HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/5/1982 - MINUTES 02:
• CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 5, 1982
A Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order by
Mayor pro tenHaryanov, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz-
McCallum Way, on Wednesday, May 5, 1982, at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Doyle, Foster, Maryanov
and Ortner
Absent: Mayor Bogert
The meeting was opened with the salute to the Flag and a moment
of silence.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY : Mayor pro tem 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 Foster, seconded by Doyle, and unanimously
carried, Bogert absent, that the minutes of April 20 & 21 ,
1982 be approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 . C.U.P. 5.0210 - L. DELROSE
' Recommendation: That the Council consider appeal by
L. Delrose from Planning Commission denial of conditional
use permit to allow conversion of apartment units to
time-share.
Director of Community Development reviewed his report,
dated May 5, 1982, noting that variance aspect was (78)
dropped through the Planning Commission process, and
that the action of the Commission related only to the
time-share and not the variance; that protests were
made at the Commission hearing that the project would
cause problems to the neighborhood; and that the
Commission denied the application for the reasons as
outlined in his report.
In answer to questions by Council , Director of Com-
munity Development stated that there are several
homes fronting on the parallel street which back-up
to the project; that the project met codes under
• which it was built, but has since become non-conforming
because of code changes since that time; that two addi-
tional parking spaces would be needed and bay parking
would have to be setback 100 ft; that the Commission' s
denial was not on the grounds of those two items;
that the ordinance with regard to time-share prescribes
10 factors which may be considered, the last of which
relates to any factors relevant to appropriate considera-
tion of the application ; and that the Commission weighed
its decision heavily on the public testimony.
Mayor pro tem declared the hearing open.
Larry Delrose, 1103 Anza, appellant, stated that the
staff report to the Commission indicated that the applica-
tion met all time-share ordinance requirements and contained
a recommendation for approval ; that the Commission's denial
R was based only on public testimony; that the zoning would
allow a hotel of similar density; that there are 26 hotels
within a 5 block radius, and parking and conference rooms
are proposed on the adjacent vacant property in connection
with an approved hotel ; that he believed the Commission's
124 U
Council Minutes
5-5-82 Page 2
1 . C.U.P. 5.0210 (Continued)
decision was inconsistent and unfair; that the property
is located in a time-share zone, and request is not
being made for an area not approved as such; and that
the Tennis Club was allowed time-share even though it
was not properly zoned.
Joe Chasen, 1850 S. Camino Real , stated that the project
will create a crowded, unattractive building and
increase transients; that the project will result in
converting permanentreside.n:¢'es for transient occupancy;
that elderly and disabled persons now living there will
be displaced; that conversion will add to the noise,
congestion and confusion in the area; and that he
concurred with the Commission 's recommendation.
Bernard Tankin, 970 Marion Way, stated that there are w
hotels in the area; that on-site management would
control noise and activity; that he was fearful on- r
site management would not be a condition; that he r
preferred to see the area as close to residential
use as possible ; and that many people stay in the
surrounding hotels for long periods of time, returning
year-after-year.
Bill Baldwin, 973 La Jolla, stated opposition because CONT'D
of overflow parking ,that will occur on the street.; (78)
that the project was well-built as an apartment
complex, but he did not think itwas designed for
time-share; that people who own second homes in the '
area are not here to protest; and that he believed
the project would bring disorder- to the neighborhood.
In answer to question by Council , Mr. Baldwin stated
that he was not in town at the time of the Commission
hearing; and that he did not believe the project met
time-share requirements.
Ron Kubler, 1980 S. Camino Real , stated objection on ,
the basis of setting a precedent for other units on
Camino Real to do likewise. '
Sylvia Kay, 1850 S. Camino Real , resident in the
complex, stated it would be shameful to turn the
building into time-share;- that she recently moved into
the complex; that she did not believe the street lends
itself to time-share use; that she was falsely led
when she rented her apartment, and was not told of
the time-share proposal , even though an application
had been filed.
Demster Boyd, 205 S. Belardo Road, stated that he was
not affiliated with the project; that the Dept. of '
Real Estate requires the formation of a homeowners
association and the development of a budget to
guarantee property maintenance, which would insure '
renovation of units as time passes ; that there are
no guarantees that apartment building owners will
maintain the property; that on-site management is
also required; and that the budget must be approved
by the Dept. of Real Estate. He stated he was not
aware of the owner's intent regarding monthly or
weekly sales-of time-sharing.
025
Council Minutes
5-5-82 Page 3
1 . C.U.P. 5.0210 (Continued)
* In answer to questions by Council , Mr. Delrose stated
that all leases must be honored and there would riot
be an effort to force people out of the apartments,
who may want to stay longer; that time-share owners
have an interest in the property; that the community
is resort orientediwith a mix of hotels and residences,
frequently side-by-side, and time-share is simply
another component of that atmosphere; that two
garages will be converted for manager's offices;
that low-key sales promotion will be made, seeking
a high caliber owner, and no promotion 'will be made
on the street; that he was not dissatisfied with
his contact with the staff and direction it provided;
that he did not understand why the Commission acted
as it did; that current leases range from 1-11 years;
and that extent of on-site management would have to
be worked out with the Planning Commission.
In answer to question by Mrs. Chasen, 1850 S. Camino
+ Real , as to relationship between Mr. Delrose and
Council , Councilman Doyle stated that he was not
a social friend of Mr. Delrose; and that Mr. Delrose
spoke with him concerning his application prior to
the hearing.
Mayor pro tem stated that Mr. Delrose also spoke with
him on an individual basis.
Joseph Chasen, 1850 S. Camino Real , read a letter CONT'D
from Mildred Alba, also 1850 S. Camino Real , regarding (78)
erosion of the character of the City, a copy of which
Y is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Mr. Tankin stated that if on-site management is limited
to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. , the manager will not be available
when most problems occur, which is at night.
Mrs. Kaye expressed resentment that apartment owners
are not concerned about the maintenance of the building,
since it is their home and they want to keep it nice;
and she is unable to keep relocating because of her
husband's illness.
~ There being no further appearances, the hearing was
a closed.
Councilman Foster stated that the proposal calls for
a change in the type of clientele from permanent resident
to transient and more vacation oriented; that he is
opposed to time-share which is not originally designed,
maintained with proper conditions, and operated for that
purpose; that a make-over is a detriment to the neighborhood,
and once started, sets a trend for future conversions; and
that he was fearful that other small hotels will begin
moving in that direction.
r
Council Minutes •+
5-5-82 Page 4
1 . C.U.P. 5.0210 (Continued)
In answer to question by Council , Director of Community '
Development stated that there is not a time-share zone,
per se, but rather the Zoning Ordinance establishes
that time-share is allowed in zones where hotels are
allowed; that it prescribes that in considering time-
share, the impact on the neighborhood must be considered;
that to take the view that if all prescribed standards
were met, would mean that a conditional use permit would
not be needed; that each case is considered on its
individual merits ; and that regardless of staff view
or recommendation, the matter is subject to a hearing
and publicinput.
In answer to question by Council , regarding potential
number of time-share units in the various zones, Assistant w
City Manager stated that the Planning Commission had
made such a request, but the matter was too complex
to give a clear answer; that the Commission changed
some of the recommendations of the task force which
had looked at the subject; that the underlying considera-
tion was whether the zone would permit a hotel use; that
the Commission placed an additional restriction that
time-share use be limited to major or secondary thoroughfares;
and that it was reported during initial consideration of
the ordinance, that the Commission would deny a CUP if
people in the neighborhood were opposed to it.
In answer to questions by Council , Director of Community '
Development stated that denial of the application might
serve as a deterrent to future applications for time-
share in this area, but the property owner would still
have the right to submit an application; and that he was not
aware of any specific number of percentage of protest
needed in the ordinance, but rather how strong of a
protest and in the judgement of the Commission, hiow
valid. "
Mayor pro tem stated that he echoed the comments by
Councilman Foster about time share and conversion; and
noted that the Commission acted unanimously, with one
member absent.
It was moved by Ortner and seconded by Doyle that the
Planning Commission be overruled and that the time-
share be allowed under a conditional use permit.
Councilman Doyle stated that he had concerns regarding
a denial , when considering the amount of staff review
and work of the Commission and Council in developing the
time-share ordinance, which was done in recognition of
what was happening in other areas; that the ordinance
was adopted on recommendation of the Commission, with
enough guarantee that there would not be a proliferation
of time-share and to preclude undesirable situations ;
that if an applicant meets the framework of the law and
complies 90-95%, it would be arbitrary to deny reasonable
use of the property and rights which belong to him, regardless
of whether one likes or dislikes time-share; and that laws
must be enacted which are fair and consider a person's property
rights, and then followed in a fair and consistent manner.
02'i
• Council Minutes
5-5-82 Page 5
1 . C.U.P. 5.0210 (Continued)
Councilman Foster stated that time share is allowed in
a number of zones, under a conditional use permit, however,
it was discretionary with the Planning Commission and
a City Council to determine if the use is appropriate for
a given area, justified, and fair; that he did not doubt
the appellant 's sincerity in what was being proposed;
that he was fearful of starting atrend of allowing
time share in every R-2 zone on a secondary thoroughfare,
when such uses were not designed for time share nor
intended to be operated as such; and that such a con-
version results in changing the character of the neighbor-
hood and people living around it are discriminated against.
Mayor pro tem stated that he has strong feelings that
there were some deficiencies in the project and finds
problems with the conversion to time share; and that
the effect on the neighborhood and neighbors must be con-
sidered when evaluating the conditional use permit.
i
City Attorney stated that if the Council desired to
grant the CUP, specific findings should be made.
Substitute motion was made by Doyle, seconded by Ortner,
that this matter be continued to May 19, 1982, and
' tht the hearing be reopened.
Discussion ensued as to the potential for a tie-vote
and the implications thereof; City Attorney read from
portion of the Zoning Ordinance, and noted that precedence
has been set for continuing such matters and enabling CONT'D
` the absent member to become familiar with the case either (78)
through a reading of the minutes or listening to the
tape recording of the hearing; and that there are court
cases to support such action.
Councilman Foster stated that he believed a tie-vote to
' grant the appeal was tantamount to a denial and an upholding
of the Planning Commission; and that the Council should not
delay action.
Motion by Doyle, seconded by Ortner, was restated to continue
04 action on this matter to May 19, 1982; after which said motion
for continuance of action only, was adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Doyle, Ortner & Maryanov
NO: Foster
ABSENT: Bogert
(Note: City Attorney later reported that the action taken
was consistent with the Council 's rules of procedure in
the case of a tie-vote in the absence of a full Council ,
i .e. , continuance to the next meeting of a full Council . )
2. VARIANCE 6.320 - FRED APOLLO
Recommendation: Consideration of appeal by Fred Apollo
from Planning Commission denial of a variance to allow
" existing carport in front yard setback as built at 795 (146)
N. Patencio Road.
Mayor noted appellant's request for a continuance to June 2,
'A, 1982, and inquired if anyone was present to speak on the
subject; there were no responses; after which, it was moved
by Doyle, seconded by Foster, and unanimously carried that
this matter be continued to June 2, 1982.
0?
V
Council Minutes
5-5-82 Page 6
3. ANNEXATION #22 - CROSSLEY TRACT
Recommendation: That the Council initiate proceedings
to annex the Crossley 'Tract`(hearing previously set
by Council action April 61' 1982) .
Director of Community Development reviewed his report
of April 6, -1982,' and stated that seven 'of the
eleven code vi'olat'ioris, to be resolved by the 'Co:unty,
have not been resolved;'`and that it was his under-
standing,` with' approval of County 'Counsel , that the
County will pursue correction 'of 'the vi'ol'ations and
there will not be' any expense to the' City.
Mayor p'ro;'tem declared 'the hearing open. k
Emile Duvernay, 620`N. Hermosa, stated that violations
needing'-repairs wilT beat' the expense 'of 'people wh'o
cannot afford it; 'that people in the area need to know
what will be the impact on them of the annexation; "
that 'People'were -told they woul dreceive' reduced loans ;
and not everyone wanted` liem; and that he questioned
whether people were notified of the hearing.
Director of Community Development stated that residents
were notified of the hearing; that they have been aware
of the proposal for quite some time; that he, personally, +
and representatives ;from .LAFCO and` the County met with
residents in one- of the 'resident's home and answered (54)
all manner of questions; that the -sewer mains and laterals
we're 'fnstall(�d and poi dfior, ' by the County through ,Community
Development Block Grant funds, and 'th'e_residents wil'l, have
to pay' the cost of tying into the lateral , plus a monthly
sewer service charge: "
City Manager stated�th_at 'i,f'there are -questions about '
outstanding cost_s', '5taff would be happy to deal' with those
people who have such concern;' that the City at no time
represented that it, would be -in ,a ,position .to force
residents of the area into 'annexation; that the 'matter
was a poin't,'of' discussion at the timeof Cathedral City
incorporation" and that the City was, not ''op posed ,to.
the area 'bec'oming a part "of Palm Springs "and that annexa-
ti'on"wa's logical' to Palm Springs, since it derives access
through the City, but the City was not in a ,positi,on to
fo'rce_thd annexation'
In answer to question regarding .Icans, Housing Coordinator
stated that long-term ,loa_ns were available througlh,'the, , , ..
County home improvement program,' optional to. 'the' homeowner,
and could be used for improvement to the, home or for sewer
connection.
Councilman Doyle stated that the proposal dates back several
years ; that the area was substandard,, in partic'ular;, with
regard to streets' and sewers, and' the City was not wil'ling to
annex it"unless it was brought up to a reasonable standard;
the CDBG funds were used to provide sewers at no charge to
the residents ; that the Council had no intention of forcing
the annexation; and that service could not be provided by
Cathedral City because of lack of direct access.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. +
+
02C
•
Council Minutes
5-5-82 Page 7
3. ANNEXATION #22 (Continued)
In answer to question by Council , City Manager stated
that no written objections have been filed; that the CONT'D
area is an island of County jurisdiction; and that (54)
County services must cross a good portion of either
Cathedral City or Palm Springs to reach it.
Resolution 14224 overruling the protests and requesting
LAFCO to complete the annexation, was presented; after
which, it was moved by Foster, seconded by Doyle, and
unanimously carried, Bogert absent, that Resolution
0411 14224 be adopted.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
a) Gwen McKinney, 29 Calle del Sol , questioned why
K- violators of the rent control ordinance are not
cited by the City.
r City Attorney stated that the issue at the Palm
Springs View Estates relates to determination of
base rent; that the issue was addressed under the
previous mobilehome rent ordinance (No. 1090) ;
that subsequent interpretations have been made;
that he does not have the authority to make an
edict as to base rent, that such determination
could be through the Rent Review Commission or
by a court; that such a course of action has not
been taken; that the tenant's remedy is to obtain
legal counsel to represent them in a lawsuit;
that the ordinance is not criminal law, but establishes
the rights and defenses of parties involved, and
provides remedies, i .e. , determination of base rent
by the Rent Review Commission, and to defend unlawful
detainer using the ordinance as a defense.
b) Tony Rose, 777 Camino Norte, representing the Desert
Performing Arts, requested that the Council consider
using a portion of the Revenue Sharing funds for
refurbishing the High School auditorium. He presented (61 )
an itemized cost estimate, and a petition in support
of his request, both of which are on file in the Office
of the City Clerk.
r
c) Sarah Golub, Desert Hot Springs, also spoke in support
of Mr. Rose's request, stating that the needs are (61 )
acute, and estimate of immediate need is $56-66,000.
City Manager stated that a requirement of Revenue
Sharing is that the cities must hold a hearing to
w get public input as to how the funds should be spent;
that the High School auditorium is used by students
and citizens alike from other 'communities in the
west half of the valley, and perhaps that request
should be extended to those cities as well ; that
this source of funding is the only one which requires
a public hearing, otherwise sources of funding are
looked at in terms of total revenue to the City; that
Revenue Sharing funds have been used in the past to
help support law enforcement; and that ideas from
the public are most welcome
0 ' t1
Council Minutes
5-5-82 Page 8
LEGISLATIVE ACTION :
4. CORPORATION YARD SPACE NEEDS/DESIGN MASTER PLAN SERVICES
AGREEMENT
Recommendation : That the Council authorize agreement with
Greenlaw Design Associates for Phase I , architectural
design and space planning, for the Corporation Yard on
a time and material basis, not to exceed $19,800.. (117)
City Manager noted that this item was reviewed in
detail at the last study session; that funding will -
be recommended in the 82-83 budget.
Minute Order 3075, authorizing agreement, was presented; ;.
after which, -it was moved by Doyle, seconded by foster,
and unanimously carried, that Minute Order 3075 be adopted;
Bogert absent.
CONSENT AGENDA: «
5.
Resolution 14225 amending the Comprehensive Fee (114)
Schedule to add food handler's certificate fee.
6• Resolution 14226 amending Management, Professional
and Supervisory Compensation Plan to add classification (61)
of Community Development Coordinator (position changed
from Assistant to Directdr of Community Development by
Council on 4-6-82)
7• Minute Order 3076 awarding contract to Natkin Service
Company for installation of a tower cooling system at (117)
the Airport Fire Station, in amount of $19,271 .
8• Resolution 14227 determining sufficiency of petition
and authorizing plans and specs for street improvements (56)
and sewer line extension in Racquet Club Road, between
Palm Canyon and Indian Avenue. (A.D. 141)
9• Minute Order 3077 approving letter agreement with ASL +
Consulting Engineers to expand contract services to (56)
include engineering design for expanded Assessment
District 139.
'10• Resolution 14228 granting joint use agreements to
Southern California Edison Co. , to underground electrical (147) •
facilities along Racquet Club Road, between Palm Canyon
and Indian Avenue.
11 . Resolution 14229 granting gas line easement to Southern
California Gas Co. , to furnish gas service within Phase I (147) +
of the Fredricks project at Sunrise and San Rafael .
12. Resolution 14230 granting underground easement to
Southern California Edison to service within Phase I of (147) ,
the Fredricks project at Sunrise and San Rafael .
13. Resolution 14231 granting underground easement to Southern
California Edison Co. for services to Airport site leased
to Kuranz, Hallen & Killoren (sublease Schneck) (147)
14. Resolutions 14232 and 14233 approving Payroll Warrants
and Claims & Demands. (86) r
+ I
031
Council Minutes
5-5-82 Page 9
15. Resolution 14234 approving second 12-month extension
for Tentative Tract Map 15463 for property on E. Palm (137)
Canyon, between Escoba & Avery Drive, 42 units, Ervin/S.Appel .
., 16. Resolution 14235 concurring in CRA action of this date. (124)
v� 17. Resolution 14236 approving Tentative Parcel Map 18280
to combine property on North Palm Canyon Drive, between (119 )
Vista Chino and Via Escuela, restaurant expansion and
r parking, Cioffi/Billy Reed's Restaurant.
18. Resolution 14237 approving two-year time extension for
Tentative Tract Map 17642 for property located on the (137)
= NW corner of Sunrise Way/San Rafael Drive, Fredricks
Development Corp.
It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Foster, and unanimously
carried, Bogert absent, that Resolutions 14225 through
14237 and Minute Orders 3076 and 3077 be adopted.
ti 19. ADAP 08 & 11 - GRANT AMENDMENT, CONSTRUCTION AWARD, ENGR.
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Recommendation: That the Council award construction
► contract to Massey Sand & Rock, in the total amount of
$870,757, for taxiway improvements, taxiway lighting improvements (51 )
and fencing improvements; approve Change Order No. 1 to
engineering services contract with Associated Engineers,
to increase contract by $32,899; and approve amendment
' No. 1 to FAA grant agreement, to increase scope of work
to be accomplished under the project.
Transportation Director reviewed his reports, dated May
5, 1982.
Minute Orders 3078 and 3079, awarding contract and
approving the Change Order, and Resolution 14238, approv-
grant agreement amendment, as recommended, were presented;
after which, it was moved by Doyle, seconded by Foster,
' and unanimously carried, Bogert absent, that Minute
Orders 3078 and 3079 and Resolution 14238 be adopted.
20. CRIME STOPPERS PROGRAM
Y
Police Chief highlighted his report, dated May 5, 1982,
providing an analysis of the crime stopper program concept,
which preserves anonymity of the informant, establishes
a non-profit corporation to raise funds, provide awards
' and set amounts thereof, and involves the news media in
the "crime of the week" re-enactment to keep the idea (113)
of crime stoppers before the public. He stated that
Bob McWhItter is interested in the program, and has
offered to form the board of directors to form the
non-profit corporation; that donations received prior
' to the receipt of tax-exempt status could be made to
the City to be held in trust for the non-profit corporation;
that the program could, otherwise, be operational within
2-3 months; that there would be no City cost involved;
and that the board of directors would be answerable to
the non-profit corporation.
City Manager noted that the non-profit corporation relation-
ship to the City would be similar to that of P.O.S.T. , in
► that a certain amount of staff support would be provided,
10 and the purposes and ends of the organization are those
which are of general interest to the City and which the
City would want to support; that if the Council deemed
32
Council Minutes
5-5-82 Page 10
20. CRIME STOPPERS (Continued)
that staff should not work with such a group, then the
program would be terminated.
Councilman Foster noted that staff provides approximately ,
2-3 hours per month to P.O.S.T.
Police Chief stated that the department is looking at
serving as a liaison and taking cases to the board which
have been cleared and submitting those for award„
Councilwoman Ortner queried whether any comparison
had been made between Crime Stoppers and We-Tip, in
terms of effectiveness and membership vs. solicitation
of funds.
Police Chief stated that a direct comparison of effective-
ness was hard to make; that all cities with either program
conclude that the program is effective and is supported; '
that Crime Stoppers was favored over We Tip because of ;
local base of operation, funds raised locally, and involve- CONT'D
ment of the community; conversely, We Tip has a member- (113)
ship of 3¢ per capita or $1 ,000 per month, receives all
calls at centralized points outside of the City, refers
information back to the appropriate jurisdiction., and +
does not enable further contact with the informant for
clarification of information.
Councilwoman Ortner stated that she agreed with the ,
effort; that it was the start of what she would like
to see happen ; that she had no objection to the proposal ,
although she was not satisfied as to a comparison with
We Tip; and that she wanted to insure that the ,final
program is the best for the City.
Councilman Doyle stated that the We Tip program is
satisfactory if there are no other options; that Crime
Stoppers will be only in Palm Springs and the money the
community raises will pass to people who have concerns
and information to arrest crime in the community, and
provides the Police Department a better opportunity to
interrelate between the informant and the department;
and that he favored the non-profit corporation and
supports the program.
City Manager stated that he favored Crime Stoppers from
the perspective that the community has the unique feature
of being isolated, a local daily newspaper, TV and radio
coverage, and good news media cooperation, which makes
the use of the "crime-of-the-week" an asset that is missing +
in the We Tip program.
Councilman Foster stated that Mr. McWhirter has been very
involved and interested in police work and that be was not
aware of anyone on a voluntary basis who would be more
interested; that the program will be kept at the local level
with local qualified people to do this kind of service.
Police Chief stated that a 9-member board is proposed,
which will then determine what it needs in the way of
special committees or other help, raising funds, etc. ,
and will keep the Council informed of who is involved
and how the project is proceeding. ,
r,
� Council Minutes 03
5-5-82 Page 11
20. CRIME STOPPERS (Continued)
Mayor pro tem stated that he believed the Crime Stoppers
program might be better than We Tip, and it was important
+ to begin implementation ; that he understood request was
being made of the Council to offer cooperation and support CONT 'D
which could be withdrawn if the Council were not happy with (113)
V� its progress; and that he understood the group could be
formed without the City's support.
Police Chief stated that the Council need only advise the
Chief that it did not wish the City to be associated with
the non-profit corporation to effectuate a disassociation.
It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Foster, and unanimously
carried, Bogert absent, that the Council endorses the
= concept of a Crime Stoppers program in the City.
21 . WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - LAND ACQUISITION
Recommendation: That the Council approve the acquisition
of 20 acres of land allotted to Lawrence Bow, in Section 20,
for a total of $1 ,060,000 ($53,000 per acre) ; and to amend
the budget to appropriate an additional $420,000, therefore.
Y City Manager stated that a portion of the property needed
for ultimate treatment plant expansion has been acquired;
that condemnation proceedings have been commenced on the
remaining parcel ; that the property owner has agreed to
sell the 12.5 acres needed for the plant expansion if the
City will also acquire the remaining 7.5 acres of the total
20 acre parcel , with the condition that the 7.5 acres would (127)
not be used for treatment plant purposes in the future,
which would not cause any problems in terms of future needs
of the plant; that he believed acquisition of the total 20
acres would be the best means of acquiring the necessary
land and avoiding court action; and that staff would explore
" potential uses of the excess acreage, perhaps to offset the
cost of acquisition.
In answer to question by Council , City Manager stated that
the restriction on the use of the 7.5 acres would be reflected
in the deed, and the minutes would reflect knowledge of that
as well .
Resolutions 14239 and 14240, authorizing the acquisition
and amending the budget as recommended, were presented;
r, after which, it was moved by Foster, seconded by Doyle,
and unanimously carried, that Resolutions 14239 and 14240
be adopted.
r
REPORTS & REQUESTS:
22. FRANCHISE REPORTS - Received & Ordered Filed
a) Southern California Gas Co.
' b) Southern California Edison Co.
23. CITY COUNCIL reports or requests
a) Councilman Foster noted that the Traffic Engineer had
responded to his recent inquiry concerning traffic signals
and did an outstanding job; and that he was impressed that
the engineer was also looking at left-turn patterns.
City Manager noted that traffic signals would be an
appropriate issues for study session discussion, perhaps
in conjunction with the CIP.
034
Council Minutes
5-5-82 Page 12
23. CITY COUNCIL reports or requests (Continued)
b) In response to inquiry by Councilwoman Ortner., -City
Manager stated that staff would provide a follow-up
report regarding traffic signal maintenance, in
particular, signal flashing mode on weekends,.
c) Councilwoman Ortner suggested that perhaps the `
"Instant Informality" policy of the Council should
be reconsidered in the Fall . '
c) Mayor .pro tem requested that clarification be ,provided
as to the role of 'the City with regard to the P.S. View
Estates rent issue. r
PUBLIC reports or requests - None
STAFF reports or requests , ,'
.a) City 'Ma'nager reported that the proposed 1982•-83 budget 1
is expected to be delivered to the Council May 24-25, y
„ 1982, and recommended Council hold public hearing thereon
'on June _2, ;wi=th' budget work session on June !i1, and final
adoption on June 15. He stated the CIP will be addressed
separately.
b) .'City Manager suggested the following dates for additional ,
Council study ,sessions , and requested that Councilmembers
a'dvise 'av'ailability for May sessions and choice for June
sessions : May 1,7, 24;. June 2 or. 3,, 9 or 10,,,14� or 16.
He stated the meet ings'would last, app'roiiimately lI hours
and would be' for the 'purpose of providing background
briefings,' and' possibly some' new materials, on several
major issues, and that each session would commence with
lunch.
ADJOURNMENT
There being ,-no further business at 10 p.m. , Mayor pro tem ,
declared the meeting adjourned.
j
JUDITH SUMICH.
Clerk-
,
a
r