Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-22MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1980 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * n * * * * * * n * i. * .. i. * n t. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilson called the Regular Meeting of the Palm Desert Council to order at 7:01 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. PLEDGE - Mayor Pro-Tem James E. McPherson INVOCATION - Mayor S. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Pro-Tem James Councilman Alexis D. Councilman Romeo S. Councilman Walter H. Mayor S. Roy Wilson Also Present: Roy Wilson E. McPherson Newbrander Puluqi Snyder Martin J. Bouman, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services Paul E. Byers, Director of Finance Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager James L. Hill, Director of Building & Safety L. Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR City A. MINUTES Of The Regular Meeting of the City Council of May 8, 1980. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 80-103, 80-104, and 80-111. Rec: Approve as presented. C. STATEMENT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS FOR MONTH OF APRIL, 1980. Rec: Receive and file. D. THANK YOU LETTER FROM PALM DESERT YOUTH SPORTS ASSOCIATION, INC. For The City's Interest And Financial Support. Rec: Receive and file. E. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF BONDS FOR TRACT NO. 12556, TRANSCOPIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPLICANT. Rec: Accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to release bonds with the acceptance of a one-year street maintenance bond. May 22, 1980 Page 1 MINUTES - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 14163, I. HAROLD HOUSLEY, uiiuUvt:, INC., APPLICANT. Rec: Approve the Parcel Map and authorize the City Clerk to sign for recordation. G. LETTER FROM THOMAS A. PAULSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, RELATIVE TO DRAINAGE PROBLEM FROM PITAHAYA STREET TO SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE. Rec: Refer to City Manager for report and reply. Councilman Newbrander moved and Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE NO. TT 14003 - LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, APPLICANT: CON- SIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN 18-MONTH TIME EXTEN- SION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 142 LOTS TO ALLOW 140 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, A 6-ACRE PUBLIC PARK AND CIVIC CENTER ON 52 ACRES IN THE PR-4, S.P. ZONE AND P ZONE BETWEEN SAN PASCUAL AND SAN PABLO, NORTH OF 44TH AVENUE. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Williams reviewed the Staff Report indicating that this matter was considered by the Council on March 13th and con- tinued to this date to allow the applicant to refile a related Development Plan with the Planning Commission for their con- sideration. The Planning Commission subsequently reviewed a new Development Plan No. 05-80 and approved it. The major item of discussion at the April 29, 1980, Commission meeting pertained to the maintenance of the 100' wide drainage swale which runs north/south along the easterly boundary. The applicants felt that the drainage swale which is to be land- scaped should be maintained by the City in that it is a public area. The condition of a new Development Plan pertaining to the swale states that maintenance of the swale is to be pro- vided by the homeowners association or by an alternative acceptable to the City Council in their subsequent review of tract map time extension. The applicant, in his Development Plan, shows that drainage easement as common space within the total project. However, he feels the City has some responsi- bility for this drainage. Because the applicant will be utilizing this area as open space within their project, it was Staff's recommendation that the responsibility for the maintenance of it be passed on to the homeowners association. Mr. Williams noted that during Study Session, the Council had reviewed with Staff a suggested revision to the requirement whereby the applicant and the City would share in the responsibility of maintenance on a 50/50 basis. Mayor Wilson invited input in FAVOR of the request. Mr. Bill Sullivan, Project Manager, Lewis Homes, addressed the Council stating that his firm concurred with everything except the provisions as set forth relative to the drainage swale -- the ownership and maintenance of it. He stated that their position was that the channel really benefitted an area much greater than their project. He concluded by stating that they were willing to dedicate the land, but felt that the City and his firm should participate mutually in the repair and maintenance of it.. 1 May 22, 1980 Page 2 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL ME.__ING ': * * * * '.: * * * :C * i. i. * * * V is if .. * .: VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. CASE NO. TT 14003 (Continued) Mayor Wilson asked for any other input in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor Pro=Tem McPherson stated that he felt that should there be a major flood, an unjust burden would be placed on the homeowners association in the repair or reconstruction of the drainage swale. He felt that it should be the responsibility of the City to rebuild it under those circumstances. However, the daily maintenance of it should be required of the associa- tion in that it is similar to what is being required of other projects and a precedent has already been set. He stated that Council needed to have the City Attorney come up with some kind of agreement spelling out what is meant by major restoration, monthly maintenance, etc. Councilman Snyder stated that it was pointed out earlier in the discussion that this property in question was open space and would therefore be utilized as such within the development. Therefore, the developer and/or homeowners association should maintain it. In addition to that, the City was going to release them from their normal drainage fee requirements because they are building the swale. He stated that he felt strongly that it was the responsibility of the developer to maintain the swale. Dave Erwin added that he would prefer, with no objection from Council or the applicant, that the matter be continued to the next Council meeting to allow him time to prepare such an agreement. He did not feel that there would be any problem with the two -week continuance relative to the requested time extension. With Council's concurrence, Mayor Wilson reopened the Public Hearing. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to continue the matter to the meeting of June 12, 1980. Motion carried unani- mously. B. CASE NO. TT 14004 - LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, APPLICANT: CON- SIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN 18-MONTH TIME EXTEN- SION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 7-LOTS TO ALLOW 142 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, ON 27 ACRES IN THE PR-4, S.P. ZONE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAN PASCUAL AVENUE AND 44TH AVENUE. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and stated that this item was similar to Case No. TT 14003 whereby a continuance had been ordered. He invited input in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to continue the matter to the meeting of June 12, 1980. Motion carried unani- mously. ,IX. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 80-62 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT; CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RELATING TO ANNEXATION NUMBER 4 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, LAFC #77-51-4. Mr. Bouman stated that this resolution and the next one came as a result of a request from the County of Riverside in which we adopt these resolutions determining the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged between the County and the City pursuant to the passage of Proposition 13. In so doing, it May 22, 1980 Page 3 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * is * * * n is .. * J: * * is :: * * is * * .. is * is is is is IX. RESOLUTIONS (Continued) A. RESOLUTION NO. 80-62 (Continued) entitles us to a share of the property taxes generated by those annexations. . Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-62. Motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 80-63 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RELATING TO ANNEXATION NUMBER 5 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, LAFC #78-34-4. Mr. Bouman stated that this was identical to the circumstances of Resolution No. 80-62 just adopted. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-63. Motion carried unanimously. X. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None XI. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS HELD OVER None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 1 Mr. Williams stated that for almost a year, the Planning Com- mission had been developing a draft update of the City's General Plan. It is expected that this effort will be completed by September. An important element of the project is the Environ- mental Impact Report which will be essential to make the General Plan Update complete. It is critical for the Commission and Council in terms of evaluating alternative goals and objectives. For these reasons, it seems appropriate to initiate the develop- ment of the draft of the Environmental Impact Report at this time. In addition, a majority of the City's Sphere of Influence which has a potential for development is north of Country Club Drive. Staff has been approached by a majority of landowners in this area concerning the potential of annexation. Before such a request could be considered, a potential impact should be analyzed. Coordination of this evaluation with the updating of the General Plan seems appropriate; therefore, Staff has prepared a request for proposal to be sent to six potential consultants who were selected on the basis of previous com- petent work done in the Valley and who have the capability of performing. He concluded by pointing out that $30,000 is available in the budget for such services. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded that by Minute Motion, Staff be authorized to solicit proposals from six consulting firms for consideration by the Council at their meeting of June 26, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. May 22, 1980 Page 4 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MI._ING * JC :: • :° J: J: JC V -': J: J: .. -': is JC V _': :': * :': is ;: JC .. J: XII. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A STREET LIGHT CONVERSION SERVICE AGREE- MENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR USE OF HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM VAPOR LAMPS IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Mr. Bouman stated that this was an attempt to conform to both regional and State requirements to reduce energy consumption by installing sodium vapor lamps in the City of Palm Desert rather than the current mercury lamps. He stated that the Edison Company is urging the City to make this conversion. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to approve a Street Lighting Conversion Agreement with the Southern California Edison Company for the use of high-pressure sodium vapor lamps in the City of Palm Desert. Motion carried unanimously. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RETURNING MOBILE HOME PARK ENFORCEMENT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Bouman reported that this item had received considerable discussion with Council during the Study Session. It is as much a matter of economics as anything else. Cities have the option to inspect mobile homes, but if they choose not to do so, the State is required to do it. The City does receive a modest fee, but an analysis indicates that each year we only collect one-half of the cost of the inspections. In an effort, now, to reduce our inspection costs, Staff is recommending that the responsibility for the inspection of mobile homes be returned to the State of California by the adoption of Resolution No. 80-64. He stated that he felt that this should be done on a trial basis in that at any time the City felt that the State was not meeting City standards, we could take the responsibility back. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-64. Motion carried unanimously. XIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID FOR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 73-986 HIGHWAY 111, KNOWN AS SUNSHINE, MEAT, FISH & LIQUOR. (Continued from Council Meeting of May 8, 1980.) See Verbatim Transcript, attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". Councilman Newbrander moved and Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson seconded to approve the work and award the contract to Pomona Valley Equipment Company of LaQuinta, low bidder. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, & Snyder NOES: Puluqi & Wilson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None XIV. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF STOP SIGN INSTALLATION AT SAN PABLO AND EL PASEO. Mr. Bouman stated that this recommendation came from the Technical Traffic Committee and was based on the study of accident report date as presented by the Sheriff's Department. Said data did justify the installation of a four-way stop at the corner of San Pablo and El Paseo. Mr. Bouman pointed out that this action, in accordance with the Municipal Code, should be taken by the adoption of Resolution No. 80-66. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-66. Motion carried unani- mously. May 22, 1980 Page 5 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING B. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID FOR ALAMO STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. Mr. Bouman reported that some time ago, Council had authorized Staff to call for bids for a project which was in the Capital Improvement Program. That project was for street improvements for Alamo Street. Bids were opened on Monday, May 12, 1980, at 2:00 p.m. with Massey Sand & Rock Company being the low bidder at $50,302.50. He pointed out that the engineered improvement plans and specifications as prepared by Charles Haver and Associates were in error insofar as two quantities were concerned. The total amount of money required for this contract is approximately $45,000. The contractor is aware of this change and is agreeable to reduce the contract. Mr. Bouman concluded by stating that it was Staff's recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a contract with Massey and secondly, to adopt Resolution No. 80-65 which would amend the 1979/80 Budget to provide for increased costs of the Alamo Street Curb & Gutter Project from what was budgeted. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Puluai seconded to award the bid to Massey Sand and Rock Company, low bidder, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said contracts. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-65. Motion carried unani mously. XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B MR. JAMES GUTHRIE, 44-817 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, addressed the Council stating that he owned property on Portola and asked whether or not the future widening of Portola would require him to dedicate any of his land. Mayor Wilson stated that the widening of Portola is a part of the regional plan for the streets in the City, but Council did not know when this would be done. He pointed out, however, that the trees would be relocated rather than destroyed. MR. CHUCK PAUL, Palm Desert, addressed Council stating that he was the newly appointed Executive Director of the Tri-Cities Business Association (formerly the S.O.B. Organization). Mr. Paul inquired as to when the rusty poles, placed along Highway 111 and utilized as standards for the Christmas Trees, would be removed. Mayor Wilson stated that this item had been discussed in Study Session and that the City Manager had been asked to look into the matter. He pointed out that the Council was in full concurrence that the poles should be removed. XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. Mr. Bouman stated that he sought Council's approval of a schedule that would complete the budget setting process between this meeting and the end of the fiscal year or June 30, 1980. He pointed out that a public hearing had had been legally advertised as a Manager -Revenue Sharing Hearing with the purpose of that hearing to seek public input on how we plan to spend Revenue Sharing funds in fiscal 1980/81. It is the intent and the tentative budget includes that these monies be utilized for police protection. He continued that on the same day at 5:30 p.m., he would expect that a final Study Session might be held between Staff and Council on the tentative budget. Then on June 6th, he would be prepared to informally submit the budget package to the Council and then legally advertise on June 12th and 19th for a public hearing for review of the budget at the Council meeting of June 26th. The budget would be formally presented to the Council at the June 12th meeting. Council agreed to the schedule as presented by Mr. Bouman. T _ _ May 22, 1980 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * irC * * * J: is i. * 'r' 'r: 'r: is 'r: ir: 'r' irC ir: i. ir: `r' * 'r: 'r: * XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS (Continued) A. CITY MANAGER 2. Mr. Bouman stated that he wished to announce and acknowledge Council's formation of a Citizen's Drainage Advisory Commit- tee. Ile outlined for the benefit of the audience the proposed scope and responsibilities of the Committee. He pointed out that the Council is seeking people who are willing to partici- pate on this seven -member committee. One Council member will also serve on it. If anyone is interested in serving in this capacity, they should contact City Hall. Councilman Puluqi stated that he would like to have good partici- pation from the public, especially those on the north side of Palm Desert. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Wilson stated that he had attended ceremonies at the George Washington School that day in honor of Andy the Donkeyman. He pointed out that Ms. Evelyn Young, a local newspaper reporter, had been very instrumental in the preparation of these activities on behalf of the Palm Desert Historical Society, and he very sincerely commended her for her participation. XVII. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Puluqi, seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting to 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 5, 1980, at the George Washington School. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. S ROY ATTEST: // SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITyCLERK W IESON, .> MAYOR j May 22, 1980 Page 7 `''HIBIT "A" TRANSCRIPT OF MAY 22, 1980, CITY COUNCIL MEETING SECTION XIII, ITEM A, OF THE AGENDA REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID FOR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 73-986 HIGHWAY 111, KNOWN AS SUNSHINE, MEAT, FISH & LIQUOR. (Continued from Council Meeting of May 8, 1980.) Martin J. Bouman, City Manager Mr. Mayor, I believe the City Attorney will want to report on this, perhaps a word or two, about some more recent developments that he may not be aware of. First of all the contractor that is the low bidder on this demolition project is ready and willing to undertake the project and meet the specifications of the contract. Beyond that there have been a couple of incidents inside the building which I reported to you during your Study Session. On May 18th what appeared to be an attempt to set some fires inside the building, and on May 15th, a reported burglary and confirmation by the Sheriff's Department that there had been some break-in, and apparently somebody has been using the structure as living quarters. Mr. Erwin probably will have more to report to you. Mr. David Erwin, City Attorney At your last meeting you'd indicated the item on the award of the contract would be deferred until tonight based upon two items. One was the providing a binder of sufficient coverage, satisfactory to myself, that would protect the City, acknowledging that the structure had been determined to be abandoned and a dangerous building, by the City. Secondly that an agreement be executed that would give the City the ability to acquire the additional 20 feet for the widening of Portola at such time as it's needed, and I think you were estimating 5 years, which is a time period I did not put into the agreement that I drafted because I think we were talking about that would, in effect provide the ability of the Council to receive that additional 20 feet at such time as the Council determined it was necessary, without cost to the City, without improvement on the 20 feet. Just before the meeting I spoke with Mr. Burbot, who is an attorney representing Mrs. Mermelstein. He does have an insurance binder. It has a paragraph on the back of it that I don't understand and it deals with something that we didn't even discuss and that part is not acceptable, it does not have an acknowledgement. I didn't talk with anyone from the Insurance Company or the Agency, it does not have an acknowledgement that the building has been determined to be an abandoned or dangerous building by the City, which would have been one of my requirements had I talked with the agent. I did send to Mr. Burbott two days ago the proposed agreement. I do not believe that it is signed. I have the original. I don't believe Mr. Burbott's copy is signed. I could report that I think at this point, that there is an insurance binder which does name the City as an additional insured. It has a qualification that is not acceptable to me. It does not have an additional acknowledgment that I believe is necessary in this particular instance for the protection of the City. Secondly, I would say, insofar as I am aware, the proposed agreement has not been signed. Mr. Burbott may have something further on both of those items. Mayor Wilson Would the applicanttor the attorney like to address the Council. We welcome any public input that there is on this item. Mr. James Burbott, an attorney associated with Leonard Bock & Stephanie Slahor Let me re -introduce myself. My name is James Burbott, I am an attorney associated ' with Leonard Bock and Stephanie Slahor, who I believe you all met at your last meeting. She is an attorney in our office most familiar with Mrs. Mermelstein's situation, and as I indicated in Study Session, Mrs. Slahor went on vacation the day after your last meeting and will be on vacation until the 27th, traveling all throughout Utah I believe and has been unavailable. When she left, she left her office a synopsis of her understanding of what has transpired and that's what Mr. Bock and I have been operating on since then. I'm simply asking at this time, that the Council defer awarding contract or accepting the bid for the demolition of the Sunshine Building for the following reasons: First.of all would be the absence of our associate who is most familiar with these proceedings. In my opinion her absence puts our office in a serious handicap in presenting Mrs. Mermelstein's position, or advising Mrs. Mermelstein. She'll be back the 27th, which is just 5 days from now. The second reason that I wish the Council to defer action would be 22. 1980 Page 8 EXHIBIT "A" May 22, 1980, Regular City Council Meeting Transcript (Continued) that we feel we've complied with the first requirement set at your last meeting, which was the insurance binder. We had an insurance bonder. It does name the City co- insured. Mr. Gunther has provided it to me. I didn't negotiate myself with the insurance company. We left that up to Mr. Gunther and Mrs. Mermelstein. It does have some language on the back which I don't understand myself, and it does not have an acknowledgment on its face that the insurance company understands the situation of Mrs. Mermelstein vs the City. Mrs. Mermelstein has represented to me that they under- stand the situation. That's all I can offer the Council. As to acceptability to the City Attorney was a condition that was said last time, that's something I'm not certain of. Again, I wasn't at your last meeting and all I had to go on was our associate's notes and the minutes presented to our office, mailed to our office by your City Clerk, which don't seem to reflect either that the insurance binder need be absolutely satis- factory to the City Attorney, nor do they reflect that the insurance binder need con- tain an acknowledgement that the Insurance Company understands the situation. One thing I might say that's something very easy to determine. Our office or Mr. Erwin could easily correspond with the Insurance Company and ask them if they understand what's going on. If they don't, they don't. But right now, my own knowledge, something I could say to the Council. The third reason I think that you should defer action is, I think that our position right now at this moment, the building is a secure, non -hazardous and clean building. We don't think right at the moment, at least for any brief period of time, that its existence is a threat to anyone's health or safety. When I spoke with Mrs. Mermelstein last, on the telephone, she indicated she'd be willing to do additional things if they could be conceived to assure that and I asked her would you be willing to engage a security guard and she said yes, there'd been some discussion in the past of fencing the property. I'm sure that conditions like those, if that's the concerns of the Council, it would be acceptable to my client. I have seen the police report of the incidents mentioned by your City Manager but it's my understanding that they were simple acts of vandalism. They weren't actions that are necessarily unique to a con- demned building and they certainly weren't actions that were fooldove or were joined in by my client at all. The fourth reason that I think that you should defer action is that Mr. Gunther has a set of plans for the refurbishing of the building that are pre- sently working their way through the City at the moment, and there has been no action on them one way or the other. It's my understanding that the plans would make the building conform in every respect to the building codes and would eliminate the problem that exists. There had been no action taken, I think that speaks of deferring your action now. The fifth reason is simply that the agreement providing for dedication of 20 feet of the property was not made available to our office as Mr. Erwin indicates until yesterday and we've had no opportunity to analyze it or compare it with what might have been the understanding of all parties at your last meeting. 0f course Ms. Slahor hasn't had a chance to comment on it. For one thing, a late thought had occurred to my client that this is the kind of an agreement that would be of key interest to the present mortgage holder of the property, City National Bank. It is my understanding that City National Bank has a mortgage in the range of $197,000 on the property and its not clear whether the terms of the agreement should be something to be brought to the attention of the City National Bank. We simply had had no opportunity to discuss it in any depth, our office with Mr. Erwin's office. As I said in Study Session, I'm not trying to mislead the Council. I'm not suggesting that the agreement is pregnant for discussion and negotiation of alteration. As I said in the Study Session, in its present form, it's probably something that I couldn't advise my client to sign because were it signed in that form and recorded,it would probably make the refurbishing that we hope to be able to do, impossible, because it would make financing impossible. With those five reasons in mind, I think Mr. Gunther would like to address the Council, unless the Council has any questions of me. Councilman Romeo S. Puluqi Did you state that there's a mortgage on that for $197,000 existing right now? Mr. James Burbott That is what Mrs. Mermelstein told me, yes. Councilman Puluqi Unbelievable! Mayor S. Roy Wilson Are there any other questions? Alright, thank you. Is there anyone present who would like to address the C•luncil on this particular item? -9- EXHIBIT "A" May 22, 1980, Regular City Council Meeting Transcript (Continued) , Mr. Bill Gunther, 74-121 Highway 111 A, in the insurance policy, if I could clear one thing up, it is our understanding in talking with the agent, that the owner is obligated herself a little more than necessary, because we cannot make the City as a beneficiary because they have no financial interest. The next item on the insurance thing would be that should the City at this time have an insurance claim against it, the owner on this thing that has been filed with Mr. Erwin, would make itself liable on that claim also. Now the owner has taken this, to do this on this binding, and in talking with the agent and so forth, this is our understanding what happens. We would like to discuss it further and have meetings and so forth to work it out to meet your qualifications, but the understanding from the agent is the owner has obligated herself a little more on the insurance. A, the next item, going back to the paper that we have tried to sign, is a, Jim, Mr. Burbott here, just got in on it as the paper was brought into his office. I found my notes and it was last week at some time that a,Mr. Erwin was con- tacted by Mr. Leonard Bock to see if there could be some negotiations on it. If I'm not right, Dave, correct me on that. Mr. David J. Erwin, City Attorney You're not right. Mr. Gunther I'm not? Alright that was heresay then from Mr. Bock. That's what I got on that. Mr. Erwin I talked with him on Monday, last week. Mr. Gunther Alright. Mr. Erwin And I called him. Mr. Gunther 1 Alright. Well then he wanted to talk about it and you said it was already in process and it was dictated by the City what you wanted, and so forth, anyway, this is where we've got. We understood that we would have a little negotiation between attorneys when the motion was made last time. In doing this, it's a paper that you don't sign just by coming out and signing it, it's a thing that has to be worked out with your attorney, as a businessman you don't sign papers like that right away. Ah, going back into the building, the consensus is that all the way through this has been rat in- fested, ah, termites, cockroaches, everything all the way through. The building was cleaned up immediately when the owner could get back into it, when the padlock was taken off, I believe Mr. Hill was in there for his inspection. Right after that, when the owner was notified, they cleaned it up completely. It has been very clean until just when we found out this intruder was in there. Now this intruder that was in the building could happen to your home, it could happen to my home. He broke windows that came through the roof. He broke in doors. There's a value of about 15 to 20 thousand worth of electronic equipment that's missing, cash registers that were locked up in the back and so forth. He broke windows, so he did intrude just like he could in your home or my home, so please consider that this was not something that the building was in danger of all the time. We did have it locked. Um, it does have a historical val like we pointed out before. By the way, I appreciate your time in going through thi over and over again. We would like to continue on with the remodeling of the buildir Um, the trees in the front with the garden society and so forth. We did not receive a report as I know that you folks received from the Fire Department last time. The owner did not receive one. In doing this last action that you just had with Lewis Homes, we understood that their attorneys and your attorneys would meet. We would like the same thing, and, if we could get on with the plans we would like to do it so that we can refurbish this building. I believe in the motion made by Mr. Puluqi here, we did have a time limit so that even if we remodel with cash, your good business transactio is to then finance the building and no-one would touch it with some kind of instrument like we have now. This is what we're asking for...and then we can talk about ...even if you are going to,take the 20 feet. The situation is it might come that that might prove to be a road you,don't want to increase. This is why we would also like the -10- EXHIBIT "A" May 22, 1980, Regular CfLy Council Meeting Transcript (Continued) building also, and should some of these terminologies and so forth be put into the agreement, something can come about, and we would like to go ahead and finish the project that we have presented the plans for. Ah, I don't think I have any ah. Mayor Wilson Mr. Gunther, I have a question for you. Mr. Gunther Yes Mayor Wilson I think, it concerns me, I don't know about the others, it would seem to me, the burden of responsibility to work out an agreement was placed on your attorney so that the applicant could get together with the City Attorney as quickly as possible. I'm confused as to why it was not until this week before contact was made as to what kind of an agreement could be worked out. Is there an explanation for that? Other than the attorney going on vacation? Mr. Gunther I do not know. Other than, possibly they had tried to contact Mr. Erwin or not, I do not know on that. I know they were notified to, there would be a paper drawn up and outside of that I'd have to say I draw a blank, because the attorneys we thought, were supposed to be getting together. That was on that, Mr. Mayor. I feel that if the staff had directed Mr. Erwin to do it, why, the attorneys would no doubt get together. This was our understanding. The owner notified them. Mayor Wilson My understanding was,prior to the Council Meeting your attorney was to get together with the City Attorney to work out something that was agreeable to the City. Seems like that should have been done on Friday before shetook_off for vacation., Mr. Gunther Maybe he could inject something on this. Mr. Burbott All our office had to operate on were the notes that Ms. Slahor made in the session which indicated that Mr. Erwin had taken it upon himself to draw up a draft, first draft, agreement. I could say that our office waited...I didn't even know that such an agree- ment existed until I called Mr. Erwin on Tuesday..I asked him to send it to me. Maybe the understanding at the meeting, last meeting, was that an agreement would be presented to Mrs. Mermelstein at this meeting, to be signed. I don't know. Councilman Alexis Newbrander I can't see anything in the picture..This has been going on for months. You beg for time, and each time excuses, stumbling, and somebody's away, somebody doesn't know what to do, and I think this could probably, if we let it go, could probably continue for 10 years. In the meantime, a problem even with that fire hazard. Councilman Pulugi There seems to be a question as to what the minutes said the last time. I would like to have them re -read right now, get that over with. Mayor Wilson Would the City Clerk please read a portion of the minutes. Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk I would like to add that there was confusion on this motion, and they asked Dave to re -word it, and Mrs.;Slahor did call me the next day and I took it verbatim from the tape. It appears verbatim then on the minutes: -11- EXHIBIT "A" May 22, 1980, Regular City Council Meeting Transcript (Continued) City Clerk (Continued) • "Councilman Snyder moved to allow the interested parties two weeks from today, or the next Council Meeting, to either submit to the City or City Attorney an agreement depicting the insurance coverage and the agreement that would be set forth on the deed relative to the length of time that this improvement would become viable for widening of Portola. If those arrangements cannot be concluded, then at that time,_ the bid should be awarded. Councilman Puluqi seconded the motion. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson asked if by insurance it was meant an insurance binder. Councilman Snyder responded yes. Council asked the City Attorney to clarify and reword the second portion of the motion relative to the agreement for dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Erwin stated that the wording should be: 'an agreement which would affect the property which would indicate at such time in the future, estimated to be 5 years more or less, that the widening of Portola would be determined to be necessary by the City, that dedication would be affected by the then property owner and whatever improvements are located on it would be removed at no cost to the City.' Councilman Snyder agreed to the wording as stated by the City Attorney, and Councilman Puluqi also agreed. Mayor Wilson called for the vote. Motion carried on a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Newbrander voting NO." Mayor Wilson Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to address the Council on this public hearing. (None) O.K. I would like to state, to verify that what Mr. Gunther said about the building not being rat infected, etc., I did tour the building yesterday with Mr. Gunther. It has been cleaned up since the break-in of a week ago and I just wanted to make that part of the record. What is the pleasure of the Council? Councilman Newbrander I move that we waive further reading and adopt, no, that's not it.. We approve the the work and award the contract to Pomona Valley Equipment Company of LaQuinta, low bidder. Mayor Wilson We have a motion. Is there a second to that motion? Mayor Pro-tem James E. McPherson I'll second it, for discussion. Mayor Wilson 1 Moved by Councilman Newbrander, seconded by Councilman McPherson that we approve the work and award the contract to Pomona Valley Equipment Company of LaQuinta, low bidder, and now we'll have further discussion on this. Councilman Snyder? Councilman Snyder I was going to ask Paul Williams the status of the submission to the Planning Commission of the rehabilitation...the types of drawings and so forth that you now have in your custody. Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services Mr. Gunther has filed a Design Review Application and a Conditional Use Permit to provide for off -site parking for the restaurant. Both applications are scheduled for the Design Review Board on next Tuesday, and the Planning Commission on June 3rd. Councilman Snyder Are these preliminary designs, or plot plans? Paul Williams I believe the Design Review Application is preliminary design. -12- EXHIBIT "A" May 22, 1980, Regular City Council Meeting Transcript (Continued Mayor Wilson Any further comments? Councilman Snyder? None. Councilman Puluqi? None. Councilman McPherson? Councilman McPherson Yes. Just a brief comment. It seems to me that we've had an awful lot of disagreement with this case, going clear back to January when they came before the Building Board of Appeals. There was a time frame when the people had to come before us with the original plans...that was not met. There was a time frame given a month ago in which they were to come to us with a bond...that was not met. Time frame in to which they were to have an insurance binder to us..that was not met. Time frame in to which they were to have an agreement with us...that was not met. I believe that we have bent over backwards a hundred times on this thing. I don't know what else we can do. Mayor Wilson I also feel that the frustration of this thing has been dragging on for months and months and months. I also have some reservations about tearing down something that could be salvaged. We took a fairly good look at that building and I think that I was under the impression that much of that wood that's falling off, and much of that tin on the roof that's falling off was part of the permanent structure. It's really just a facade. It's a pretty solid concrete block building., I have mixed emotions on this thing, If we could at all salvage the building, I'd like to see us do it. But I'm tired of the delays. Anyone else have any further comments? Any questions? All those in favor of the motion, which is to approve the work and award the contract to Pomona Valley Equipment Company of LaQuinta, the low bidder, signify by saying Aye. Councilman McPherson Aye Councilman Newbrander Aye Councilman Snyder Aye Mayor Wilson Could I...AII those opposed, signify by saying No, Councilman Puluqi No Mayor Wilson No Mayor Wilson Do you have that recorded? City Clerk Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson, yes; Councilman Newbrander, yes; Councilman Puluqi, no; Councilman Snyder, yes; Mayor Wilson, no. Mayor Wilson The Motion carries on a 3-2 vote. -13-