Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-22MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1982 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilson convened the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman James E. McPherson III. INVOCATION - Mayor Pro-Tempore Alexis D. Newbrander IV. ROLL CALL Present: V. VI. Councilman James E. McPherson Mayor Pro-Tempore Alexis D. Newbrander Councilman Romeo S. Puluqi Councilman Walter H. Snyder Mayor S. Roy Wilson Also Present: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Barry D. McClellan, Director of Public Works Ramon A. Diaz, Director of Environmental Services Paul E. Byers, Director of Finance Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 82-125, 83-011 and 83-012. Rec: Approve as presented. B. RESOLUTION NO. 3180 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE STATE TO FUND CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE COSTS OF THE 911 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM. Upon motion by Snyder, second by McPherson, and unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MR. GOLDEN LYON, 46-100 Goldenrod Street, Palm Desert, stated he would be in favor of an assessment district which would underground the utility poles. Mayor Wilson stated that this had been investigated but that the costs were prohibitive. MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 1982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION TO CONFIRM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 81-1 (SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE AREA) FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE 1913 ACT OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open. He announced that this was the time and place fixed for the Public Hearing on Assessment District No. 81- 1 (Shadow Mountain Drive Area). Mrs. Gilligan, City Clerk, announced that all notices necessary for this public hearing had been given and that the appropriate affidavits were on file in her office including a Certificate of Posting Streets, a Certificate of Mailing Notice and Filing Boundary Map, an Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Improvement, an Affidavit of Publication of Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, an Affidavit of Posting Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, and a Certificate of Mailing Bond Prospectus. Mr. Mac Brown, Special Counsel, explained the purpose, scope, and order of procedure for the hearing. Mr. Joe Kicak, Kicak do Associates, explained the general nature, location and extent of the proposed works of improvement and boundaries of the District. He presented a report pursuant to Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code and summarized its contents. He presented and summarized a report pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" consisting of plans, specifications, the Assessment Roll, and the Assessment Diagram. He explained the method and formula of the assessment spread, and reviewed the construction bids received. Mr. McClellan advised Council that prior to the meeting, staff had received protests representing 12.2% of the total area. He added that copies of each written protest had been provided to the Council members. Mayor Wilson invited input from people who had filed a written protest but would like to give additional testimony. The following people spoke: MR. DAVID TYMOFY, 73-370 Joshua, Palm Desert. MRS. JANICE WRIGHT, 48-111 Little Bend Trail, Palm Desert. MR. LLOYD CHESTER, 77-307 Bursera, Palm Desert. MR. MIKE ISBELL, Yucca Tree Street, Palm Desert. MR. DAVID ELLISON, 73-751 Joshua Tree Street, Palm Desert. MR. JOHN BAKER, 73-520 Joshua Tree, Palm Desert. MR. JOE MOORE, 73-300 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert. MR. JACK BREMBECK, 73-957 Bursera, Palm Desert. MS. AVALON WARREN, 46-490 Desert Lily, Palm Desert. MS. MAGDA MASTROGIOVANI, 73-305 Joshua Tree, Palm Desert. MR. BOB BUSBY, 73-385 Goldflower, Palm Desert. MR. JOHN SMITTLE, representing Mr. do Mrs. Raymond Smith of 73-199 Pinyon, Palm Desert. MR. DEAN THUESON, 72-827 Grapevine Street, Palm Desert. MS. JULIET ROBINSON, Palm Desert MR. BOB ROTTSCHAEFER, Tamarisk Street, Palm Desert. MR. HAL MCWHINNEY, 73-184 Bursera Way, Palm Desert. MR. SOKOL, 46-410 Desert Lily Drive, Palm Desert. MR. JOHNNY JOHNSON, 73-418 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert. Mayor Wilson invited input from those who had not filed a written protest. The following individuals spoke in opposition noting the lack of timing (summer months) for the hearing, the original petitions of interest and their age, their feeling of lack of notification, and the expense of the project to the property owner. MR. HAROLD HOPKINS, 45-786 San Luis Rey, Palm Desert. -2- • MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 1982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MR. CHARLES W. ZOBIE, 45-868 San Luis Rey, Palm Desert. MS. MYRA KOLONICH, 74-482 Borego, Palm Desert. Mayor Wilson invited input in favor of the project, and the following spoke stating that it would add to their property value, bring needed drainage relief, and cost them less than if they did it on their own. MR. WILLIAM TENNISON, 73-318 Juniper, Palm Desert, on behalf of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association and the City's Drainage Committee. MR. CHARLES SHELTON, 73-110 Grapevine, Palm Desert. MR. DAVE AGNEW, 73-576 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert. MR. GEORGE SWEET, 46-370 Ocotillo, Palm Desert. MR. EDWARD KIRBY, 73-210 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert. MR. GEORGE RITTER, 73-345 Juniper Street, Palm Desert. MR. CHUCK ASTON, 1505 Sandpiper, Palm Desert. MR. HOWARD RUTAN, 72-968 Willow Street, Palm Desert. MR. ROSS PETERSON, 73-090 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert. MR. ROBERT KNIGHT, 45-654 Verba Santa, Palm Desert. MS. JOYCE WADE, 73-153 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert. MR. ROBERT FREE, 73-008 Willow Street, Palm Desert. MR. STAN WARREN, 73-495 Ironwood, Palm Desert. MR. VINCENT DEFRANCISCO, 73-261 Bursera, Palm Desert. Speaking in rebuttal to statements made in favor of the project were: MR. DAVE TIMOFY, Joshua Tree, Palm Desert. MS. JUDY CHESTER, 73-307 Bursera, Palm Desert. MR. JOE MOORE, Palm Desert. MS. BARBARA TIMOFY, Joshua Tree, Palm Desert. MR. BOB LIEBER, 72-996 Bursera, Palm Desert. MR. WILLIAM TENNISON, Palm Desert. MS. JULIET ROBINSON, Palm Desert. With no further input offered, Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing closed. Mr. McClellan announced that with the additional written protests received at the meeting as well as the oral protests received, there was 18.319% of the total area in opposition to the formation of the District. This represented 42.54 acres of the total acreage in the District of 257.77 acres. There were 91 written protests received of a possible 690. Councilman Puluqi stated he had helped form the Drainage Committee which was comprised of businessmen, engineers, contractors, and individuals from different areas of the City. They decided, after much research, that Section 1, from Kings Point east and west of 74, was the most disastrous area in terms of drainage flooding. He noted that he and Councilman Snyder had helped in initiating this project, and they felt it had been very well done and done fairly. He believed that the project would not only work but bring much needed drainage relief. He did, however, question the selection of the signatures which represented 65% of the property owners and the statement that there was no verification of the signatures on the petitions as to whether they lived in the district, whether they were property owners, etc. Mr. Brown stated that from a legal standpoint, the petitions had been advisory documents, informational only. Notarized signatures were therefore not required. The petitions had been circulated to try to get a feeling or a poll of the community. However, the petitions do not form the legal basis nor the jurisdiction for the proceedings. He noted different cities have different requirements as to what they would like to see before they initiate the proceedings for an assessment district. The purpose of the petitions in this case was to try, to the best of the ability of the staff, to find out if there was a feeling of interest within the community, but it is not the legal basis for the jurisdiction. It is merely an advisory instrument available to the Council and Staff to determine whether or not to proceed. -3- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 1982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Upon question by the Mayor and in response to one raised by the opponents, Mr. McClellan advised that a total of $63,000 had been spent to date on the formation of the District. This was primarily the engineering work required. Councilman Snyder stated that the City had a serious flooding problem, and not any one thing we do will solve all the problems. What the Council had attempted to do was determine how to solve these problems to the best of their ability and within the economic realm that we can afford. The City asked for and had completed a Master Drainage Plan which was prepared by experts. It is available for anyone to review. We live on the side of a hill and water runs down hill. We must find ways to do the best we know how to protect our citizens from this water. It is the Council's responsibility to investigate any way that we can possibly achieve these purposes. We have approached this problem from two ways: Firstly, we have just signed a contract for flood control to prevent the mountain runoff or the regional flood, and with the completion of the Palm Valley Flood Channel project within a year, we will never again be flooded from that source like we were in 1976, 1978, and some in 1980. The next move is the surface drainage. The Master Plan of the Drainage Program does take into consideration many large drain pipes, methods of getting the water to the Whitewater Channel, and the City is endeavoring each year to allocate money to accomplish these kinds of programs. He concluded by stating this was a master plan that the Council was trying to accomplish to resolve its major problem -- flooding. Councilman McPherson stated that anybody can circulate a petition, and it has been done many times in this city. The Palm Desert Property Owners Association thought that curbs and gutters were a good idea, and they were the vehicle that agreed to circulate the petitions to get a feeling from the community to see if the City should proceed. They should not be held liable or acountable or in the wrong for helping. He stated that with regard to the question raised about the Council coming to the position tonight by means of illegal proceedings, the attorney has led the Council step by step. There was no way that this Council or any elected body was allowed to have an illegal proceeding. This was certified at the beginning of the meeting. With regard to the costs already incurred to this point, that is not money wasted. Even if the project were abandoned, those engineering drawings will always be valid. With regard to the remarks which implied the water would go to El Paseo, the water already goes to El Paseo and runs through people's homes and vacant lots and then dumps debris onto El Paseo. This project will prevent it from going through homes and vacant lots. He noted his background was in banking and mortgage business, and he stated that when he was making mortgages on property, one of the downfalls was the lack of curb and gutter. It lowered the property value. He noted that every rainfall unraveled the street edges. He concluded by stating that cities do not build public improvements. The developers and property owners do that with city maintenance following. He stated it was time we moved into the 20th Century. We are no longer a small, cow pasture town. Councilman Newbrander stated that she was glad to see such a large group of interested people. She said she was surprised as she listened that so many did not know about the City's flood control project which has been talked about for so long. Many have paid very little attention to what is going on in the City. She supported the petitions inasmuch as the Council has a responsibility to determine interest, costs, engineering, planning, etc. Mayor Wilson stated he was surprised to see so many people come out in support of the project inasmuch as the hearing had been advertised for protests. He also felt dismay in that the City was covered by 4 newspapers, an all -news radio station, and some 15-16 other radio stations, and 2 television stations which have all been talking about the fact that we have been covering or developing this district for the last -4- 4• MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 1982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * two years now. Yet people come here and say they don't know a thing about it. He felt that people like that were not contributing as good citizens in this country when they stayed uninformed about what is going on about them. It is the individual's responsibility to stay informed. He noted that out of 690 assessments, only 91 protests had been received. He concluded by stating that the 10.25% bond issue and the low construction bid would encourage him not to delay the project for fear it would cost much more even in the near future. Upon motion by Puluqi, second by Newbrander, Resolution No. 82-95, ordering changes and modifications from the preliminary estimates, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. Upon motion by McPherson, second by Snyder, Resolution No. 82-96, overruling and denying protests, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. Upon motion by Newbrander, second by McPherson, Resolution No. 82-97, determining necessity, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Puluqi, Resolution No. 82-98, approving contribution, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. Upon motion by Puluqi, second by McPherson, Resolution No. 82-99, confirming assessments, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. Upon motion by Newbrander, second by McPherson, Resolution No. 82-100, awarding the construction contract, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. Upon motion by McPherson, second by Newbrander, Resolution No. 82-101, accepting the proposal for the sale of bonds, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. Mayor Wilson called a 10 minute recess at 10:00 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m. B. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY OWNERS IN SAID CITY FOR ABATEMENT OF WEEDS AND OTHER NUISANCES (Continued from the Meeting of June 24, 1982). Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Ortega reported that these were cases where nuisances existed on property and the owners had been given an opportunity to clean them. When they failed to do so, the City had contracted for the work, Staff is now requesting that the Council confirm these assessments. Mayor Wilson invited public input, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Upon motion by Puluqi, second by McPherson, Resolution No. 82-104, amended by deleting those owners who had paid, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. IX. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 82-92 - 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 CITIES OF PALM DESERT AND INDIAN WELLS RELATING TO LAFCO CASE NO. 82-19-4. (Continued from the Meeting of July 15, 1982.) Mr. Bouman stated that an agreement had not been reached and requested a continuance to the meeting of August 12, 1982. Upon motion by McPherson, second by Newbrander, and unanimous vote of the Council, the item was continued to the meeting of August 12, 1982. -5- A MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 1982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. RESOLUTION NO. 82-102 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO LEVY A SPECIAL TAX PURSUANT TO SECTION 53978 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982/83. Mr. Bouman stated this was an annual requirement for the collection of our Special Fire Tax. The resolution specifies that the amount of the tax will remain as it was in the previous year. A budget has already been determined for it. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Newbrander, Resolution No. 82-102 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. C. RESOLUTION NO. 82-103 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION 81-141 TO ESTABLISH A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE PROJECTS BY CHANGING THE FEE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS. Mr. Bouman reported that in 1981 when the Master Environmental Assessment Program was instituted, because of the added costs of running that program, we increased the environmental assessment fee on development from $30 to $130. Now that the Program is no longer utilized, the increased fees are not necessary. Mayor Wilson asked if we could process these assessments for $30? Mr. Diaz responded that we could even though it would now be done manually. Upon motion by McPherson, second by Puluqi, Resolution No. 82-103 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. X. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 312 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SECTIONS 2.52.500 THROUGH 2.52.560 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CONSTITUTING A PORTION OF THE PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AND AMENDING THE PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA. Mayor Wilson stated that since the last meeting, the Board of Directors for the Employees Organization had contacted the Council and indicated this was a matter that fell under the category of "meet and confer". Therefore a meeting of Mr. Bouman, the Mayor and members of the Board and the Attorney had been held. The ordinance had been reviewed and after good input and many good suggestions on clarifying wording, etc., the Deputy City Attorney had revised the ordinance. Before the Council now was the revised ordinance. Everything was the same. Wording had been clarified. He noted that in checking with the Employees Association that afternoon, they were now in agreement with the ordinance. The City Attorney recommended that the ordinance now have a first reading as changed. Upon motion by Puluqi, second by Snyder, Ordinance No. 312 was passed to second reading by a 3-2 vote of the Council with Councilmen McPherson and Newbrander -6- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 1982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * voting NO. Councilman Newbrander stated she felt the philosophy of the ordinance was wrong, and Councilman McPherson stated his objections had been noted at the previous meeting. XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR HIGHWAY 111 BEAUTIFICATION FROM SAN PABLO TO MONTEREY AND FROM DEEP CANYON TO PORTOLA. Mr. McClellan noted this item had been before the Council at the last meeting where it was decided to obtain a proposal for the entire remaining 1-1/2 mile on Highway 111. He stated that this should be included in the Redevelopment Agency budget and requested Council table it on this agenda for action by the Agency Board. Councilman Snyder moved to table the item and submit it to the Redevelopment Agency Board for action. Councilman Puluqi seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. XIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS FROM SAN PABLO AVENUE TO MONTEREY AVENUE AND FROM DEEP CANYON TO PORTOLA AVENUE (Continued from the Meeting of July 15, 1982). Mr. McClellan stated this item had also been continued from the last meeting for the same reason — obtaining a proposal for the remaining 1-1/2 mile on Highway 111. We have received a proposal $37,000. He noted that the proposal for Phase 2 was $17,500 while the proposal for Phase 3 was $19,500. This is due to the fact that there is much curb and gutter existing now in Phase 2 making the first proposal less. Upon motion by McPherson, second by Newbrander, and unanimous vote of the Council, the contract was awarded to Haver and Associates in the amount of $37,000. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REDUCTION IN DRAINAGE FEES FOR ON -SITE RETENTION OF STORMWATER, SUNRISE COMPANY, APPLICANT. (Continued from Meetings of June 10 and 24, and July 15, 1982.) Mr. Bouman stated that the applicant had requested another continuance to allow them time to sit down and review the newest staff recommendation with various staff members and the City Attorney. Upon motion by McPherson, second by Newbrander, and unanimous vote of the Council, the item was continued to the meeting of August 12, 1982. XIV. XV. OLD BUSINESS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None -7- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 1982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. SAN PABLO WIDENING Mr. Bouman reported that the Director of Public Works had recommended that the Council move ahead by authorizing the advertising for bids and the adoption of a resolution certifying the negative declaration of environmental impact. Upon motion by Puluqi, second by Snyder, and unanimous vote of the Council, Resolution No. 82-104 certifying a negative declaration of environmental impact was adopted, and staff was directed to advertise for bids for the widening of San Pablo Avenue. 2. REDUCTION OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND FOR McCLAIN DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Bouman reported that the Director of Public Works had recommended this action because all the requirements of their first phase of construction had been met. Upon motion by Newbrander, second by Puluqi, and unanimous vote of the Council, the Faithful Performance Bond for McClain Development was reduced to 10% of its face value for a period of one year, serving as a maintenance period. B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Erwin stated he had two items for discussion in a Closed Session and requested Council adjourn to one. C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Wilson asked that everyone note the future meetings listed on the Agenda. Mrs. Gilligan noted that the Study Sessions of July 29th and August 5th had been cancelled. XVII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by McPherson, second by Newbrander, and unanimous vote of the Council, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. to Closed Session which would immediately follow the adjournment of the Redevelopment Agency Meeting. Mayor Wilson reconvened the City Council Meeting at 1:05 p.m. and immediately adjourned with no action taken. ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLER CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA {j ROY 51LSON, MAYOR; -8-