stated that this could be done and he would investigate the situa- tion in the morning. Councilman Brush also expressed concern over the slower speed limit in front of the Washington School in that he did not feel that drivers became aware of the slower limit until they were right in front of the school. He asked what could be done about making the driver aware before he got right on top of the area. Mr. Cook advised that different methods were being considered such as "rumble bumps" or flashers. He did point out that the "rumble bumps" did annoy the adjacent homeowners, however, in that they created a noise problem. Councilman McPherson asked why a 4-way stop could not be installed at Fairway Drive and Portola to alleviate the problem. Mr. Cook assured Council that some solution would be forthcoming in the immediate future, but only after the conclusion of the study of the situation and the alternatives available. Councilman Brush moved to receive and file the letter from the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Mullins seconded the motion; carried unanimously. XI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 4: Initiate Proceedings To Designate the Area Bounded by El Paseo, Palm Desert Drive and Portola Avenue as Underground Utility District No. 4. Mr. Williams outlined the staff report for Council indicating the proposed area has been the site for a number of recent building approvals within the past year. Of the 11 lots north of the alley which front on Highway 111, 3 lots contain buildings with overhead service. Five lots are under con- struction and have signed agreements requiring participation in an undergrounding district. One lot has signed to partici- pate in a district as part of a Design Review Board approval, but may not build. One lo.t has an existing building with underground service, and one lot is vacant and has not signed any agreement. April 14, 1977 Page 5 South of the alley facing El Paseo, only one of the five parcels has overhead service. Two parcels have buildings with underground service, but have not signed agreements to join a district. One lot is under construction and has signed an agreement and one lot has signed an agreement as part of a Design Review Board approval but has not started construction. There are several reasons for implementing this project at this time. If initiated in time, the construction could be combined with that for Undergrounding Utility District No. 2 which will take place this summer on the blocks just west of the proposed site, between Portola and Larkspur. Since the overhead portion of the distribution lines does not run the full length of the block (the poles start 100 feet east of Portola) and many of the buildinga will already have under- ground service connections, the cost and complexity of under - grounding this block should be less than the average. Lastly, undergrounding is needed to facilitate other improvements which will be necessary to implement the overall redevelop- ment project. Mr. Williams further pointed out that Council may wish to include the southeast lot on Highway 111 and El Paseo and the lot directly south of that which is occupied by Coachella Valley Television in this Undergrounding District. This would then accomplish complete undergrounding of utilities for the entire block. Councilman McPherson asked if this would then complete the undergrounding of all the blocks in the Prototype Block Area. Mr. Williams answered that it would be all the way from El Paseo East to Larkspur. Councilman Brush moved to initiate proceedings to designate the area, including the southeast lot on Highway 111 and El Paseo and the lot directly south of it which is occupied by Coachella Valley Televi- sion, as Underground Utility District No. 4 by scheduling a Public Hearing for May 12, 1977. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried unanimously. B. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 5: Initiate Proceedings to Designate the Area Containing lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of Block F of Palm Desert Unit No. One; Lots 1, 2, 9, and 10 of Block G of Palm Desert Unit No. One; and Lot 1 of Block H of Palm Desert Unit No. One as Underground Utility District No. 5. This was initiated by the property owner of Plaza Taxco. He feels we have sufficient interest for a district and that this would be an ideal time to initiate one. The City has been concerned over cleaning up that corner and it would appear that it would be possible at this time. There is a majority of support there, and staff recommended the initiation proceedings. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to initiate proceedings to designate the area as Underground Utility Dis- trict No. 5 by scheduling a Public Hearing for May 12, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. C. CASE NO. 45C - BANK OF AMERICA: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of March 14, 1977, for New Signs for Proposed New Bank at the Northeast Corner of El Paseo and San Luis Rey. Mr. Williams stated that staff was recommending denial of the appeal for several reasons. The applicant had signed the Conditions of Approval for Case No. 45C which included a condition, namely Condition No. 9, on signage. April 14, 1977 Page 6 Secondly, it is a City policy that signs be compatible not just with the development in which they are located, but also to the surrounding area, and ultimately, the total community. The colors suggested by the Design Review Board and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission would be consistent with the City's policy on signs. The plan for signs approved by the D.R.B. conforms to the City's Zoning Ordinance while the revised plan submitted by the applicant does not. Last, the location of the monument sign agreed upon by the Design Review Board and the applicant at the March 8, 1977, meeting is the most appropriate location for such a sign. Mr. Williams pointed out the architectural beauty of the building showing where the appearance of windows on the second story was really housing for solar panels. Councilman Newbrander expressed concern regarding the height of the building. Mr. Williams explained how the building would be located well within the parking lot which would make it appear lower. The landscaping would also make the appearance lower. The building is within the limits set by ordinance. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission requesting the use of standard Black and White signs used by the Bank of America. They have also requested relocation of the monument sign and the addition of a sign at the western elevation. The Planning Commission had approved signs of black, gold, and white to conform with the established standards of desert colors. MR. HENRY FASHA, CONTINENTAL SERVICES, addressed Council stating that the black and white signs were the trademark for the signage for the Bank of America, and it is basically known all over the state for this. Going away from these colors is unappropriate and does not relate to the standard recognition of the sign. In light of the recommendation of the City Staff to deny the appeal, the Bank's stand is to ask the Council to eliminate the monument sign completely and request Council's permission to install wall signs in compliance with the ordinance. MR. DON WEXLER, 199 Pacific Drive, Palm Springs, addressed Council stating the the Bank of America was being more than cooperative. He stated that the signage proposed by the Bank was in good taste; the colors were not bad. He pointed out the the standard black and white sign of the Bank was highly recognizable and would prevent traffic problems in that area, preventing people from having to look for the bank. Councilman McPherson stated that he thought the building itself was going to be a landmark and a sensational one at that. The architecture itself will stand out and will certainly be an improvement to the City. He stated that the ordinance called for Design Review Board approval and that he had seen other than black and white signs used by the Bank of America.; "I would like to think that our com- munity is unique". Councilman Brush stated that the architecture of the building should be applauded as well as the efforts to incorporate the solar panels. He felt the building would be an asset to the community. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to deny the request and uphold the findings of the Planning Commission by Resolu- tion 77-40, deleting #3 under the fourth "Whereas". Motion carried unanimously. Councilman McPherson noted the #3 had been found to be not applicable. April 14, 1977 Page 7 Mr. Wexler readdressed Council stating he was now in a dilema as to how to proceed. Council instructed him to again present his plans to the Design Review Board for consideration of wall signs. XIII. OLD BUSINESS A. CASE NO. 23SA, ROY CARVER, APPLICANT: Continued Consideration of Applicant's Appeal of Planning Commission Rejection of a Request for Four (4) Directory Signs for the Palms -To -Pines Shopping Center. (Continued from March 24, 1977, Meeting.) Mr. Williams pointed out that the Staff report showed that we are now talking about a whole different concept which will have to be presented to the Planning Commission. This revision appears to concur more with that of the Staff. Councilman Brush moved to refer the matter to the Planning Com- mission for action on a tentative directory sign program worked out by the Staff and the applicant. Councilman Newbrander seconded the motion; carried unanimously. XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. JIM RICHARDS, 74-470 Abronia Trail, Palm Desert, addressed Council stating a number of questions relative to the recent commencement of the sewer installation. He spoke on behalf of the hotel/motel owners stating that they were completely in the dark regarding the cost of the sewer installation. They have received no literature from the Water District. He said that he had called Mr. Weeks, but still had many ques- tions unanswered. He asked how the whole thing got started; why were they tearing the streets up so badly; how much is this whole thing going to cost us? He felt that the Council owed it to the hotel/motel owners to issue some kind of state- ment that informed them of the cost — the basic cost regarding assessment, annexation to what and how many districts, on -going costs. He felt it was impossible for them to conduct business completely in the dark. He asked if he would be forced to hook up to the system. What leverages did he have? What will the costs be if they don't hook up? Can the people vote on it? Mayor Mullins stated that the City had tried to get as much to the people as they could through the news media. Mr. Bouman responded to some of the questions: How did it get started? The C.V. Water District is the authorized agency for sewer collection and treatment. In that regard, the questions he asked are related not to a City sponsored project. The City has only some control over it. The Water District applied for a Sewer Grant and received it from the E.D.A. in an amount of $3-1/2 million for the specific purpose of construction of sewers on the south side of Palm Desert. In answer to how can they ask you for money, they have the legal right as the taxing agency doing this work. As to the costs, as Mr. Bouman understood it, the basic hookup charge for a residen- tial or a commercial unit is $100. What that $100 is used for, according to Mr. Weeks, is to assist in the payment of the back taxes to the District. They can justify it because under normal circumstances, they could have asked for $1,250 per hookup. As to the annexation to the districts, there are two — #54 which is the district which was originally formed to assist in the con- struction of the main sewer lines and the treatment plant on Cook Street, and #80 which is their Operation and Maintenance District. Under the legal requirements, when a resident or a commercial property owner desires sewer service, he must join both of those districts. The combined tax rate is about $1.50 per $100 of assessed valuation. April 14, 1977 Page 8 As to future costs, once an individual signs up for sewers and joins those two districts, the taxes they pay will begin as soon as the necessary papers can be put together — anywhere from 12 to 18 months. However, monthly service charges start immediately. So there are monthly plus annual charges. Regarding basic enforcement, at the present time there is no mandated hookup. At one point, the Water District requested the City Council for some expression in the City's making such a man- date, and our Council made it clear that they do not intend to mandate sewer hookup. The District, itself, stated in a meeting that they do have the authority to mandate hookup. However, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Weeks, he stated that the Water District will not make hookup mandatory. They would have to have some pretty good safe, health, and public welfare reasons to do something like that. Mayor Mullins suggested that Mr. Richards and his group request a meeting with Mr. Weeks and his representatives from the Water District for any further questions they might have. XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER Mr. Bouman reported that he had given Council a copy of an Indian Wells resolution relative to flood control matters which was initiated by Indian Wells' Council on March 17 and finalized last week. It is similar in its purpose and direc- tion to one which Mr. Bouman and Mr. Pierson of Indian Wells had prepared. Mr. Bouman stated that the difference between the two was that the resolution adopted was much stronger and demanding in that it not only requested action and coopera- tion but insisted certain things be accomplished according to a time table. The second resolution concludes on a similar note to the first in that we have a very common problem here. The water that is a problem to our cities here does not recog- nize political boundaries, not even those of the Water Dis- trict. We have all got to approach the problem in unison and attack it and urge the Water District to accept this and act for us and to show some visible signs of action by coming up with some long-range plans and some interim plans. They should put some price tags and recommendations of financing to those plans. Mr. Bouman stated that he had submitted both resolutions to the Council for adoption of either one of them or no action at all. Councilman McPherson stated that he felt that the City of Indian Wells' adopted resolution was somewhat hawkish in their attitude towards the Water District. To this point, we have taken no attitude at all other than our meetings with the C.V.C. Water District. He suggested that Council doesn't wish to take quite such a hawkish attitude but that it would be in our best interest and the best interest of all the cities concerned in this to pass a resolution advising the Water District of our concerns and asking what they are doing and asking them to keep us advised. This could be accomplished by the first or softer resolution. Councilman McPherson continued that it served no purpose to set deadlines and threaten law suits. Councilman McPherson moved for adoption of the first resolution, Palm Desert Resolution No. 77-41, amending the last paragraph to read "all cities concerned". Councilman Brush seconded the motion noting that the resolution adopted by the City Council of Indian Wells was somewhat misleading in that we all want to cooperate to see something done, but their resolu- tion suggests and actually implies that something can be done immediately. Those changes cannot be done that soon. He concluded by stating that we want to urge all parties concerned to take whatever action necessary to protect us, and the first resolution accomplishes that. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Newbrander noted that April 14, 1977 Page 9 we should really push a little bit, more than a little bit. It would be much easier to put the channel in on undeveloped land when it is available than to wait until it is developed and then try to do it. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Councilman Brush presented the problem of a possible need for additional night time security in the commercial area of Palm Desert. He suggested that it might be in the form of foot patrolmen, organized in a cooperative method by the City, the merchants and the Sheriff's Department. Captain Neil Adkins who was in the audience and representing the Sheriff's Department stated that he or Lt. Froemming would be in contact with the City Manager in order to obtain addi- tional information concerning the problem. The City Manager will take the matter under study and report to the Council in the near future. XVI. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to adjourn the meeting; carried unanimously. Mayor Mullins adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. tlAr- ittrWARD D. MULLINS, MAYOR ATTEST: xJ SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, ZTY CLERK City of Palm Desert, California April 14, 1977 Page 10