HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/5/1981 - MINUTES CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 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, August 5, 1981 , at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Field, Rose and Mayor Doyle
Absent: Councilmembers Beirich & Ortner (Councilmember
Ortner entered during CRA portion of meeting)
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 .
PRESENTATION:
Mayor read Resolution 13917, expressing appreciation to the
P.S. Kiwanis Club for its contribution to purchase an additional
police dog; after which, it was moved by Doyle, seconded by Rose, (113)
and unanimously carried, Beirich absent, that Resolution 13917
be adopted. A copy was then presented to Dr. Alex Eddis, on
behalf of the Kiwanis.
Mayor read Resolution 13918, entitled:
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, ENCOURAGING PUBLIC ATTENDANCE AT THE
"UP WITH FREEDOM" EVENING AUGUST 7, 1981 TO BE
HELD AT THE RIVIERA HOTEL.
It was moved by Ortner, seconded by Field, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that Resolution 13918 be adopted.
Rudy Ramirez, Murray Liebowitz, and Lawrence Thomas, each
expressed appreciation for the Council 's action, and urged
people to attend the event as a proper demonstration against
speech to be given at the Pavilion on the same evening.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was moved by Field, seconded by Rose, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that the minutes of July 22, 1981
be approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 . PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT (SIGN ORDINANCE VIOLATION) - APPEAL
Recommendation : Consideration of appeal by Charles Gattuso
from posting of Sign Ordinance violation and order to abate
for property at 119 S. Indian Avenue.
Mayor explained the hearing procedure to be followed; after (57)
which Deputy City Clerk administered the oath to those persons
present who expected to give testimony in this matter.
Assistant City Attorney called attention to staff report,
dated August 5, 1981 , together with attachments to be
referred to, specifically, notice of public nuisance, sign
permit application, sign permit, and appeal form of Mr. Gattuso;
and stated that on June 23, 1981 , the Sign Enforcement Officer
determined that a public nuisance existed at 119 S. Indian
Avenue, in that sign had been erected without a permit, and
even if a permit had been applied for, such a sign in addition
to the main sign at that business location would not be allowed
in any event.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 2
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
Responding to questions by Assistant City Attorney,
Dan Kahn, City Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated
that he has held the position for the past six
months; that the customary approach to resolving
a violation, is to approach the property owner, point
out the violation, and ask for abatement; that he
spoke with the appellant on several occasions, and
the ultimate result of the discussion was that the
sign was to be abated; that, in his opinion, the sign
is within the definition setforth in the Sign Ordinance;
that he has identified similar such signs in other busi-
nesses in the past and so designated them in the same
manner; that slides presented by Assistant City Attorney
show the subject sign, plus the main sign above the door;
that he works for the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department, and it is his duty to enforce the
Sign Ordinance; that the sign has the substantial effect of
attracting attention for advertising purposes when viewed
from outside the public area; that determination of whether
a product display or design is an art form epitomizing simplicity,
good taste and compatibility with the community's desired image
has long since been established by the Director of Community
Development and such passed down to the people who are responsible-
for the field enforcement, with ultimate authority resting with
the City Council , which forms the ordinance in the first instance;
that regarding amortization referred in Section 8180.04
of the Sign Ordinance, there is no amortization period
remaining for the sign, since it expired in 1977; that
there is nothing in the Sign Ordinance that would not
make the subject sign to be defined as a sign; that the
main sign had a permit; that such permit included that
all non-conforming signs then in place were to be removed CONT 'D
as a condition of that permit, which is general usage; (57)
that a permit would be required for the sign; that no permit
was ever applied for or issued for the subject sign; that
the sign is still being displayed; that it is his opinion
that the sign, without a permit, is in violation of Section
8130.02, and existence of more than one sign at this busi-
ness is a violation of Section 8153.02 of the Sign Ordinance,
subject to special permit previously issued which allows a
pedestrian convenience sign; that he believes the public
nuisance exists at the location and notice of public nuisance
was prepared and served on Mr. Gattuso, although not served
by himself; and that Zachary Pitts, owner of Plaza Investment,
was also served on June 22, 1981 . Documents referred to by
Assistant City Attorney made part of record and are on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.
Robert Aran, attorney representing appellant, offered
comments, generally, as follows:
a) Subject sign has been in the store front window since
1953; there was no sign ordinance which required
a permit for such sign; no sign ordinance was adopted
until 1955, and it exempted signs which were in existence
prior to the ordinance for which no permit was required;
and no permit was required and it was and has been
validly in existence since 1953.
b) He objected to introduction in the staff report
of any potential violation of Section 8153.02 of
the Sign Ordinance, because notice served claims
violation of Section 8130.02 and does not make
reference to any potential violation of Section 8153.02,
and he was not prepared to defend that contention since
he believed it was irrelevant.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 3
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
C) In 1976, City enforcement officer required appellant to
strike from the "painting" the price of a sandwich,
but did not require removal of the sign, nor indicate
that it was in violation of any ordinance or section
of any ordinance of the City; and the Officer knew
no permit had been obtained and he did not impose
any penalty or requirement, except removal of the price,
which the appellant did so do.
d) Since the sign was not subject to a permit, and since
there was no demand since 1976 to remove it, it has
remained in place from 1953 to the present (late.
e) Mr. Kahn only involved in code enforcement for six
months; do not know whether he determined that sign
was there since 1953, whether determined that there
were no enforcement requirements, were no requirements
for permit prior to that time or any subsequent time
after the ordinance was adopted; do know that he made
a determination on what Mr. Aran considered to be an
uncertain and ambiguous paragraph of the Code, which
Council should review for future enforcement purposes.
f) After filing his response to a misdemeanor complaint
filed in Municipal Court by the City, the City then
dismissed its case and filed a public nuisance notice.
g) Read in full a letter from him to the Assistant City
Attorney, dated July 6, 1981 , and the Assistant City
Attorney's response, dated August 4, 1981 , and submitted
a copy of each to the Deputy City Clerk, as part of the
record; same being on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.
h) Since is quasi-judicial proceeding, request that Council
take judicial notice of Ordinance 776, adopted February
14, 1967, in particular, Sections 8110 through 8120.01 ; CONT'D
Section 8110 relating to the purpose of adopting the
ordinance and issuing permits ; within that purpose, it (57)
must be narrowly drawn and meet the qualifications and
purposes to effectuate the police powers of the city
in regard to it; requested that Council determine whether
the appealed "painting" has in any way violated any of
the purposes setforth as the reasons and meaning of
that Ordinance.
i ) Read Section 8120.01 of the Sign Ordinance, stating that
he took homage with that language which is so unclear;
questioned how the inspector could find that the "painting"
has the effect of attracting for advertising purposes,
since the price was removed in 1976, it has been there
ever since, and no one is complaining except the inspector.
j) Since it is unclear what is the distance that constitutes
a substantial effect of attracting from the, public area,
the section cannot be enforced, and it should be revised
to make it meaningful for the City to imply that which
it intended.
k) Requested that Council take judicial notice of Sections
8110 and 8120.01 of the Sign Ordinance, and presented a
copy to the Deputy City Clerk, as part of the record,
same being on file the Office of the City Clerk; and
Ordinance 50, effective January 6, 1955, also a copy
presented and on file in the Office of the City Clerk,
requested that it be shown where , the subject sign
was required to have a permit.
kNl�e u
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 4
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
1 ) Not at the hearing to say that the ordinance is
unconstitutional or has many flaws, at this point,
but to say that the City has the burden of establishing
that one or more of the purposes for adopting the
ordinance have been violated.
m) Requested that the Council take judicial notice of
Section 5412.5, et seq, of the Business & Professions
Code, which he thereafter read, noting that the Legisla-
ture has extended its effectiveness until January 1 ,
1983.
n) Read from California case, Armsted vs. City of Los
Angeles, regarding due process in public nuisance
abatement proceedings, stating it means that the City
must have to produce substantial , substantial evidence
to show that that painting in that window since 1953
is a public nuisance, and even though no permit was
required for it, the Council must be satisfied that
because it is there, it is a public nuisance.
o) Read from Biber vs. O'Brien, 138 Cal App. 353, 32 P.2d
425, regarding absence ot permit not sufficient to CONT'D
establish existence of a nuisance. (57)
p) From the evidence produced, there has been no showing
that a public nuisance exists.
In response to questions by Council , Mr. Aran stated that he
was not a witness except in connection with that which
occurred with respect to the Assistant City Attorney and
himself; that when a sign permit was taken in 1973 for a
new main sign, condition was imposed to remove all non-
conforming signs, which the appellant did, but because the
subject sign did not need a permit in 1953 it was legal and
therefore, not non-conforming; additionally, when he was
told to remove the price, in 1976, he was not told that
the sign was illegal , therefore, the inference was strong
that the sign did not have to have a permit. He stated
that illegal and non-conforming have the same meaning.
Carlo Gattuso, appellant, 119 S. Indian Avenue, stated
that he complied with everything the City Inspector
requested in 1973, when the new sign was installed,
except removal of the "painting" which he stated has
become a tradition with the store; that he believed
the photographs (slides presented by Assistant City
Attorney) were slanted as to that which a driver would
see if he were travelling south on Indian Avenue, however,
Indian Avenue is one-way northbound; that he believed
"open" and "closed" signs were a form of advertising
and he was told he could not have such a sign, although
other merchants display such signs; and that the "painting"
was in the window 27 years ago, and when he purchased
it 18 years ago. With the assistance of his attorney,
Mr. Gattuso presented to the Deputy City Clerk, as part
of the record, a copy of his declaration in support of
motion to dismiss the misdemeanor complaint, dated
June 10, 1981 ; same being on file in the Office of the
City Clerk.
In answer to question by Council , Mr. Gattuso stated
that the only thing he heard regarding the sign, prior
to the present circumstances, was in 1976 when the
City Inspector told him that if he was going to, leave
the sign up, then to please remove the price. '
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 5
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
Joan Gattuso, 119 S. Indian Avenue, presented seven unsolicited
letters from people in support of the painting, a copy of which
is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and read from a
letter from Jerry Stotling, 4358 W. 136 Street, C, Hawthorne,
California, whom she said was the daughter of the original
owner of the store and who worked in the store -in 1953,
indicating that the sign was painted in 1953 by a friend
and it was approved by the City and was in the store during
the time in which they owned it, i .e. , 1953 to 11963;
she also stated that she spoke with a Mr. Cook, original
owner of the store, who said that the City wanted two
neon signs removed in 1953, at which time he had the sign
painted and the City thought it was great and it never
gave him any problems; that there are a number of illegal
signs in the community; that the charm and charisma of the
community is created by the small business owner and that
which reaches out to tourists and causes them to return ;
and that the Planning Commission should be aware that
not all people are "brown and beige people. "
John Harrison, employee of the Lock Doctor, stated that
small business owners create the charm of the City, which
attracts people to it each year; that small business owners
are subject to excessive demands of the Planning Commission ;
that the subject sign is not a traffic hazard or, a nuisance,
and questioned why it should be so deemed; and that he would CONT'D
like to see the Sign Ordinance revised. (57)
Nelson Mackinich, 2743 N. Indian Avenue, stated that
many frequent customers of the establishment are angry
at the City's action in this matter; that the establish-
ment is well run; and that, even though he has been
a customer of the establishment 4-5 days per week through-
out the year, he has never noticed the sign.
Chi Chi La Manda Yvala commented on the cleanliness of
the establishment, and stated that the sign is a form
of nostalgia.
Doyle Martin, 580 Desert View, stated that he recalled
the "painting" being in the store in 1953; and that he
purchased the store in 1960 and thereafter sold it.
Bob Glen, 32775 Gaby Trail , stated that he has been a
customer of the establishment for 10 years and has
never noticed the sign; that he does not find it a
nuisance; and that he considered it a form of nostalgia.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page g �aFn�l'i
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
Casey Cross, 34711 Marcia, stated that his family
owns a sign business, and he frequently encounters
problems with the City and the 'person wanting a
sign; that he finds the sign permit process a
nuisance; that he recognized the necessity for the
Sign Ordinance; and that he believed, people are
asking that there be a joint effort to resolve the
problems so everyone is happy and satisfied.
William Sneda, public accountant, 113 S. Indian
Avenue, Room 7, stated that he is a customer of
the establishment, and passes it every day and has
never noticed the sign in the window until it was
publicized in the newspaper.
Barbara Maxwell , 1109 Mesquite, stated that she has
never seen the sign in the 11 years in which she has
lived in the City; that she intentionally drove on
Indian Avenue' to see if she could see the sign, and
found she had to stop her vehicle in order to do so;
and that she believed there should be more concern
with signs which make it appear that the downtown
area is going out of business.
Arthur Hersh, 252 S. Palm Canyon, stated that he has CONT'D
never noticed the "painting" in the 18 years he has (57)
frequented the establishment.
Betty Rasko, 780 Prescott, stated that she did not
think the sign was a public nuisance; and that there should
be more concern with signs in the future, what is happening
at the present, and not with mementos from the past.
In answerto questions by Mr. Aran and Assistant City
Attorney, Dan Kahn, Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated
that he was employed with the City for 412 years in the
Business License Division" before transferring to Code
Enforcement; that in assuming his new position, he was
given the existing ordinance and field training, as well,
as applications that had been interpreted by his predecessors
and people in charge of the department; that, whenever a
judgement call must be made, there are people in the depart-
ment to whom he can refer for input; that he believed it
was obvious that the sign was objectionable in terms of
what was called for in the Ordinance; that determination
of the sign having the substantial effect of being
attractive to the public as advertising was discussed
with other staff members in the department; and that
determination that the sign was a public nuisance was
made at a' later date based on fact that the City Attorney's
Office thought it advisable to withdraw the criminal
complaint and pursue the matter under public nuisance
abatement proceedings. He identified photograph (slide)
displayed by Assistant City Attorney, as sign existing in
1967, which also indicated an oversized menu; that the
picture was found in City records in the last 3-4 months;
that he has not had any discussion with Mr. Gattuso since
the original citation was first issued; that he did not
know who took the photograph; and that he did not know
if it showed the entire store front.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 7
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
In answer to questions by Assistant City Attorney, Mr.
Aran stated that he made an opening statement, part of
which included facts that were produced here as evi-
denciary material , part of them related to relationship
with Assistant City Attorney and the cormplaintl•- all of
which were factual ; that history of the prior ordinance
was predicated upon receiviing, frorhithe !Cgty a copy 'of'uthe
ordinance adopted in 1954, effective '1955, anoya.r(�opy,!df -ordin-
ance adopted in 1967, which he had reviewed and had
prior experience with in connection with the Kirkwood
Vs. City of Palm Springs case, and not based totally on
fact that he knows, but based on analysis, conclusion and
law and objectively trying to piece it together; and partly
based on facts given to him by his client; reiterating
that his comments were given in the nature of an opening
statement.
Assistant City Attorney stated that Mr. Aran made or
exactly stated alleged facts that were never supported
by any evidence, nor was it stated that they were of
his personal knowledge, specifically, whether the sign CONT'D
was up or down and whether it was continuously in the (57)
same location. In response to comment by Council , he
stated that statements of Mr. Kahn were based on official
public records which are admissable and are not hearsay,
where statements unsubstantiated by Mr. Aran are
hearsay.,
Mrs. Gattuso stated that the photograph showed only one
of two storefront windows and the subject sign was in
the other window; and that the large menu board shown
in the photograph was removed as a result of what was
happening at the time regarding rate signs.
Assistant City Attorney presented the photographs (slides)
as cart of the record, and stated that Mr. Aran' s objection
to Section 8153.02 in the staff report is without founda-
tion in as much as the only requirement is that the chief
section be listed, which is lack of a permit; that the
reference to Section 8153.02 merely puts the Council on
notice that even if a permit were applied for, one cannot
be obtained for this location because there is already a
main sign; and that Mr. Aran indicated he was not
objecting to any potential constitutional flaws in the
ordinance, even though he made references to two cases,
and assumed that that was being withdrawn.
Mr. Aran stated that there should be no inference
that the appellant was waiving any corivc-i-t-utional rights.
Assistant City Attorney offered comments, generally, as
follows :
a) He strongly disagreed with Mr. Aran's argument that the
Ordinance is unclear or vague, and believed that if it
were read in a reasonable fashion, it is eminently clear
and subject to interpretation by a reasonable individual ;
and that if it were not so specific and did not define a
sign so able or setforth sections so clearly, guidelines
would be in order, however, given its state of construction,
guidelines would be redundant.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 8
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
b) Regarding Business and Professions Code sections referred
to by Mr. Aran, he believed those to be distinguishable
from the subject matter, in that the issue relates to a
sign in the window of a business which fronts on a major
arterial system as defined by the General Plan, and those
sections of said Code, if read in toto as they all inter-
relate, would be found to be designed to solely apply to
billboards.
c) In support of above contention, he read Section 5230 of
said Code, including the Law Review and Commentary nota-
tion thereafter, entitled, "State and Local Billboard
Control in California, " stating that he did not think
the appellant was taking the position that the sign is
a billboard.
d) Section 5271 regarding Application of Chapter, Restricting
of Chapter to Certain Displays, provisions were obviously
meant to deal with unincorporated areas of the City - again,
intent was to apply to billboards ; that it refers to highways
and portions of highways in incorporated areas raises the
question as to what is a highway.
e) Indian Avenue is not an interstate highway, but defined as
a major arterial system in the General Plan. He read
excerpt from "Traffic Engineering Theory and Practice,"
by Pignataro, 1973, Prentis-Hall , Pages 20-21 , in
particular, "In the most basic classification system for
design work, highways and streets are grouped into
Interstate, Primary (excluding Interstate) , Secondary, CONT'D
and Tertiary road classifications in rural areas, and (57)
Expressway, Arterial , Collector, and Local road classi-
fications in urban areas. " and reiterated that Indian
Avenue is defined as a major arterial system in the
General Plan.
f) Business & Professions Code Section 5221 defines sign
for ". . .outdoor advertising purposes" which, again,
relates to billboards. He believed Mr. Aran was
stretching application of billboard laws to applica-
tion of it to signs within the limits of the City and,
therefore, eminently subject to local regulations.
g) Government Code Sections 38774 and 38771 give the City the
ability to regulate signs and to declare them public
nuisances, and there was no repeal of said sections in
the Business & Professions Code cited by Mr. Aran;
further that in 1973 case, Cit�of Escondido vs.
Desert Outdoor Advertising, 8 Cal 3.d 7 5, a irmed
validity of the City's authority to declare these
signs violations as a public nuisance.
h) Regarding 10-year amortization period, that would have
run 1967-1977; sign is non-conforming or illegal and
not entitled to any amortization period.
Above referred to Business & Professions Code sections, Govern-
ment Code Sections, and "Traffic Engineering Theory and
Practice," pages 20-21 submitted to the Deputy City Clerk as
part of the record, copies of which are on file in the Office
of the City Clerk.
J30
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 9
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
In answer to questions by Council , Assistant City
Attorney stated that, according to the Traffic
Engineer, CalTrans does not have jurisdiction on
Indian Avenue; that he does not have any photographs
of the full storefront in 1967 or 1976; that there is
nothing in the record to indicate that there was any
demand to remove the price on the subject sign, and
if such a thing did occur, it was a mistake by that
individual and no rights would have been given to
the appellant by that request nor would there have
been any waiver forthcoming because the person would
not have had any ability to waive any law; that it
was simply an error which does not inure to the
benefit of the appellant; that the record contains
a copy of a notice of code violation and order Ito
remove "Pizza by the piece" and "Torpedo Sandwich"
sign attached below menu, dated June 30, 1976 ,(c:opy
of same presented for the record and is on file in
the Office of the City Clerk) ; and that regarding Section
8130.02, the sign was not legally existing because of the
amortization section, which must be read in connection
therewith
Mr. Aran presented three photographs, which are on file
in the Office of the City Clerk, depicting the subject
storefront showing the overhead hanging sign, the
torpedo sandwich picture, and planter in front of it
which he stated weighs upon the question of its substantially
being viewed from the public area for the purpose of
advertising, and made comments, generally, as follows.
a) Suggesting fact that City Staff did not bring CONT'D
Mr. Immel (City Inspector referred to above by (57)
Mr. Gattuso - see Page 4) is strong inference
that what Mr. Gattuso said is correct, since on
June 10, 1981 , the declaration of Mr. Gattuso,
in connection with the misdemeanor complaint, refers
to that incident; yet, from that time until the present
there has been no declaration from Mr. Immel , no appear-
ance by him, and no testimony to refute at all that
which has been told by Mr. Gattuso.
b) He is informed that while the June 10, 1976 notice
of code violation is contained in the City files,
what occurred, was that the inspector 'only wanted to
have the Pizza sign removed and as long as the price
portion of the painting was removed, as far as the
City was concerned, Mr. Gattuso could leave it up.
c) Regarding the affect of Section 5412.5of the Business
and Professions Code, -it is true that it is the outdoor
advertising chapter; also true that in its preamble it
contains, "notwithstanding anything contained in this
chapter, no city, county, shall . . ., " yet the Sign Ordi-
nancesection with which Mr. Gattuso is charged, indicates
some kind of sign is something when substantially viewed
from the outside is deemed to be an advertising device -
which is what billboards are, the only difference is they
are off-premises and the subject sign is on-•premises.
d) There is nothing in the Sign Ordinance prescribing what
is or is not a billboard; that becomes a matter of,
presumably, defimition in the code, yet the Council
must look for interpretation of whether the subject
painting constitutes a sign under the City's own ordi-
nance.
c:w5
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 10
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
e) Testimony has been given by people who pass-by the store
that they have never seen the sign, and he believed there
were as many people or more who would say it was not a
sign as those who might make that interpretation, reiterating
his comments concerning the need for guidelines.
f) Amortization section of the Sign Ordinance means nothing,
because the painting is not a sign; and Business & Professions
Code Section 5412.5 can be construed to apply.
There being no further appearances, Mayor declared
the hearing closed.
In answer to questions by Council , City Attorney stated
that the matter could be taken under submission, with
discussion and decision made at a future regular meeting;
that documentary evidence may be reviewed ,;by individual
Councilmembers; and that the Council could request a
summary of testimony from each of the attorneys however,
it could not be mandated on the appellant' s attorney.
Mayor noted that the Council will meet in adjourned
session on August 11 , 1981 , and, if the Council desired, CONT'D
it could request the summaries of testimony and consider (57)
the matter at that time, recognizing there would be no
discussion other than at an open meeting; it was the
consensus of the Council that no further time was needed
in which to make a decision.
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she understood the appellant's
position; that one thing that makes the City charming is
the fact that there are not a lot of signs in the community;
that the Planning Commission has continually stressed the
need for a strong code enforcement program; that it has
been working in that direction for years, and the com-
munity is beginning to see it come forth in the way
of notices of public nuisance; that it is not a credit
to the City to have been lax in this regard in the past;
that the ordinance legislates the very thing that insures
that the City will be a charming place; that the sandwich
sign may be perceived by some as adding charm to the City,
however, if it is not even noticed by the people going
into the establishment on a daily basis, she did not
see any hassle in removing something unnoticed; and that
she supported denial of the appeal .
Councilman Rose stated that he has searched the testimony
and has looked at the cited Business & Professions Code
sections to attempt to find something that would support
that the sign was not illegal ; that he did not read said
sections to be helpful , and believed they were inappropriate
citations for that which Mr. Aran was attempting to do;
that it was stated that the Ordinance might be better
defined, but he did not find it flawed and thinks it is
clear; that in reading the Sign Ordinance he finds that
the painting is a sign; that the Council is not in a
position to make an emotional decision, and that he
believes that the Council cannot rule any other way than
to find it is a sign, that it is illegal and is a nuisance,
and that there is no State law preempting the Council from
so doing.
2132
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 11
1 . GATTUSO APPEAL (Continued)
Councilman Field stated the people involved are
well-meaning and well-serving, but the issue is
the sign and he believed the sign should come
down.
Mayor stated that he agreed with that which has
been said about the legalities of the issue, but
he was troubled by the sudden public nuisance abate-
ment process and statement by the appellant, under
oath, that he was advised to only remove the price
portion of the sign, thereby an implication that
the rest of the sign would be allowed to remain; that
justice would be served by addressing the ambiguity
in the Sign Ordinance; that he did not think it fair
to the appellant to allow the issue to go for as CONT'D
long as it has, and demand for action should have (57)
been made some time ago; that he agreed the com-
munity wants a good appearance, and he agreed with
the legal issues; but he thought the appeal should
be upheld because he did not think the City was
taking a fair posture in this regard.
Councilman Rose stated he was sympathetic with such
sentiments, but he hoped people would realize that
the Council does not want to make a bad law; that
if the Council were to rule that the painting is not
a sign, but based its action on the viewpoint expressed
by the Mayor, it will not be able to get on with the
City's business, i .e. , its attempt to clean-up sign
violations.
Resolution 13919 was presented, entitled:
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT A PUBLIC
NUISANCE EXISTS AT 119 S. INDIAN AVENUE,
AND ORDERING ABATEMENT THEREOF.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner, and carried
by the following vote, that Resolution 13919 be
adopted, subject to amendment of the first "BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED CLAUSE," to read : ". . .public nuisance
be abated within 30 days following adoption of this
Resolution. . . :":
AYES: Field, Ortner, and Rose
NO: Doyle
ABSENT: Be;rich
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 12
2. SIGN VARIANCE 8.212 - H. KAPTUR
Councilwoman Ortner stated she would abstain from discussion
and voting.
Planning Director reported that at the July 21 , 1981 study
session, Councilman Rose requested that the Council review
Planning Commission approval of signing for complex, at
Tahquitz-McCallum Way and Avenida Caballeros, and reviewed
his report, dated August 5, 1981 , indicating the Com-
mission's action.
In answer to question by Council , Planning Director
stated that staff supported a complex identification sign, (131 )
which could be free-standing but could not identify only
one business; that the Commission denied such a sign with
only the words "E.F. HUTTON" and on second submittal , which
came to the Commission as an added starter, approved the
sign with the additional word "Building" added, however,
staff recommended against approval because the word "Building"
was in considerably smaller letters and landscaping would
grow and cover the word.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Hugh Kaptur, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, stated that
hardship for a variance is not defined in the ordinance,
although in the past it has related generally to financial
considerations, and, in this case it was felt the design
was a hardship; that other means of signing the building
would be to place signs on both the Tahquitz-McCallum and
Avenida Caballeros frontages, which it was felt would not
be aesthetically pleasing.
Mel Golub, Manager of E.F. Hutton, stated that the company
was concerned about maintaining the beauty of the building
and were well aware of the ordinance provisions which would
have allowed greater sign coverage, and that it elected
not to demean the beauty of the property, but to have a
sign designed more in keeping with the property and the
neighborhood.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was
closed.
Mayor stated that he had no problem with what the applicant
was proposing, and he supported the recommendation of the
Architectural Advisory Committee and Planning Commission. -
Councilman Field stated that he saw no need to second
guess the Commission 's action.
Councilman Rose stated that the Council 's action concerning
the Gattuso appeal was correct and appropriate and upholds
the Sign Ordinance; that the subject case was for a variance
to install a sign identifying a single occupant rather than
the building per se, and the second submittal is only an
effort to get around that; that anyone seeing the sign will
take it to mean that it is the location of E.F. Hutton ;
that the Sign Ordinance should be administered in the same
fashion for both the big and small businessman; that he did
not think the Planning Commission listened to the case
properly presented by Staff; and that to overrule Staff and
allow the Commission to do something which is directly con-
trary to the Sign Ordinance, will only hurt future cases
where the Council is trying to uphold the Sign Ordinance. His
motion to overrule the Planning Commission action and uphold the
staff recommendation, failed for lack of a second.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 13
2. SIGN VARIANCE 8.212 (Continued)
Mayor stated that he recognized that Staff must deal
with the ordinance on a daily basis, however, some
case can be made that the proposal is a betterment CONT'D
of what the ordinance would allow; and that he does (131 )
not find anything offensive about that which is proposed.
Councilman Rose stated that his concern is that: the
word "Building" should be in the same size letters.
No action taken; Commission action stands.
3� C.U.P. 5.0178 - WESTMINSTER BROADCASTING CORP. APPEAL
Recommendation: Consideration of appeal by Westminster
Broadcasting Corp. from Planning Commission denial of (78)
a conditional use permit to allow construction of a
broadcast site with a 156-ft tower and a transmitter
building on Sunrise Way, between San Rafael Drive and
the Whitewater Flood Channel .
Councilman Field stated that although he did not: have
a conflict of interest in the technical sense, he would
abstain from discussion and voting on the appearance of
a conflict of interest, and excused himself from the meeting.
Building & Safety Director reviewed report of Director
of Community Development, dated August 5, 1981 .
In answer to question by Council, Housing Coordinator
stated that Staff did not receive any application, nor
was it aware that any application was being pursued,
prior to October, 1980, which was after commencing
dealings with AFCOM.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
John Sanborn, Webb Engineering, representing appellant,
stated that Mr. Hesson, of KCMJ, did have discussions
with City Planner of the possibility of locating a radio
tower in the general area and the indication to him was
that there would not be any problem, and, on that basis,
KCMJ authorized the tower and facilities and made applica-
tion to the FCC for approval , and entered into a lease
option with DWA for the site; that it took three years
in which to complete the process and obtain FCC approval ;
that in starting the facilities, it was found that a
conditional use permit was needed, at which time the
City was discussing the possibility of a mobilehome
park with AFCOM; that the DWA option was executed in
1979, although FCC approval was not obtained until July,
1980; that it was felt the open space around the tower
could be incorporated into the AFCOM project; that it
costs about $40,000 to do the studies necessary to deter-
mine whether a site is acceptable, which could take another
two years, after which, FCC approval would then have to be
sought again; and that if the permit is not granted, the
station would remain at its existing location.
Transportation Director stated that a waiver would have
to be granted by FAA, because height of the tower penetrates
and violates the airport height limitation zone,; Mr. Sanborn
indicated that, according to KCMJ officials, that waiver has
been granted by FAA.
231
(council Minutes
,Page 1,4
3- C.U.P. 5.0178 - WESTMINISTER BROADCASTING CORP (Continued)
There being no further appearances, the hearing was
closed. CONT'D
(78)
Councilman Rose stated he did not see how, in good
conscience, the project could be supported, since the
City is trying to promote and get started a new resi-
dential neighborhood for low and moderate income families,
and from which this would only detract and keep from
happening.
In answer to question by Council , Mr. Sanborn stated
that there would not be any interruption caused by
radio transmission for the adjacent homes.
Planning Director stated that, relative to the tower in
the El Cielo/Escoba Drive residential area., there have
not been any complaints received in terms of static caused
by the tower; that a Planning Commissioner, who lives in
the area, indicated that he has had some problems with
reception; that KCMJ official indicated to the Commission
that technology has improved and there should not be any
major problem; that, regarding the open space for recreation,
some moderate active-turf areas would be considered; and
that if FCC approval were given to use all or a portion of
the area., assumption would have to be made that it would
not be dangerous to do so.
Mayor stated that the appellant is caught in the middle;
that the City has a commitment to affordable housing,
which, hopefully, is coming to fruition and he would not
like to see anything stand in its way; that this is a
no-win situation, however, he would have to support
affordable housing rather than the appeal .
In answer to question by Council , Planning Director stated
that the issue of compatibility with the mobilehome park
was the primary issue in the Commission 's denial ; that if
it had thought it was compatible, it was with the idea
that it would be located a considerably further distance
away and not in the middle of what was being proposed;
and that it was Staff and Commission judgement that it
was not compatible and ultimately could not be compatible
without its being relocated.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Doyle, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent and Field abstaining, that the
Planning Commission denial be upheld and that the appeal
be denied.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 15
4. PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN
Recommendation : That the Council confirm the Proceedings
and Accounting Report filed July 22, 1981 , and impose (57)
special assessment lien in amount of $4,473.30, for
property at 1580 North Indian Ave.
Building & Safety Director reviewed report of Director
of Community Development dated August 5, 1981 .
Mayor declared the hearing open; there being no appear-
ances, the hearing was closed.
Resolution 13920, confirming the report and imposing
the lien, was presented; after which, it was moved by
Rose, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously carried,
Beirich absent, Field abstaining (absent during item
presentation) .
5,. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE 5.0129 - R.C.
ELLIS
On June 17, 1981 , at request of applicant, Council
continued hearing on Planning Commission recommendation (101 &
to approve amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element 149)
for approximately 52 acres east of Crossley Road, approxi-
mately 1100 ft. south of Ramon Road, and change of zone
relating thereto; applicant has requested a further con-
tinuance to September 16, 1981 .
Mayor inquired if anyone wished to be heard; there were
no appearances.
It was moved by Ortner, seconded by Rase, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that hearing be continued to
September 16,. 1981 .
6. C.U.P. CASE 5.0106 - WESTERN VENTURES, INC.
Recommendation : Consideration of appeal from Planning
Commission imposition of conditions upon approval of (78)
extension of conditional use permit for hotel development
on N. Indian Avenue, between Tahquitz and Arenas Road;
appellant has requested a continuance to September 16,
1981 .
Mayor inquired if anyone wished to be heard; there were
no appearances.
It was moved by Field, seconded by Rose, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that hearing be continued to
September 16, 1981 .
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
a) Bob Glenn, P.S. Merchants & Citizens Association, spoke
in support of disestablishment of Sun Surrey district, (lit)
refund of assessments, and dismissal of litigation re
collections ; and stated that he hoped the final decision
would be in line with voter's feelings and the feelings
of those who will actually carry the burden of paying
for the surrey.
.. J
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 16
7. FUNDING OF SUN SURREY
Mayor stated that information had been requested of
Staff, which was received and reviewed in detail at
the last study session, and that he had requested
Staff to prepare resolutions incorporating the comments
by Council , Staff and the people interested in the (133)
district. He read proposed Resolutions 13921 and
13922, in full , entitled:
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO DISESTABLISH
THE CENTRAL CORRIDOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
CREATED BY ORDINANCE 1109, FIXING THE TIME AND
PLACE OF A HEARING TO BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL
TO CONSIDER THE DISESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH AREA, AND
DIRECTING THE GIVING OF NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REFUND
THE BENEFIT CHARGE AND RELATED COSTS PAID BY
VARIOUS BUSINESSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CENTRAL.
CORRIDOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA CREATED BY
ORDINANCE 1109, FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE OF A
HEARING TO BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO CON-
SIDER THE REFUND OF SUCH MONIES, AND DIRECTING
THE GIVING OF NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING.
Councilman Field stated that disestablishing the district
does not do away with the concept of the bus; that some
people have voiced a support for the concept, even though
they found the current system inequitable; that he would
support the resolutions; and that he would encourage that
if there is such support, that such dialogue be maintained.
It was moved by Ortner, seconded by Rose, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that Resolutions 13921 and 13922
be adopted.
Mayor stated that the Council should be receiving input
from Ray Gorney's committee and the Chamber of Commerce
on September 2, 1981, and issue whether to consider continua-
tion of the surrey under any arrangement should be a matter
of discussion at the September 17 meeting.
Councilman Rose stated that the Chamber of Commerce survey
is directed at Chamber members ; that from prior testimony,
many who spoke in opposition were not members of the Chamber;
and questioned 'how it might be better determined to know
whether there is a majority of businesses that would support
a new basis.
Assistant City Manager stated that consideration has been
given to surveying all businesses downtown; that Council
may wish, on September 2, 1981 , to direct Staff to prepare
a survey questionnaire; and that if direction were given
this date, the questionnaire could be presented for Council
review on September 2, 1981 . He stated that any such survey
should be done with a great deal of care to avoid any perception
that something is being thrust upon people, which they do not
want.
In answer to question by Council , Sunline Executive Director
stated that, predicated on a December 1 , 1981 start date,
the last date to receive direction to set system in motion,
would be mid-October; and that Sunline is proceeding on the
basis of maintaining the buses, whether they are to be sold
or retained.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 17
7. FUNDING OF SUN SURREY (Continued)
Mayor stated that perhaps some of Mr. Glen 's group could
review the questionnaire.
CONT 'D
Assistant City Manager stated that assuming the questionnaire (133)
is sent out after the September 2, 1981 meeting, the results
could be back by October 1 , 1981 .
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she had supported such
a survey some time ago, and urged that it be clear and
direct.
Mr. Glen stated that he had no problem working with a
new survey or working with the Chamber of Commerce.
8. P.D. 110 - DESERT DORADO, INC.
On July 22, 1981 , Council continued consideration of
Planning Commission recommendation to approve final
development plans for a 359-unit development on property
bounded by Sunrise Way, Francis Drive, Aurora Drive, (116)
and Racquet Club Road; Planning Commission subsequently
recommended approving housing affordability guidelines
for the district.
Councilman Rose stated that he was concerned about not
requiring the school impact fee, and believed it: was an
issue properly brought up at the last study session; that
it was difficult to equate asking the entire community to
share in the cost of a new school facility, and yet not
the project which seemingly will increase the school
population; and, although he recognized the desire to
encourage affordable housing and not encumber a project
with additional fees, he would look for support to add
the fee as a condition of approval .
In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated
that the Council is entitled to impose any condition which
it finds appropriate to the approval of the planned develop-
ment district; that the exact form the fee would take has
not been seen, but if it is a mitigation measure under
CEQA, it may be difficult to apply it as a condition of
a planned development district which has already gone
through the environmental process; and that it is within
the perogative of the Council to require that the project
pay fees equivalent to the school impact fee, if' and when
it is established. He also stated that he would assume
the condition could be appealed to the Tribal Council ;
and if it is a regulation or burden placed on the lessee having
the effect of reducing income to the Indian landowner, it
would not be permitted.
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she did not think it would
affect the income of the lessor, but would cause the price
of the homes to increase.
In answer to questions by Council , Housing Coordinator
stated that the developer has requested that if the fee
is to be imposed, it be allowed on the ultimate sales
price of the home, since it was not part of the original
approval ; that mitigation under CEQA is the approach being
considered by the School District; that a majority of the
single-family homes probably will be occupied by families
having school-age children; and that, unlike the Harmony
Homes project, both AFCOM and this project came -in before
the School District approached the City.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 18
8. P.D. 110 (Continued)
Motion by Rose, seconded by Doyle, to add as a condition
of resolution approving affordability guidelines, the
imposition of an amount equivalent to the school impact CONT'D
fee, which would not count against the cost relating to (116)
meeting 120% over median income, failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYE: Rose
NOES: Field, Ortner and Doyle
ABSENT: Beirich
Resolutions 13923, approving final development plans,
and 13924, approving affordability guidelines for the
district, as recommended by the Planning Commission, were
presented; after which, it was moved by Field, seconded
by Ortner, and unanimously carried, Beirich absent, that
Resolutions 13923 and 13924 be adopted.
9. LEASE AGREEMENT WITH AFCOM - AMENDMENT
10. P.D. 116 - AFCOM - INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
11 . P.D. 116 - AFCOM - FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Assistant City Manager reported that moments before the
last study session, applicant indicated that they have
no interim financing, that city fees were not included
in cost figures, and that there is a question whether (85 &
they can perform development of the interim project in 116)
time to relocate tenants of Rancho Trailer Park by
December 1 , 1981 . He stated that as a result of that
information, Staff spent considerable time, this date,
to develop a contingency plan in event AFCOM cannot
perform; that via a representative of AFCOM, this date,
Mr. Dawson gave assurance that he is ready to start
the interim phase by August 24, 1981 , with completion
by November 15; that if that were the case, there would
be sufficient time to relocate the tenants, however,
Staff still believes that a contingency plan should be
developed, since a number of things have not come to
fruition, as were promised; and that the Council has
the alternative of approving the actions recommended,
or approving part of the recommendations with a deferral
of the remainder to August 11 , 1981 , on which date an
adjourned meeting could be held. He stated that the
existing lease provides that it takes effect only if
the UDAG grant is forthcoming, where the amendment
would provide not only for the UDAG stipulation, but
also if mortgage revenue bonds become a reality, which
should be deferred until August 11 , 1981 .
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she was not pleased
with a number of matters concerning the project; that
nothing has happened; that Mr. Dawson gave assurances
that he would proceed even if he did not get the expected
form of financing; and that any contingency plans should be
i'n• writing from Mr. Dawson.
It was moved by Field, seconded by Rose, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that above items be continued
to August 11 , 1981 , at 3 p.m.
240
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 19
12. SEWER CONSTRUCTION (AFCOM PROJECT) - AWARD OF CONTRACT
Recommendation : That the Council award contract for
construction of sewers in Sunrise Way, from Vista Chino
to San Rafael Drive, to J & S Paving Co. , Inc. , in
amount of $237,656.
Housing Coordinator stated that any contingency plan
would still necessitate the installation of the sewers ; (128)
that an award would obligate the City to proceed with
a housing development in Section 35, since the project
would be funded by City Administered Community Develop-
ment Block Grant funds; and that the project is not
tied only to the AFCOM project.
Assistant City Manager stated that a delay to August 11 ,
1981 , would not cause serious problems.
Councilman Field stated that the concept of providing
homes for persons needing to be relocated is still a
high priority of the Council , and delay should be seen
only as assurance that the concept will be carried out.
It was moved by Ortner, seconded by Field, and unanimously
carried,' Beirich absent, that this matter be continued to
August 11 , 1981 .
13. CITY HALL IMPROVEMENTS - AWARD OF CONTRACT
Recommendation: That the Council award contract. for
City Hall lobby/hallway remodeling to W.A. Foster, Inc.
in amount of $85,727; and appropriate necessary addi- (117 &
tional funds in amount of $34,000. 61 )
Minute Order 2967, awarding contract, and Resolution
13925, amending the budget, were presented; after which,
it was moved by Ortner, seconded by Rose, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that Minute Order 2967 and
Resolution 13925 be adopted.
14. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - UPGRADING - CONTRACT AWARD
Recommendation : That the Council award contract: for
Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade project to Metro- (127)
Young Construction Co. , in amount of $1 ,686,300, subject
to State approval .
Minute Order 2968, awarding contract, as recommended, was
presented; after which, it was moved by Field, seconded
by Ortner, and unanimously carried, Beirich absent, that
Minute Order 2968 be adopted.
15, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - EXPANSION - CONTRACT AWARD
Recommendation: That the Council award contract; for
Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion project to
Dillingham Construction Co. , the Simpson Division, in
amount of $10,549,300, subject to sale and delivery 041.7)
of necessary bonds and deed of trust.
Assistant City Manager reported that the Public Facilities
Corporation met this date and recommend award ky the City,
as agent of the Corporation, subject to condition regarding
bonds.
Minute Order 2969, awarding contract as recommended, was pre-
sented; after which, it was moved by Rose, seconded by Field,
and unanimously carried, Beirich absent, that Minute Order 2969
be adopted.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 20
16. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING & ADOPTION (Introduced 7-22-81 )
Assistant City Manager read title of Ordinance 1143,
as follows :
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A FORMAL AGREEMENT (127)
RELATING TO A PUBLIC LEASEBACK BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AND THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC FACILITIES
CORPORATION.
and title of Ordinance 1144, as follows :
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.04 OF THE
PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING (112)
CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SECURITY.
and title of Ordinance 1145, as follows :
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 9.62.010
AND 9.64.200, AND ADDING SECTION 9.60.205 (103)
TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF PALM SPRINGS
CONCERNING RECORDING OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT,
MAPS FOR LESS THAN FIVE UNITS, AND SOILS
REPORTS.
and title of Ordinance 1146, as follows :
AN 'ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 9202.01-C,
9209.01-C, 9210.01-C, 9211 .01-C, 9212.01-C, (103)
9229.01-B, 9216.01-B, 9217.01-C, AND
9218.01-C OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING
TIME-SHARE PROJECTS AND SECTION 9100.09
ADDING A DEFINITION FOR HOME IMPROVEMENT
CENTER.
It was moved by Field, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that further readings be waived
and that Ordinances 1143 through 1146 be adopted.
17. SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
Recommendation: That the Council consider directing
the City Clerk to transmit a copy of measures to be (83)
placed on the November ballot to the City Attorney,
who shall prepare an impartial analysis thereof for
inclusion in ballot materials.
Assistant to City Manager stated that inclusion of
an impartial analyses with ballot materials is optional
with the Council , and procedural steps to accomplish
that end can only be taken upon a direction by the
Council to the City Clerk to transmit the measures
to the City Attorney.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Field, that the
City Clerk transmit a copy of the measures to the
City Attorney, for preparation of impartial analyses;
Beirich absent.
1"
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 21
18. MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND FINANCING UPDATE
Recommendation : That the Council adopt ordinance relative
to home mortgage finance program.
Housing Coordinator stated that the Governor is expected
to act by Executive Proclamation on August 6 to allow
cities to sell mortgage revenue bonds in 1981 , and that (85)
the proposed ordinance is required prior to issuing any
such bonds.
Assistant City Manager read title of Ordinance, as
follows :
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A HOME MORTGAGE
FINANCE PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING CITY OFFICERS TO
IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that further reading be waived
and that the Ordinance be introduced for first reading.
19. SCHNECK AVIATION, INC. - LEASE AGREEMENT
Recommendation: That the Council approve early termina-
tion of Bird Corp. Agr. #807, effective July 31 , 1981 ,
for 1 .97 acres ; 40-year lease agreement with partnership (51 )
of Kuranz, Hallen, et al for specialized general aviation
services; and sublease thereof to Schneck Aviation, Inc.
Resolutions 13926, approving termination of Agr. #807,
and 13927, approving lease agreement, were presented;
after which, it was moved by Ortner, seconded by Rose,
and unanimously carried, that Resolutions 13926 and
13927 be adopted; Beirich absent.
20. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - EXPANSION
Recommendation: That the Council approve matters relating
to the Public Facilities Corporation, leasehold mortgage,
and official statement for bonds. (127)
Assistant City Manager reported that the Public Facilities
Corporation, on this date, approved the indenture and
official bond statement - amount of issue $18 million.
Resolutions 13928 and 13929, approving the above, were
presented; after which, it was moved by Field, seconded
by Rose, and unanimously carried, that Resolutions 13928
and 13929 be adopted; Beirich absent.
CONSENT AGENDA:
21 . Resolution 13930 and 13931 approving annual spread of
assessment for Street Lighting Maintenance Districts (56)
Nos. 1 and 2, i .e. , Cahuilla Road area and McManus Drive.
22. Resolution 13932 approving Supplement No. 9 to Lease
Agreement No. 521 for space occupied by the CVB on the (51 )
first and second floors of the Airport Terminal Building.
23. Minute Order 2970 approving 1-year lease by the United (117)
Way of the Desert, Inc. , of city-owned premises at 3120
E. Civic Drive.
Ll
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 22
24. Resolution 13933 quitclaiming certain golf course ease-
ment across portion of Lot 30, Tract 2808, and in considera- (92)
tion thereof adjacent property owner to compensate City $1 ,998.
25. Resolution 13934 approving agreement with SunLine Transit
Agency for facility rental and support for period July 1 , (117)
1981 through June 30, 1982.
26. Resolution -----approving 1-year extension of Tentative
Tract Map 12455 for property on the north side of Ramon (137)
Road, east; of E1 Cielo Road, 84-units, Hacker/J. Browne
27. Resolution 13935 approving 1-year extension of Tentative (137)
Tract Map 14416 for property on the north side of Highway 111 ,
between Bogie and Broadmoor, 9-units, S. Morse/Tumanjan.
28. Resolution 13936 approving Tentative Tract Map 17199 (137)
for property on Alejo Road, between Avenida Caballeros
and Calle Alvarado, 62-units, KWL/Southwest Planners, Inc.
29. Minute Order 2971 approving 3-month lease agreement with
the County of Riverside for nutrition site at the Dr. Frey- (117)
Jaycee Building on Baristo Road.
30. Resolution 13937 declaring intent to vacate a portion of
Tahquitz Drive, north of Arenas Road, to be included in (145)
boundary of Tract 17151 , and setting hearing thereon for
September 2, 1981 .
31 . Resolution 13938, 13939, 13940 and 13941 , approving payroll (86)
warrants and claims and demands.
32. Resolution 13942 approving Minority Business Enterprise (51 )
Program for the Transportation Department of the City.
33. Motion authorizing submission of incorporation papers for (104)
POST to the State and IRS for recognition and determination
of tax status.
34. Minute Order 2972 authorizing City Manager to approve (85)
Change Order(s) to contract with Robert Jacobs Company,
in an amount not to exceed $41 ,000 for the purchase of
necessary furnishings for the Child Care Center.
35. Minute Order 2973 awarding contract to Nick Mantikas (117)
Painting Contractors for interior and exterior painting
of various City buildings, in amount of $55,451 .90.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Field, and unanimously
carried, Beirich absent, that Resolutions 13930 through
13942, Minute Order 2970 through 2973, and motion defined
in Item 33, be adopted; and that Item 26, relative to
Tentative Tract Map 12455 be continued to September 2,
1981 .
36. BOGIE ROAD BRIDGE - MAXWELL CHANGE ORDER NO. l
Recommendation: That the Council approve Change Order No. 1 (136)
to increase contract with W.F. Maxwell, Inc. , in the amount
of $57,509.95, for revisions to portions of the north levee
of the Tahquitz Wash, as requested by the Riverside County
Flood Control District; matter reviewed in detail at the
last study session.
Minute Order 2974, approving the change order, as recom-
mended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Ortner,
seconded by Field, and unanimously carried, that Minute
Order 2974 be adopted; Beirich absent.
Council Minutes
8-5-81 Page 23
37. TRACT 12455 - FINAL MAP
Resolution 13943, approving Final Tract Map 12455 to
subdivide property on the north side of Ramon Road,
east of E1 Cielo Road, 85-unit conversion, Hacker/J. Brown, (137)
was presented; after which, it was moved by Field, seconded
by Rose, and unanimously carried, Beirich absent, that
Resolution 13943 be adopted.
38. PUMP STATION NO. 2 - JONES CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
Recommendation : That the Council approve Change Order
No. 2 to contract with Jones Bros . Construction Co. , (128)
to increase contract $7,070 for application of protective
lining to the sewer pump station wet well .
Minute Order 2974, approving change order, as recommended,
was presented; after which., it was moved by Rose, seconded
by Field, and unanimously carried, Beirich absent, that
Minute Order 2974 be adopted.
REPORTS & REQUESTS :
39,, CITY COUNCIL reports or requests
a) At request of Councilwoman Ortner„ staff to check
requirement to post canopy height for service station
at Palm Canyon and Sunny Dunes (Mobil Oil ) .
b) Councilwoman Ortner requested Staff recommendation
regarding removal of parking on Palm Canyon and
reverting to two-way traffic on Indian Avenue.
40. PUBLIC reports or requests - Nona
41 . STAFF" reports or requests _ None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business at 12:20 a.m. , Mayor
declared the meeting adjourned to Tuesday, August 11 ,
1981 , at 3 p.m., in the Large Conference Room, City
Hall .
NORMAN R. KING
City Clerk
C:IB/ : DITH SUMI_Cfl
eputy City Clerk