HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/15/1981 - MINUTES 09
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 15, 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, April 15, 1981, at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Beirich, Field, Ortner
and Mayor Doyle
Absent: Councilman Rose
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: No Business
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich, and unani-
mously carried, Rose absent, that the minutes of April 1,
1981 be approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. AA CASE 3.390 - AUTOMATIC APPEAL
Consideration of automatic appeal from Planning Com-
mission denial of architectural approval to enclose
an existing breezeway in apartment project at 520
Murray Canyon Drive.
Councilman Field stated that he has been contacted by
the appellant and his attorney and has not received
any information other than that which he can use to
make a proper decision.
Building & Safety Director reviewed report of Director (111 )
of Community Development, dated April 1 , 1981 , indicating
that the project was accomplished without a building
permit and without architectural approval ; that applica-
tion for architectural approval was then submitted, and
during Development Committee review it was concluded that
the construction, as built, did not meet building and
fire code requirements.
In answer to question by Council , Planning Director stated
that although the Architectural Advisory Committee disliked
having to react to something already constructed, however,
based on drawings and photographs submitted, the Committee
assessed the aesthetic qualities of the project and recom-
mended approval , noting that such approval did not override
any necessary building or fire code requirements; and
stated that he did not believe it met such requirements , but
it could be corrected to do so.
In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated
if the Commission's action were upheld, the next step
would be an office hearing and if the problem could not
be resolved and corrective action taken, then a court
injunction would be sought, which, in theory, would permit
the City to remove the structure; that the question remains
that if the property owner meets all code requirements,
would he be able to obtain a building permit; and that
if the appeal were to be granted, an additional condition
should be made that existing sign and zoning ordinance
violations be corrected.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Sherman Dennis, owner and appellant, stated that he was
not in town when the construction took place; that he
advised the Building Division that he would take out the
o9 z
Council Minutes
4- 15-81 Page 2
1 . AA CASE 3.390 - AUTOMATIC APPEAL (Continued)
building permit when he returned; that upon his return,
he retained architect,Rick Harrison, and gave instructions
to obtain the permit; that Mr. Harrison developed plans
and found what items needed to be corrected; that since
it was the middle of the season, and the area was already
under construction, he proceeded with the project with
the expectation that at some time he would obtain the
permit; that he was requesting that he be allowed to
proceed and make all the corrections ; that he was not
aware of what needed to be done in terms of the sign,
since the only addition was a light and if that must
be removed, then he will remove it; and that he has
discussed the corrective items in-depth with the Building
Division and is now ready to proceed.
In answer to questions by Council , Mr. Dennis stated CONT'D
that he had told his manager of the property to go forward (111 )
and to obtain the plans and building permit; that he did not
do that, and is no longer employed by him; that: on his
return he discovered that the window frames were installed
and the windows had been ordered, after which, upon his
second return the windows had also been installed; that
locks had been removed on both doors , which otherwise
would have required panic hardware; that it was not
possible to dismantle the project, because of the height
of the season; that he had retained Mr. Harrison in the
past, but there was no design involved in the subject
project, only a glass enclosure; and, perhaps if he had
hired an architect in the first place, the plans would
have been approved.
Allen Perrier, attorney representing Mr. Dennis, 225 S.
Civic Drive, stated that architectural approval relates
to aesthetics and meeting the needs of the community;
that he believed the Commission 's review was not based
on the merits of the project, but on consideration of
the fact that the work proceeded without a permit; that
the appellant has applied for a building permit and he
believes all actions are remedial ; that the question
is whether the architecture is suited to the project,
and whether it makes sense to order abatement of it.
In answer to question by Council , Mr. Perrier stated
that he believes approval , with a doubling of the fee,
is equitable if there was not intent on the part of the
owner to commit a violation, and would be far better
than abatement procedures; and that the project received
approval of the Architectural Advisory Committee and to
require removal would be destructive more than useful .
There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed.
In answer to questions by Council , Building & Safety
Director stated that two days ago plans were submitted
to the Building Division which will remedy the problem
of code violations which exist at this time; that if
architectural concerns are remedied, plans will be processed,
fees doubled, and the project followed until all corrections
are made; that there are possibly 3-4 times per year where
a knowledgeable owner proceeds without a permit and where
double fees are charged; and that approval of the; Planning
Commission action would result in public nuisance abatement
proceedings, and if the owner wanted to do what he has
done, then he would have to resubmit his application and
follow the established process.
Council Minutes
4-15-81 page 3
1 . AA CASE 3.390 (Continued)
Councilwoman Ortner stated that the owner knew the
permit was required, and, although she recognized
that the Architectural Advisory Committee approved
the project, she could not excuse the effort to seek
permits after the fact, and could not support over-
ruling the Planning Commission.
In answer to questions by Council , City Attorney stated
that upholding the Planning Commission action, and its
recommendation to refer the matter to the City Attorney,
would place the subject in a code enforcement process;
that if no solution were reached, then ultimately a
public nuisance abatement process would be followed
with a final conclusion reached as to how abatement
should take place; that no building permit can be issued
without architectural approval ; and that the issue of
lack of building permit is reflected in the Planning
Commission minutes and it appears that denial was on that
basis and not on architectural approval .
In answer to questions by Council , Planning Director
stated that the thrust of the Planning Commission decision
was, in fact, made on the item being constructed without
permits and proper Commission approval, and its having
been placed in a position of dealing with something -'that CONT'D
was not spectacular architecture and of something already (111 )
done, where there is no room for objective review; -that
he agreed that upholding Commission action would place
the subject in a public nuisance abatement process;
that abatement procedure means a reconstruction and doing
away with that which is in place; and that acceding to
Commission action would mean more than one alternative
to undoing what is in place, other than going back to
square one and starting over.
In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated
that referring the matter to the City Attorney cannot
result in issuance of a building permit, but must result
in public nuisance abatement procedures; that, in absence
of architectural approval , there is no basis for action
to direct or authorize issuance of a building permit;
that architectural approval is required prior to issuance
of a building permit and without that approval , a permit
cannot be issued; and that enforcement means abatement
and abatement means removal of the structure.
City Manager stated that if a good faith effort is made
to proceed through architectural approval with a new plan,
that would be taken into account and City Attorney would
not immediately proceed with abatement.
Mayor stated that he agreed the owner was not new to
the process and should have been aware of what he was
doing when he issued orders for the the work and to
have made sure that requirements were met.
It was moved by Field, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously
carried, Rose absent, that the Planning Commission 's action
be upheld.
OP
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 4
2. PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - H.E. WILLIAMS APPEAL
Consideration of appeal by H.E. Williams from pasting
of pubic nuisance a metal patio cover in violation of
setback requirements, constructed without a valid
building permit.
Building & Safety Director reviewed report of Director
of Community Development, highlighting chronology of
event leading to construction of patio cover within
required 10-ft sideyard setback.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Harry Williams, appellant, 1003 Twin Palms Drive,
stated that the awning was constructed to provide
carport shading; that it is within 3-feet of his
neighbor, who has no objections, but feels it is
an improvement; that he cannot stand the cost of (57)
removing it; that he does not know if the contractor
provides a hold harmless agreement; and that he
believes it is a positive improvement which enhances
the value of the property and provides needed shade
during the summer.
In answer to question by Council , Building & Safety
Director stated that what the contractor submitted
is accurately reflected in the records ; that when
the permit was issued., the contractor was specifically
asked if the setback was 10-feet and he said it was ;
and that a special notation was made on the permit
that the setback was 10-ft.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was
closed.
In answer to question by Council , Building & Safety
Director stated that one final inspection is made
on these types of improvements to make sure they are
properly installed, and it was at that point that
it was discovered that the awning was in the setback;
and that the erroneous information with respect to
the building permit was the fact that it was reported
that the setback was 10-feet when, in 'fact, it was
3 feet.
Councilman Beirich stated that the contractor did
not perform and the appellant did not exercise good
judgment in making sure that he performed what he
said he would do; and that the Council cannot pass
on something which does not meet code requirements
and which places the Council in the position of
being a referee for something which should be between
the appellant and the contractor.
Mayor suggested that the appellant investigate legal
avenues which may be open to him.
It was moved by Beirich, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously
carried, Rose absent, that the appeal be denied and
the nuisance abated.
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 5
3. P.D. 121 - SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT
Recommendation : Planning Commission recommends approving
planned development district to allow construction
of a condominium office complex on 2.57 net acres on South
Palm Canyon Drive, between Camino Parocela and Sunny
Dunes Road.
Building & Safety Director reviewed report of Director
of Community Development, dated April 15, 1981 , and
reported that discussion with CalTrans, this date,
indicated initial response that it did not like drive-
ways onto Palm Canyon; however, the Traffic Engineer
has indicated that the City has been successful in
the past in negotiating curb cuts, although CalTrans
has the last approval .
In answer to question by Council , Planning Director
stated that ingress driveway will have certain problems
and if there were a condition that he could not have
access to Palm Canyon, he might wish to revise his
plans; that, in absolute terms, he would not favor
access to Palm Canyon and believed traffic could go (116)
east and return on Calle Palo Fierro to Sunny Dunes ;
and that the Planning Commission recommended right-
in, right-out only, but the question remains whether
it is physically possible to restrict left—turning
movements.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Kirk Evans, applicant, stated that the future realign-
ment of Palm Canyon and improvement of Indian Avenue
was discussed by the Planning Commission in study
session; that there will be a widening of Palm Canyon
to permit a slow-down lane for right turns; that he
had not requested a left-turn access; and that 20%
of the project cost will be devoted to street improve-
ments, i .e. , Palm Canyon slow-down lane, Calle Chia,
and Camino Parocela. He also stated that CalTrans
has had his plans for six months.
In answer to question by Council , Mr. Evans stated
that public nuisance clean-up was to have commenced
this date; that he is trying to spread out the project
as best he can and not place all cars at the back
of the property; and that he is looking for a nice
entrance and Palm Canyon address, which is not possible
without access to Palm Canyon.
City Manager stated that permits have been taken for
the public nuisance abatement, and staff recommends
that the Council proceed with the abatement procedures,
in the event action does not take place; and that,
under a planned development district, the Council
must approve final development plans.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was
closed.
Mayor stated he has concerns relating to traffic on
Palm Canyon Drive, and there should be some information
about the number of trips generated and the impact
of this development on that; and that he did not believe
assumptions about Indian Avenue improvements would
happen in the near future.
10
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 6
3. P.D. 121 - SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT (Continued)
Councilman Beirich stated that he also has concerns
about the traffic problems, but did not see any solution
readily available. CONT'D
(116)
Resolution 13771 , approving the planned development
as recommended, was presented; after which, it was
moved by Beirich, seconded by Field, and unanimously
carried, Rose absent, that Resolution 13771 be adopted.
4. C.U.P. CASE 5.0152 - T. SHOEMAKER FOR W.T. DEVELOPMENT
CO.
Consideration of Planning Commission approval of condi-
tional use permit to allow nightclub use in an existing
building on 12-acre shopping center site, on South
Palm Canyon Drive at Mesquite Avenue (formerly Cameron
Center) , on appeal by Council .
Planning Director reviewed report of Director of Com-
munity Development, dated April "I , 1981 , outlining
the Commission' s recommendation, including conditions
which would insure a well-run operation with any violations
or complaints to be individually reviewed by the Commission.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the
project, on the basis of noise, traffic, disturbance
to the neighborhood, devaluation of property values, and (78)
police problems:
Hilda Teitzel , 165 E. Mesquite.
Mais Durand,229 Newport Drive, member of Christian
Science Church.
J . Paul Tarr, 833 Mesquite,
William Diggs, 792 Mesquite:
Murray Toledo, 185 Mesquite.
Frances Holmes ,1450 Mesquite.
Thomas Shoemaker, architect for the project, stated
that he felt the Planning Commission would develop
any conditions which would address any undesirable
happenings that might occur; and that statements about
crime increasing are assumptions before the fact:.
Steve Fingle, attorney for applicant, stated that
there will be a security force in attendance at all ,
times when the operation is open; that he contends
there will not be the problems envisioned by the
neighbors; that the concerns were raised at the Planning
Commission hearing and it was satisfied that those
things will not happen; that the Commission received
information concerning similar operations in other
cities; that he believes it is proper to bring complaints
to the Commission after the use is in operation and
they are agreeable to that condition; and that the
developer does not have other similar operations..
In answer to questions by Council , Mr. Fingle stated
that two of the referred to similar operations are
not in residential zones; that he understands the
City of Bellflower has approved a similar use contiguous
to a residential zone; that he believes a strong security
force showing at the outset will set the tone that
undesirable behavior will not be tolerated; and that
he would be agreeable to having. a security officer
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 7
4. C.U.P. CASE 5.0152 (Continued)
to monitor the parking lot.
W.T. Taylor, applicant, stated that he expected to
have security in the parking lot to make sure no
disturbing action takes place; and that, from a Fire
Code standpoint, up to 1 ,000 people could be allowed,
however, the Planning Commission limited attendance
to 800, which he was hopeful of attaining.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was
closed.
Councilman Beirich stated that there was a noticeable
decrease in traffic on Mesquite From when the market
operated and when it ceased operating; that he was
not in favor of the conditional use permit, not perhaps
because of the concerns expressed by the neighbors CONT'D
since those are suppositions, but because of concerns (78)
about traffic and fact that once the use becomes known,
there will be an increase in the alternative avenues
to the location, which are streets running through
residential areas. He moved to reverse the Planning
Commission decision and deny the conditional use permit;
said motion was seconded by Doyle.
Mayor stated that he has received a number of calls
about the project from people living in the area;
that traffic in the area is a major problem; that
he has nothing against this type of entertainment,
and in the proper location, it would be a viable
project; and that he could not support approval of
the conditional use permit.
Councilman Field stated that the project is conditional ;
that he is familiar with the area when the market
was there and with its attendant noise and traffic;
that there are varied concerns in the community regarding
varied noises ; that he was satisfied that the project
is controllable and the developer will try to mitigate
those concerns expressed; that he cannot oppose the
project at this time; that he was aware of the concerns
and petitions presented, which are meaningful ; that
he was aware of the frustration regarding the Planning
Commission and a majority not being able to act on
the application; that he favored enforcement and trying
to deal with a controllable use permit; and that he
was open to having the entire Council rule on the
case.
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she recognized a natural
anxiety about this type of entertainment, and felt
the developer was courageous in pursuing this type
project since she felt it was a waning use; that she
did not think they would ever get 800 people there
at one time; that a very popular place in the City
which is no longer in existence, on its best night,
only attracted 200-250 people; that she believed
some of the concerns expressed will not be realized;
that this is only an interim use, and the area will
be designed for more permanent development which will
have noise and traffic attendant with it as is associated
with any additional development; and that she would
not support overturning the Planning Commission action,
It was moved by Beirich, seconded by Field, and unanimously
carried, Rose absent, that this matter be tabled.
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 8
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
a) Percy Aucoin, 131 Calle del Collado, stated that he
recently attended a DDAC meeting in which he made a
statement that he had a received a letter from the pD 130
Mayor in response to letter from thePolitical Action (116)
Association letter concerning expenditure of money
for the C-D Investment Hotel project; that lie had
indicated receipt of the letter from the Mayor, and
he thought the project was "cut and dried"; that he
did not intend in anyway that his comment should be
interpreted that the Mayor had said that the develop-
ment was cut and dried and, if his comments were taken
in that context, he apologized to the Mayor; that the
Mayor's letter did not make any such suggestion in
his letter to thePolitical Action Association; and that
it was his own opinion that the project was cut and
dried.
In answer to question by Council, concerning assumption
that project is a foregone conclusion, Mr. .Aucoin stated
that meetings have been going on for some time since
the project was conceived and it seems that the DDAC
has gone on record as being in favor of the: project;
that after plans, land acquisiton, money anLd every-
thing else happens, taxpayers will have to pay $20,000
for EIR to see if project was feasible in the first
place; and that he sees the project continuing on
step-by-step movement in the direction of approval,
and therefore, believes it is cut and dried.
Councilman Beirich suggested that if Mr. Aucoin would
read the early minutes of the DDAC and City Council
he would find that he had arrived at incorrect assumptions.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION:
5. TENNIS CENTER
Recommendation: Community Services Commission recommends
that the City retain its leasehold interest in the Tennis
Center site, and that the Council authorize soliciting (117)
proposals for operation of the center.
Mayor reported request by the School District ghat this
matter be discussed at the time school development
fees are discussed, noting that Councilwoman Ortner
and the mayor would be meeting with a committee of the
school district to discuss the fees.
Councilman Beirich requested that, in that context,
the City Attorney define "public use" so the Council
would know whether it was going beyond that definition
in anything it might consider regarding the tennis center.
In answer to question by Council, City Manager stated
that the request was via telephone this date with the
School District Office, and that the District's desire
for return of the property is clear and it wished the
Council to know of its desire to delay consideration
of this matter until the discussion on fees concludes.
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 9
5. TENNIS CENTER (Continued)
Director of Community Services reported, in response to
questions raised at the last study session, the amount
of rent paid by the two previous concessionaires , noting CONT'D
Commission recommendation that any new concession agree- (117)
ment should provide that maintenance and utilities be
paid by the concessionaire; and that tennis court mainte-
nance at Ruth Hardy Park is approximately $11 ,500 annually,
which is about the same amount expected to be lost at
the Tennis Center this year.
Following discussion, it was moved by Ortner, seconded
by Beirich, and unanimously carried, Rose absent, that
this matter be continued, pending discussions with the
School District.
6. CITY HALL RE-ROOFING
Recommendation: Authorize preparation of specifications
and call for bids for re-roofing City Hall , to include
R-26 insulation. Matter reviewed in substantial detail
at the last study session.
Minute Order 2929, authorizing specs and call for bids,
was presented; after which, it was moved by Beirich,
seconded by Field, and unanimously carried, Rose absent,
that Minute Order 2929 be adopted.
(117)
7. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - AUCTIONS
Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends amending
the Municipal Code to provide for auctions for nonprofit
purposes in other than M-1 zones.
City Manager reported that as a result of discussion
at the last study session, staff has recommended a
revision to the proposed ordinance to further narrow
the purposes for which the major portion of funds must (103)
be used, specifically, adding the following language
to the first paragraph of the proposed Section 4.04.080,
to read: . . .wherein the major portion of the proceeds
go to nonprofit organizations, for purposes or activities
which would ualif for income tax deduction under Section
501 c 3 of Internal Revenue Code or equivalent State
law, may be held. . . . . . . .
Councilman Field stated that the revised language
satisfies some of his concerns and is within the framework
of tolerance.
In answer to question by Council , City Manager stated
that the business license division would be responsible
for enforcement; after which, he read title of the Ordinance,
as follows :
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 5.04.080 TO
CHAPTER 5.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PRO-
VIDE FOR AUCTIONS FOR NONPROFIT PURPOSES.
It was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich, and unanimously
carried, Rose absent, that further reading be waived,
and that the Ordinance be introduced for first reading.
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 10
8. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - ROOF-MOUNTED EQUIPMENTIN RESI-
DENTIAL ZONES (Introduced 4-1-81 )
City Manager read title of Ordinance 1138, as follows :
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, (103)
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 9303.00 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ROOF MOUNTED
EQUIPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
It was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich, and unani-
mously carried, Rose absent, that further reading be
waived and that Ordinance 1138 be adopted.
9. FIRE STATIONS 3 & 4 - 'OVERHEAD DOORS
Recommendation: That the Council award contract, for
installation of commercial sectional overhead doors
at Fire Stations 3 & 4, to Hemet Door Company, Inc. ,
in amount of $25,989; and appropriate necessary addi-
tional funds in amount of $6,500.
Resolution 13772, amending the budget, and Minute Order
2930 awarding the contract, were presented; after which, (61 &
it was moved by Beirich, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously (117)
carried, Rose absent, that Resolution 13772 and Minute
Order 2930 be adopted.
10. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - ENGINEERING SERVICES
Recommendation: That the Council approve agreement
with James Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. , for
services associated with step 3, construction management
for the upgrading of the plant, as amended by and subject
to approval of said agreement by the State Water Resources
Control Board and EPA for an amount not to exceed $136,500,
of which approximately 87.5% is grant reimbursable.
In answer to question by Council , Director of Community
Development stated that savings will be realized because
on-site inspector will be able to handle both the upgrading (127)
and expansion.
Minute Order 2931 , approving the agreement as recommended,
was presented; after which, it was moved by Field, seconded
by Beirich, and unanimously carried, Rose absent., that
Minute Order 2931 be adopted.
ll , SEWER CONNECTION/REIMBURSEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS
Recommendation: That the Council adopt revised policy
for sewer reimbursement agreements and City contribution
for construction of sewers ; amend the Comprehensive
Fee Schedule to add a Sewer Main Surcharge fee; and (114
amend said fee schedule to amend Sewer Street Main Charges. & 128)
In answer to question by Council , Assistant City Manager
reported that relative to Sewer Main Surcharge Fee,
the proposed resolution has been revised to reflect
the following under Section 3.b: . , .calculated by
spreading the amount subject to a reimbursement agreement
over the potential number of units, which may be convertible
to an acreage or other charge, that maybe expeci:ed. . . "
and stated that any reimbursement agreement woulld have to
be approved by the Council .
I W/
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 11
11 . SEWER CONNECTION/REIMBURSEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS (Continued)
Resolutions 13773, 13774, and 13775, approving actions
as recommended, respectively, were presented; after
which, it was moved by Beirich, seconded by Field, and CONT D
unanimously carried, Rose absent, that Resolutions 13773 (114 &
through 13775 be adopted. 128)
12. PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
Recommendation: That the Council appropriate $1 ,330
for a public opinion survey to be conducted to determine
current attitudes about the possible formation of a.
Police Assessment District. (61 )
Resolution 13776, amending the budget as recommended,
was presented; after which, it was moved by Field, seconded
by Beirich, and unanimously carried, Rose absent, that
Resolution 13776 be adopted.
CONSENT AGENDA:
13. Minute Order 2932 approving assignment of Lease Agreement (117)
1688 from Frank Holicheck & Robert Jackson to Jean Davis.
14. Minute Order 2933 awarding purchase of a 1/2-ton lighi.
utility pickup truck to Marshall Datsun in amount of (84)
$5,740.96.
15. Resolution 13777 establishing Flood Control Drainage Fund (86)
to account for fees received.
16. Minute Order 2934 authorizing Building & Safety Director (57)
to immediately abate refuse and debris public nuisance
at 634 S. Palm Canyon Drive.
17. Resolution 13778 ordering the detachment of 8.32 acres (54)
from the Palm Hills Area (Cathedral Canyon West, Inc. .,
Warren Coble) .
18. Resolution 13779 approving filing grant application for (109)
Tahquitz Historic site project and certifying that the
City has or will have 50% matching funds in amount of
$176,400.
19. Minute Order 2935 approving new agreement with Desert ( 87 )
Water Agency relative to fire hydrants, and terminating
Agreement ##630.
20. Resolution 13780 approving Tentative Tract Map. 17260 (137)
for property located on Golf Club Drive and Cree Road,
76 units, Ballew-McFarland/Heltzer Enterprises.
21 . Resolution 13781 approving Tentative Tract Map 17314 to (137)
combine property on Andreas Road between North Palm Canyon
Drive and North Indian Avenue, commercial condominiums,
Hacker/S. Cavallaro.
22. Resolution 13782 approving Tentative Tract Map 17377 for (137)
property on North Palm Canyon Drive, between San Rafael
Drive and Gateway Drive, C.Mills/J.F. Temple Construction
Co.
As IT`S
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 12
23. Resolution 13783 approving Tentative Parcel Map 17230
to combine property on South Palm Canyon Drive, between (119)
Camino Parocela and Sunny Dunes Road, office/condominium
project, Sand Dollar Development, Inc.
24. Resolution 13784 approving Claims & Demands . (86)
25. Minute Order 2936 awarding bid to furnish and install a (61 &
paint spray booth to Spray Systems, Inc. , in amount of (117)
$25,364.48; and Resolution 13785 amending the budget to
appropriate $8,365 to cover necessary additional funds .
It was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich, and unanimously
carried, Rose absent,thal• Resolutions 13777 through 13785
and Minute Orders 2932 through 2936 be adopted; Ort:ner
abstaining on Resolution 13779.
26, TRACT 14364 - FINAL MAP
Recommendation: That the Council approve Final Tract Map
14364 for property on the NE corner of San Jacinto Drive
and Baristo Road, 12 unit apartment/hotel complex to 10
condominiums, Billington/H.C. Penner.
(137)
Resolution 13786, approving said final map, was presented;
after which, it was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich,
and unanimously carried, Rose absent, that Resolution 13786
be adopted.
REPORTS & REQUESTS:
27. FRANCHISE REPORTS - Received & Ordered Filed
a) Gas - Franchise payment $168,416 (89)
b) Electric - Franchise payment $281 ,530.95
28. CITY COUNCIL reports or requests
a) Councilman Beirich suggested that, relative to the
C-D Investment Co. hotel development, the Council
make a decision up-front; that allowing the project
to proceed through the ordinary course of action
will place a substantial amount of strain on city
commission, staff and Council ; that such a process
is unusual , however, the project has evoked a con-
siderable amount of controversy and attracted a
lot of attention in the community, and if the decision PD 130
is made up-front that the Council would only support (116)
that which is allowed by right-of-zone, it would
not be necessary to wait 9-12 months down the line
to face the issue; and that the Council had previously
indicated that there might be some planning problems
that would cause concerns but it would let the project
go through the normal planning process, but because
of the scope of the concerns, perhaps the Council
should at least deal with the right-of-zone issue
at this point.
City Manager stated that time is needed to define
what are the planning and potential legal issues,
and whether the process can be altered in that
fashion; and that staff could have something back
to the Council at the next meeting, but not to the
degree of scheduling a hearirg at that meeting.
Council Minutes
4-15-81 Page 13
28. CITY COUNCIL reports or requests (Continued)
a) Continued
Councilman Beirich stated that what is proposed
vs. benefits to be received must be looked at and
a decision made; and that he was concerned that
the developer may proceed on the basis of certain
premises, only to get to the Council and find 'chose
premises are not correct.
CONT'D
City Manager stated that it is the intention of (116)
staff to bring the planning issues to the Planning
Commission early; that discussion of a tentative
plan is scheduled for preliminary review by the Commission
near the end of May; and stated that there are major
concerns, for good reasons, to make sure to continue
to respect the development process.
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she believes there
is a lot of misunderstanding by the general public
of the procedures to which the project is subject,
and its input is not getting to the right place;
that the Planning Commission and City Council under-
stand that the process is not cut and dried, and
to take it out of turn would be leaving the Council
open to a lot of criticism; and that she recognized
that emotions are high, but feels it is because
of lack of understanding of the planning process.
Mayor suggested that the City Manager develop a
timetable of what will be reviewed and at what
specific times.
29. PUBLIC reports or requests - None
30. STAFF reports or requests - None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business at 10:20 p.m. , Mayor
declared the meeting adjourned.
NORMAN R. KING
City Clerk
B HQ_
Deputy City Clerk