Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/2/1981 - MINUTES CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 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, December 2, 1981 , at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL : Present: Councilmembers Field, Ortner, Rose and Mayor Doyle Absent: None The meeting was opened with the salute to the Flag. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY : No business APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Field, seconded by Rose, and unani- mously carried, that the minutes of November 4, 1981 be approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS: IA. P.D. 131 - JOHN WESSMAN (Originally heard 11-4-81 ) Recommendation: That the Council reopen hearing on the above case to receive tenant input pursuant to State law. Director of Community Development reported that the day following the public hearing, it was discovered that legal notice to the tenants in the park, which is a requirement of State law imposed on the developer and/or owner, was not given and tenants did not know they could appear before the Council and give input. He stated that tenants have been notified of this date, and recommended that the Council receive the input and consider reaffirming its previous action. Councilman Ortner stated she would abstain from discussion and voting. Housing Coordinator stated that the Planning Commission approved condition whereby the developer would contribute a fund to aid relocatees having a financial hardship; that 15 people requested assistance, ranging from $600 to $3900, for a total of $22,783; that the amount of the assistance ( 116) was reduced by Staff to $15,553, because it was found that two had already moved and were not eligible, and several others had other resources to cover a portion of the cost; and that the list of persons, together with the amount for each, has been forwarded to the developer. In answer to question by Council , Housing Coordinator stated that provisions of the new law have been followed, in the sense that the Planning Commission and Council have the ability to condition approval of the project because of the change in use requested; that the Commission indicated its preference that the developer contribute to those people facing afinancial hardship that each applicant requesting assistance was asked to submit financial data; that people below 80% of median income were recommended to receive full aid, and partial aid was recommended for those between 80-120% of median, and that the subsistence would be reduced if a person had substantial savings or other resources to draw upon. n 6, Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 2 IA. P.D. 131 (Continued) City Attorney stated that the new law was called to the attention of the developer and there was discussion CONT'D whether it applied; that, ultimately, the developer gave (116) up his argument that it did not, and voluntarily prepared the impact report called for in the law; that the law authorizes the City to determine the requirements; and that the Planning Commission determination was that the assistance should be for those persons in a position of financial hardship. Mayor declared the hearing open. John Wessman, 72200 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, applicant, stated that he has met with City staff, has received the list, and agrees with the amount and the persons to receive assistance; that relative to drainage fees, he agreed that there is a need for flood control , i .e. , in the Palm Canyon area, but that he did not believe the subject property to be subject to drainage problems that cannot be mitigated by adding to the building pad; that the majority of the water in the area comes from the Cahuilla Hills area; that he believes the problem needs to be addressed on an area-wide basis with everyone paying for it; and that he would favor the Flood Control District's proposal for a special tax that would be voted on by the voters as a fair and equitable way of handling the matter. Mrs. Kay Martin, 74 Venice, reviewed letter submitted to the Council , a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and stated that the law does not provide that people must give financial status or be charity cases in order to receive assistance; that many people in the park are elderly and retired; that many have spent thousands of dollars to enhance their mobile- homes, and will have to leave ramadas, concrete patios, landscaping, and other items, which is a great loss ; and that she did not believe that the law has been complied with. Adelaide Roth, 6 Primrose, read a letter, dated in 1976, from John Wessman to the tenants in the park, that the park would remain in place for many years, and on that basis, she proceeded to purchase her home in the park; that 2/3 of her home will be lost by moving of the coach, i .e. , carport and storage; that Mr. Wessman 's intentions were announced in 1977, and that litigation occurred relating to sales in the park at that- time and purchaser's were refunded their money; that values dropped and no one could sell their coaches; that since then, nothing has been done to improve the park, even though rents were collected and raised several times; that streets were allowed to deteriorate and the park became unsafe; that 20 coaches were moved, but others could not be relocated; that although the park was originally intended for seniors, the owner allowed anyone over eighteen years of age to move in, which resulted in loud music and disturbances late at night; that she questioned whether tenants must be forced to take a financial loss; that she was not opposed to granting the application, but that the developer should be required to make restitution to the tenants; and that Mr. Wessman should make good his statement that money was not an object to completion of the project. Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 3 IA. P.D. 131 (Continued) Mike Turner, 6 Ramon Circle, stated that he purchased his coach as a long-term investment; that it is twenty years old and no other park will accept it; that without being able to sell it or move it, it has no value; and although people may be able to relocate in the AFCOM project, there are many things which are part of the "homes" which cannot be moved. Neel Fuji , 6 Ramon Circle, stated that in exchange for $15,000 the developer will be allowed to displace over 100 families; that because of his youth, he will be able to recover his loss, however, the elderly will not have that same earning power; and that he did not believe the staff had been responsive nor has there been an adequate response to questions raised. William Griffin, 5 Wilshire, stated that he, thinks the AFCOM project is worthwhile, even though it is in the windbelt; that if the condition of the park as it: exists today had been the result of a natural disaster, low interest loans would be available for rebuilding;, that 280 families have been displaced; and that he felt it was CONT'D a serious matter that just because the property is (116) Indian land it is not subject to State or local jurisdiction. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Councilman Rose stated that the request for financial information was not intended as an inquisition and staff would be the first to apologize to anyone for that impression; that there is a competitive government situation with the Tribal Council , and one which is not easily resolved, and that it has a right to have certain controls in which the City Council cannot interfere. He questioned whether the intent of the law was the end result, i .e. , where relocatees will go as opposed to assisting them in coming from where they have been. City Attorney stated that he did not read the law to limit itself to that question; that it requires that a report be filed of the impact of the conversion and that in assessing that impact, it must address the availability of other spaces, but that he did not think it was limited to the point of availability, but also refers to financial impact, relocation expense, etc; and that he believed there is authority within the law for the Planning Commiission to have imposed a given dollar or formula amount for each residence moved out. In answer to questions by Council , Housing Coordinator indicated the following: a. Planning Commission viewed the conditions relating to this park as different from other parks throughout the State, in that it related to leased Indian land; that the closure was not a result of a governmental action, but that of a private individual ; and that the replacement park at subsidized rates, lower than that offered at other parks, plus the assistance by the developer, would mitigate the environmental impact. 3F Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 4 IA. P.D. 131 (Continued) b, Regarding governmental action, response was intended to point out fact that many mobilehome closures are a result of redevelopment process initiated by a city, and begun as a result of a specific replace- ment project that a council encourages through its other functions. c. Testimony given this date was stronger than that given at the Planning Commission meeting, but the same problems were discussed. CONT'D He stated that he believed the Planning Commission was trying (116) to be responsive to the input, and beyond the reasons given, he believed the fact that a replacement park was being pro- vided, the Commission focused more on the concept of finding adequate replacement space than on the specifics of moving expenses. Councilman Rose stated that if it is now within the City's power to impose the fee because of the Indian land ownership, that should be proven, and if the Planning Commission used that as a reason for its recommendation, he did not feel it was appropriate; nor did he feel reference to governmental action was appropriate, since it was not meaningful and not applicable in this instance; that he was not prepared to state that some assistance from the developer would or would not have been appropriate, only that he was uncomfortable with the reasons given as the Commission's rationale for its decision; and that he supported referring the matter back to the Commission on the basis that it not consider the Indian land situation alone as a reason for not imposing a fee if it believes that a fee is appropriate; and that it develop a policy recommendation to apply to both fee and Indian land, recognizing that the AFCOM project is a mitigation measure. In answer to question by Council , Housing Coordinator stated that the law does not imply responsibility on the part of the developer to make restitution for investments that cannot be recovered as a result of the park closing. City Manager stated that the law is clear that mitigation is a policy matter of the Council and Commission;, that staff's view has long been, and the intent has been, to focus on hardship situations and relocation of residents from mobilehomes in this park and others in the community which are expected to be closed, i .e. , that resources, where available, should be directed to hardship cases and, therefore, would exclude, as this decision did, attempt to protect investments made based on whatever reason; that staff's concern has been focused on hardship cases, and he believed that may account, in part, for the Commission's determination. Councilman Field stated that he recognized the tenant's frustration, and the fact that this was not the result of a governmental action, but of a private individual ; that the Council and the Planning Commission have been aware of that frustration and have acted to bring about a place for people to go; that he would have no problem if the Planning Commission reconsidered that which it takes to make such a move, recognizing that another place has been achieved; and that he understood concerns about disassembling and moving, and just having another place to go was not enough. Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 5 IA. P.D. 131 (Continued) In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated that this matter has gone through noticed public hearings required by law, and that it could be referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Mayor stated that the intent would be that the Planning CONT 'D Commission allow people to address it, and then submit (116) its recommendation to the Council at the December 16 meeting. He stated that he believed the City has done much to try to resolve the mobilehome park closure and affordable housing issues, and, hopefully, the anticipated units will come to fruition; that he respected the rights of a private investor to do what he wished to do with his land, as long as it is within the law; and that he would look to the Commission to determine whether proper mitigation measures have been provided for these tenants in particular as well as establishing guidelines for future actions. It was moved by Rose, seconded by Field, and unanimously carried, Ortner abstaining, that this matter be returned to the Planning Commission for redetermination on the application and of any financial assistance to those being displaced in regard to the specific project; and as a guideline for future considerations. PUBLIC COMMENTS : a) Mrs. Lee Alexander, 1490 Via Soledad, requested considera- tion be given to relieving drainage problems on Via Soledad, in particular, the constant water in the street. b) John Wessman, applicant under P.D. 131 , stated that he acquired the leases between 1974-1976; that lessee prior to that had a commitment to develop a commercial venture, but defaulted in 1971-72, litigation ensued, and portion of the park was closed and the Western Venture Hotel developed; that the property owner was going to give 30-day notice and close the park in (116) 1975; that he secured a 5-year development plan when he took over the leases; that he had planned to com- mence development in January, 1979, however, as a result of discussions with the former City Manager, in 1978, he secured a two-year extension, because efforts were being considered to find a place for people to go; that he had suggested buying land near the Municipal Golf Course, developing a park., and relocating people to that area; that his idea was not met with support by the City; that since then, the AFCOM project came into play and was underway; that he submitted his application under all laws in effect at the time, and when the new law became effective in January, 1981 , he did not believe it was applicable to his project; that he does not believe it is retro- active; and that he was disappointed at this point and considering withdrawing his application, reapplying for commercial use for a portion of the property, and, if necessary, appealing to the Tribal Council . 6�r: Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 6 LEGISLATIVE ACTION: 1 . ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - CUP PROVISIONS (Ord. Introduced 11-4-81 ) City Clerk read title of Ordinance 1153, as follows : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, MAKING MINOR HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 9402.00: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, OF (103) THE ZONING ORDINANCE. It was moved by Field, seconded by Ortner, and unani- mously carried,_ that further reading be waived, and, that Ordinance 1153 be adopted. CONSENT AGENDA: 2. Minute Order 3025 agreeing to heat the Swim ,Center pool from 12/14/81 through 2/14/82, upon receipt of $4,000 from the (115) Piranha Swim Club by 12/15/81 ; and Resolution 14065 amending (61 ) the budget to appropriate $9,600, therefore. 3. Resolution '14066, 14067, 14068, and 14069 relating to the (83) 1982 General Municipal Election. 4. Resolution 14070 reciting fact and declaring result of 1981 (83) Consolidated Special Municipal Election, relating to the direct election of the mayor. 5. Minute Order 3026 approving amendment to lease agreement with the County for use of the Dr. Frey/Jaycee Building as a (117) nutrition site, extending the term through December 31 , 1981 . 6. Minute Order 3027 awarding purchase of a new ride-around (84) rotary mower to C.R. Jaeschke, Inc. , in amount of $8,904. 7. Minute Order 3028 awarding purchase of 1.4 police patrol (84) vehicles to P.S. Motors, Inc. , in amount of $120,846.57; and Resolution 14071 appropriating $7,847 to cover necessary addi- tional funds. 8. Minute Order 3029 awarding purchase of library bookshelvirig to Gaylord Bros. , Inc. , in amount of $23,623.88. (99) 9. Minute Order 3030 awarding purchase of library film inspection system to Paulmar, Inc. , in amount of $4,726.80. (99) 10, Minute Order 3031 awarding contract to Matich Corporation for reconstruction of E1 Cielo Road, between Ramon Road and north of Tahquitz-McCallum -Way, and reconstructionof the (136) signal at E1 Cielo-and Ramon, in amount of $369,015.68. 11,. Minute Order 3032 awarding contract to A.J. Construction Co. , Inc. , for a 12-inch sewer main and street improvement (1P8) in Junipero Avenue and San Marco Way, in amount of $122,990. 12. Minute Order 3033 awarding contract to Jack Sam Bonura Flooring for restoration of terrazzo floors at the police building, in (113) amount of $15,800. 13. Resolution 14072 proclaiming the month of December, 1981 , as "Get Alarmed" month, in connection,with Fire Department ( 87 ) promotional program relating to smoke detectors. 14. Resolution 14073, 14074 and 14075, approving payroll warrants and claims and demands. (86) Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 7 15. Minute Order 3034 authorizing filing SB 821 claim with SCAG, in amount of$43,230; Minute Order 3035 assuring maintenance of the Tahquitz Wash Bikeway Project; and (109 & Resolution 14076 appropriating City's matching share 61 ) for grant to construct the portion of the bikeway between Farrell Drive and E1 Cielo Road. It was moved by Field, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously carried, that Resolutions 14065 through 14076 and Minute Orders 3025 through 3035 be adopted. 16. HARMONY HOMES - TRACT 16864 SEWER CONNECTION' EXTENSIGN Recommendation: That the Council grant a six-month time extension to Harmony Homes for sewer connection. Resolution 14077, was presented, approving the extension as recommended; after which, it was moved by Ortner, (137) seconded by Field, and unanimously carried, that Resolution 14077 be adopted. 17. P.D. 115 - TIME EXTENSION Recommendation: That the Council grant a six-month time extension for submittal of final development plans for the labove district. (116) Resolution 14078, approving the extension as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Field , seconded by Ortner, and unanimously carried, that Resolution 14078 be adopted. REPORTS & REQUESTS: 18. CITY COUNCIL reports or requests a) Councilwoman Ortner requested that the Council con- sider a stop intersection at Camino Real and North Riverside Drive; stating that her interest relates to (130) the safety of children using this intersection in order to get to and from school . Mayor directed that the matter be placed on the December 16 agenda. b) At request of Councilman Field, City Manager stated that a follow-up will be made of the request regarding Via Soledad drainage. Councilwoman Ortner stated that there- are other streets in that same area which should be addressed. c) Councilman Rose, agreed with Councilwoman Ortner, that the flashing signal for school walk crossing on Ramon Road for the St. Theresa's School has not solved the problem, and traffic continues to move at a fast pace, (130) even with the crossing guard, and that the Traffic Engineer should re-examine this matter to see if there has been a change, and if a full signal is appropriate. d) Councilman Rose stated that he had provided the City Manager and City Attorney copies of the proposed ambulance ordinance being considered by Rancho Mirage, and stated that it would be appropriate for the Council to give discussion to this matter at some point in the future. Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 8 18. COUNCIL reports or requests (Continued) e) Mayor stated that he thought some misinformation had been published in the newspaper, which was attributed to Councilwoman Ortner, and he wished, in a friendly manner, to make a clarification. He stated that he recognized that citizens in the City and Valley are frustrated over crime; that an issue was raised at a combined study session-adjourned regular meeting on August 11 , regarding an efficiency report that might be conducted by POST (Peace Officers Standards & Training) , at which the City Manager made certain statements (reference is made here to said minutes, for details reviewed by the Mayor) , and that as a follow-up to that, a staff report was submitted to the Council and acted upon by the Council to request POST to conduct a deployment study; that said staff report included information that POST was not honoring requests for complete audits; that this position by POST was reaffirmed in a telephone conversation between the Police Chief and POST; that he believes the City Council , Police Chief and City Manager responded to the request of Councilwoman Ortner, and did not fail to act, but did what could be done; that crime rate (113) increases are not to be enjoyed, but Palm Springs does not have the highest per capita crime rate in the State; that no member of the Council is happy with the crime rate; that he does not think criticism levelled at the Police Department is justified;_ that in Fall , 1979, the Council requested that traffic enforcement be beefed-up, and was advised that grant funds were available provided certain special operating standards be met, i .e. , that such officers would have no other duties than traffic enforcement; that as part of the 1981-82 budget approval , the grant program was included; that grant funds will end in October, 1982, at which time such officers will be available for deployment where deemed appropriate by the Police Chief; that three Community Services Officers were provided in the 1981-82 budget for the purpose of writing crime reports and to enhance patrol time and free officers to address issues of crime; and that he believed the Council is taking steps to address the crime issue, perhaps not as much as some people would like, but hopefully, the down-trend will continue . Councilwoman Ortner stated that she would present the idea of a police commission to the Council sometime in January, and would make no further comments on the issue at this time. 19. PUBLIC reports or requests a) Santa Barbara Savings & Loan/McDonald's Restaurant. John Shoenberger, attorney on behalf of Santa Barbara Savings & Loan, stated that he questioned how the staff (116) could make a statement that two of the points in their appeal had already been decided last year, which may have lead the Council to question why they had not protested at that time; that Santa Barbara has nothing in the way of notice in 1980 on any matters before the Council or Planning Commission, and did not have until this year; that the applicant, Mr. Carver, included Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 9 19. PUBLIC reports or requests (continued) a) Santa Barbara Savings & Loan/McDonald 's Restaurant (Cont'd) their property, although it has a separate ground lease, with separate parking, and never gave its consent to be included; that after filing the application, protracted hearings were conducted and later architectural review, and Santa Barbara never received notice of any of these proceedings; that it only became involved '.luring the last several months when it learned of McDonalds and that everything had been approved; that he believed by that time, neither the staff nor Planning Commission was interested in hearing their complaints ; that Santa Barbara believes it has never had a fair hearing, and their intent is not to keep McDonalds from locating at that site; that there is a serious parking deficiency and it will have an adverse impact on Santee Barbara and others in the development; and that they are requesting that their appeal be heard and that permits for the project be suspended. In answer to question by Council , Mr. Shoenberger stated that it is his understanding the Council CONT'D has the discretion to hear the appeal ; and that (116) he could not find any case law that would relate to this situation, i .e. , being part of a project application, without consent. In answer to question by Council , Director .of Community Development stated that the last action of the Planning Commission was regarding final architectural detail ; and that appeal related to parking issues which were satisfied to the Commission and Council already. Mr. Shoenberger stated that the Commission did consider the parking at its October 21 , 1981 meeting; that there was Council approval in 1980; that when McDonalds came back with final drawings, the matter was returned to the Planning Commission for review of what staff considered to be problems in that; plan; that the Commission addressed those concerns, and new studies were made, which is the point at which Santa Barbara became involved, but was not aware that the Commission had given prior consideration. In answer to question by Council , whether it was conceivable that the local manager would not: have been aware of the case, given the amount of news coverage, Mr. Shoenberger stated that the first indication it had was when it received a letter from Mr. Carver in late February, 1981 ; that it became actively involved during the summer, and it was always under the impression that matters were before the Commission for first time. In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated that he became aware of the statement concerning not giving consent late this date, and if that its possible, perhaps something should be done to correct the process in the future; that conceivably the appellant may have grounds for disrupting the district itself, but he was not sure whether that would be open to them at this point; that he did not believe the Council was under obligation to take any particular action, including hearing the appeal requested, however, it would not be out of line to hear the appeal concerning the sign portion; }Ark Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 10 19. PUBLIC reports or requests (Continued) a) Santa Barbara Savings & Loan/McDonald's Restaurant (Cont'd) that he would not recommend hearing the appeal on the other matters hecause the permit has been issued and construction has commenced. In answer to question by Council , Director of Community Development stated that Santa Barbara is a sublessee of the Carver lease; that he did not think the City is in a position of seeking out sublessees on the property for which application is made; that he believed Mr. Carver had a right to apply for tha. which he did; that Santa Barbara was not noticed with regard to the original hearing because it was a part of the original district; that when McDonalds came in as part of the final development plans, that was within the purview of the district, since a building was shown for that site, and it would have been allowed by right of zone because of the C-1 zone; and that matter of design review was not a. public hearing, and notice is not given to anyone. In answer to question by Council , he stated that CONT'D he did not believe there was any impropriety on the (116) part of Mr. Carver in including the property. Mr. Shoenberger stated that the action taken to approve the district had a vague and general condition regarding parking; thereafter, the specific parking issue is addressed by the architect and no one receives notice. Director of Community Development stated that was not a correct statement; that when the district was originally approved, the total parking was considered and approved; that the parking lot for Santa Barbara was totally remodeled as part of the project; that the district established a plan for the entire district, and it was approved by the Planning Commission and Council , with a 10% deficiency in parking; that when detailed plans were submitted for McDonalds, it was not an arbitrary decision regarding parking, but a requirement that Codes be met; that the building size was decreased and parking for that use increased by 10 spaces, and another percentage added elsewhere, resulting in an overall deficiency of 4%; that he would be willing to remove the Santa Barbara parking require- ments from the calculations to determine the effect on the entire property; and that he did not believe that any agreement between the two regarding parking is binding on the City. Eric Van de Water, local attorney for Santa Barbara, stated that the Planning staff was notified in July, 1979, that it had an exclusive parking rights of the boundary of the sublease and that such should not be counted when looking into the overall parking for the shopping center. He reiterated lack of notice of the project; and stated that not all information was available in one City file; that they were not arguing the merits of the project, but wanted to appeal to the appropriate body:, In answer to question by Council , he stated that he believed the parking lot improvements were made in 1979 when Mr. Carver wanted to straighten a driveway, to which they agreed, but with understanding that they had exclusive rights to the parking. Council Minutes 12-2-81 Page 11 19. PUBLIC reports or requests (Continued) a) Santa Barbara Savings & Loan/McDonald's Restaurant (Cont 'd) Director of Community Development stated that the parking lot improvement was not just a straightening of the driveway, but a total remodelling, including increasing CONT'D the spaces by 1/3; that it had nothing to do with the (116) McDonalds project, but had to do with the overall district; that McDonalds was only an outline of a building at that time. Mayor requested that the City Attorney review this matter again to determine if there are grounds for an appeal , including contacting Mr. Shoenberger, and report to the Council at its next study session to determine whether the appeal should be heard. 20. STAFF reports or requests - None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business at 10 p.m. , Mayor declared the meeting adjourned to the closed session for personnel matters ; after which, upon reconvening, he declared the meeting adjourned. C___�JUDITH SUMICH City Clerk: