HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/3/1981 - MINUTES y A�
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS * i•
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 3, 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, June 3, 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.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Mayor declared the meeting
adjourned for the purpose of convening as the Community
Redevelopment Agency; after which, members reconvened
as the City Council .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Field, and unanimously
carried, that the minutes of May 19 and 20, 1981 ,
be approved, draft of May 20 minutes amended to
reflect item d) under City Council reports and
requests.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - HOUSING ELEMENT
Housing Coordinator reviewed his report, dated
June 3, 1981 , outlining Planning Commission recom-
mendation to approve Housing Element of the General
Plan, as revised in March, 1981 , detailing the concept
of fair share and the four major sections into which
the element is divided. He stated that the element
is enabling action which will allow for specific
implementing programs to be adopted in accordance
therewith.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Emile Duvernay, Chairman of the Housing Committee
of the Desert Political Action Association, spoke
in favor of the element, as revised February, 1981 , (101 )
specifically that there be no changes to pages 35-
47, and opposing revision in March, 1981 , which relates
to the control mechanism (Page 40, Item L) in that
he believes it is tantamount to a sunset clause and
will not insure housing if the life of the mechanism
does not follow the life of the project.
Ruth Licata, 530 N. Calle Marcus, on behalf of the
League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement ,
a copy of which is on file in the office of the
City Clerk, explaining the League's views on housing,
and, in particular, suggesting positive support for
density bonuses and covenant control mechanisms.
There being no further appearances, Mayor declared
the hearing closed.
150
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 2
1 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - HOUSING ELEMENT (Continued)
In answer to question by Council , Housing Coordinator
stated that Paragraph L, Page 40, does not change
anything for the three specific approvals which have
already been given; that if a future developer requested
the density bonus, the type of control mechanism
could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, which
conceivably could be less stringent than those now
approved; that the Planning Commission believed that
the existing covenant control mechanism is not as
flexible as what might be applied in the future,
and rather than debate that issue at this time, approved
the proposed language which would give flexibility
to at least look at each proposal on a case-by-case
basis; and that the Commission wanted more experience
with the covenant control mechanism before making)
it a blanket requirement for all future requests .
Director of Community Development noted that a request
by a developer for something different does not mean
it will automatically be granted, only that the Com-
mission will have flexibility in looking at it.
In answer to questions by Council , Housing Coordinator
stated that a copy of the element is available at
the Library Center; that it is subject to annual
review and if there are any programs or policies
which need updating, that can happen at that time;
and that such review is a requirement of State law.
He also stated that deletion of the last sentence
of said Paragraph L, would not preclude a developer
from suggesting alternatives to the covenant control
mechanism; and that the Council reviews all projects
on an individual basis and all conditions relating
thereto.
Councilman Beirich stated that policy documents somehow
force what implementing actions will be and the flexibility .
talked about sometimes never really occurs; that items
subject to interpretation are never really interpreted,
but repeated in the implementation documents; that the
covenant control mechanism is yet to be in operation and
its effect known, and the change in Para. L, Pg. 40 is a
weakening of the total Housing Element; that he objects to
expanding architectural review for new construction in
residential zones, other than under planned development
districts, and is strongly opposed to such application to
a single house on a single lot, as being over-regulatory;
that there is a potential problem regarding the rental zone CONT'D
overlay, and although he agrees with keeping rental stock (101 )
available, there appears to be a potential source of legal
problems; and that, with those caveats, he would support
approving the Housing Element.
Resolution 13828, approving the Housing Element revision, as
recommended by the Planning Commission, was presented; after
which, it was moved by Field, and seconded by Ortner, that
Resolution 13828 be adopted, Motion by Beirich, seconded by
Rose, to amend the original motion, to approve the element,
subject to the deletion of the last sentence of Paragraph L,
Page 40, carried by the following vote:
AYES: Beirich, Rose & Doyle
NOES: Field & Ortner
ABSENT: None
Thereafter, motion, as amended, to adopt Resolution 13828,
carried unanimously.
151
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 3
2. ZONING CASE 5.0129 - R.C. ELLIS AND GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
Consideration of Planning Commission recommendation
to approve amendment to the General Plan Land Use
Element for property located on the east side of
Crossley Road, approximately 1100-ft south of Ramon
Road.
(101 )
Mayor noted request by applicant that this matter
be continued to the next meeting; after which, it
was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich, and unani-
mously carried, that the hearing be continued to
June 17, 1981 .
3. CENTRAL CORRIDOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA MODIFICATION
Mayor explained the process which has been, and is proposed
to be followed by the Council in considering the
recommendation; and noted that he has met with several
Deople and in light of the objections raised, would
be making a recommendation to the Council prior to
any action.
City Manager stated that a conscious decision was
made in February, 1980, not to charge professions (133)
and about four other businesses; that because of
a feeling that the assessments were unfair in that
sense, direction was given by Council , based on recom-
mendation by the Central Corridor Advisory Board,
to expand the boundaries of the district, physically
to include Smoketree, and to include other businesses,
and to change the formula of assessment; that
discussion at the last meeting was the beginning
of discussion by the Council for public input as
to which alternative might be considered on which
to establish a hearing if intention were declared
to begin the process to change the boundaries,physically
and in numbers assessed; that if the hearing resulted
in 50% protest against expanding the district, then
the district would remain in its existing status;
that there may be alternate ways of looking at the
assessment issue, and the Council may wish to continue
this matter to September 2, 1981 , in order to allow
other groups to come up with ideas and suggestions ;
and that protesting-out the expansion precludes the
Council from changing the assessment, since the only
way to change it is to expand the district to include
some alternate procedure. In answer to question
by Council , he stated that the Council has the ability
to disestablish the entire district, at its will .
Mayor stated that he recommended the Council continue
this matter to the first meeting in September, 1981 ;
that he has met with a few people who reflect varying
degrees of opinion regarding the sun surrey, and
the continuance would be with the idea of selecting
a person to solicit input from people in the district
to see if there is a better way of developing the
assessment program; that he has heard people who
support the district as it is presently constituted,
with some adjustment in fees, some who oppose expansion;
and some who favor expansion; and noted that the
purpose of the public input, this date, is to receive
comments relative to the expansion of the district.
52
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 4
3. CENTRAL CORRIDOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA (Continued)
Mayor inquired if anyone wished to be heard.
Earl Wendorff, liquor store on South Palm Canyon,
questioned if the district could be done away with
at this time; stated he was opposed to, the expansion,
does not like the buses, has not paid his assessment,
does not think it has been properly assessed, and
believes everyone should pay for it.
Arthur Lyons, Lyons English Grille, 211-233 E. Palm
Canyon Drive, stated that the system cannot stand
on its own; and that no one asks for the tokens.
Florence Hanratty, attorney in the Oasis Building,
stated that the system has resulted in liability
for the City; that only teenagers ride it; that the
buses are dirty and smoky; and that the City could
have had clean, people-movers.
Alex Chobotuck, A & E Alterations, 477, N.. Palm Canyon
Drive, stated that he was opposed in the beginning,
is now opposed, ,and is opposed to the expansion:,
and suggested that the Chamber of Commerce pay for
it.
Ken Parker, Hallmark TV, 192 S. Indian Avenue, stated
that he does not have a tourist-oriented business;
that he paid the assessment, and believes everyone
must work together to make the downtown area economically
viable; that the word "downtown" has taken on. a negative
connotation' because of the decline of downtown areas;
that many hundreds of hours went into the studying
of the project, and help from others would have' been
welcomed; that it was not a blind commitment; that
the bus is not the perfect vehicle, and there are CONT 'D
problems which can be worked out; that other- communities
in the Valley are building-up and the competition (133)
for the tourist dollar is becoming keener, and the
community must "get-off-the-stick" if it wants a
share of that economy; that the inequities must be
worked out; and that he favored expanding the district
and working toward righting the inequities and- getting
the right bus if that is needed.
Mickey Fine, 1192 La Verne Way, stated that the: Council
should admit the error and give up the project.
Mort Derfler; General Manager of the P.S. Mall , read
a prepared statement, a copy of which ison file
in the office of the City Clerk, favoring the sun
surrey, and suggesting that it be expanded to include
the Mall whenever the City is able to do so.
Lloyd Maryanov, President of the Chamber of Commerce,
representing the Chamber Board, stated that the Chamber
is open to all businesses in Palm Springs, imposes
small dues based on number of employees, and has
committees, the meetings of which are open to all
members; that the Chamber held public hearings prior
to institution of the project; that the Chamber still
believes the future economic viability of the City
must be protected that it is necessary for people
living and working here to do their best to encourage
a good public climate, and he believes the sun surrey
will do that, and it should be given a fair test;
that he was hopeful it would be continued for another
J.
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 5
3. CENTRAL CORRIDOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA (Continued)
year; that a recognition that the assessments should
be changed, does not mean doing away with the district;
that he favored changing the boundaries and assessment,
continuing for another year, and then a re-evaluation
at that time; that the buses provide an aid to transpor-
tation, an aid to tourist industry, aid to the public
and problems of congestion downtown to allow a flow
of people and encourage business.
Leonard Coombs, 460 N. Indian Avenue, questioned
what the total cost is per rider.
Jack Crouch, Village Florist, stated that he supports
anything that will help the City; questioned whether
the State law stipulates that everyone, including
professions, must be assessed otherwise the district
may not be created; that he supports the idea of
a people-mover, but does not like the existing buses;
that he believes the project has been totally unfair
and poorly handled; and questioned whether the Council
intends to make all professions pay the same as other
businesses if it proceeds with the expanded district.
City Attorney read portion of the State law, noting
that "profession" is included as a business, but
the law does not require a levy against all businesses
within the district.
Judy Baldwin, 380 N. Palm Canyon Drive, presented CONT 'D
400+ letters from people within the proposed boundaries (133)
opposing the district and requesting disestablishment.
Joe Turtlelo, Vice-President and General Manager
of KDES, stated that no one uses the bus for his
business, however, he is 100% in support of it and
has no problem in supporting it; that he recognizes
the importance of developing and maintaining a healthy
economic base, and the sun surrey is only one way
of attaining a high visibility; and that if it takes
expansion of the district to continue viability and
visibility, he is in favor of it.
Sheila Gratten, Jones Agency, stated that the main
problem with downtown Palm Springs is congestion;
that the original concept was to be patterned after
the system used in Laguna Beach, which is not supported
by tax dollars and which is used in connection with
satellite parking lots; and that if this matter is
continued, she suggested studying what has happened
in Laguna Beach.
Norman Rose, 191 S. Indian Avenue, stated that business
is being lost to down-valley communities because
people are living there; that this community should
draw from people living here; and to forget the tourists.
Alice Peralta, 285 S. Palm Canyon, stated that she
understood there would be six buses, which were going
to be shared with Laguna Beach; and questioned why,
since the buses have been sold to SunLine, is it
necessary to subsidize private business.
54
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 6
3. CENTRAL CORRIDOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA (Continued)
Jim Drake, Desert Inn Fashion Plaza tenant, stated
that the Chamber did not vote for the double-decker
buses,; that he believed he had been assessed for
seven, buses and only three were provided; that if
the trolley-car system had been purchased, everyone
would have backed it and everyone could have been
assessed; and that the only justice to be obtained
will, be through a vote of the people who pay for
the system.
Pauline Smith, 278-N. Palm Canyon Drive, stated that
she has never been forced to buy something from a
salesperson, and everyone on her block is truly opposed
to the system.
Jim Stuart stated,,that the rising price of gasoline
will add to the ,system; that everyone was opposed
to the way in which the assessments were originally
made; ,that he believed a task force should be formed
comprised of representatives from.the Chamber, staff
and people referred to by the Mayor, so this matter
can be addressed in an intelligent manner; and that CONT'D
tourism is the life-blood of the community, and there (133)
are only 90,000 people living in ,the entire Valley,
and tourism must be catered to.
Jeff Solowitz, 611 S. Palm Canyon, stated opinion
that the sun surrey , issue is dead, that the Council
was misguided by the Redevelopment Agency and its
Director; and that the Council should spend more time in forming the district, than -in litigation,
sending letters, and trying to collect charges.
Greg Mandinach stated opinion that the Redevelopment
Director had, made certain promises which were riot
delivered; that he thought the issue would be put
to a vote, but feels it has been forced on, people;
that he is opposed to the district; and that if' the
City wants to support the downtown area, it should
work with it and not against it.
Arthur ,Hersh, 252 S. Palm Canyon, stated that the
Council should not turn a deaf ear on both the people
who were in attendance and not in attendance who
are vehemently opposed to the district; that -businesses
are being assessed and cost of doing business
is constantly rising; and that the boundaries of
the district should be explained.
City Manager reiterated purpose of expanding boundaries
relates to physical boundaries as well as number
of businesses assessed; noting additional suggestion
to explore other alternatives that might be more
beneficial .
Mayor noted that the feelings of those present were
evident; there being no further appearances, the
public testimony portion was closed; after which,
he read a letter from Leed's Jewelers in favor of
the district, and contributing $500 toward the cost
of the system, even though it is not within the district.
I5�
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 7
3. CENTRAL CORRIDOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA (Continued)
Councilman Field stated that the Council has received
the letters in opposition and is aware of the number
of those; that he is hearing what is being said,
and recognized that it is not a simple subject and
one in which there are areas for confusion; that
the Laguna type bus was desired by some, but was
not affordable; that he is hearing opposition, as
well as some support and a desire by some nat in
the district to be served by the bus; and that he
leaned toward allowing time to hear others who may
have suggestions or alternatives.
Councilwoman Ortner stated that the main issue is
whether the bus is really wanted; that a continuance
to September is not facing the issue; that it appears
to be a no-win situation; that there are business
people who do not like the idea of a committee, since
they feel it would not express their ideas ; that
she does not like to see a choice made of one merchant CONT 'D
against another; that she questioned whether there (133)
was a clear understanding at the outset whether there
was strong support from the downtown businesses,
and would guess there was opposition whether it was
voiced; that she anticipated the City Manager would
respond to inquiry of Mr. Coombs; that she found
it difficult to see what is being received for the
dollars spent, and that it would be better to take
a loss than continue adding dollars to something
that is lacking benefit; that she favored sending
another letter to the businesses in the original
district to see if they really want it, and if 51%
say yes, then get on with the project; that she is
not pleased with the amount of staff, Council and
public time which has been spent and which has resulted
in so much dissension; that the downtown area needs to
be developed so it can compete with other areas in
the Valley; that she is aware of both positive and
negative reactions to the district; and that it should
be put to a vote and then taken from there. She
stated she did not see this as a reflection on the
Council , and that if it did not work out, it could
proceed with dignity.
Councilman Rose stated he was saddened at hearing
the opposition, and that the Council did not start
the project because it felt it was worthwhile, but
because the community and businesses felt it would
be worthwhile; that, typically, a chamber of commerce
represents the business community, or at least those
interested in business in the community, and the
sun surrey was supported by the Chamber of Commerce;
that he felt the original letter sent out about the
district was clear, as well as the subject having
been articulated by the news media, and since there
were only a few in opposition, it was believed there
was overwhelming support for the district; that the
double-decker bus was the only one which could be
afforded; that there were open hearings, and if people
had appeared in opposition at that time, it might
not have come to this point; that he believed there
should be an attempt to retain the district, however,
if everyone is opposed, it will not be viable and
it will not work; that he understood the complaints
which have been made, and believed they can be corrected;
that the City cannot exist withoLtthe tourist economy,
and it is not a question of whether people ask for
Council Minutes
6-•3-81 Page 8
3. CENTRAL CORRIDOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA (Continued)
the tokens, but whether the system helps the city;
and that he would like to see an 0000rtunity given to
see if it can be made to work; and that he supported
concept expressed by the Mayor.
Councilman Beirich stated that perhaps the idea suggested
by Councilwoman Ortner of circulating an inquiry
of what people are thinking is valid, but not on
the basis of what now exists, which is clear they
do not like, but if something can be worked out that
is more workable and fair, then that would be a fair
vote; and that he would support continuance.
Mayor recommended that he be allowed to appoint a
chairman of an ad hoc committee or task force, whose
responsibility -- • would be to secur& six additional
members of people effected by the district, to provide
a proposal to the Council ; and stated that if after
going through 'the public hearings, there is still
an overwhelming opposition, then he would support
the inquiry suggested by Councilwoman Ortner.
It was moved by Rose and seconded by Beirich, that
this matter be continued to September 2, 1981 .
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she would not support
what was intended, because she was aware that there
are people in the original district who are not happy
with the idea of an ad hoc committee and feel they
would not receive true representation.
Councilman Field stated that he would support a motion
that would try for an ad hoc committee, which has
been concurred in bythe Central Corridor Advisory
Board, which should be recognized for its part in
this matter and the work it has done, and the sole
reason for his support is the fact that the Council
can dismantle the district at its will ; and that CONT'D
he would vote for an attempt to give an opportunity (133)
for a full airing of the issue by the entire comiMunity
and an opportunity to build bridges and develop viable
alternatives, before considering doing away with
the district.
Motion for continuance was adopted by the followiing
vote:
AYES: Beirich, Field, Rose and Doyle
NO: Ortner
ABSENT: None
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 9
4. PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - SCHOLL APPEAL
Consideration of appeal by George Scholl from posting
of public nuisance of thirteen lots between El Camino
Way and Crestview Drive, in the Palm Canyon Mesa
Tract.
Building & Safety Director reviewed his report, dated
June 3, 1981 , indicating receipt of complaint about
dumping of large boulders and fill dirt, and subsequent
posting of the property for illegal dumping and non-
complian(e with grading requirements. He stated that
City Engineer concerns are based on fact that there
will not be a different diversion of water, but a
higher level of water to move out of the area causing
a great deal of rock and debris which could move
down the street, causing liability to the City; and
that staff, supported by the City Engineer, recommends
removal of the debris and requirement that a grading
plan be submitted for the entire area.
In answer to question by Council , Building & Safety
Director stated that he did not see how the debris
was protecting Mr. Seholl 's property, although by filling
in a low spot it causes some diversion, the water
appears to be going in the same direction; and that
many rocks are too big for eitherriprap or fill according
to Code requirements.
Mayor declared the hearing open. (57)
George Scholl , 294 Crestview, stated that the lots
are in a watercourse area; that a wall was built
immediately to the east for the purpose of creating
a 4-ft swail which would carry the water to the north
then emptying onto E1 Camino Way; that the swail
does not function properly and water backs up; that
he had access to the rocks, which were free and which
are hard to come by; that his judgement call may
not have been the best, but he did contact the City
Engineer for direction as to how to proceed with
a permit; that all lots should have a professionally
designed grading plan, and he has retained an engineer
for that purpose; that the rocks vary in size from
six inches to three feet; and that he would like
enough time in which to develop a grading plan acceptable
to the City for the entire six lots.
In answer to question by Council , Mr. Scholl stated
that he was aware of the permit requirement at the
time the rocks were delivered; that the quantity
and timing were more and faster than he expected;
that the rocks are stored on Lots 11 and 12, which
is to the south of his driveway, and not in any water
flow pattern ; and that if he is required to move
them, then he will have the cost of moving, storing
and returning to the site those which he will be
able to utilize.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was
closed.
In answer to question by Council , Building & Safety
Director stated that if additional time were granted,
the rocks should be moved as far back to the bank
as possible and compacted as much as possible; that
a hydrology report probably would be needed; and
that he would estimate that a plan could be developed
in two months for engineering check.
58
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 10
4. PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - SCHOLL APPEAL (Continued)
Mr. Scholl stated that he did not know if two months
would be sufficient, however, he had no problem with
moving the rocks to the back of the property and
that same could be accomplished within one day.
Motion by Field that within 90 days the City Engineer
be apprised of a grading plan for the area, and that
at the earliest , possible date, the rocks be moved
to the back of the property to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer, failed for lack of a second„ CONT'D
In answer to question by Council , Building & Safety (57)
Director stated that if the appeal were denied, the
rocks would have to be removed, and .a plan developed
and approved before any rocks could .be returned to
the site; and that thefinal grading plan. would determine
how much of the fill could be used„and the remainder
would have to be hauled away.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner, .and unanimously
carried, that the appeal be granted, provided that
a grading plan acceptable to the.City Engineer is
submitted within 45 days, and that within four working
days from June 4, 1981 , that the .rock be ,moved to
the, rear of the the lots in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer; and that if these steps are
not taken within the time frames specified, then
the appeal shall be deemed denied.
5. RAMON ,ROAD - PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY
Recommendation : That the Council find and determine
that the public interest, convenience and necessity
require the acquisition of two triangular parcels
on the south side of Ramon Road, for the construction
of the Ramon Road Bridge.
Mayor noted that the hearing shall be open only to (136)
those who have requested an opportunity to be heard,
i .e. , Frances Lucille Diaz and Arthur W. Diaz, Jr.
Director of Community Development displayed exhibit,
indicating the two triangular parcels to be obtained
for permanent bridge improvement; and larger parcel
needed for temporary access during bridge construction.
which would revert to the property owner and restored
as close as possible to a natural condition.
Mayor inquired if property owners wished to be beard;
there were no appearances.
Resolution 13829, making finding and determination
as recommended, was presented; after which, it was
moved by Rose, seconded by Beirich, and unanimously
carried, that Resolution 13829 be adopted.
15�
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 11
6. SEWER SERVICE CHARGES - 1981,,82
Recommedation : That the Council elect to have sewer
service charges, payable pursuant to the Municipal
Code, for the 1981-82 fiscal year, collected on the
tax rolls in accordance with terms and conditions
of Ordinance 1111 .
Finance Director reviewed his report, dated June
3, 1981 , and noted that this would be the second
year in which this has been done; and that an evaluation
of the program last year, warrants its continuance.
Mayor declared the hearing open. (140)
In answer to question by Mrs. Guyeb, City Manager
indicated that the service charge is not added to
tax statements for units which are not connected
to the sewer.
Resolution 13830, approving action as recommended,
was presented; after which, it was moved by Beirich,
seconded by Ortner, and unanimously carried, that
Resolution 13830 be adopted.
7. GENERAL PLAN STREET PLAN AMENDMENT - LIMITED ACCESS
THOROUGHFARE
Director of Community Services reviewed his report,
dated June 3, 1981 , and reported Planning Commission (101 )
recommendation to approve amendment to the General
Plan Street Plan, to delete limited access thoroughfare
from Bogie Road/Palm Drive to Ramon Road, noting
that only that portion from Highway Ill to Bogie/Palm
will remain, and which will be further studied by
CalTrans and the City.
Mayor declared the hearing open; there being no appear-
ances, the hearing was closed.
Resolution 13831 , amending the General Plan Street
Plan, as recommended, was presented; after which,
it was moved by Field, seconded by Rose, and unani-
mously carried, that Resolution 13831 be adopted.
8. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - MOBILEHOMES ON SINGLE-FAMILY
LOTS
Director of Community Development reviewed his report,
dated June 3, 1981 , and reported Planning Commission
recommendation to amend the Zoning Text to permit (103)
mobilehomes on single-family lots of record in R-
1-C, and R-1-1) zones, under a conditional use permit;
and to provide for certain requirements regarding
roof overhangs and roof and siding materials. He
stated that SB 1960 becomes effective July 1 , 1981 ,
and an urgency measure is proposed by the Commission;
that the R-1-C and R-1-1) represent about 75% of the
single-family lots, and most fall into a moderate
priced category; that the R-1-A and R-1-13 were felt
not to be within an affordable housing criteria;
and that staff does not recommend the conditional
use permit requirement, because the law provides
the ability to control those things and it would
add $1 ,190 as an application fee just to determine
whether the project could even proceed.
16W
Council Minutes
6-•3-81 Page 12
8. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT RE MOBILEHOMES (Continued)
In answer to question by Council , Director of Community
Development stated that it is a fair statement that
adding the conditional use permit requirement will
not significantly add to or modify control of mobile-
homes; that the State law provides opportunity for
determining compatibility by determining where mobile-
homes will be allowed, and is specific in terms of
what can be done architecturally for mobilehomes,
which is not done for single-family homes; and that
if the Council wanted to further limit where mobile-
homes will be allowed in terms of' compatibility,
those zones would have to be defined and the use,
eliminated therein.
In answer to question by Council , City .Attorney stated
that use of the conditional use permit is arguable, -
and believed that most arguments would not stand CONT'D
up in court; and that if protection can be provided (103)
without the use permit, he would not recommend it
as a vehicle.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Kim Jefferson, 2377 San Clemente, stated that petitions
with over 600 si-gnatures have been submitted to the
Planning Commission, and in addition to the conditional
use permit, a strict list of guidelines should tie
developed, including two-car enclosed garage and
where a mobilehome may be placed on a lot; and that
the $1 ,190 fee could 'be set aside for that kind of
use permit.
Tom Simpson, President of Desert Park Homeowners
Committee, stated that the petitions favored the
Planning Commission recommendation, with architectural
review, and if the amendment is approved without
the conditional use permit requirement, the petitions
should be' viewed as being in opposition.
Duane Guyeb stated opinion that elimination of the
conditional use permit would be a failure to repire-
sent the best interest of the people in the City;
that the expense of administering the use permit
will be miniscule in comparison to the expense of
the homeowners whose property is devalued; and that
if the mobilehomes must be allowed in these zones,
then it must be with strict standards and protection
of the homeowners.
Joe Nacinovich, 2477 Finley Road, stated that the
Planning Commission 's recommendation is palatable;
that he has a vacant lot and would not be opposed
to paying the additional fee to insure compatibility;
that the greatest concern is having architecturall
concerns addressed in the ordinance; that he supports
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and
use of architectural committee screening; and that
the area north of Vista Chino, east of Sunrise, its
one of the oldest developed areas, yet it has not:
enjoyed the same degree of development as other areas
have in the community, and, therefore, would be more
affected by the ordinance.
Mrs. Guyeb, Via Escuela, stated that the conditional
use permit would protect people in developed areas
as well , i .e. , where a demolished home can be replaced
with a mobilehome.
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 13
8. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT RE MOBILEHOMES (Continued)
Pat Hubbard, 1088 Vista Chino, stated that she is
about to take possession of a "fixer-up" house in
the area, ,and has concerns as to how to proceed in
light of the possibility of mobilehomes in the area;
that she understood this matter was to be heard on
June 17, 1981 ; and suggested some better means of
notification be provided.
City Manager stated that it is frequently difficult
to provide information to the public on matters being
addressed and staff is sensitive to that; and that
in this instance, a quarter-page ad appeared in
the local newspapers for both the Planning and Council
hearings.
R. F. Nusome, Ontario, real estate broker and manufacturer
of housing, stated that SB 1960 requires overhang
roofs and foundations ; that most units are built
of two-by-fours, have central air and heat, many
have stucco siding, and interior drywall , and solar;
in some areas, a mobilehome will upgrade the neighborhood;
units can be as large as 3,000 sq. ft. ; and believes
that State law covers most of the matters that people
would like to see covered by the conditional use CONT'D
permit; and that the Supreme Court in Michigan said (103)
that mobilhomes come under civil rights for housing
and it is unconstitutional to regulate them in anyway,
Tom Simpson stated that he took offense at having
someone from outside of the City trying to sell a
product, and that the issue should only concern those
who live here.
Tom Robnett, 2055 Acacia, stated that he did not
think the spirit of the law can be provided in the
City; that it will not accomplish affordable housing
in this way; that he did not understand why a specific
area could not be set aside for this purpose, an
area that is undeveloped; that he has not seen
any alternative to the proposal , and is hearing there
is none, which he finds hard to believe; that he
does not like integration of prefabricated homes
into a neighborhood; that the maximum protection
should be provided for the homeowner in order not
to lose substantial equity; and that the Council
should uphold the Planning Commission.
Jeff Jefferson, 2377 San Clemente, stated that standards
should continuously be upgraded, and the Council
should not settle for minimums set by the State.
Jack Harper, 3060 Vernona, stated that he doubted
affordable housing can be built in R-1-C or R-1-.D,
considering the price of lots ; that he also thought
this matter was to be heard on June 17; that single-
family homes are built on concrete slabs, and the
community enjoys a low-profile; and that he has not
heard anyone advance the idea of low-profile for
mobilehomes; and that he supports the conditional
use permit requirement as a means of giving notice
to neighbors of what will be placed on a lot.
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 14
8. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT RE MOBILEHOMES (Continued)
Mike "Harris, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, spoke
as an individual and not as a member of the Planning
Commission, stated that he did not read _SB 1960 as
precluding the City from discriminating between mobile-
homes and single-family, in that it can restrict
such discrimination to a series of things including,
but ,not limited to, those recommended; that the law
also providesthat a city cannot prohibit mobilehomes
on single-family. lots, and the proposed ordinance , .
does not prohibit them, but ,provides that it is an
acceptable use in R-I-C and R-1-D and under a condi-
tional use permit., notice is given to the neighborhood
and it gives the Planning Commission the ability
to determine .compatibility; that he believes a condi-
tional use permit requirement would standup in 'court ;
that if- improperly placed, a mobilehome, will detract
from a neighborhood; and that the responsibility
for providing affordable housing has not been shirked
by the, C,ity.
In answer to questions by Council , Mr. Harris, stated CONT''D
that it would be difficult,to anticipate what legal (103)
costs could be incurred, and that probably an individual
could not afford to take it on, but ,a collective
group, might; that it would be very expensive, but
there are also homeowners who would face devaluation
of their property if safeguards were not assured,;
that, as an illustration, it is conceivable someone
could, acquire.,a. parcel , and come in with. a mobilehome
under values of surrounding area, and not-be compatible
in terms of price or appearances, and allowed to
put it in place even though the few architectural .
controls were satisfied, but if under a conditional
use permit, ' a review would determine whether it were
compatible - if yes, person could proceed, if not,
then would be denied; that relative, to the Housing
Element philosophy,, the-AFCOM project encourages
prefabricated housing; and if the $1 ,190 application
fee is. a. discouragement, then, perhaps it could be:
reduced, and , some type of Fast-tracking set up. He
also, stated that- placement of the mobilehomes can
be, protected through setbacks, and. he did not think
there would be any problem in terms of siding.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was
closed.
In. answer to questions by Council , Director of Community
Development stated that slab foundations can be required,
siding the same as single-family homes, and existing
code provisions require covered ,parking for two cars;
that the mobilehome can be subjected to everything
a single-family home is subjected to, including minimum
dwelling size; that, if under a CUP, a finding were
made that the unit was not compatible in terms of _
what was looked at, applicant could come back with
something else, -which would have the effect of .controlling
design, which is not the intent of the law, because
that type of control does not apply to other residential
units; and that he did not believe the CUP added
anything.
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 15
8. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT RE MOBILEHOMES (Continued)
Councilman Rose stated that he was sympathetic to what
has been said, and recognized that the City was on
record as opposing SB 1960; that he has concerns
about equal protection under the law; that it must
be applied equally and not one set of rules for one
segment and another set for another segment; that
the Housing Element urges encouraging the use of
ready-built housing, and requiring a conditional
use permit would be contrary to that; that if condi--
tional use permits are required for mobilehomes,
then they should be required for all single-family
homes; and that he favored proposed ordinance which
allows mobilehomes in the proposed zones, as a right
of zone.
Councilman Field stated that he was sympathetic with
the presentations made; that the concerns regarding
siding, garages, and setbacks have been answered
in the testimony; that the entire issue has been
modified since it first began, and is one in which
there is little choice on the part of the City; that
although he tended to lean toward the conditional
use permit, he could not, in good conscience, subject
the City to legal fees that might or might not occur,
Councilwoman Ortner stated that a conditional use CONT 'D
permit is the tool which can be used to insure com- (103)
patibility in established neighborhoods ; that if
the law must be accepted, there is an obligation
to homeowners to keep the standards high; that if
the $1 ,190 fee places a hardship on affordable housing,
the Council can consider waiving the fee; and that
there should not be so much concern about the threat
of litigation.
In answer to question by Council , Mr. Simpson stated
that he relayed his feelings to legislators at the
time SB 1960 was in process; that he has accepted
that mobilehomes will be allowed, but favors the
conditional use permit in order to provide notice
and give an opportunity to express opinions as to
what will be in place; and that, in his opinion,
most people can read through someone who states they
do not like something out of personal prejudice.
Councilman Beirich stated that if enough people make
such prejudicial statements, then it begins to make
sense; that he believed local representatives and
a lot of other legislators voted for the bill without
knowing much about it; that there was also some discussion
about whether it was mandatory; that he dislikes
State dictates for local jurisdictions; and that
he would support the ordinance which calls for the
conditional use permit.
Mayor stated that he recognized the concerns expressed,
and valued the input from the Planning Commission
Chairman as a private citizen; that he believes the
City should provide assurances to homeowners ; and
that he supported the conditional use permit requirement.
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 16
8. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT RE MOBILEHOMES (Continued)
City Manager read title of Ordinance 1141 , as follows :
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM ::SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 9206.01 , 9207.01
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE PLACE-
MENT OF MOBILEHOMES ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH CONT'D
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. (103)
Councilmembers Field and Rose each expressed comments
relating to the 4/5 vote required for adoption of
an urgency measure, that their views in opposition
to the conditional use permit requirement had been
expressed and that since the majority of the Council
favored the requirement, they would not block the
adoption of the ordinance.
It was moved by Ortner, seconded by Beirich, and
unanimously carried, that further reading be waived,
and that Ordinance1141 be adopted.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
a) Michael Zanpino, PSUSD employee stated that the
high ,school auditorium is in need of upgrading
and questioned whether the City could provide
any assistance. , Mayor responded that the City
does not invite itself into the affairs of another
jurisdiction without being asked by such jurisdiction.
b) Lawrence Myers, attorney for the Winters, and
David Christian, architect for project under
P.D. 122, each spoke concerning changes in the
project, approved by the Planning Commission,
and indicated support of the project. Leonard (116)
Hess, applicant for the project, indicated
availability to respond to questions ; and owner
of Apache Lodge, south of the project, urged
approval of the planned development district.
c) Allen Perrier, 225, S. Civic Drive, attorney repre-
senting Texas Western, R.C. Ellis, and P.S. -Airport
Center, stated that significant fees will b'e
faced if the subdivision maps come forward in
termsof drainage.fees; that no environmental _ (114)
assessment was made whether fees should be collected
or whether an environmental assessment was even
necessary; that there needs to be a consideration
of what the 1967 plan represents ; that it requires
cost benefit analysis before implementation for
each area in the city and ratio must be 1 :1 ,
and that major drainage facilities were to be
provided by the Flood Control District; that
he did not believe that such major facilities
referred only to Tahquitz, Tachevah, etc, but
to major trunk lines that will carry water to
the washes ; that he believed it was unfair that
land to be developed should pay for the entire ,
system; that resolution adopting the plan indicated
that the cost should be spread against both developed
and undeveloped; that he questioned what happens
to the remainder of improvements if it is determined
that an assessment district should not be formed;
that the engineering, planning, and funding should
be determined, spread costs evenly, and let: new
development pay its share.
16:
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 17
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued)
d) Neil Annenberg, P.S. Oil , stated that he hoped
Council would consider more than just a 6-inch
number for gasoline rate signs ; that he felt
the intent of the State law was that a passing (103)
motorist be able to see the sign clearly, and
that he did not think the 6-inch minimum in the
law meant that all letters and numbers on the
sign were to be that size for the entire city;
and that each sign should be looked at on a case--
by-case basis.
e) Mitch Owen, 1995 Via Miraleste, re drainage fees
for Tracts 14661 and 14661-1 , stated that g$115,000
has been spent to retain water on the site; that (137)
since the property is Indian Land, an appeal
has been filed with the Tribal Council regarding
the drainage fee issue; and that he is not totally
opposed to the drainage plan, but felt it required
more study and effort in its development.
f) Guy Rostveldt stated that the City also uses
the high school auditorium and urged some assistance
in its upgrading.
g) John Sanborn, Webb Engineering, regarding drainage
fees stated that the foremost question is what
will be the cost to the City in implementing (114)
the plan ; that his opinion is that such cost
will be $40 million; that he did not see new development
paying for it all ; and that the design professionals
are concerned and think there are other ways
of salving the issue.
h) Art Buntz, Tribal Council Attorney, spoke on
behalf of the Tribal Council Chairman, stating
that the Tribal Council is concerned that imposi-
tion of this kind of fee and of such a magnitude, (114)
without a cost benefit analysis, engineering
study, and compliance with other conditions of
the master plan of drainage, may place a burden
on undeveloped Indian Lands, and the Tribal Council
will not permit that to .occur; that the City
Council was requested to take no action until
the original conditions of the plan have been
met; and that the Tribal Council is in favor
of adequate flood control protection and would
favor it if it were fairly distributed among
all parties and in compliance with the 1967 arrange-
ments.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION:
9. COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT - DRAINAGE FEES
City Manager read revision to proposed resolution relating
to potential refunds, and stated that issues raised
by Mr. Sanborn, in his letter to the Council , are
issues staff agrees need to be addressed, but the (114)
real issue is placing the City in a position to provide
funds so when it is able to implement the plan, it
will have something on which to fall back to start
the process; that those matters are necessary, but
not prior to adoption of the fees; that he favors
the committee concept, but does not believe any reason-
able time frame can be developed until the County
Flood Control District has completed its review,
which is anticipated to be in November, 1981 , and
f;6
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 18
9. COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT (Continued)
that perhaps the committee could complete its work .
within 60-90 days thereafter; that -the professional
and urgent concern of the City Engineer is that there
is a potential possibility of flood damage for this
community and a firm opinion that in every part of
every proposed district there are some areas that
if there were a 10+ year storm, it would result in
some property damage; that when development is added
upstream in those watershed areas, it, causes a
geometric compounding of the problem, and the
disproportionate amount caused by new development
should be paid, for by it; that the issue of funding
must be addressed, recognizing that there are
revisi-ons made to master plans; that many cities
adopt such fees with full understanding that there
wil'1, be no possibility of raising all fees if the,
plan were -to be fully: implemented; and that there must
be a starting point to place the City in a _position
of beginning to fund those projects.-
In answer to question by Council , City Manager stated
it is his strong opinion that the three conditions CONT 'D
adopted in 1967, relating to the Master Plan for - (114)
Flood Control and Drainage, will be met -by the City,
and, in practicality, could not be completed without
a great ,deal of money that might be wasted, until
the City is in a position of knowing what must be
done on a project-.by-project basis in terms of
priorities; and the following comments, specifically
relative to said issues :
a) Re : Following cost-benefit analyses : Agree that
analysis needs to be done; would be best after
begin to establish priorities as to which projects
will benefit each district the most.
b) Re: Benefit ratio greater than 1 ;1 as far as ,
proposed laterals : Establishment of priorities
would be the time at which to make that judge-
ment, as to whether that project should be funded,
and, if it, should not be funded on that basis,
then it would not be funded.
c) Re: Major drainage facilities : Find nothing
in this to conflict with the establishment of
fees; major drainage facilities are interpreted
to mean major open channels, e.g. , Tahquitz,
Palm Canyon, etc.,and those have been funded
through non-city sources, i .e. , Riverside County
Flood Control District; other drains, laterals,
and sub-laterals are, in fact, laterals, and
there is no requirement that they be funded from
bond issues, or federal or district means; and,
if other funds were available, which they are
not, they would be used at the appropriatetime
at the least expense to the taxpayer.
He stated that he did not believe that establishment
of the drainage fees would be inconsistent with the
requirements of the 1967 adopted drainage plan.
Y
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 19
9. COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT (Continued)
Mayor suggested a limited continuance to determine
what might be amenable to the Tribal Council , although
he did not believe it could be continued indefinitely;
that there is a drainage problem, and fees will have
to be collected; and that as more development takes
place, the ability to collect money necessary to
provide the system is lost.
Councilman Rose stated the he believed the issue
was beyond the public hearing stage, as suggested
in the Tribal Council letter, and could see no point
in redoing that process; that he agreed that perhaps
some reasonable period of time should be given to
discuss the matter and look for common ground, possibly
within the next month, but he did not see any point
in going beyond that otherwise it would not leave
much time to face the issue; that he felt Mr. Perrier
offered some good points for consideration; that
he was prepared to vote, however, in light of the
Tribal Council request, additional time might be CONT 'D
mutally advantageous. (114)
In answer to question by Council , John Adams, Tribal
Council Planning & Engineering Consultant, stated
that the letter of the Tribal Council outlined what
it believed to be the major considerations that should
be addressed; that a minimum of one month would be
needed; and that it would depend on the data collected; that
impact of last two major storms could be looked at
in terms of costs vs. benefits, and whatever help
el ded
the Flood Control District can offer. He
to question from Mayor, concerning revised Section
3 to proposed resolution, he stated that the Council
should comply with the 1967 condition that before
anything is done, a cost benefit analysis be made
for each sub-district.
Mayor stated that he was hopeful that the two councils
could get together; that addressing the problem of
drainage cannot constantly be put off; that the Tribal
Council Planning Consultant has suggested implementing
the three conditions of the 1967 plan, while the
City Attorney has indicated that those can be accomplished
at a later date and not prior to the enactment of
fees ; and that there is a spirit of cooperation,
but the issue must be resolved in no longer than
six weeks.
City Attorney confirmed his opinion and that of staff
that the conditions do not need to be met prior to
imposition of the fees.
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she did not think
the Tribal Council or anyone else was trying to playdown
the magnitude of the fees or scope of the issue;
that it will cost a lot of money; and that she did
not think a six-week delay would be unreasonable.
Councilman Rose stated that he still has grave concerns
about what the Tribal Council Planning Consultant
is saying about implementation of the plan and there
appears to be a 180' difference as to what it means.
In response to question by Council , City Manager
stated that he did not believe it was appropriate
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 20
9. COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT (Continued)
to deal with the 1967 requirements, but would be
at a later time when there is more information, which
is not an issue to keep the City Council from dealing
with the drainage fees; that the concerns raised
are important, but are issues which only can he dealt
with after the plan is reviewed, anticipated to be
completed by the County by November, 1981 ; and that
he was not sure what issues will be resolved in the
next six weeks, except to discuss the differences
in interpretation of the 1967 language; that there CONT'D
has been considerable amount of work in looking at ('114)
philosophies and review of alternatives, but .it might
be an area that could stand further review on the`
part of 'the design professional's; and that informa-
tion concerning other issues will not be available
until November, 1981 .
It was- moved by Ortner, seconded by Rose,' and unani-
mously carried, that" this matter be continued for
six weeks, with understanding that if the staffs
of the councils find in a lesser time that they have
to agree to disagree; the matter will be brought
back to the City Council .
10. BOGIE ROAD BRIDGE - SOILS ENGINEERING CONTRACT
Recommendation: That the' Council approve agreement
with' Leighton &Associates, Inc'. , in amount of $12,500,
for soils engineering'services in connection with (136)
Bogie Road bridge.
Minute Order 2950, approving agreement, as recommended,
was presented; after which, it was moved by Field,
seconded by Beirich, and unanimously carried, that
Minute Order 2950 be adopted.
11 . P.D. 122 - L. HESS
Recommendation : That the Council approve Planned
Development District, in-lieu of a change of zone,
to allow professional office building on the SW corner
of Cahuilla Road and Tahquitz-McCallum Way; matter
having been referred back to the Planning Commission
by the Council on March 18, 1981 . (116)
Councilman Rose stated that; he understood the question
of how security would be maintained 'would-be addressed
in the final development plans ; affirmed by Director
of Community Development.
City Manager read title of Ordinance, as follows :
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE 1108, AND
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY APPROVING A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IN-LIEU OF A CHANGE OF ZONE
FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMPLEX ON THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF CAHUILLA ROAD AND TAHQUITZ-MCcCALLIUM
WAY, SECTION 15.
Resolution 13832 was presented, approving the preliminary
Plan and conditions of approval for said Planned
Development District; after which, it was moved by
Beirich, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously carried,
that Resolution 13832 be adopted; and that further
reading be waived and the Ordinance introduced for
first reading.
jz!
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 21
12. PALM SPRINGS CULTURAL CENTER
Recommendation: That the Council endorse concept
of a cultural center as outlined in preliminary study
of Laventhol and Horwath and members of the Palm
Springs Cultural Center, and indicate that prior (139)
to consideration of possible City financial support
and/or creation of a non-profit corporation,-that
certain additional information be provided, as detailed
in memorandum of City Manager, dated June 3, 1981 .
It was moved by Ortner, seconded by Rose, and unani-
mously carried, that recommendations as outlined
by the City Manager in said memorandum be approved.
13. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE RATE SIGNS
At the May 26, 1981 , study session, Council requested
that Planning Commission action regarding guidelines
for gasoline rate signs be reviewed by the Council .
Councilman Rose stated that the Business & Professions
Code requires that the sign be clearly visible from the
street or highway; that it refers not only to the
numbers on the sign, but the sign itself; that it (103)
requires the type of gasoline be designated; that it
refers to a minimum height of 6 inches for the numerals
and indicates that the type of gasoline must be 1/3
of that; and questioned whether the Commission 's
guidelines comply with that, stating that he did not
think a 1-inch size letter was worth having since
it could not be seen.
Director of Community Development stated there is a provision
that the type of gasoline can be 1-inch in height.
City Attorney stated that following the section referred to
by Councilman Rose, is provision that letters referring to
the type of gasoline shall be not less than 1/6 of the rate
number size, and the brand of gasoline shall be not less
than 1/3 of same.
In answer to question by Council , Director of Community
Development stated that double-faced signs are allowed on
intersections; that, in most cases, the original signs were
to the maximum allowed in terms of square footage; that the
overall size would not have to be reduced, only the face would
be altered to accomodate the message; that if the brand name
took up the entire size, then it would have to be reduced.
Councilman Rose stated that the regulations do not appear to
comply with the law adopted by the State; that the service
station operator should not have to give up something' whi.ch
he already has, and the rates should be addition to that;
that if the signs are to be allowed, a 1-inch letter is
meaningless because it cannot be seen; that it would not be
fair to allow it, and then not be able to see it; and that
if it is to be allowed, it should be in a meaningful manner.
In answer to question by Council , Director of Community Develop-
ment stated that the law provides for the 1 -inch size letter,
and it must have been considered visible; that the sign must
be clearly visible from the adjacent street carrying the greatest
amount of traffic, which he did think meant 200-ft away; that there
is nothing in the law referring to "passing motorist;" and that
even with a border around the 6-inch numbers and 1-inch letters, a
4-ft height would remain for the brand name.
It was moved by Field, seconded by Ortner, and carried, Rose voting
No, that the Council concur in the guidelines established by the
Planning Commission.
NO .
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 22
CONSENT AGENDA:
14. Minute Order 2951 awarding purchase of a new 1/2 ton
utility pickup truck to Marshall Datsun, Inc. , in amount (84)
of $5,921 .16; and Resolution 13833 appropriating $5,922
to provide funds therefore.
15. Resolution 13834 approving agreements for both group
health and long-term disability insurances, along with (96)
amounts of City contribution to premiums.
16. Resolution 13835 approving Final Tract Map 13792-4
for property west of Cathedral Canyon Drive, south of (137)
Whitewater River Channel , 34 acres for condominium purposes,
Webb/Falcon Lake Properties.
17. Resolution 13836 approving one-year time extension for
Tentative Tract Map 16158 to combine property on -the (137)
east side of Sunrise Way, between, Amado Road and Desert
Palms Drive, 18 units, Hacker/Landusa Corporation.
18. Resolution 13837 approving Tentative Tract Map 16640
to divide property on Ramon.Road, between, Warm Sands (137)
Drive and Grenfall Road, 10 units, KWL/D. Johnson..
19. Resolution 13838 approving Tentative Tract Map' 17293,
to combine property on San Rafael Drive, between Virginia (137)
Road and North Indian Avenue, 66 units, M.Fraser/Vaco
Development.
20. Resolution 13839 approving Tentative Parcel Map -li'247
to divide property on Tachevah, between Paseo de Anza , (119)
and Sunrise Way, two single-family lots, Hallmark/'L. Folk.
21 . Resolution 13840 approving Payroll Warrants. (86)
It was moved by Beirich, seconded by Ortner, and unani-
mously carried, that Resolutions 13834 through 13840
and Minute Order 2951 be adopted.
22. PARKWAYS MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 3B, 6A, 6B and 6C
Recommendation : That the Council approve Engineer's
Report and declare intent to establish Parkways Mainte-
nance Districts as noted above for assessments for
1981-82, and set hearing for July 1 , 1981 . Alternative (138)
recommendation: Not continue district 3B, since,
due to a new subdivision, the only maintenance remaining
for, the City will be that of five olive trees and
litter control along the north side of the entry
to Gateway Estates.
Resolution 13841 , approving Engineer's Report and
declaring intent as recommended, was presented; after
which, it was moved by Field, seconded by Beirich,
and unanimously carried, that Resolution 13841 be
adopted, subject to the deletion of District 3B .
171
Council Minutes
6-3-81 Page 23
23. TRACT 16430 - FINAL MAP
Resolution 13842, approving Final Tract Map 16430,
for property on North Palm Canyon Drive, between
Vereda Sur and Vista Chino, for condominium office (137)
purposes, Haver & Assoc/Las Hadas, was presented;
after which, it was moved by Beirich, seconded by
Field, and unanimously carried, that Resolution 13842
be adopted.
24. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Community Services Commission :
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner, and unani- (60)
mously carried, that the following appointments
and terms to the Community Services Commission, be
approved:
Rudy Ramirez, Dorothy Kirby, Margaret Bell - June 30, 1984
George Yahn - June 30, 1983
Anthony Aidukas - June 30, 1982
Planning Commission :
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner, and unani- (60)
mously carried, that Peter Koetting be appointed to the Planning
Commission toifill unexpired term of Sig Ehrens,
ending June 30, 1981 , and for the ensuing term, ending
June 30, 1984.
REPORTS & REQUESTS:
25. DEPARTMENTAL. REPORTS - Received & Ordered Filed
a) Treasurer's Monthly - March, 1981
b) CVB - 3rd Quarter 1980-81
26. CITY COUNCIL reports or requests - None
27. PUBLIC reports or requests - None
28. STAFF reports or requests - None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business at 12:30 a.m. , Mayor
declared the meeting adjourned to Saturday, June
13, 1981 , at 8:30 a.m. , in the Large Conference Room, City Hall ,
for the purpose of a budget study session.
NORMAN R. KING
City Clerk
/ 1 Y. JUDITH SUMICH
- Deputy City Clerk