HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/17/1982 - MINUTES CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 17, 1982
A Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order by
Mayor Doyle, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz-McCallum
Way, on Wednesday, February 17, 1982, 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 : Mayor declared the meeting
adjourned for the purpose of convening as the Community
Redevelopment Agency; after which, members reconvened as
the City Council .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Field, and unanimously
carried, that the minutes of January 20, 1982 be approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 . PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT APPEAL - 571 DESERT WAY (MILLER)
Consideration of appeal by Howard Miller from posting
of public nuisance at the above address regarding
aluminum patio constructed in south side setback.
Director of Community Development displayed photographs
of the particular awning in question, and stated that (57)
it was discovered in the course of a routine field
inspection, and after a record check was found to
have been installed without a permit; that the property
was posted as a public nuisance on January 14, 1982
and appeal filed with the City Clerk on January 22,
on the basis that the awning is needed to lower exposure
to the sun on the south side of the building; and that
staff has recommended denial of the appeal , since the
awning was constructed in the setback which is standard
for all buildings and approval of such a variance would
be grounds for not requiring the side yard setback area
at all .
In response to questions by Council , Director of Com-
munity Development stated that if there are other
similar illegal installations in the neighborhood,
as contended by the appellant, the same procedure
for abatement will be followed.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Howard Miller, appellant, stated that the structure was
installed two years ago and he has not received any
complaints from his neighbors; that the awning helps
to conserve energy on that side of the house; and he
submitted photographs of the awning and showing similar
structures on nearby homes. He stated that he did not
think about permits, and believed that had been taken
care of by the contractor.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed.
tiK
Council Minutes
2-17-82 Page 2
1 . PNA - 571 DESERT WAY (MILLER) (Continued)
Councilwoman Ortner stated that the City has laws and
regulations which must be abided by and sometimes
residents are victimized by people not following
the procedures, but if such cases are approved, the
community will be left with something for which it
does not stand.
In answer to questions by Council , Building & Safety
Director stated that there are a number of other viola-
tions in the neighborhood, and those will be posted
as part of a backlog of work.
Councilman Rose stated that it is an uncomfortable
position for property owners when they believe they
have dealt with a reputable contractor, only to -Find
permits have not been obtained; that the Council has
no discretion but to agree with what the inspector
has posted and declare it a public nuisance, unless
it desires to revise its standards and decide that
it will allow a nuisance to stay once it has been
constructed and remain for a period of time.
Councilman Field stated that he was mindful of the
Council 's lack of discretion, as well as fact that
many abide by the laws and procedures ; and that he is CONT 'D
aware of the frustration associated with lack of (57')
knowledge on the part of the property owner.
Mayor stated that he was sympathetic to that which
the property owner was attempting to accomplish, and
that there was no distress to the property to the
south since it is undeveloped, and questioned if it
would be possible to postpone abatement until that
property is developed.
City Attorney stated that there is no legal provision
for the Council to allow the nuisance to remain until
development occurs next door, but as a practical matter
than can happen because of the aspects of handling
other matters; and that delay in enforcement in one
instance makes it more difficult as to other similarly
related items.
Mayor stated that he recognized that the property
owner is trying to cool his home in the summer and if
abatement when development does occur could be entertained,
it might serve to address the City's concerns and
accomodate the poroperty owner as well .
Councilwoman Ortner question where the line would be
drawn under such circumstances; that the City has
fought for good code enforcement programs and she did not
see how it could be postponed.
Councilman Rose stated that others have sought to
obtain that which they desired through the permit:
process and not by trying to get away with it, and
did not get what they wished, and those people who
follow the procedures should not be penalized.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Field, and unanimously
carried, that the appeal be denied and that the nuisance
be abated.
43t
Council Minutes
2-17-82 Page 3
2. ABATEMENT OF NON-CONFORMING USE - RANCH CLUB RESTAURANT APPEAL
Consideration of appeal from Planning Commission
action ordering the abatement of a non-conforming
restaurant use in an R-2 zone, Ranch Club Restaurant,
1445 N. Sunrise Way.
Director of Community Development reported receipt of
letter of appeal , detailing grounds therefor, and
displayed a subdivision tract map indicating that
the portion on which the restaurant is located was
not included in the map and its non-conformity began
at that time in 1971 ; and stated that although a
number of side issues came up at the time this was
considered by the Planning Commission, the main issue
w'as the extension of the non-conforming use; that, prior
to adoption of the new non-conforming ordinance provisions,
the position of previous city attorneys was that such use
was, in fact, a non-conforming use and under the prior
ordinance it would have to have been terminated by
November, 1981 ; that during the time the question
arose, everyone was in agreement that the previous
provisions were hard to understand and the result
was a rewriting of the ordinance; that it was clear
that the use did not have the ability to continue and
the Planning Commission was given the ability to extend a
non-conformity for a given period of time; that the (150)
Planning Staff report to the Commission made certain
findings, i .e. , that the use was originally allowed
and established in a G-R zone as part of a private
club facility, but with the subdivision of the
property in 1971 it became a free-standing restaurant
which was not allowable and it became non-conforming
and, therefore, had a 10-year amortization period; and
that the Staff recommended that the use be given an
additional 10-year amortization period, but the Com-
mission, after its hearing, believed that the use had
been a nuisance and that there had been time to
amortize expenses and voted not to extend any further
time.
In answer to questions by Council , City Attorney stated
a similar use in 1979 raised questions as to the timing
of how long the use could remain, and based on the prior
ordinance, the November, 1981 date was established; that
the current ordinance provides several possible dispositions
of this matter, which could have been made by the Commission
or could be made by the Council , as outlined in his
letter dated January 25, 1982; that the attorney for the
appellant referred to estoppel (described as preventing
one party from denying what was said or establishing something
to the contrary when a 'second party has reasonably relied on the earlier
statement) which courts have said applies to government
actions; that, in this case, estoppel may apply as to whether
the use is non-conforming; thatit has been clearly stated that
this has been a non-conforming use and they would be
estopped from taking any other view; that a further point
concerns discussion by the Council during the time of
adoption of the current ordinance in which question was
riased whether it would have the effect of extending
the life of Rockefellers and the response was yes; that
he believed the response meant that it opened the door
to request an extension, however, the concept of estoppel
could be argued to apply, in that it might be determined
that the adoption of the ordinance had the effect of
extending the use; that his January, 1982 letter outlined
six possible dispositions, although the Commission adopted
a seventh, and equally appropriate, disposition; and that if
no notice is given the use go could on indefinitely.
cJ'�LO
Council Minutes
2-17-82 Page 4
2. RANCH CLUB RESTAURANT APPEAL (Continued)
City Manager stated that there was no procedure for
, granting an extension under the previous ordinance,
and the new ordinance allows at least the possibility
of an extension.
In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated
that if the situation were to be found in a court setting,
the question of estoppel could be expected to be raised
df the Council denies that the new ordinance did, rather
than could, extend the life of the use. and that he
believed the Council can decide whether it is estopped
from denying what was said at that time.
All Councilmembers, except Ortner, indicated they have
communications from the parties involved.
City Attorney stated that any matters received, other
than those presented in the hearing, which are considered
by the Council in its deliberation, should be made a
part of the record and provided to parties concerned.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Warren Coble, appellant, responding to questions by
his attorney, Allen Perrier, indicated the following :
a) Restaurant, with stage-type entertainment, opened in
1979; it was a fully-operational restaurant, including
a bar; it could hold 95 people in the dining room and
75-85 in the bar; operator's were Rose Cinque and CONT'D
Leonard Epstein; a number of improvements were made (150)
in 1980; fountain, "lake" and window were installed;
new restrooms were built, new tile installed except
in kitchen, new kitchen supplies and new bar was
contructed six months later; $100,000 spent by
operator and $58,000 by him.
b) Physical layout of the premises, after Rockefellers,
was such that the dance floor upstairs had been
cutoff and converted into office space use -in con-
nection with the business; there was an office
downstairs which was used as a real estate office;
the downstairs portion was changed and a part of the
restaurant bar converted to office space and a
bar was installed in the dining room; described
various amounts of square footage of office space
on the premises; and 50% of structure is Class II
construction.
c) Described photographs presented as appellant 's
Exhibits 1 through 8.
d) Restaurant is still fully-equipped; has owned supplies
and equipment for the past five years ; other improvements
included installing raised floor, booths, grillwork,
and new fixtures in kitchen -_cost $150,000„ which he
still owns.
d) Property purchased in 1969 out of bankruptcy; several
people have operated restaurant during intervening
years; building is sound and there are no defects.
e) Value of moveable items in the restaurant is about
$200,000; he has been involved in 5-6 restaurants
outside of City; has experience with respect: to
costs - in-place and if moved, and value of premises
which are movable probably would net $20-30,000, but
Council Minutes
2-17-82 Page 5
2. RANCH CLUB RESTAURANT APPEAL (Continued)
in-place have a value of $200,000; his intent is to
operate the building as a restaurnat, through tenants,
and to make available use of his equipment.
f) Once Mr. Pantelle was evicted, he has not had any
problems with respect to the operation of the
restaurant that would have created any problems
to the adjoining residents; he built the adjoining
condominiums; and has not received any complaints
regarding the restaurant since it became Rockefellers.
e) He is prepared to file for conditional use permit
for office space; parking lot was approved by the
City when the condominiums were constructed, although
not a part of that project, but upon request by the
then Director of Community Development; he recognizes
Planning Commission would have ability to receive
complaints and that the restaurant would have to
maintain peace and he accepts that fact.
Allen Perrier, attorney representing the appellant,
generally, offered the following comments and/or
responses to questions by Council :
a) When new ordinance was introduced on February 18,
1981 , question was asked as to what effect it
would have on Rockefellers and the answer was that
it would extend Rockefellers ; that he believed the
Council understood that there would be a new running
of the abatement periods prescribed in the new
ordinance; that Councilwoman Ortner had queried CONT 'D
how many situations there were and suggested that (150)
perhaps there should be an automatic extension oi'
those which had been notified; that he spoke only
to one issue because he felt the extension had been
understood and there was no question in his mind
that representation was made that it would be
extended, otherwise he would have made an issue
to get it clear, but there was no useful purpose
to do so because it had been taken care of in the
ordinance saying that the time started upon adoption
of the ordinance and he did not think it was subject
to doubt; that he believed that is what all of the
Council understood and intended from response of
City Manager. Indicated that City ,Clerk has tape
recording, but it could not be reproduced because
of recorder problems.
b) There was no action by the Council in 1979 that
determined that the use would be abated, only a
report by the City Attorney following the zone
change request by Mr. Coble; that the hearing on
the new ordinance dealt with zoning matters in
general and did not require more than a general
hearing notice.
c) Mr. Coble did not believe that the use would be
abated in November, 1981 ; he was given notice of
the City Attorney's opinion, and understood that
it was that the use expired in November, 1981 ; that
argument was made, and noted in City Attorney memo,
that part of the structure was Class II and under
the previous ordinance, it has 20 years for the
building and non-conforming life of the use - the
use was good as long as the building was good, which
is not the case in the current ordinance; that he
Council Minutes
2-17-82 Page 6
2. RANCH CLUB RESTAURANT APPEAL (Continued)
was advised in 1981 that the new ordinance extended
the use and he did not need to be concerned; and that
it was not Mr. Cob'le 's understanding in 1979 that he
would have to give up the use in 1981 , but only an
understanding of the City Attorney's opinion.
Mr. Coble stated that he had been informed from the
time he purchased the property by the former Director
of Community Development that he could operate the use
as long as the building was there, because it came
under a grandfather clause, and he thought ghat was
true even though the ordinance was being changed.
d) Until issue came up in 1978, there had not been a
position taken by the City that the restaurant would
ever be closed; that two inquiries by the ABC in
1975 and in 1978 as to status of the property indicated
that it was non-conforming, but there was no recognized
termination date; believe that until issue in 1978
everyone assumed that the use had grandfather rights.
e) He submitted a copy of application for license in
1975, his letter of appeal dated February 8„ 1982,
and a copy of City Attorney memorandum which was not
seen by the Planning Commission when it met January
27, 1982. CONT 'D
f) Planning Director initiated the proceedings; City (1517)
Attorney had said that unless proceeding was;
initiated, the non-conforming use could go on
forever; licenses had been issued to previous operators ,
all of which required review of the zoning relating
to the property; Mr. Coble paid the license fees for
Rockefellers and those were accepted by the City;
current operator paid fee in December, 1981 , and
it has not been returned.
g) Existing ordinance gives widest latitude; appellant
is willing to abide by conditions recommended by
staff, except as noted, recognizing that he is
acceding to requirement that it be treated to the
nature of a conditional use permit; that the back
of the building needs repainting and some items
are not inappropriate and that he will have to abide
by requirement that residents will have the right
to seek changes and that all matters would be subject
to review by the Commission and Council .
h) Appellant has made significant dollar investment in
the property and if required to remove it, he will
suffer a loss; new ordinance would almost require
that if abated it would be stating that the operation
is currently being operated as a nuisance, although
the operation has not created any problems since the
operation of Pantelles; dollars invested do not
include any money spent in the last two months by
the current operator.
i ) Agree with 1979 City Attorney opinion that it was a
non-conforming use, but disagree with the time factor.
Council Minutes !
2-17-82 Page 7
2. RANCH CLUB RESTAURANT APPEAL (Continued)
g) Requested that petition (on file in the office of
Director of Community Development) signed by 35
people in favor of continuance of the use, as well
as letter from the board of directors also favoring
continuance, be included in the record.
Phyllis Silver, 1405 N. Sunrise, current operator of
the restaurant, read a prepared statement, a copy of
which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk,
urging that the extension be approved, and stating
reasons why she believes the residents and a restaurant;
use can live in harmony.
Ray Brezin, 1407 N. Sunrise, co-operator of the restaurant,
stated that he felt scare tactics were used when they
applied for a liquor license, in that it was said by some
residents that the operation would be another disco
place; that they have retained a top advertising
agency; and that they expect to draw patrons from CONT 'D
quality areas. (150)
Dana & Mel Bigelow, 360 W. Racquet Club Road, each
spoke in support of the current operation, and expressed
need for a high-quality restaurant in thenorthern portion
of the City.
In response to inquiry by the Mayor, approximately
15-18 people in the audience indicated their attendance
was for the purpose of supporting the restaurant.
Charlie Beal , 422 S. Calle Encilia, spoke in support
of the use, and suggested a field trip be taken by a com-
mittee of the Council .
Mrs. Lee Forrest, 1712 Sandalwood, representing the
Sandalwood Homeowners Association, project on east
side of Sunrise across from the Ranch Club, stated
that Mr. Coble was fully aware of the opposition by
residents in the area to the restaurant use; that
there had been litigation regarding it; that the area
is completely residential and not a proper place for
a non-conforming business; that she felt it was a lack
of business judgement for the current operator not to
have checked on the zoning status before going into busi-
ness; that previous operations have not been financially
successful ; and that the Council should follow the recom-
mendation of.the Planning Commission.
Mrs. James Reynolds, stated that she has been a homeowner
at the Ranch Club Estates for nine years , and has, with
the exception of Pantelles, enjoyed the restaurant operation
and its convenience to the residents.
There being no further business, Mayor declared the
hearing closed.
Councilman Rose stated that the area of estoppel is
appropriate for the Council to discuss; that it was a
fair reading of the February 8, 1981 minutes and not
subject to dispute that the City Manager reported than
the new ordinance would extend the life of Rockefellers;
that he recalled the question and the answer and fact
that it was like a grandfather provision, and based on
that, he believed the position being urged by counsel
is correct; that whether it is liked, the Council is
Council Minutes
217-82 Page 8
2. RANCH CLUB RESTAURANT APPEAL (Continued)
compelled by the action it took in 1981 not to be in
a position to argue otherwise; that the action taken
in 1979 did not address a 1981 termination of the
use, and perhaps did not deal with the issue as
efficiently as it might have done so; that his
recollection is not to the contrary and the minutes
indicated that the City Manager gave that response
and that coincides with his memory and it cannot:
be said, that the Council did not mean to grandfather
Rockefellers; and that he believed perhaps the Council
may wish to spend additional time to see if it agrees
with the staff recommendation, but he felt the Council
must act that the Planning action was not correct.
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she did not recall the
full discussion in 1981 , and without benefit of the
tape recording, in order to hear what she said, she
would not be prepared to vote at this time. She stated
that abatement sounds simple, but is not easy to implement.,
and the feelings and concerns of the neighbors must be
considered.
Councilman Field stated that he relied on a layman 's
understanding of the law and on the City Attorney in
this and other matters, and was satisfied that the
City Attorney did not state that the Council was in any
position to obviate use of the building ; that he was
understanding and sympathetic of the residents concerns
and the complexity of the issue as result of adoption of
the new ordinance; and that he would favor the staff
recommendation, which provides for review upon receipt
of valid complaints about the use and which leaves the
door open to the neighbors.
CONT 'D
Mayor stated that the matter centers around a legal (150)
issue which the Council is bound to honor, and a responsibility
on the part of the City to do that which it intended by its
action in 1981 ; that abatement procedures must take into
consideration equity; that investments made in the property
have been sizeable, and to preclude the investor from
recovering some of the benefits of that investment, is
not a part of the systems as he viewed it; that he supports
the staff recommendation, and would encourage the appellant
to heed advice with regard to conduct of the business, and
he would not be adverse to initiating an immediate abatement
should that not be done; and that he believed the appellant
has a right to the use for up to 10 years and, hopefully, that
which happened in the past will not occur in the future.
Councilman Rose requested that the written materials sub-
mitted by Mr. Scheibner be made a part of the record.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Field, and carried by
the following vote, that the recommendation of the Planning
Commission be overruled, and that the staff recommendation
to the Planning Commission, as incorporated in Director of
Community Development's report to the Council , dated
February 17, 1982, be instituted:
AYES : Field, Rose and Doyle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN : Ortner
`3`z t
Council Minutes 3
2-17-82 Page 9
3. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - USES IN 0-ZONE
Recommendation by Planning Commission: That the Council
amend the Zoning Ordinance to prescribe acceptable
activities in various City facilities located in "0"
zone classifications ; such activities reviewed in
detail at the last study session.
Mayor declared the hearing open; there being no
appearances, the hearing was closed.
City Clerk read title of Ordinance, as follows: (103)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AS
IT RELATES TO ESTABLISHING A LISTING OF ACCEPTABLE
USES WITHIN VARIOUS CITY FACILITIES LOCATED IN
"0" ZONES.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner, and unani-
mously carried, that further reading be waived, and
that the Ordinance be introduced for first reading.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
a) Edith Spitzer, 314 Monterey Road, stated opposition
to consideration of an added starter (See Item 21 )
to appropriate $5,600 for clarification of the
Laventhal Report; that the City had initially
appropriated some money and indicated that any ( 139)
additional financing would have to be provided
by the private sector; and that she was concerned
about creeping funding resulting in decision-making
before any public hearing is held on the matter.
b) Jim Thompson, 58 Calle de los Nubes, concurred with
comment by Mrs. Spitzer, and questioned whether
project funding would be at the federal , state,
local , or private sector level . Mayor indicated
that such determination has not been made, and that (139 )
the Task Force report and recommendation would be
in 7-9 weeks.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION:
4. SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT MITIGATION FEE
Request by School District for further continuance to
March 17, 1982.
(114)
It was moved by Field, seconded by Rose, and unanimously
carried, that this matter be continued to March 17, 1982,
as requested.
5. SB 153 - NEW PRISON CONSTRUCTION BOND ACT OF 1981 )
Recommendation by C-VAG: That the Council endorse
voter approval of New Prison Construction Bond Act (98)
of 1981 to be placed on the June Primary Election
Ballot, 1982.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Doyle, and unanimously
carried, that voters be urged to cast a YES vote on
this ballot measure.
Council Minutes
2-17-82 Page 10
6. ZONING CASE 5.0160 - GOLDEN WEST EQUITY PROPERTIES
Background: On February 3, 1982, Council directed
preparation of ordinance providing a change of
zone for the above e0ferenced case.
City Clerk read title of Ordinance, as follows :
(149)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, ,AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY
REZONING PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF RAMON ROAD AND BOGIE ROAD FROM 11
0"
(OPEN LAND) TO M-1-P (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL
PARK) .
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner and unani-
mously carried that further reading be waived.
It was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner and
carried by the following vote, that the ordinance
be introduced for first reading :
AYES: Ortner, Rose and Doyle
NO: Field
ABSENT: None
7. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING & ADOPTION (Introduc:ed
2-3-82)
City Clerk read title of Ordinance 1155, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE 1979 EDITION OF ( 87)
THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE.
and title of Ordinance 1156, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, (103)
CALIFORNIA, PRESCRIBING CONSTRUCTION SITE
AND BUILDING DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS.
It was moved by Field, seconded by Rose, and unani-
mously carried, that further reading be waived and
that Ordinances 1155 and 1156 be adopted.
13. AFCOM-FREDRICKS LEASE AMENDMENT
Recommendation: That the Council approve minor changes
to the existing AFCOM-Fredricks lease; amendments (85)
reviewed in detail at the last study session.
Resolution 14155, approving the amendments, was presented;
after which, it was moved by Rose, seconded by (Field, and
unanimously carried, that Resolution 14155 be adopted.
9. POLICE PATROL VEHICLES
Recommendation: That the Council award purchase of 14
police patrol vehicles from the CHP in amount of (84 &
$121 ,077.93; and authorize staff to cancel prior award 61 )
to Palm Springs Motors, Inc. , per Minute Order 3028; and
appropriate additional funds.
Minute Order 3053, awarding purchase and authorizing cancellation,
and Resolution 14156, amending the budget, were presented; after
which, it was moved by Rose, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously
carried, that Minute Order 3053 and Resolution 14156 be adopted.
4,? ;
Council Minutes
2-17-82 Page 11
CONSENT AGENDA:
10. Minute Order 3054 awarding contract to Ionic Construction
Co. , Inc. , in amount of $15,520.49, for construction of
concrete sidewalks on Calle San Raphael and Avenida Evelita, (138)
including street improvements on Avenida Evelita and
Mesquite (Parkway Maintenance District 6-B) .
11 . Minute Order 3055 awarding purchase of microfilm printer
and processor to Bell & Howell Co. , in amount of $5,754.85. (84)
12. Minute Order 3056 awarding purchase of a King Cab 4x4 compact
pickup truck to Marshall Datsun, Inc. , in amount of $8,736. 52; (84)
and Resolution 14157 amending the budget to appropriate addi-
tional $1 ,737 therefor.
13. Resolution 14158 declaring intent to vacate a further portion
of Tahquitz Drive, and setting hearing thereon for March 17, (145)
1982, in connection with the development of Tract 17151.
14. Resolution 14159 approving one-year time extension for
Planned Development District 115, for 360 unit development
on the SW corner of Sunrise Way and San Rafael Drive, Harmony (116)
Homes.
15. Resolution 14160 approving one-year time extension for
Tentative Tract Map 16864, for property located on (137)
the SW corner of Sunrise Way and San Rafael Drive,
Harmony Homes.
16. Resolution 14161 approving one-year time extension for
Tentative Tract Map 171,10, for property located on (137)
Chaparral Road, between Vista Chino and Cottonwood Road,
S. Havens.
17. Resolution 14162 approving Tentative Tract Map 17082
for property bounded by Calle El Segundo, Andreas Road, (137)
Calle Alvarado, and Amado Road, United Condos Corp.
18. Resolution 14163 and 14164 approving Payroll Warrants (86)
and Claims & Demands.
It was moved by Field, seconded by Ortner, and unanimously
carried, that Resolutions 14157 through 14164 and Minute
Orders 3054 through 3056 be adopted.
19. P.S. PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (FORMERLY CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION PROJECT)
Mayor reported Steering Committee recommendation to
expand committee membership from nine to eleven members,
to provide additional downtown representation for a (133)
better balance on the committee; said matter discussed
at the last study session; and Steering Committee sub-
committee recommendation to appoint Jean Feather and
Esther Youngerman. He stated that the method of selecting
appointees was different from that normally followed by
the Council , and he believed it was important that the
Council act quickly in order to bring these people on
board and up to date on the committee's activity.
It was moved by Ortner, seconded by Field, and unaniki�ously
carried, that the committee membership be expanded to eleven,
and that Jean Feather and Esther Youngerman be appointed
to fill the additional two seats.
Council Minutes
2-17-82 Page 12
20. COMPUTER MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
Recommendation : That the Council approve agreement with
Datasery Computer Maintenance, Inc. (DCMI) to provide
maintenance services on the City's IBM computer, in
amount of $1 ,108.72 per month. (86)
Minute Order 3057, awarding the contract, was presented;
after which, it was moved by Field, seconded by Rose, and
unanimously carried, that Minute Order 3057 be adopted.
21 . CONVENTION & CULTURAL CENTER - COST ESTIMATING SERVICES
Recommendation : That the Council authorize agreement
with 'Lee Saylor, Inc. , for estimating services for
the proposed convention and cultural center; and amend
the budget to appropriate $5,600 to cover cost thereof.
City Manager stated that the Cultural Center Task Force
believes strongly that in order for it to proceed with
a recommendation, it needs a much more realistic: potential
cost of the project, and in such a manner that it can look (61 &
at the project from different perspectives, with the
possibility of scaling it and moving around potential 139)
components for phased-development; that the proposed
cast estimating services do not relate to clarification
of the Laventhal Report, which was not intended to pro-
vide a cost estimate, although it did include square
footage and, cost figures were provided by Pasadena
College students, which the Task Force did not believe
were in sufficient detail to do the kind of work, it
needs to do ; that the entire process, to the extent
that if the project does continue and if a feasible.
recommendation is made, will require public debate,
but one which would not be proper unless all information
is available; that financial feasibility must be based
on some sort of realistic costs so it will be known what
is favored or not favored; that the information is an
essential piece which will further public debate in
the long-run and assist the Task Force in making its
recommendation to the City Council .
In answer to questions by Council , City Manager stated
that funds are proposed to be taken from the Community
Promotion Fund; and that there is no one in-house with
the expertise to do the estimating for this type of
facility with its scope and uniqueness.
Councilman Rose stated that both private and Cite funds
have been spent todate, and that without this final
step, a logical conclusion could not be reached without
the information, and everything todate would be wasted.
Councilwoman Ortner stated that this is highly skilled,
detailed work, and she did not believe it would be
possible to obtain a volunteer to perform it.
Resolution 14165, amending the budget, was presented;
after which, it was moved by Field, seconded by Ortner,
and unanimously carried, that Resolution 14165 be adopted;
and that letter agreement with Lee Saylor, Inc. , to perform
cost estimating services be approved.
4
Council Minutes
2-17-82 Page 13
REPORTS & REQUESTS:
22. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS - Received & Ordered Filed
a) Treasurer's Monthly - November & December, 1981
b) Annual Financial Report - 1980-81
c) Community Development Block Grant Audit Findings
23. CITY COUNCIL - None
24. PUBLIC - None
25. STAFF - None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business at 10:30 p.m. , Mayor
declared the meeting adjourned. to Tuesday, February 23,
1982, at 3 p.m. , in the Large Conference Room, City Hall .
Kl�-,Ta
L IS-
�, JUDITH SUMICH
City Clerk