Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/3/1983 - MINUTES CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 3, 1983 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Bogert, in the Large Conference Room, City Hall , 3200 i Tahquitz-McCallum Way, on Tuesday, May 3, 1983, at 1 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Doyle, Foster, Maryanov, Ortner & Mayor Bogert Absent: Councilmember Ortner (Mrs. Ortner entered during presentation of Dir. of Com. Dev. ) Purpose of the meeting: Joint Hearing with Tribal Council on appeals to it. Tribal Councilmembers Present: Lucille Toro, Sue Short, Eugene Segundo, Jr. , Richard Milanovich, and Chairman Barbara Gonzales; Tribal Council Attorney Buntz, and Tribal Council Planning Consultant Adams 1 . DRAINAGE FEE APPEALS - TEXAS WESTERN (TTM 14661-62)/WESSMAN PD 131/KNUTSON PD 89 & TTM 15049 Mayor turned the meeting over to Tribal Council Chairman. City Staff Report: Director of Community Development distrib- uted report to the City Council , dated May 3, 1983, indicating ` the manner in which the Tribal Council 's concerns, expressed in its letter of June, 1981 , have been addressed, and read from his report the final paragraph relative to the City Engineer' s conclusions. He displayed the base drainage plan, overlaying markings indicating the vacant fee and Indian-owned lands; and explained the various exhibits attached to his (116 & report, including a chronology of events for each case 137) appealed, the amount of vacant land for each drainage area, ' the fee for same, the percentage of which is Indian land, and the total dollars that it represents ($11 ,265,722 or 18%) . HERE COUNCILMEMBER ORTNER JOINED THE MEETING h He requested that copies of the appeal letters be provided to the City. City Manager stated that the community voted to impose on itself the assessment district drainage fee which will generate approximately $18 million from developed fee lands over the next 15 years, and coupled with the anticipated revenue of the drainage fee on undeveloped Indian and Fee land, will result in an amount very close to that which is projected as needed for the total project; that unless mitigation measures are taken, any new development will cause someone downstream to have problems; and that the drainage fee is a proper and fair mitigation measure. Tribal Council Planning Consultant, John Adams, gave an historic overview, stating that in April , 1981 , when the fees for the south, central and eastern areas were being considered in Tribal Council letter, it was noted that the Indian-owned land represented $23+ million; and that the Tribal Council ' s concern was that the benefit relate to the + cost and not have an adverse impact on the development of the community. He highlighted several letters of the Tribal Council sent to the City Council in 1981 and 1982, relative • to Res. 9107, the 1967 adoption of the Master Plan for Flood Control and Drainage, and the conditions included therewith. He read findings of the Indian Planning Commission, a • copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and its recommendation, in essence, as follows: A G`4 Council Minutes 5-3-83 Page 2 That Resolution 13724 be rescinded in so far as it affects Indian Trust Lands, until such time as: a) the City Council complies with conditions set forth in Resolution 9107 ; and b) the City Council takes appropriate and proper steps to delete the conditions of Res. 9107 from the Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage. Tribal Council Attorney Buntz stated that the Indian Planning Commission acted, in part, on comments which he provided to it, relating to the nature of the fees and conclusion that imposition of the fee, without • complying with conditions of Res. 9107, was tantamount to amending the General Plan, without doing so; that he thought a challenge in court would succeed, and that "implementation" is the key word; and that if it is tanta- CONT'D mount to General Plan amendment, there may be a violation (116 & of CEQA. 137) a) Texas Western Appeal : Y Allen Perrier, attorney representing appellant, stated that there were no concerns about drainage fees or school fees at the time tentative map was approved for 60-unit project; that project -includes design which attempts to address retention of a 10-year storm; that several days prior to expiration of the tentative map, the only detail to be completed before recording the final map was t:he subdivision agreement; that since the developer had a financial commitment from a lender and had $75,000 invested in the project, he opted to seek the extension; that and unsuccessful effort was made to seek approval of the extension on the first March, 1981 meeting, and three days prior to the second meeting, information was received that drainage fees of $120,000 would be added as a condition; that his client signed a letter, without advice from counsel , acknowledging that he would pay the fees ; that the map extension, the final map, and application of drainage fees to all projects Y were all approved on March 18, 1981 ; that prior to 1981 action, minutes of a staff task force referred to its review of Res. 9107, and he did not believe the Council was aware of the conditions; that there were no hearings or notices to property owners or the Tribal Council , and he thought CEQA had been u violated; that case law declares that additional conditions cannot be imposed on map extensions , and that he did not think there were any grounds to estop his client. He presented letter relating to his comments. There were no other comments. , Council Minutes 5- 3 -83 Page 3 1 . DRAINAGE FEE APPEALS (Cont'd) 4 b) P.D. 131 (Wessman) : Mr. Adams stated that Mr. Wessman had advised him that he was going to be out-of-town; and that he —had installed the improvement according to the Master Plan, but still wished the appeal heard because he questioned the validity of the fee. c) PD 89 (Knutson) Mr. Knutson stated that he faces $250,000 in fees, CONT'D which places his project in jeopard,/;that the economy (116 & has stifled his ability to get the project started; 137) that he did not object to drainage fees, per se, but questioned approach of upfront money; that he cannot make the project pencil out and cannot attract people to the project because of the high up-front money needed; that he would like to see the cost benefit studies to determine the true nature of the dollars; that he would like to participate, but would like to spread out the costs in order to permit people w who come on-board to be able to amortize the cost; that the plight of the developer should be considered, and still maintain a drainage system; and that his property is not in the central portion of the City, although designated in the central drainage area, and does not have the same land value as properties in Section 14. There were no further comments. City Manager stated that the City has legal opinion that appropriate cost benefit studies will be done at the appropriate time, but such are not necessary in order to establish the imposition of the fee; that he did not believe it was the intent to spend the dollars needed to do the studies, when the projects would not be done for years; and that the studies will be done when the time comes and the certainty for the project will be determined before it is undertaken; that the drainage fee in-place at the time it was applied as a condition is that which would apply and it could be decreased but not increased. " There were no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. In response to questions by Council , Assistant City Attorney , stated that the master plan does not become "implemented" until money is expended, contract let, and the hardware is in place, despite title of the resolution; that the agreement with the Tribal Council provides that an appeal stays all proceedings, however, in the case of Texas Western, the subdivision agreement came into effect as part of the time extension and the Final Map was recorded; that sequence of events is important, and once the drainage fee condition was in place, if the developer intended to object to it, then it was incumbent on him not to proceed any further - which was not the case; the map was recorded and the development proceeded, in particular, the developer accepted the benefit of approval and allowing him to proceed; and that he believed the developer was estopped from asserting that the fees should not have been imposed. Council Minutes ' 5-3-83 Page 4 1 . DRAINAGE FEE APPEALS (Continued) He stated that the resolution establishing the drainage fee does not amend the General Plan, and CEQA does not apply to a resolution which imposes fees ; that "project" under CEQA would take place when implementation starts, as previously noted by him; that the "171 Patio" case relates to not imposing conditions on extensions; in this case, the condition was not on the extension but CONT'D by agreement of the developer to become subject to the (116 & fee because the City had discretionary power to extend 137) the map - there was good reason not to extend the map, since drainage plan had been adopted, the fee established, and funds taken from developers to fund it; and to grant an extension without the collection of the fee, would result in the project not carrying its fair share. City Councilmembers questioned if the Tribal Council would be satisified if the City Council were to remove the three conditions from the General Plan, to which there was no direct answer, but an indication that it would be part of the mix that the Tribal Council would consider. Tribal Council Chairman stated that the Council has 30 days in which to makes it decision, and that an informa- tional study meeting between the two Councils might: be desirable during that 30-day period. There was some discussion as to the purpose for such a meeting, and it was suggested that the Mayor and Tribal Council Chairman meet prior to arranging a date., in order to determine the specific agenda to be discussed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor declared the meeting + adjourned. JUDITH SUMICH City Clerk