Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-04-10MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1980 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Mullins called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. on Thursday, April 10, 1980, in City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE - Mayor Pro-Tempore James E. McPherson III. INVOCATION - Mayor Edward D. Mullins IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Noel J. Brush Mayor Pro-Tempore James E. McPherson Councilman Alexis D. Newbrander Councilman S. Roy Wilson Mayor Edward D. Mullins Also Present: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services L. Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works Paul E. Byers, Director of Finance James L. Hill, Director of Building and Safety Leslie S. Pricer, Redevelopment Agency Consultant V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS and APPOINTMENTS Mayor Mullins thanked Sheila Gilligan, City Clerk, for doing such a good job on the elections. Councilman McPherson suggested a Planning Commissioner should be appointed as they were down to three members now and would have a hard time getting a quorum together. He noted the Council had been considering appli- cations since early March. Councilman McPherson then nominated Dr. Robert McLachlan for the position of Planning Commissioner. Councilman Brush stated his agreement that Dr. McLachlan was well qualified and had the desire to serve, but felt the new Council - members should have the right to decide on new appointments. Mayor Mullins expressed concern that only three members could be serious and felt at least one should be appointed. The following vote was cast: AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, Mullins ABSTAIN: Brush, Wilson Paul Williams explained that an appointment would require four votes. Councilman Wilson called for a reconsideration of the vote. Dr. Robert McLachlan was appointed to the position of Planning Commissioner on a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Brush abstaining. 1 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING :: - ;: ;: ;: ;: :c ;; ;; VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Palm Desert City Council of March 27, 1980. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 80-092 and 80-093. Rec: Approve as presented. C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY By Standard Oil Company of California, Chevron USA, Kenneth Williamson and Palms To Pines Chevron for an Unspecified Amount. Rec: Deny the Claim and instruct the City Clerk to so advise the Claimant and to refer the Claim to the Insurance Carrier. D. LETTER OF APPRECIATION From the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District For the City's Contribution of $2,400 for Repair of the Vandalized Lights at Olesen Field. Rec: Receive and File. E. LETTER FROM THOMAS A PAULSON Relative to a Drainage Problem from Pitahaya Street to Shadow Mountain Drive in the Palm Desert Sandpiper. Rec: Receive and refer to Staff for study and report. City Attorney, Dave Erwin requested that' Item C be removed for discussion under Section X. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson moved to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilman Wilson seconded. Approved unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 A. UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 4 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN REPORT ON UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 4 AND PROTESTS OF RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE COST OF UNDER - GROUNDING UTILITIES NORTH OF EL PASEO AND EAST OF PORTOLA AVENUE. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Williams presented the staff report, stating that on June 9, 1977 City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for the purpose of creating Underground District No. 4. Work was initiated and has been completed by the Southern California Edison Company for a total cost of $39,425.05, to be shared by the individual property owners and the City of Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. Notices have been sent out informing property owners within the affected district of the hearing and their assessment. Mr. Williams noted that Dr. Craine and De Anza Building Assoc. have already paid their assessment.' Upon adoption of Resolution No. 80-45, the remaining property owners will be notified that their assessment is to be paid within 5 days or the lien procedure would be implemented. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR and none was offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Brush moved to accept the written report on Underground District No. 4 dated March 13, 1980, and consider all protests, if any, and proceed to affirm the recommended assessments by waiving fur-ther reading and adopting City Coupci1 Resolution No. 80-45. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson seconded. Adopted i nimously. MINT?T>~ S REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) B. UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 5 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN REPORT ON UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 5 AND PROTESTS OF RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE COST OF UNDER - GROUNDING UTILITIES GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO SAGE LANE BETWEEN HIGHWAY 111 AND EL PASEO. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff'; report. Mr. Williams stated that this district was created at a duly noticed public hearing at the City Council meeting of May 12, 1977. The work has been completed by the Southern California Edison Company for a total cost of $67,413.38, to be shared by the individual property owners with the City of Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency absorbing its share of the cost of the project. Proper notices were sent out and posted. He noted a cash deposit was filed by Plaza Taxco in the amount of $1,947,which would reduce their assessment. It was Staff's recommendation that the City Council find the assessments appropriate and adopt Resolution No. 80-46. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. CLIFF SHINN, Attorney, 73-941 Highway 111, stated he was standing in for his partner, Attorney Richard Romer, in representation of Thomas Investments and stated their opposition to the assessment. There being no further comments, Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Wilson moved to accept the written report on Under- ground District No. 5 dated March 13, 1980, and consider all protests, if any, and proceed to affirm the recommended assessments by waiving further reading and adopting City Council Resolution No. 80-46. Council- man Brush seconded. Adopted unanimously. VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 80-47 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76-72, ESTABLISHING A POLICY ON ALLOCATION OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES AND ORGANIZATIONS UNRELATED TO THE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE. Mr. Bouman stated this item was back for the third time in a period of two or three months and suggested review of the policy of the City of Palm Desert dealing with allocation of its resources to social organizations. He noted the City has been asked repeatedly for contributions to R.S.V.P. This Resolution would help clarify who would qualify for funds. Councilman Wilson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 30-47. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson seconded. Motion carried on a 3-2 vote, with Councilmen Newbrander and Brush voting No. B. RESOLUTION NO. 80-48 - A RESOLUTION OF -THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE 1979/80 BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR A CONTRIBUTION TO THE RETIRED SENIOR CITIZENS VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP). Councilman Newbrander stated she felt R.S.V.P. was a good program, but didn't think the City should put any money into it. April 10, 1980 3 MINUI"ES REGULAR CI1Y COUNCIL MEETING VIII. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION No. 80-48 (continued) Mayor Mullins acknowledged the fact that R.S.V.P. does work in Palm Desert and possibly by receiving a contribution, they would do more. Though he realized this might open the doors for solicitation from other organizations, he would be in favor, due to its good merits. Councilman Wilson commented that Palm Desert is the only City not supporting the R.S.V.P. Councilman Brush stated he did not think the City Council should become involved; further.that it should not have donated $15,000 for Christmas lights. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson stated he had no strong feelings, but that he was in agreement with the previous policy to stop agencies from knocking on our door. Councilman Wilson moved to adopt Resolution No. 80-48. Mayor Pro- Tempore McPherson seconded. Adopted on a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Brush voting No. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 222 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, RELATIVE TO IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BUILDINGS AND COMPLEXES. CASE NO. ZOA 01-80. There being no further input, Councilman Newbrander moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 222. Councilman Wilson seconded. Ordinance No. 222 adopted unanimously. X. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS HELD OVER C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY By Standard Oil Company of California, Chevron USA, Kenneth Williamson and Palms to Pines Chevron For An Unspecified Amount. Mr. Erwin stated that the only reason he requested this item removed for discussion was that the Claimant presented his claim too late, in that this happened in May of 1978. He recommended denial for that reason. Councilman Brush moved to deny the claim and instruct the City Clerk to so advise the Claimant and to refer the Claim to the Insurance Carrier. Councilman Wilson seconded. Carried unanimously. XI. NEW BUSINESS None XII. OLD BUSINESS None 1 4 April 10, 1980 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING XIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XIV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. RESOLUTION NO. 80-50 - DESIGNATING ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AS LOCAL AGENTS AND AUTHORIZING FILING OF APPLICATION TO OBTAIN CERTAIN FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. Councilman Brush moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution 80-50. Seconded by Councilman Wilson. Adopted unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 80-51 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AMENDING THE BUDGET TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF A FIRE TRUCK. Mr. Bouman explained that during the time the City was waiting to hear the results of the UDAG application, a bid was made to the City of Gardena for the purchase of a fire truck in the amount of $115,511. This was the high bid by approximately $10,000. With the withdrawal of UDAG, the City is now faced with the dilemma of whether to go ahead with the purchase. Mr. Bouman further stated this is a fine piece of equipment which would cost $230,000 new. He recommended approval of Resolution No. 80-51, which would authorize the City to purchase this piece of equipment out of the'Unallocated Reserve Fund. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-51. Councilman Brush seconded. Adopted unan- imously. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 80-52 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT OF $55,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF JOINING WITH SUNRISE CORPORATION TO AFFECT IMMEDIATE REPAIR, RESTORATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PALM DESERT'S SHARE OF MONTEREY AVENUE AT THE WHITEWATER WASH. Mr. Bouman stated that the City of Palm Desert had been trying to negotiate a 3-way split, which would include Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and Sunrise Corporation for the proper repair of Monterey Avenue at the wash. This work should be done as soon as possible. He suggested it could take months if we were to wait for Federal or State assistance. Rancho Mirage has decided to do the work on their side of the roadway. Sunrise Corporation has proposed sharing the cost of the repair which would leave $55,000 for the City of Palm Desert's easterly portion of the roadway. He emphasized that if Rancho Mirage should choose not to repair their portion now, they would be liable in the event of any accidents. He suggested notifying Rancho Mirage that we will be going ahead with our half and they will have to be responsible for their half. Councilman Newbrander moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-52. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson seconded. Adopted unanimously. B. CITY ATTORNEY None April 10, 1980 - 5 • • MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING XIV. REPORTS AND REMARKS (Continued) C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Mullins presented a prepared speech (attached and made a part of these minutes as "Exhibit A") and also presented mementos to members of the City Council and the staff present. Councilman Brush clarified an article in the press wherein he was quoted as blasting the City Staff. He stated Palm Desert has one of the finest staffs in the entire Valley and that a remark by him was blown out of proportion. He also passed out mementos to Councilmembers and others present. He expressed his appreciation to everyone for their fine spirit of cooperation. Councilman Wilson expressed his appreciation to both Mayor Mullins and Councilman Brush as fine people to work with, and extended a welcome to Mr. Puluqi and Mr. Snyder as new members of the Council. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson extended his congratulations to Mr. Puluqi and Mr. Snyder. He stated that Ed Mullins had been a friend since his moving to Palm Desert and was pleased to call him a friend. Councilman Newbrander said Mr. Mullins would be missed around the City of Palm Desert, that it had been a pleasure working with him and not to lose his enthusiasm. Mayor Mullins stated there would be a real roast for Romeo Puluqi and Walter Snyder on the 15th. He also noted the future meetings. XV. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson moved to adjourn the meeting to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 15, 1980, in City Hall Council Chambers for the purpose of canvassing the election, reorganizing,and selecting a new Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tempore. Councilman Wilson seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ATTEST: DEL CLAUSSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA /d April 10, 1980 6 // / , _ (44, €AWARD D. MULLINS , MAYOR EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 Since this is my last regular Council meeting and ends my tenure as Councilman and Mayor, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone here at City Hall and to you Council people for the support and cooperation I have personally received through the years. These were decisive years. I have appreciated so much being able to work with a Council that was united in one goal, that being for a better Palm Desert. Sure we were frustrated because we could not do everything we needed to; we differed along the way, but we never lost sight of that goal - "a better Palm Desert". The decisions we made were made with that goal in mind. I appreciate having been able to serve with you. I have learned a lot from you, and I am happy that Palm Desert is a better place because of your service. To the City Staff and Conanissions, Marty Bouman and all, I feel we are so fortunate to have been able to work with so many dedicated people. We have accomplished a lot working together, and I am proud to have been associated with you all. I felt distrubed during the recent campaign to hear many things that were said and written that would indicate that this Council or staff would not be in favor of better things for Palm Desert. However, I'm sure time will tell us all that instant flood protection, adequate police protection, and solving all of the street problems of a City that has grown as rapidly as Palm Desert will not be solved in short time or inan inexpensive manner. They are promises that are difficult to keep to our citizens. I can speak to that because we have all worked diligently on those problems since incor- poration and even before. Money expended for elections - I realize it is difficult to limit campaign spending, but an election in which funds expended reach the proportion of this election really bothers me. It tends to taint our entire effort. The reason most of us were willing to give (and I stress give) of our time and effort was because we honestly felt we were doing it for a community we loved and that had been good to us. But as time goes, it begins to make us look like there is a big harvest to be reaped rather than a labor of love. I'm sure there are differing opinions on this, but I am afraid it will limit the number of qualified business persons who are just unable to stand the cost of extra help to replace them in business, plus all the other expenses connected with the office, plus a necessity to expend $10,000 to $15,000 to get elected. I hate to see this happen!! The answer? I have already stated my feeling about our staff. Sure, a lot of times we would all like to help someone, and we find we can't go in. Just because we are a councilman or a mayor doesn't mean we can change the rules for one of our friends. I hope that policy never changes. I was very sorry to see our CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 10, 1980 EXHIBIT "A" -2- City Manager blamed for a Council and Redevelopment action. Staff is here to work for the Counci; they present their views because they have been studied and researched, and they stick with them. I was convinced that the Frontage Road changes had to be done and the best, most feasible, and least expensive method was selected. We all voted on that, and the City Manager and Redevelop- ment Director believe in it. So do I, but I think we (Staff & Council) were all agreed that once it is finished and tried, then we reevaluate it. We are staying with that policy, that evaluation is happening now. Many of us have forgotten how "bad it used to be". But the measurements between a good plan on paper or even in operation and public acceptance of the plan vary greatly. So -- all these have to be evaluated not once but many times as we grow. Staff is here to serve at the direction of the Council and because they feel strongly on an issue does not preclude them from being directed otherwise by the Council as a majority. They know that this happens and are prepared to accept that type of action!