Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-27MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1980 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS * ** J,** J: is* c * * * ** * * S: * * * * * * * * * * * 1: * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Mullins called the Regular Meeting of the Palm Desert City Council to order at 7:10 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE - Mayor Pro-Tempore James E. McPherson III. INVOCATION - Mayor Edward D. Mullins IV. ROLL CALL Members Present: Councilman Noel J. Brush Councilman James E. McPherson Councilman Alexis D. Newbrander Councilman S. Roy Wilson Mayor Edward D. Mullins Also Present: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services Paul E. Byers, Director of Finance L. Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AND CONDEMNATION To Fill The Expired Term Of Wayne McClellan. Mayor Mullins advised that Mr. McClellan had agreed to serve again on the Building Board of Appeals & Condemnation and stated that the City was very fortunate to have such an individual on the Board. He recommended that Mr. McClellan be reappointed to the Board for a five-year term. Council concurred unanimously. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES Of The Regular City Council Meeting of March 13, 1980. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY: Demand No. 80-091. Rec: Approve as presented. C. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE For RUSTY PELICAN RESTAURANT, 72-191 Highway 111, Palm Desert, California. Rec: Receive and File. D. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS For The Demolition Of The Sunshine Meat, Fish & Liquor Building. Rec: Approve the request and authorize the City Clerk to call for bids. March 27, 1980 Page 1 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7'C isJ� a J.V Jf J J� ik J. iV �. J. * J * * J Jf �f * �C .* i� J * n Jf �f X * n 'f X i� * if if i, i� i. i. * iC TC � if � ) . i . .0 iC . VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) E. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT NO. 1023 - SAN PASCUAL S rtctj i IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. Rec: Accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder. F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP 14079, PRO -CON DEVELOP- MENT CORPORATION, APPLICANT. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-36, approving Final Tract Map 14079. G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP 15082, DON LAWRENZ, APPLICANT. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-37, approving Final Tract Map 15082. H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAPS 14082, 14082-1, AND 14082-2, SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution Nos. 80-38, 80-39, and 80-40, approving Final Tract Maps 14082, 14082-1, and 14082-2, respectively. I. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF BONDS FOR TRACT NO. 8237, AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPLICANT. Rec: Accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to release the bonds. J. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS For The 1979-80 Budget Street Resurfacing Program. Rec: Approve the request and authorize the City Clerk to call for bids. Councilman Brush moved and Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson seconded to approved the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE NO. 16015 - MAYER GROUP, INC., APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 24 LOTS TO ALLOW 264 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A 9 ACRE PUBLIC PARK ON APPROXIMATELY 39 ACRES IN THE PR-7 (U.A.) ZONE AT THE NORTH- EAST CORNER OF MONTEREY AVENUE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. Mayor Mullins noted that the Council had met in Study Session prior to the Council Meeting, that discussion had been held on all matters on the Agenda, but that no decisions had been made. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Williams reviewed the Staff Report and stated that the Planning Commission had held major discussion relative to drainage requirements and access to the site from Country Club Drive. The applicants requested they be required to pay drainage fees only rather than be responsible for implementation of the Master Plan of Drainage to the extent determined necessary by the City. Mr. Williams referred to a letter from the applicant addressing this issue and made a part of the Staff report. March 27, 1980 Page 2 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL: .TING * iV '� * JC * �C * * �' n' V �' * �' * i�C i�C * �' i�C i� J' iC * '� �' �C * i�C n• i�' � . . , i♦ .. i♦ if i i♦ i n C ♦ i i� i ♦ * * VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. CASE NO. 16015 - MAYER GROUP, INC. (Continued) Mr. Williams stated that with regard to the access issue, the applicants requested approval of a permanent left turn pocket from Country Club Drive onto the site while Staff recommended that the left turn access be temporary in nature to allow access until the Monterey Avenue entrance became operational. The Commission, after considerable discussion, amended the condition to allow the temporary left turn pocket with Coiianission review at a later time to determine whether the pocket is to be permanent or not. Mr. Williams concluded by pointing out that the Fire Marshal's concerns had been met by the newly proposed fire station on Cook Street. Mr. Beebe addressed the applicant's request relative to the drainage and pointed out that they were required to build the storm drain under the Master Storm Drain Plan. He stated that the estimated cost for the construction of this drain system is $148,000, and the fees required from the developer amount to $140,000. He reviewed the drainage system proposed. He concluded that it was not out -of -line to require the developer to construct this as others have been so required in the past. Mr. Williams concluded that it was the recommendation of both the Planning Commission and Staff to approve the request by Resolution No. 80-41. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR of the request. MR. RONALD WHITE, Sr. Project Engineer for Mayer Group, stated they had two concerns. However, he felt that the left -turn pocket issue had been resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. However, they did take issue with Special Condition #6 in that they felt it should be limited to their payment of fees. He felt that the condition, as written, was open-ended. He felt that they should not be required to con- struct off -site improvements on another developer's property even though the easements were there, thus this was a different request. He stated that they are already retaining a 100-year storm within their property, and their water would not create a problem for adjacent properties. He also pointed out that that the economic conditions are changing, and if they were limited to fees, they could pay as they developed. An off -site improvement would have to be right up front and it would severely hinder them. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Brush stated that the condition in question did appear to read as a "blank check". Mr. Beebe responded that the developer will bid the work out and accept the low bid. He would require a copy of that bid, and adjustments could be made at that time. They are obligated for a specific amount of drainage fees, and they would not be expected to spend more than that amount. Mayor Mullins reopened the Public Hearing. MR. JOHN BALLEW addressed the Council stating that as the condition reads, there is no limit on the cost and no iden- tification as to when it is constructed. If it has to go in the first phase, it then places a hardship on proceeding with the rest of the project. They have no estimates as yet on cost, and there are too many other unknowns. Upon question by Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson, Mr. Beebe responded that there are not enough monies in the drainage fund to advance to the developer for this construction even if the City Attorney were to approve it. March 27, 1980 Page 3 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL ME' 7NG J` it` J r� J; J, i. 1. �: i n * * * * * * J its * 1� t. * :'C * i * * iC i� i� * * �.� i� i i� iC i i� i� i �fi n�. i� i� � i� i� � VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. CASE NO. 16015 - MAYER GROUP (Continued) Councilman Wilson asked if the details about reimbursement could not be worked out during Final Map approval, and Mr. Beebe responded that that was the appropriate time for it. Councilman Newbrander stated that she did not agree with Mr. White that they were not being treated equally in that all developers are required to put in drainage facilities. She felt the only way to do it was to do it now. Mr. Bouman asked if the applicant would mind a two -week continuance of the matter to iron out these details, and Mr. White responded that they would like a decision that night. Councilman Wilson moved and Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-41 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. B. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION OF A PORTION OF UNUSED STREET LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 74. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and invited Staff's report. Mr. Williams stated that this was initiated by an adjacent property owner on the basis of its unusability for road purposes. In reviewing the request, it appears justifiable. He stated that it was Staff's recommendation that the request be approved by Resolution No. 80-42. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Newbrander moved and Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-42. Motion carried unanimously. C. CASE NO. ZOA 01-80 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT: CON- SIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BUILDINGS AND COMPLEXES. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Williams reported that after 5 years of experience with the Sign Ordinance, a weakness had been discovered in the ordinance in that it does not specifically address the subject of signs to identify multiple tenant buildings when they are not found to be District or Regional Centers on minimum 3.5 acre sites. Application of the Ordinance becomes difficult when a building contains multiple tenant frontages and a common building identification sign is desired. It was Staff's recommendation that the only way to uniformly provide the opportunity for a building identification sign would be to amend the Sign Ordinance and specify a criteria for such signs. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Wilson moved and Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson seconded to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 222 to second reading; carried unanimously. March 27, 1980 Page 4 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL L-STING * * * * .♦ * * * * * * J * * * J * * * * * * * * * p * p * * * * * iC n * * VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 80-43 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80-17, SECTION 5, AUTO ALLOWANCES AND THUS ESTABLISHING A REVISED TABLE OF AUTHORIZED AUTO ALLOWANCES. Mr. Bouman reported that this was a companion resolution to one recently adopted for mid -year salary adjustments. It increases the car allowances for two inspectors to maximum, payment which means they will be put into the field full time. By doing so, and because of the down trend in building at the present time, the present opening in the Building Department for an Inspector will not be filled. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-43. Motion carried unanimously. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None X. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS HELD OVER None XI. NEW BUSINESS A. RESOLUTION NO. 76-39 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE PERIOD OF APPOINTMENT FOR THE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO-TEM AS A ONE-YEAR TERM. Mr. Bouman stated that the City Clerk had made an interesting discovery in that at the time this resolution was adopted, the Council elections were held in March. He recommended that the wording be changed to reflect the month of April. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-44 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried unanimously. XII. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST BY CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS TO MAKE PRESENTATION RELATIVE TO THE RETIRED SENIORS VOLUNTEER PROGRAM. The Honorable Mayor Carl May of Desert Hot Springs addressed Council stating that the City of Palm Desert was now the only city not involved or participating in the RSVP Program. He pointed out that even Indian Wells had joined the Program. He reviewed the RSVProgram, noting they had over 300 workers involved in all types of work on a volunteer basis. He asked the City of Palm Desert to reconsider its position and to join the other cities. Mr. Les Crist, City Manager of Desert Hot Springs, reviewed how the RSVProgram had started with Federal funds and that it therefore has a January through December calendar. This makes it difficult for the cities to budget for it, but the Federal Government has been requested to changed the fiscal year. He reviewed the 44 programs that are offered through RSVP. March 27, 1980 Page 5 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL ME LNG * i'C .. is it * i'C i': * is i'C - .. * ''C i't '': .. i't * * * is * ::"*".;,t * * * * is :'t .. * V * :'t XII. OLD BUSINESS (Continued) A. RSVP REQUEST (Continued) Mr. Bouman reminded the Council that a resolution had been prepared for presentation a few meetings prior if they cared to enact it. It would provide for budgeting monies for RSVP. After further discussion, the Council asked Mr. Bouman to place the item on a near -future Study Session Agenda for more consideration. Mayor Mullins thanked Mayor May and Mr. Crist. B. NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION OPPOSING "TURNING POINT" HOME LOCATED AT 74-901 TORO PEAK DRIVE, PALM DESERT. Mr. Bouman advised that this item had been continued from a meeting in January at which time Staff told Council that they would conduct an investigation of the Turning Point Home, look into the legal ramifications, and come back with a recommendation. He stated that he had presented Council with a lengthy staff memo in Study Session which pointed out concerns of staff relative to activities going on outside the home, the actual condition of the outside of the home, and Staff's recommendation that a 6-month trial period be given for the staff of Turning Point to get better control of their operation. This would be with continual checking by the City's Code Enforcement Department. The following people addressed Council in opposition to the Home stating that it was a detriment to their property values and a disturbance. MR. BAILEY JACOBS MRS. RUTH RICHTER, Toro Peak, Palm Desert MRS. FRANCES MORSE Mr. Frank Moran, Director of Turning Point, addressed Council stating that they would do everything possible to adhere to the City's wishes. They did not want to be a bother to anyone. He invited the neighbors to visit the home and stated that the youth being helped at their home were not criminals but rather having trouble with their families. This home was a medium between children and families to try to settle differences and restore a good family life. He stated that every member of his staff was required to have a car, thus creating more traffic than before. Councilman Newbrander stated that the business part of the home was objectionable to her in that it would create traffic. It was general and unanimous concurrence of the City Council to allow the Turning Point Home a 6-month trial period noting that provisons for such homes in residential areas are provided under State law and leaving local governments no authority. XIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. EARL McCARTNEY, Homestead Road, addressed Council relative to the proposed drainage on Homestead Road due to the new develop- ment above them and also relative to the building pads in the new development as they appeared extremely high. Councilman Brush pointed out that the extreme height was required to force the water to Highway 74 and away from existing homes. Mr. McCartney was asked to visit Mr. Beebe in the Department of Public Works to review the proposed drainage system for that area. MRS. JEANNE MICHAELS, Skyward Way, Palm Desert, asked Council if the building pads above Homestead were legal. Council advised that they were and reemphasized that they were required for protec- tion of existing and adjacent development. March 27, 1980 Page 6 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL :TING * J` * * r' V is n * * it, r- r- is 'r' is is ir: n is 'r: 'r: J: n 'r: ir: is 'r: 'ri: irC • XIV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. REQUEST TO CALL FOR BIDS TO ABATE DANGEROUS BUILDINGS ON HEDGEHOG STREET AND IN THE CAHUILLA HILLS. Mr. Bouman advised that the Code Enforcement Supervisor had requested that Council authorize the City Clerk to call for bids for two dangerous structures, one on Hedgehog Street damaged in the July Flood and one in the Cahuilla Hills. Councilman Newbrander moved to authorize the City Clerk to call for bids to abate two dangerous structures as noted in the Memorandum "Seek Bids To Abate Dangerous Buildings" dated March 24, 1980. Council- man Brush seconded the motion; carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR CONTRACT NO. 1022. Mr. Bouman reported that another delay had been experienced by the contractor, this dealing with a delay of utility pole relocation by Southern California Edison Company. Since SCE had provided no schedule for this relocation, Massey had requested a time extension. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to authorize a 45-calendar day extension with the stipulation that San Pascual be paved immediately. Motion carried unanimously. 3. REPORT ON UDAG GRANT Mr. Bouman read a memo he had prepared to Council relative to the loss of the UDAG grant (attached and made a part of these Minutes as Exhibit "A".) Councilman Brush stated that it was the same old story as was always with the County of Riverside - you can't deal with them. Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson stated that the developer that took the original option was brought to us by the County, and he declined in renewing his option at which time they brought back the same developer for development of different land. Mayor Mullins stated that the City had spent a lot of time and money because we were acting in good faith. We had a good application; we were told that by the Federal Government. Councilman Newbrander stated she felt the County was afraid we would receive the Grant when they really didn't want us to. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Mullins asked that everyone note the future meetings. XV. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to adjourn the meeting; carried unanimously. Mayor Mullins adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. EDWARD D. MULLINS, MAYOR ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Mnrrnh 97 1 OPC P r, tr o 7 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL ME' '.NG is n * * * n * n * is is » is J: is is if * * is * * * * is * * n n n EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 2 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: UDAG DATE: March 27, 1980 My reaction to the County's withdrawal of the UDAG application is a combination of disappointment, frustration, shock, and anger. I will try to keep all these emotions under control. I'm sure the Council has read the newspaper accounts of the County's position. Some significant facts were omitted or distorted: 1. Supervisor McCandless is quoted as saying the County was only acting as an agent for the City of Palm Desert. Even if he believes that, I can't see how it justifies the County's unilateral action in withdrawing the application. Mr. McCandless is well aware that City and County staff members have been work- ing side -by -side on the grant for five months, that the City and County representatives jointly traveled to Washington to gain information and talk to legislators, and that it was the County in conjunction with the City that originally proposed the grant application. It seems we were "partners" with the County as long as we agreed with everything the City was being asked to commit to. When we didn't, they suddenly became our "agent". 2. The original concept of the UDAG grant was a joint County -City effort. The inclusion of low and middle -income housing was the County's effort as was the selection of the housing developer. When the grant was "put over" into the first quarter of 1980 by HUD, the County's selected housing developer stated he was not in a position to commit further funding to renew his option on the 17 acres of housing land. At this point, the "ground rules" began to change. The developer requested the City to commit the option money; the City considered the request and declined. A new developer was found for the 17 acres, but the County now proposed a second housing site of approximately 13 acres, with the total housing units on both sites to be increased from 170 to 364. This was not acceptable to the City because the City had already been informed that the original application had technical merit and stood a good chance of being approved and because an additional site to be subsidized necessarily meant an increase in the UDAG grant dollar amount. 3. Significantly, the County's proposed housing developer on the second site was the same developer who had refused to re -option the original site. March 27, 1980 Page 8 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL :TING * ^ * * �� n i. i; is is .. if if if if n * -. if is EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 SUBJECT: UDAG March 27, 1980 4. The County's statement that, at the eleventh hour, the applica- tion was judged by HUD to be "technically incomplete" seems inconsistent with the facts. By that time, HUD had contracted for an expensive "Urban Impact Analysis" of the original appli- cation and had undoubtedly spent hundreds of man-hours and thousands of dollars in evaluating the application. (As a point of information, a team from U.C. Berkeley conducting the Urban Impact Analysis was in City Hall on Tuesday, March 18th, to obtain still further information.) After having gone through all that, it does not seem likely to me that HUD would be pleased with an application withdrawal. The application should have remained in consideration. If denied by HUD, both the City and County could at least stand up straight and say we tried. 5. An unpleasant fact is that by withdrawing the application, no less than $40,000 (my estimate) in Riverside County taxpayers' money has been squandered. As earlier stated, we have been hard at work on the grant for over five months. Additionally, the shopping center developer and housing developers also spent thousands of dollars in meeting the application requirements. They lost five months of valuable time. They can hardly be pleased with either the City or County. 6. Significantly, during the five -month delay, the County Board of Supervisors approved two new regional shopping center sites. These are relatively nearby, but in unincorporated County territory. In both cases, the County Planning Staff recommended denial, and in one case, the County Planning Commission recom- mended denial. WHAT NOW ? In my opinion, any further thought of City -County cooperation on yet another grant application is out of the question. One burn is enough Meanwhile, with Council's approval, Les Pricer, Carlos Ortega, and I will rapidly attempt some alternate funding proposals which might allow the shopping center to proceed while delaying some of the off - site flood control, drainage, fire protection, and traffic control features of the original concept. Should the development such constraints, then not just of $7 million housing opportunities, use just ustnow5 MARTIN J. BOUMAN CITY MANAGER MJB/srg of the shopping center not be possible under the people of the entire region will be losers, in federal money, but of job opportunities, and economic uplift, all of which we can surely March 27, 1980 Page 9