Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/18/1981 - MINUTES 192 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1981 A Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Doyle, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, on Wednesday, February 18, 1981 , at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Beirich, Field, Ortner, Rose and Mayor Doyle Absent: None The meeting was opened with the salute to the Flag and an invoca- tion by Rabbi Joseph Hurwitz, Temple Isaiah. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY : Mayor declared the meeting adjourned for the purpose of convening as the Community Redevelop- ment Agency; after which, members reconvened as the City Council . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Beirich, seconded by Rose, and unani- mously carried, that the minutes of February 4, 1981 , be approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 . PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - BLUM APPEAL Director of Community Development reported that the appeal by Jules Blum relates to posting as a public nuisance the enclosure of a patio cover at 174 La Verne Way, and outlined the sequence of events leading to the appeal , as detailed in his report of February 4, 1981 . Councilman Field noted that this matter was not (57) discussed at the last study session, however, subsequently he did receive materials from Mr. Blum, but did not feel it would alter or affect any decision on his part. Councilwoman Ortner stated that she, too, had received such materials, but was not aware of any disclosure requirement of same. In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated that this matter is of a quasi-judicial nature, which means that any decision should be based on evidence presented during the hearing; that it is not unusual or improper for a constituent to desire to discuss a matter with a councilmember; and that if such is accomplished and if in the mind of the councilmember, that information might not come up in the hearing, then that information should be disclosed. In answer to question by Allen Perrier, appellants attorney, Mayor stated that Councilmembers have received the following materials : a) "To whom it may concern" letters from Sherman M. Holvey, M.D. and Joe T. Morreale, M.D. , dated January 16, 1981 and February 10, 1981 , respectively; b) Notice of Appeal , dated December 15, 1980, signed by Jules R. Blum and President and Secretary of Canyon Estates West Homeowners Association; c) Letter to Planning Commission by Jules Blum, dated July 14, 1980; (134 Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 2 1 . PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - BLUM APPEAL (Continued) d) Petition to Architectural Commission/Planning Commission, dated November 22, 1980; e) Statement by secretarial service relative to Canyon West Homeowners Association Board meeting December 4, 1980; and f) West Homeowners Association, Inc. , Board of Directors meeting minute, December 4, 1980, signed by Presi- dent Hy Cordey. City Attorney stated that the Director of Community Development report, dated February 4, 1981 , and attachments thereto, should also be made a part of CONT'D the record. (57) Mayor declared the hearing open. In response to questions by his attorney, Alllen Perrier, Jules Blum, appellant, indicated the following: a) Identified four photographs of his condominium unit, taken at various distances and angles, expressing belief that the improvement 'is aesthetically pleasing and of first-class workmanship„ b) Patio covering did not meet need for which it was created; hazardous situation created without the enclosure; building permit covered everything except the window; window was installed the first of October; window was installed because of husband and wife 's health problems. c) Believed he had complete and total approval of homeowners association board, as well as other homeowners living there; that no one was opposed; that it is an interior window, cannot be seen from within the interior of the complex, and no one can notice that there has been any change. d) Believes the window is absolute and important need; without it, the area would be of no value; that he did not consider that it was a significant change; and that with or without the window, the area is opaque. e) After notice of code violation received,, he tried to get approval , but was denied by the Architectural Advisory Committee, and Planning Commission considered it as setting a precedent and would not reconsider the matter; and was subsequently advised that there were no appeal rights to the Council at that point. f) The glass coincides with existing opening which was there before the window installed; removal would damage wall covering and affect air-conditioning utilities installed for the new area. Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 3 1 . PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - BLUM APPEAL (Continued) Hy Cordey, 2083 Vermitas Way, President of the Homeowners Association, stated that he determined that board members present in July were unanimously in favor of the improvement (Blum abstained) and gave total recognition to the window enclosure; that he would like to see the improvement remain in its current status and believes it is an asset to the complex,; that the improvement is not detectable and appears to be part of the origianl construction; that it cannot be seen from the pool area which is 30-40 feet away; and, if removed, it would look worse from the interior of the complex. In answer to question by Council , Mr. Cordey stated that he has not seen anyone using the balconies and would be agreeable to other enclosures. Shirley Mannis, 2024 La Merced Way, member of the association architectural committee, stated that she feels the improvement is beautiful and would like to give the same consideration to others; and than the balcony is a wasted space. Mr. Perrier stated that he understood that there is no question about complying with technical requirements of the Building Code; that he does not believe the enclosure is precedent setting and should not be acknowl- edged as such; that he sees the homeowners association as the body most in tune with that which is the most CONT 'D appropriate in the project; that he is not suggesting (57) that Mr. Blum's process be the standard operating procedure; that he believes removal of the window would not make economic sense and would cause problems; that with the health situation, he believes that such fully warrants allowing Mr. Blum to file with the Building Division an application to install the window and be square with the record; and that he sees the nuisance aspect is Only coming from the Planning Staff and not the public. In answer to question by Council , relative to precedent setting, Mr. Perrier stated that he was not talking about reacting to someone who might have violated the building permit; that others may want to come forward with a similar project and the Council has heard the desires of the association in that regard; and that he acknowledged that Mr. Blum had a permit that did notallow the window to be installed and that he did install the window. In response to comment by Council that his letter to the Planning Commission indicated the reason for the patio cover related to water problems , Mr. Blum stated that that was also true. In response to questions by Council , Mr. Perrier acknowledged that Mr. Blum should have acted to seek approval of the window; that he did go to the Planning Commission after it was installed; that in connection with the public nuisance abatement, the Council has an obligation to finding a fair and just solution which does not involve demolition of the property and he believes that finding can be made, i .e. , i;hat the window is not inappropriate and that the Council would Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 4 1 . PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - BLUM APPEAL (Continued) entertain a building permit to make the record com- plete; that he believes the Director's report is incorrect in stating that the homeowners association approved roofing the balcony only, since the same association is in place today as was in place in July, and it had before it the entire submittal, including the window; that he understood that the association was taken over by the homeowners in February-March, 1980; that he understood that the building plans on file with the City has an 'Y' through the window, but do not show removal of the sliding glass door in the same manner, and submitted a copy of the plan as he believed it was submitted to the City; and as to whether the applicant under- stood the stipulation of the building permit, i .e. , no enclosure, he stated that the north wall Ihas always had a 4-ft wall up from the patio and a header was added which was done pursuant to 'the building permit. Nancy Ackerman, 115 Via Berta, questioned why Per. Blum could not have the enclosure; that she has tl-e same type unit, and believes the area is a total waste of space. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. In answer to question by Council , Director of Com- munity Development stated that enclosure resulted CONT'D in extension of air conditioning and removal of the (57) sliding glass door, which were things for which the permit was not issued: that certain air and light requirements for given space areas are prescribed in the Building Code, which may have been violated; and that denial of the appeal would require removal of the window, reinstallation of the sliding glass door, and cutting-off air-conditioning duct work as originally installed. He stated that wall exists between each unit to separate patio areas and provide privacy. Councilman Beirich stated that given the benefit of the doubt that his intentions were good and he later tried to follow through, or saying that he might not have been aware of the requirements as much as he should have been, the simplest solution would be to uphold the appeal with clear direction that Mr. Blum get other -items approved and make sure everything is in proper order. He stated that he believesthe improvement is aesthetically pleasing; that it is turned inward and does not affect the general public, and other residents in the complex say they like it; that it would be a waste of time and money to require him to remove it and then apply for it; and that it should be made clear to others present that no one else should try to enclose such area unless adherence is made to Planning Commission action. (r:73 Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 5 1 . PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - BLUM APPEAL (Continued) Councilwoman Ortner stated that the enclosure is illegal and she could not sanction approving it or coming up with justification for allowing something to remain which was not a part of the original plans or some- thing which was denied. Councilman Rose stated that he agreed with comments relating to the general appearance of the improvement and problems that would be occasioned by the removal thereof, however, the issue before the Council does not relate to appearance; that a request was made to do something and the Planning Commission authorized the roof cover without any enclosure in the front; that knowing the enclosure was not acceptable, the Commission 's action was violated and the enclosure was installed, which is what the Council is being asked to condone; that he cannot condone violating something approved by the Planning Commission based on a request duly made before it; that same would not be appropriate; that if the window were removed, the applicant could go back -to the Planning Commission with "clean hands" and ask for seek approval ; that it would be precedent setting to allow someone to take CONT'D action knowing that it is improper and illegal ; that (57) knowing it has been done does not make it sufficient to say that it is alright; and that the illegality outweighs any otherwise sympathetic approach to the appeal . Councilman Field stated that it is regretable that the mitigating circumstances and information regarding health were not presented to the Planning Commission, which might have resulted in a different decision; that he can equate 'to everything that has been said; and that he would support upholding the Planning Com- mission action and referring the matter back to the Commission with reference to the mitigating information. Mayor stated that the Council is being asked to judge a project and try to be fair and equitable in its resolution; that he agreed it would be precedent setting; that the result may have been willful or a lack of information on the part of the appellant; that there are some mitigating things which cause him to support the Planning Commission, recognizing there is a danger of opening the door to similar situations in the future; that it is unfortunate that the appellant did not indicate to, the Planning Commission that he had health problems which might have had some bearing on that case; and that he would favor allowing the appeal , with the understanding that others could not proceed in a like manner. Following discussion, it was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner, and carried by the following vote, that the appeal be denied 'and the nuisance immediately abated,. AYES: Field, Ortner and Rose NOES Beirich & Doyle ABSENT: None Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 6 2. PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - PROCEEDINGS & ACCOUNTING REPORT Recommendation: That the Council confirm the 'Pro- ceedings & Accounting Report, filed February 4, 1981 , (57) and order lien placed on property at 2190 Roberto Drive, in amount of $2,093. Mayor declared the hearing open; there being no appear- ances , the hearing was closed. Resolution 13692, confirming the report and ordering the lien, as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Beirich, seconded by Field, and unani- mously carried, that Resolution 13692 be adopted. 3. C.U.P. CASE 5.0159 - WIEFELS & SONS Councilman Field stated that he has had a principal agent relationship with the applicant and would abstain from discussion and voting on this matter. He, excused himself from the meeting. Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends the approval of a conditional use permit, to allow construction of a crematorium addition to facility at 666 Vella Road, between Camino Parocela and Sunny Dunes Road. Director of Community Development stated that the pro- posed addition is located away from adjacent streets, (78) is not subject to any special review process according to the APCD, are self-contained units; and that a deter- mination has been made that the project is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. Mayor declared the hearing open. Howard Wiefels, applicant, spoke in favor of the project, stating that he believes it will fill a need -in the community; that there will be no emissions; and that the stack will be about 4-ft higher than the noofline. Dennis Sonico, 4412 Calle San Antonio, questioned whether there would be any odors emitted, noting that the area is subject to airport fumes, some odors from the waste- water treatment plant, and noise in the early morning hours from waste disposal trucks. He stated that hie believes the crematorium will detract from the homes in the area, and stated his objection to the project.. Mayor stated that only the height of the stack will be seen from the neighorhood; that there will be no emissions; and that the Planning Commission has recom- mended a condition to reserve the right to review future complaints which may arise as a result of the project. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated that the condition could be broadened to include ". . . .reserves the right to review future complaints and require correction thereof. . . . . " Resolution 13693, approving the CUP, as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Beirich, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously carried, Field abstaining, that Resolution 13693 be adopted., subject to revision of Condit5m #1 as recommended by City Attorney. r,�E Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 7 4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - NON-CONFORMING LOTS, BUILDINGS, USES & LAND Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends amending the Zoning Text to revise the non-conforming lots, building, uses and land sections thereof. City Manager reported that the ordinance would extend the life of "Rockefellers" and some concern was expressed as to how long it will take to terminate a non-conforming use or building, and if the Council desired to not have the ordinance apply to any uses or buildings which have been put on notice, it could refer the proposed ordinance to staff to reflect that expression in a change to the ordinance. City Attorney stated that such a change would not have to be referred back to the Planning Commission, unless it became substantive in nature. Director of Community Development reviewed his report, (103) dated February 18, 1981 , highlighting the areas of change. In answer to question by Council , Planning Director stated that the major rewrite and restructuring of the ordinance was based on input from interested people, and once the revised version was distributed, no further comment was received; that there was an attempt to incorporate the comments; and that either a neutral or positive comment has been received from the Tribal Council . Mayor declared the hearing open. Allen Perrier, 225 S. Civic Drive, stated that if Lhe time period will commence from the adoption of the ordinance, it should be equally applied to all properties whether there has been some notice or involvement in a conforming use problem; that he would question how the City would be selective as to one property owner over another; that it would be an unfair onus to place on someone who has been involved in a conforming use problem over someone who has not been involved; and that it would be unfair to exclude those, where others in a like situation will have the benefit of the extension. He urged a review of such a philosophy. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. In answer to questions by Council , Director of Com- munity Development reported that the proposed ordinance provides that if a project is under construction and work stops in excess of 180 days, it will be non- conforming and subject to abatement; that progress will be tracked through the building inspection time frames; that abatement would not necessarily be automatic, but circumstances would be reviewed; that if the nature of the work stoppage is not within the builder's or City's ability to act, then the project would remain in a status quo situation until that ability is available, e.g. , situation involving litigation; and that he was not aware of any other situation similar to Rockefellers. Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 8 4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (Continued) In answer to question by Council , Councilman Beirich stated that the time periods are considered by the IRS as reasonable, although they appear to be on the high side. City Attorney stated that there is nothing magical CONT'D about the number of years prescribed, and other cities (103) use various time periods. City Manager read title of the Ordinance, as follows : AN ORDINANCE OF TI4E CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THAT PORTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, LOTS AND USES. It was moved by Beirich, seconded by Ortner, and unani- mously carried, that further reading be waived and that the ordinance be introduced for first reading. 5. 1700 HILLVIEW COVE - TWO-STORY RESIDENCE & ADM. MINOR MODIFICATION APPEAL BY HOWARD LANE Director of Community Development reported that appeal relates to Architectural Advisory Committee/Planning Commission decision and Administrative Minor Modifica- tion which allows a two-story residence at the above address in Andreas Hills; that grounds for the appeal are indicated in his report of February 18, 1981 , to- gether with rebuttals by staff. He displayed photographs indicating the potential blocking of view, which would be most obstructed by the Morreale residence from a particular corner of an outside balcony, and rioted that existing landscaping on the appellant's site, when matured, will also black a portion of the view (57) in question. Mayor declared the hearing open. Curt Ealy, attorney for Mr. Morreale, offered the following comments : a) Proper procedures were followed; matter was approved by the Architectural Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and staff; resubmitted to the Planning Commission and approved a second time; building permit was issued; there is no right to appeal from the AMM; and client detrimentally relied on the issuance of the building permit. b) Section 9405.01 of the Zoning Ordinance allows a building height up to 30 ft. on a hillside lot; measurement is made from the top of the curb on which the street fronts; Morreale pad is 5 ft. 6 in. above mean curb height; without AMM, he could build 15 ft. 6 in. above the pad or 21 ft. above the curb; with AMM he will be 8 ft. higher than that - actual structure is 24 ft. 3 in; an 8 ft. modification is not 100% over that which is allowed, as may be contested by the appellant. o(l Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 9 5. HOWARD LANE APPEAL (Continued) c) Lane house is 22 ft. above mean curb; Mr. Morreale should not be precluded from building higher just because Mr. Lane did not know or did not find out that he could have done so. d) All lots in Andreas Hills are considered as hillside lots and there have been a number of AMMs made; ordinance provides for AMM and that was relied on by Morreale; read in full paragraphs three and four of Director' s staff report of February 18, 1981 ; appellant can make claim that even a standard building would block his view, question is whei.her that is substantially detrimental ; staff report CONT'D indicates that it is not substantially detrimental . (57) e) On original application, Planning Director no ed, "beautiful house, " and a Planning Commissioner in November, 1980, at the Commission meeting indicated that the house would be a compliment to the area and not detrimental . f) Opinion that the Lane house is one of two built for speculation, and is nearing completion of sale details, which would discount any personal vieimpoint of the appellant; understanding that proposed sale price is in an amount higher than any sales in the area, therefore, its value has not depreciated because of the Morreale proposed structure. g) Building permit issued November 25, 1980, Mr. Morreale acted on that and incurred costs including, $316,000 in construction contracts, $300,000 construction loan, $11 ,000 for improvements in-place, not counting lot, and $60,000 in lumber of which 60-65% would be unusable if plans were changed. h) There are court cases that when a person relied on a validly issued building permit, the aggrieved party could go directly to court and legislative body was required to recognize the validity of the permit. i ) There is no basis for complaint; procedures specified by the ordinance have been followed; original complaint related to notice of approval procedures and oppor- tunity to be heard has been satisfied with this hearing; prior to issuance of permit, appellant: spoke with Planning Director and voiced his concerns and complaint as well as meeting with the Director at the site; had opportunity to present concerns to Planning Commission, but AMM was upheld; and is now before the Council . j) Urged that Council reinstate the building permit and approve the AMM. In answer to question by Council , Mr. Ealy stated that he was not suggesting that the Council should succumb to threats of litigation in instances where a mistake has been made, however, he did not believe that any case could be made in this instance that the building permit was invalid when issued. Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 10 5. HOWARD LANE APPEAL (Continued) Robert Taylor, attorney for Mr. Lane, offered the following comments: a) Thrust of appeal is from AMM which has allowed 30 ft building - 30 ft. from curb; house 'is 24 ft. 3 in. and pad is 5 ft 6 in. above curb; if AMM was not proper and tantamount to granting a special privilege, then variance procedure should have been followed. b) Cannot mechanically apply every procedure in the CONT'D Zoning Ordinance, but must look to intent of the (57) ordinance; AMM allows for slight modification of Zoning Ordinance and vests ability to do so in the Planning Director; AMM requires public interest and no public detriment; believe intent was to allow a normal size house on a hillside, which might not otherwise happen because of topography. c) Proposed house would sit on approximately one- half acre and contain 9,000 sq. ft. ; question why there is need to exceed the 5 ft. pad; Lane house is 15 ft. on a pad 8 ft. above curb and was not given any special circumstances; do not believe there is any public interest in granting the AMM. d) Have affidavit from person who was told by staff that 15 ft. was the limit; believe reliance should be able to be made on consistent application of the Zoning Ordinance; upholding AMM would give Mr. Morreale a special privilege based on convincing the Planning Commission and staff that he had a right to that height; 30 ft. height can actually be a 100% increase and do not believe that is minor; the effect will be 9 ft. or one story above a normal house. e) Displayed photographs which he believes reflect the sight lines and which he believes will be a significant affect. f) Variance procedure provides for safeguards and opportunity for everyone to be heard; granting AMM will create avalanche of requests for similar cases where people will want 30 ft house and Council would be hard-pressed to deny; understand there are many hillside lots remaining in Andreas Hills and do not believe precedent would be limited to that area. In answer to question by Council , concerning accepting into the record written material and photographs furnished by Mr. Taylor at the opening of the meeting, City Attorney stated that Mr. Taylor's memorandum substantially follows his oral presentation; that if exhibits referred to in the presentation are being offered to the Council , he is entitled to do so; Council may wish to take the time to examine same; that unless there was verification desired with respect to technology of the photographs, he believed they were admissable; and that documents offered should be part of the record, and he would not be comfortable in refusing to accept any document into the record which is being offered. Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 11 5. HOWARD LANE APPEAL (Continued) Councilman Rose questioned if it would be presumed by a reviewing court looking at the record that the Council 's decision was based on what was presented. City Attorney stated that the response would be affirmative unless the record indicated otherwise; that if a transcript of the tape of the proceedings indicated that exhibits had not been examined that would be a different question than a question whether there was some basis for denying admission of the docu- ments as part of the record; that the documents are being offered as part of the record and appellant is entitled to make them a part of the record he is establishing, unless there is some reason to not accept CONT'D them into the record; and that if the Council has not (57) examined the materials, it should either take the time to do so or note that it did not examine them and are not considering them in making a decision. Councilman Rose requested that the record reflect that he has not had an opportunity -to examine the documents and would not before casting his vote. In answer to questions by Council , Mr. Taylor stated that the only opportunity to address the Planning Com- mission was during the public comments portion of its agenda ; that the appellant did not receive notice of the case before the Commission; that it has taken them six months in which to be heard before the Council and would not object to a delay if Council wished to take the matter under submittal ; and that he believed Mr. Morreale acted at his own risk knowing that the building permit had been issued only four days after, the appeal was submitted in November, 1980; that the appellant's wife was shown an architectural rendering of the Morreale house during a casual meeting one evening, but was not made aware that the plans were imminent or that anything was going to the Planning Commission for approval ; and that he believed Mr. Morreale should have been aware of the November appeal and believed, he was made aware because of what had gone on before and fact that Mr. Morreale had indicated to Mr. Lane that he was aware of his objections, and fact that his attorney was present this date. In answer to additional questions by Council , Mr. Taylor stated that he was unable to respond to question con- cerning whether he could verify that the displays pre- sented by the Director of Community Development showing sight lines were correct, in that he did not understand the question in order to respond; and that shortly after receiving a letter from the City Attorney that he would recommend placing the appeal on the Council agenda, he received notice from the City Clerk of i:he hearing date. City Manager noted that the Council had directed the City Attorney to rule on the appeal and if it was appro- priate, it would then be placed on the next agenda . i 1 Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 12 5. HOWARD LANE APPEAL (Continued) In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated that in his opinion to Council on February 4, 1981 , he indicated that there were two court cases involving an ordinance which did not have a requirement for notice to another party, and that the court read in a notice requirement on broad general due process basis ; and based on that, he had recommended that the Council hear the appeal . He stated that if there were any problems of due process, those problems have been met and resolved by having this hearing and giving the parties involved full opportunity CONT'D to be heard. (57) In answer to questions by Council , Director of Com- munity Development :stated that, in this case, "public_ interest" refers to the ability of a person to build that which is desired on a particular piece of property; that it is an extensive type dwelling on an expensive lot and in a somewhat restrictive type area, and probably is within the public interest to allow the structure in this type area; that AMM was foregone conclusion, because the Architectural Advisory Committee had full knowledge of the height and approval of the Planning Commission was given with the understanding that staff would look at it and take that final action; that it is not true that the Lane house was "sunk" because the garage is not below curb level , and the difference between the two roof lines is 6 ft; and that he believes all administrative procedures have been followed, including public findings on the AMM. Councilman Rose stated that most of the issues relate to questions of law; that he finds it difficult to rationalize allowing a higher structure on a flat pad; that originally he understood that the house was to be stepped, not flat, and he did not consider the change as minor; and that in view of those things brought to the Council ' s attention, he did not think the action was within the purview of the AMM. Councilwoman Ortner stated that, although the City does not have a view lot ordinance, there are views which are lost as a result of legal entanglements; and that she favored a two-week continuance in order to satisfy questions by Council and provide opportunity to take a field trip to the site, on an individual councilmember basis. In answer to concerns expressed by both Mr. Ealy and Mr. Taylor, Mayor stated that an opportunity would be given for them to be heard at the next meeting. It was the consensus of the Council that any comments be presented in writing approximately one week prior to the next meeting. It was moved by Ort.ner, seconded by Field, and unanimously carried, that this matter be continued to March 4, 1981 . p y i l l.ri 4l Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 13 6. AA CASE 2.763 - SUNLINE BUS SHELTERS Mayor stated that due to his position on the SunLine Board of Directors he would abstain from discussion and voting on this matter. (III Recommendation: Consideration of appeal by SunLine &143) Transit Agency concerning Planning Commission denial of the placement of bus stop waiting shelters to be used throughout the bus system within the City. Director of Community Development reported that this matter was reviewed at the last study session, and highlighted his report, dated February 18, 1981 , noting that the Architectural Advisory Committee and Planning Commission felt that neither the design concept nor appearance were acceptable; and that designs suggested by the Commission did not qualify as a shelter and were not fundable under the grant program. He stated that the proposed shelter would be made of concrete. Mayor declared the hearing open. Lee Norwine, Executive Director for SunLine, explained the attempts which were made to arrive at a shelter which would meet federal approval ; that the proposed design has been approved by other cities in the bus system; was designed by the Pasadena Art Center; and if something more acceptable should come along in the future, the shelters are not immovable and can be taken out. He stated that the shelters proposed would be a sand-colored concrete. Council,-ioman Ortner stated that the model at Smoke Tree Shopping center was totaly unsatisfactory and is in a mess; and that the only thing which can happen to the proposed shelter is spray painting by vandals. Mayor pro tem stated that he was reluctant to approve the design, which he did not favor, and it should not be a reflection on the Planning Commission. It was moved by Ortner, seconded by Beirich, and unani- mously carried, Doyle abstaining, that the appeal be granted and the Planning Commission' s action be overruled. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None LEGISLATIVE ACTION: 7. COMMUNITY SERVICES PLAN Recommendation: Community Services Commission recommends that the Council reject the draft Community Services Plan, as being out-of-date, that the project be termin- ated, and that priority be given to developing goals ( 73) and policies statements which could be used to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of municipal leisure services programs. (Matter reviewed in detail at last study session) Councilman Rose stated that he thought the plan had a great deal of merit and benefit to the community; that he recognized the amount of time spent and under- stood the reasons for the recommendation; that he was Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 14 7. COMMUNITY SERVICES PLAN (Continued) hopeful that future comment and additional direction would be given to staff and the Commission; that he commended their efforts and initiative', and wound look CONT'D for thoughts and recommendations along the lines of (73 ) manpower planning and consumer protection; and he felt it would be important to have a study session with the Commission in the near future. Mayor noted that the City Manager, Director of Com- munity Services, �Commission Chairman and he met; and it was suggested that the Commission designate areas in which it feels it would be appropriate for the Commission to be involved, after which the Council will meet with the Commission in study session for a discussion. Minute Order 2899, rejecting the draft and approving other items as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich, and unani- mously carried, that Minute Order 2899 be adopted. 8. VINEYARD/VILLAGE GREEN PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Recommendation : That the Council approve agreement with Adam Rodriguez for maintenance of the landscaping in CRA owned public parking lot. City Manager noted that application of the contract (117) to the Village Green landscaping maintenance will be studied by Staff. Minute Order 2900 approving the agreement, as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich, and unanimously carried, that Minute Order 2900 be adopted. 9. PUBLIC NUISANCE POSTINGS - ORDERS TO ABATE Recommendation: That Council direct the Building & Safety Director to immediately abate locations 1 , 3 and 5, outlined in report of Director of Community Development, dated February 18, 1981 . Minute Orders 2901 , 2902 and 2903, ordering the immediate abatement of the locations as specified (57) therein, was presented; after which, it was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich, and unanimously carried, that Minute Orders 2901 through 2903, inclusive, be adopted. 10. ENERGY PROGRAM Recommendation: That the Council adopt actions in connection with the Energy Program, specifically relating to staffing, budget, 1980-81 work program, and energy commission. Resolution 13694 was presented, entitled: OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE (61 ) ALLOCATED POSITIONS AND COMPENSATION PLANS FOR POSITIONS IN THE CITY SERVICE FOR THE 1980-131 FISCAL YEAR. Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 15 10. ENERGY PROGRAM (Continued) and Resolution 13695, entitled: OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FY 198-81 . (61 ) (appropriates $7,270) and Minute Order 2904, entitled: ADOPTING THE PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM, DATED JANUARY 25, 1981 , AS THE GUIDING TENETS FOR ANALYZING AND IMPLEMENTING FUTURE ENERGY CONSERVA- (52) TION INITIATIVES. and title of Ordinance, as read by City Manager, as follows : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING THE ENERGY (60) COMMISSION, AND AMENDING ITS DUTIES. In answer to question by Council , relative to issue of advocacy in appearing before PUC as a topic for the energy commission, City Manager noted that there is interest in this area by CVAG cities, and efforts will be coordinated with other cities. Councilman Beirich stated that it should be understood that it is part of the work program and to be addressed by the commission when it is appropriate. Mayor noted that a staff member of the PUC has indicated that the cities can do much without an intervener., unless a specific case is at point, in which instance a professional would be needed, and that the funding for that would have to come before the Council at that time, and would be more than that which is before the Council at this date. It was moved by Beirich, seconded by Ortner, and unani- mously carried, that Resolutions 13694, 13695 and Minute Order 2904 be adopted; and that further reading of the ordinance be waived, and that the ordinance be introduced for first reading. 11 . SUNRISE PLAZA PARK IMPROVEMENTS Recommendation: That the Council accept grant offer of $2,500 from Wells Fargo Bank to provide a game Field (115) exercise circuit for the disabled and seniors , to be located in Sunrise Plaza (south of Library Center) . Director of Community Services reported that signs at each exercise station will have Wells Fargo 's name, but in print no larger than that in which the direc'ions for exercising are given. He noted that representatives of the Assistance League, Braille Institute, and Parks for People had wished to express support for the project, but because of the lateness of the meeting, were unable to remain. Minute Order 2905, accepting the grant offer as recom- mended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Beirich, seconded by Rose, and unanimously carried, that Minute Order 2905 be adopted. Council Minutes 2-•18-81 Page 16 12. ANGELS STADIUM - LIGHTING Recommendation: That the Council appropriate $10,000 to add to expected donations in amount of $30,000, to improve field lighting at Angels Stadium. (115) Resolution 13696, amending the budget as recommended., was presented; after which, it was moved by Beirich, seconded by Rose, and carried by the following vote, that Resolution 13696 be adopted: AYES: Beirich, Ortner, Rose & Doyle NO: Field ABSENT: None 13. TRACT 16149 - RESCINDING A CONDITON OF TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL Recommendation : That the Council rescind a condition of approval of Tentative Tract Map 16149, which relates to future street access to the property south of certain (137) lots within the tract. Resolution 13697, amending conditions of the map as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Rose, seconded by Beirich, and unanimously carried, that Resolution 13697 be adopted. CONSENT AGENDA: 14. Resolution 13698 granting underground utility easement (51 & to So. California Edison to serve Jelinor Corp. office 147) complex located north of City Hall . 15. Minute Order 2906 approving agreement with Assistance League of Palm Springs to establish and maintain an (99) "educational toy lending" program at the Library Center. 16. Resolution 13699 amending Res. 12967 to designate certain employees and officers to issue arrest citations for special (114) misdemeanor violations and further delineate the codes, ordinances, and State laws for which citations may be issued. 17. Resolution 13700 approving claims & demands. (86) It was moved by Beirich, seconded by Field, and unani- mously carried, that Resolutions 13698 through 13700 and Minute Order 2906 be adopted. 04 !1 Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 17 18. P.D. Ill - EIR CONTRACT Recommendation: That the Council approve contract, for preparation of an EIR for the C.G. Dunham develop- (116) ment on hillside property west of South Palm Canyon Drive, with WESTEC Services, Inc. , in amount of $16,700. Minute Order 2907, approving contract as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Rose, seconded by Field, and unanimously carried, that Minute Order 2907 be adopted 19. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: It was moved by Beirich, seconded by Doyle, and unani- mously carried, that Nita Ashcraft be appointed to (60) fill unexpired term of Sid Gordon, ending June 30, 1983, on the Personnel Board. It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Field, and unani- mously carried, that the Council concur in Mayor's appointment of task force to address streamlining (60) Planning Commission procedures , to include the following members : Representative from Webb Engineering Representative from Hallmark Engineering James Cioffi , Larry Lapham, David Hamilton, Rick Service, Director of Community Develop- ment, and Planning Director. Councilwoman Ortner to serve as Council liaison. REPORTS & REQUESTS: 20. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS - Received & Ordered Filed a) CVB Audit Report - 1979-80 21 . CITY COUNCIL reports or requests a) In answer to question by Councilman Field, City Manager stated that staff's role with respect i:o redevelopment projects is to clarify and facilitate the normal review process and not to be an advocate of a project; and, to that end regarding the hotel project on North Palm Canyon Drive, it was important that the Community Redevelopment Agency approve the potential use of eminent domain powers if and when a development plan had been approved; thai: contrary to what has been reported in some cases, there has not been any commitment of funding; that once a development application is received, staff will begin the review process, including traffic, sewers, and other aspects, and then it will be brought to the Planning Commission, at a scheduled public hearing, with recommendations coming to the Council at some point in the future. Mayor stated that he does not have an interest in the project, but rather an interest in a structure within the redevelopment area, which precludes his participation in the issue. Council Minutes 2-18-81 Page 18 21 . CITY COUNCIL reports or requests (Continued) b) In answer to question by Councilman Rose regarding delay in completion of the signalization project, Director of Community Development reported that because of the additional wiring, it will not be possible to use existing conduit and larger conduit will have to be installed. c) Mayor requested that because of repeated blocking of fire lanes at the Smoke Tree Shopping Center parking lot, frequent inspections be made to reduce *** the violations. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business at 11 :35 p.m. , Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. NORMAN R. KING City Clerly -"BY : JUDITH SUMICH Deputy City Clerk 22. STAFF reports or requests a) Received for filing, the Proceedings and Accounting Report for abatement of public nuisances located on sixteen lots throughout the community. Hearing thereon to be set by City Clerk for March 4, 1981 .