HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/18/1984 - MINUTES Ab
CITY OF PALM -SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 18, 1984
A Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor
Bogert, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, on Wednesday,
January 18, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call : Present: Councilmembers
Doyle, Smith and Mayor Bogert, Absent: Foster and Maryanov. It was
moved, seconded and unanimously carried, that the meeting adjourn to
the Palm Springs High School Auditorium; after which notice was duly
posted, and upon convening in the Auditorium, business resumed, as
follows:
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Doyle, Foster, Maryanov, Smith
and Mayor Bogert
Absent; None
The meeting was opened with the salute to the Flag.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: . No business
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It ,was moved by Foster, seconded by Maryanov, and unanimously
carried, that the minutes of December 22, 26, 27, 28, 29 and
30, 1983 and January 3 and 4, 1984, be approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 . A.D. 143 - SEWERS AND
2. A.D. 143 - EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
Mayor announced this as time for public hearings on Assessment
District 143, and stated that for convenience, the hearings will
be . combined into a single hearing, however, individual actions
would be taken where appropriate.
City Clerk reported that certificates and affidavits relative
to posting and mailing of the notices required have been completed.
City Manager stated that he appreciated the work that many people (56)
have done to understand the legal semantics, attend the various
meetings, make telephone inquiries and talking with staff to
understand the project and its scope. He stated that in 1974,
the City pledged to connect the entire City by January, 1984;
that the basic issue relates to a long-standing commitment to
protect the environment and the long-term water supply; that
the City accepted a series of grants totaling $5.8 million, tied
to the requirement that the City would be hooked-up; that 19,000±
units were connected at that time, and since then 10,000± more
have connected, of which 3200 existed in 1975; that the assessment
district represents about 1100 units, with the remainder as vacant
property, of which about 20% existed in 1975; that an additional
$4 million has been spent in recent sewer plant expansion to
handle further connections expected, including the assessment
district; that although the engineer' s estimates were high, the
amounts bid are equivalent to the prices quoted in the mid-1970s
and are believed to be extremely good bids ; that protests have
not been fully calculated, however, it appears that same represent
approximately 22.6% of the total district area ; that the issues
center around the historic encouragement of sewers to protect
the environment, and the obligation to commit to the policy of
100% connection or face a payback of $5.8 million plus interest
or about $8-9 million; and that he believed from an equity
standpoint, the policy should be carried out fully.
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 2
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
Director of Community Development stated that an assessment
district is a vehicle to install improvements and allow the bene-
factors to pay off the cost over a period of years - in this
case, fifteen years; that the proposed district provides sewers
in the streets, with laterals to each property so individual CONT'D
properties have the ability to connect; that other properties (56)
which already have laterals are being requested to connect, how-
ever, the costs related to that are not a subject of assessment
district 143; that the district does not include individual costs
of connecting to the lateral ; that complaints were received early
in the process in terms of areas that were particuarly difficult
to sewer, and the State was requested to grant the City the ability
to consider exemptions for those, under certain criteria, i ,e:
a) sewer extended any exceptionally long distance to serve a
few units, b) the terrain was prohibitive in terms of costs,
and c) individual property located below the level of the street
which would require individual pump stations; that requests for
57 properties were made, of which 5 were individual homes which
could be dealt with on an individual basis, and 2 areas of the
district were identified where it would be possible to eliminate
the sewer line; that, in those cases, the cost of installation
was examined in order to determine where cost became prohibitive,
in particularly, the Palisades area (sub-area F) had an average
cost of $35,179, to which the State gave approval for an exemption,
and in South ridge-Araby (Area J) there was an average of $17 ,845
at the rear of Araby with a high of $72,000 for one parcel ; and
that the staff recommendation with regard to Sub-area F and Area
J is to grant the exemption. He stated that there have been
5 neighborhood meetings, at which questions were responded to
and individual assessment costs given, as well as figures available
this date.
Legal Counsel , M. Brown, recommended that all testimony be heard,
by area, and noted that based on the construction bids, the esti-
mates will be reduced; that testimony should relate to the bound-
aries of the district, to the cost of the improvement, or to
the method or formula of the spread of assessment; that the Council
may proceed, may continue or may abandon the proceedings; and
that if the district proceeds, property owners may pay the assess-
ment within the 30-day cash period, and receive a 15% discount.
Consulting Engineer, J. Sanborn, displayed map of the district
and described the various areas, and stated that the Engineer's
Report is a 6-part document, including maps, estimated and actual
costs, value of land and true value of land; that the improvement
consists of sewer mains, laterals to the property, and repavement
for the full width; that the spread of assessment was done on
a per unit basis, with exception of Southridge, which was calcu-
lated on a front foot basis, and commercial and multiple resi-
dential on the basis of the area of the lot; that the original
construction estimate was $12 million, and the actual , based
on bids, is about $7 million; and that he agreed with staff recom-
mendation to delete Sub-area F and Area J.
In answer to question by Council , Mr. Sanborn stated that a terrain
adjustment was made for the degree of difference in terrain between
the Cahuilla Hills and Mesa areas.
018 Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 3
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
Director of Community Development stated that there were no
requests from property owners as to consideration of exemptions ;
that request has been made for ability to allow additional
exemptions, on a case by case basis, and the State has given
approval , provided a field inspection is made in each case. He
stated that under those circumstances, upon completion of the
assessment district work, requests for exemptions to hookup to
the sewer main will be accumulated and a time to make a field
inspection with representatives from the State will be set; that
in each case, the person making the request must provide inform-
ation from two contractors to establish the cost of the connection,
in order to substantiate the hardship; however, the exemption
would not apply to the assessment. He stated there is a program
available for deferred loans or low-interest loans, however,
property owners would have to meet the income and other criteria
established.
Councilman Maryanov noted that based on figures provided by staff,
the monthly cost for a $9,000 assessment would be $109 and for
a $3,000 assessment, it would be $33 per month.
Mr. Brown stated that the project would be funded through the
issuance of bonds, at an interest rate not to exceed 12%, and
projections are that the coupon rate will be 10% or less; that
certain rights-of-way may be required, and he recommended that
the hearing on those proceedings be continued. In response to
his question, the Engineer stated that the total protests received
are equal to 22.67% of the district area, and if Area J and Sub-
area F are deleted, the protest would equal 13.24%. Mr. Brown
noted that protests are still being computed, and are measured
against the assessable area within the district:.
Mayor declared the hearing open. Note: :Nome names were not
audible, and spelling may not be accurate.
AREA A
J. K. Moran, Jr. , 777 E. Tahquitz-McCallum, attorney representing CONT
owners in Area A, highlighted details of hits letter previously (56)
submitted, stating that assessment rolls are one year behind,
and not everyone was notified; that it was deceptive to include
the estimated amount of the assessment in the mailing label ,
and it should have been more clearly identified; that the notice
did not advise people that the Council had the power to override
a majority protest; that the time frame of the notice was short,
since it was mailed during the holiday season, and there was
not enough time for the will of the majority to be expressed
or the information to be digested; that there is no authority
for the City to uphold the covenants signed by property owners
in the past, which he felt contained serious flaws; that benefit
is not in proportion to what is required from the property owner;
that some areas require blasting, and there will be damage to
glass, other underground mains, homes and people' s nerves; that
the grant agreement per se does not require 100% connection by
any given date; that liquidated damages must reasonably relate
to the actual damages incurred by the offended party, in this
case the State, and in his opinion, the State would be "laughed
out of court" ; that the Water Quality Control Board has never
taken any such action, and in his experience has found it under-
staffed and poorly funded; that the letter the City has from
the State is from an engineer and not legal counsel ; that he
did not find any comparison of those who connected previously,
�eemp rom$con0n0_ct��rrgg o tie ��wergvRAVa e s R'bn�b!%Stbt`3 cl��dopg
$10,000 or $70,OOR that he was advised by the Water Quality
Control Board that it never received a request by the City for
a blanket exemption; and that if the Council does not abandon
the proceedings, it should grant a 30-day continuance, so that
those who have rights to protect, have an opportunity to be heard.
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 4
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
Bryan McFarley, 2900 Farrell , stated that he can say that his
terrain will be difficult.
Carol McCoy, 2833 Venetia Road, stated that a 51% protest has
been collected for Area A, and they were advised in the informal
meetings, that if there was a 51% protest, the district would
not proceed.
Mr. Brown stated that an Area by Area protest calculation will
be made.
Richard Weaver, 2770 San Juan Road, stated that he did not have
the money to pay for the assessment, and questioned the term
"incidentals" which he felt was a large sum. Mr. Sanborn
responded, noting that incidentals include engineering, legal
advertisements, rights-of-way, one year reserve for assessment
amounts, bond discount and service charges. Director of Community
Development reiterated comments relative to low interest loans
for the assessment.
AREA B - No testimony
AREA C CONT'D
(56)
Vic Caserly (address not given) questioned why (multiple) lots
were not charged one amount, and then charged a fee each time
a permit was taken. He also stated that value of the Southridge
area is higher than other areas, and the assessment is not dispro-
portionate.
Doug Pulp, 2683 Francis, stated that business is off and giving
work to out-of-town contractors does not support local business;
and that he is concerned about the sudden impact of the cost
and perhaps it could be better spent elsewhere in the community.
AREA D
Culver Nichols, 899 N. Palm Canyon, stated that he owns property
in both D and E, and has submitted a written protest; that in
D, it appears that the assessment is for a 130-ft by 2,000 ft
lot along Racquet Club Road, which he does not have; and that
the Council should abandon the proceedings, or extend the time
frame to clarify questions asked by people affected by the proceed-
ings.
Engineer stated that Mr. Nichols property on Racquet Club Road
is not a "lot" but is the area receiving benefit, and the 130-ft
depth was based on the area, when developed, which was believed
to be able to be served by the sewer and benefitted therefrom
and is comparable to the lots across the street.
Ida Larsen, 230 & 240 W. Via Olivera, questioned the basis for
the dollar amounts.
Engineer stated that the assessments were based on bids for con-
struction of the sewer line within each area; that there were
a total of 28 bidders, that the low bid was used in each case
and divided by the number of basic lots; and in the case of mixed-
use, the assessment was based on number of units that could be
developed on the property.
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 5
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
George Goldberg, owner of vacant lot on Indian Avenue, stated
that there is no evidence of a detriment to the drinking water
or to the water system; that the sewer plant. discharges "dirty"
water (effluent) into the ground which will reach the water supply,
and will have more effect than septic tanks will have on the
water supply; and it was his understanding that the plant can
not handle 6 mgpd and will have to be expanded. He commented
on the lack of odor as a result of digging recently done for
a hotel site in Section 14, on which there was. previously situated
a trailer park served by septic tanks for many years ; that the
cost of connnection, the assessment, the connection fee, and CONT
a 12% interest rate will result in far more cost than suggested (56)
at the meeting; and the repaving was a great idea if it could
be described as such.
AREA E
Al Ray, 2732 Cardillo, stated that he owned property in E & F,
and stated that a sewer assessment in Boulder Bay, Big Bear,
cost $4,800 if bonds issued and $2,600 if cash paid; that he
wants the sewers installed and returned the inquiry cards years
ago, and now that it may come about, the area is being punished;
that one area received a bid of 69% less than the Engineer' s
estimate, and he believed there needed to be more time spent
in working with contractors to arrive at reasonable prices, and
for the reasons noted by. Mr. Moran above; and that sewers were
installed in Junipero (Area E) in which the contractor had no
difficulty excavating.
Engineer stated that the total project was bid as ten separate
areas and in each case, there. were at least three bids received;
that in this area, the prices were fairly close between the
contractors; and the amount was 12% less than the estimate; that
the Engineer' s estimate was made based on contacting several
contractors who were asked to give a preliminary review of the
plans and a quote, coupled with the Engineer' s experience in
the area.
Joe Kenya, 2494 Vista Drive, stated that there has been an over-
whelming negative attitude ,toward the project; that anything
is possible if the, economics allow it; that there are three other
factors that need to be considered, i .e. , geologic condition,
people's will , and houses built on fill ; that the foundations
can be weakened because of excavation, and he did not believe
there was any problem with the situation as it exists.
Culver Nichols, 899 N. Palm Canyon, stated that his property
in Area E is already sewered and should not be assessed; that
the soil is sandy and there is no construction problem; and that
more time was needed to consider the testimony presented this
date, as well as written comments previously submitted.
Ed Petty, Vista Drive, stated that following the neighborhood
meetings, he was advised by a staff person that the amount of
the State grant was $3,368,183; that the total assessment is
$11-12 million which of itself does not seem to be proper rationale
to save $3 million; that there will be a great deal more cost
in terms of the actual connections and fees ; that he has not
heard that environmental impacts have satisfactorily been
addressed, e.g. , blasting, future land shifting of property;
and that had the cost of the district been split equally among
all properties within the district, those on the "flatlands"
may have been more vocal in protesting.
W2 1
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 6
I . & 2., A.D. 143 (Continued)
Engineer stated that the original estimate was $16.5 million,
and the total amount to be spread is $10,429,060.
Don Lawson, 2696 Girasol , stated that it would be better to find
out how much would have to be repaid; that he was not advised
two years ago that he would face an assessment; and questioned
why, if it was known in the mid-1970s that the sewers would be
required, did the City wait until the deadline was to be met
before notifying people and "hitting" them with large amounts
of money.
Director of Community Development stated that grant was received
from the State, and an attempt was made to notify people in 1975
that since they were not connected to the sewer, efforts should CONT'D
be made to form assessment districts - noting that 4 districts (56)
were formed at that time; that a similar notification was given
in 1977; that because of lack of capacity at the sewer plant,
septic tanks or dual systems were required, pending availability
of capacity; and that the City has no way of tracking when a
property changes hands, and the most recent assessor's records
are used for providing notices.
City Manager stated that everyone was informed in 1975 and 1977
as to what would have to happen under the Council 's policy and
whether there was a desire to form the assessment districts;
that in 1977, there were no districts formed, although everyone
had the same opportunity at that time; that acceptance of addi-
tional capacity at the plant was projected to be September, 1983,
and dedication actually occurred in June, 1983; and that effort
was made to attain a November, 1983 target for completing the
remainder of the City, and work on that' began well over one year
ago.
Mary Tumminelli , 2430 Palermo, questioned whether the public
was asked if it wanted to accept the City's commitment to the
grant when it was offered; and questioned who would pay if there
is a loss of homes slipping off foundations.
In response to question by Mr. Petty (above), City Manager stated
that the $400 connection fee relates to attempts in the 1970s
to provide an incentive for connecting to the sewer; and that
the fee, today, for new homes to connect is $2,000, which reflects
the cost of providing capacity to new units.
Mr. Petty stated that if the protests represent an exercise in
futility, the Council should at least waive the $400 fee.
Leonard Aaron, address inaudible, stated that he was willing
to pay the assessment, but questioned whether Mr. Foster could
vote on this matter, since he owns property in one of the areas.
Mr. Foster stated that an abstention would be the easy way out,
and although he will be assessed, he has gained access to the
sewer and does not require the new line.
Dr. ?, name and address inaudible, stated that the City should
be able to acquire property ownership updates through use of
information from SCE, So. Calif. Gas, GTE, and DWA.
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 7
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
AREA F
Jerome Reiner, 695 W. Stevens Road, stated that it is an inequity
to base the protests on the percentage of area of the district,
when the assessment amounts spread on a per each basis, which,
in the first instance, produces a lower percentage of protest.
He also stated that there are 21 parcels in the Palm Vista Estates,
each assessed the same amount, but they are not all the same
size, therefore, each represent a different percentage of .allowable
protest.
Engineer stated that the assessments were spread on a unit basis.
Mr. Reiner stated that he thinks the assessment is excessive,
prohibitive and confiscatory; that his house is below street
level and he has a quote of $25,000 to pump up to the main, unless CONT
he is granted an exemption ; that there are rocks larger than (56)
the homes in the area; that blasting will upset the foundations
of the houses and other materials underground; and he questioned
how the geographic boundaries were determined. He stated that
there is 1 ,437 ft of sewer pipe proposed in his portion of Area
F, and about 3 miles of pipe in Litle Tuscany (remainder of Area
F) , and he believed the combination has resulted in one portion
subsidizing the remainder, and one should not have to pay for
the other; that the notice failed to tell people about code section
10310 which prescribes the requirement to refer to the property
for which the protest is .being registered and questioned whether
protests not meeting that requirement were discounted ; that the
reference to Council ' s ability to overrule protests by a 4/5
vote should have been included in .the notice; that a division
of the number of connections to the $3 million grant would result
in an average of several hundred dollars, and he agreed that
those already connected would consider it unfaiir - but the unfair-
ness would be in the amounts charged to A.D. 143; that the news-
paper article concluded that the City has complied with the grant
to the extent of 90.44% of its contract with the State, which
is substantial compliance; that there is a principle of law that
if there is substantial compliance with a contract, and problems
are encountered, courts have sustained the compliance and held
there was no breach of contract, and he felt the City could win
such a case if the State decided to sue; and he believed the
proceedings should be abandoned.
Robert Bertrand, 933 Chino Canyon Place, stetted he was opposed
to the district on the grounds of it producing more air pollution
via use of effluent to water golf course.
Julius Butler, 860 Panorama Road, objected on basis of need to
blast and the potential damage to homes.
Martha Scott, 925 Panorama Road, stated that she was advised
in 1977 that it was not economically feasible to install the
sewers; that she is not able to obtain earthquake insurance;
that not only the digging for the connection will could cause
damage to the foundation of her home, but also the trucks rumbling
up and down the street; and that the amount of damage which may
result from the improvement could be far greater than the amount
of the assessments.
Hank Hampton, 420 Santa Elena, stated that there is an inequity
when talking about an exemption for Southridge, since the property
values are about four times that of Area F; that it was not clear
whether people understood they could ask for an exemption, and
not to grant an exemption simply because it had not been requested
would be unfair; and that it would be unfair for those in non-rocky
areas to pay a proportion of the cost of the rocky areas.
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 8
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
Marilyn Hirshleifer, 877 Panorama Road, stated that there is
no additional width on Panorama Road, and question ingressegress
and the ability to install a sewer in a one-lane road.
Engineer stated that the contractor is required to leave the
street access open during evening hours; to backfill trench when
laying the pipe; and there may be some closing of the street
between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. He also stated that there would be
no additional assessment if it became necessary to enforce the
Performance Bond.
Zella Johnson, 777 Chino Canyon, opposed.
In answer to question by Mrs. Ott (?) , 1850 Leonard Road, Council-
man Foster stated that the question of a possible conflict of CONT'D
interest was raised and opinion from City Attorney and other (56)
legal counsel was that he does not have a conflict.
Mrs. Ott stated that her pool is in jeopardy of sliding off the
hillside; that her backyard will be eliminated if there is any
blasting; that a home built "above" her has caused her property
to be flooded whenever it rains ; that there was no compaction
test made on her property when the dwelling was constructed ;
and that she wished it known that she would hold the Council
and the City responsible for any damage to her home.
Mr. Busby, 965 Chino Canyon, stated that he spent $20,000 moving
rocks around on his property; that contractor will not dig a
"trench" when enormous boulders are encountered, resulting in
considerable earth movement; that he did not believe he was being
treated fairly, considering the price of the project.
Mr. Bertrand (above) questioned if an EIR was done on this
district.
Mr. Petty (above) requested that no decision be made until answers
are given to the environmental assessment question.
Director of Community Development stated - that EIRs have been
filed in connection with the development of the sewer plant,
and without exception, the installation of sewers throughout
the community has been considered a positive impact as opposed
to a negative impact; and that every phase of the sewer plant
had an environmental assessment and met CEQA requirements for
the expansion project.
Mr. Petty (above) stated that he understood about the sewer plant
and use of sewers in sandy soil , but that for Areas E-F-J & I
he did not consider the EIR on the sewer plant as a satisfactory
answer to the effect of blasting and installing pipe in those
areas; and requested that the Council insist on the report and
delay any decision until the proper report has been done to provide
mitigation to protect the people who live in those areas.
Bob Candleman (?), 442 Santa Elena, questioned Mr. Foster about
a conflict of interest and requested he abstain.
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 9
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
City Attorney stated that the newspaper article reflected his
comments at the time of the last study session, however, after
reviewing court cases extending over many years, which indicate
that participation in an assessment district does not constitute
a confict; that the 1974 Political Reform Act includes reference
to a conflict if there is a material financial affect, and that
there is no conflict if the person is affected the same as a
substantial segment of the public; and based on a review of all
the law, his opinion and that of other legal counsel , is that
Mr. Foster does not have a conflict on interest. He skated that
Mr. Foster could use "appearance of conflict:" if he wanted to,
but did not have to do so. CON
(56)
Mayor stated that Mr. Foster initially raised the question of
conflict, and after checking with the attorney, found that he
did not have a conflict and did not have to abstain.
AREA F-1
Douglas Russell , 660 Palisades, representing other three property
owners; stated that the four owners hold title to all lots, on
which five homes are constructed, and the estimated cost, including
the connection, would be - $363,000. He requested favorable
consideration of the exemption.
Dr. DeCrinis, 481 Mariscal , stated that he has been assessed
for the sewer, but already has sewers.
Engineer stated that the assessment was not: levied on the lot
with the house, but for the lot facing the other street.
Dr. DeCrinis stated that the property was combined and approved
by the City many years ago, and that there is a tennis court
on other parcel . Engineer stated that he would check into it.
AREA G
Father Whitney, Episcopal Church of St. Paul in the Desert, 125
El Alameda, stated that the church is on two lots zoned R-2;
that it did not make sense to him to try to save $5.8 million
by having the people spend $11+ million and the money to connect
to use the sewers ; that the church was built in 1943, is included
on the list of historic sites being considered by the Historic
Site Preservation Board, and nothing else could be done with
the property without the recommendation from the Episcopal Diocese;
that the assessment is $17,000 based on R-2 zoning, which did
not apply until the mid-1960s, and it is wrong to assume that
the property will "sell-out" to get a high price to build cluster
residential units; and that the church is riot a high.-intensity
use in terms of the need for sewers.
Engineer stated that the spread was based on the zoning in effect
at the time of the assessment; and that R-2 has the capability
of developing more units.
Director of Community Development stated that there is not a
separate zone for churches.
Ron Studebaker, 1149 Tamarisk, stated that given more time, he
could obtain more than 50% of the people in the area in protest
to the district; and that he was not aware of how to proceed
to voice objection, but would be willing to organize that effort.
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 10
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
AREA H
Lawrence Pierce, 433 Burton Way (not in district, although overhead
display gave appearance that the area was included) stated that
he was appalled at what the City was doing and the way in which
it was going about it. He stated that he is a member of the
Water Quality Control Board and was surpised that the Board had
turned down a blanket hardship exemption, according to the Director
of Community Development, since he had only missed one meeting
and did not find in his records where that occurred; that he
found it hard to believe that the State would assess the City
$5.8 million plus interest since the State funds were not handed
to the City all of that time, but rather in stages; that the
State grant was not equal to what the people in Assessment District
143 will have to pay to take advantage of it; that he did not
see the logic in the geographic groupings; that, in his youth,
he dug septic tanks in the Mesa Tract where he was aware that CONT'D
blasting was necessary; and that he believed the district could (56)
have been made smaller and explained in a more rational way.
In answer to question by Council , Mr. Pierce stated that more
time would be needed to respond to question whether new homes
could be built if no sewers were provided; that an engineer for
the Board was in attendance at the meeting, and the subject would
be discussed ; that if the cost was taken for the entire district
and spread against the parcels throughout, there would not have
been such a high-ended cost, and the lower assessments would
have come up somewhat; that he believed an exemption on a case-by-
case basis could be granted; and that he did not think the Board
could or would grant a blanket exemption, but would entertain
certain problem areas where it was ludicrous to proceed on the
basis of cost.
AREA I
Kathryn McClinton, 2280 Cahuilla Hills, stated that she did not
ask for an exemption because she .was not aware it was possible
to do so; that she faces the same problems as other hilly areas;
and that her assessment is $13,000+ for a 2-bedroom home.
Director of Community Development reiterated the three criteria
on which exemptions were considered (see above), and stated that
Cahuilla Hills was not one of the areas looked at by the engineers
in terms of hardship with that criteria in mind. He stated that
the Southridge area was originally projected at 100°% higher costs
than final assessments after bid.
Sig Ehrens, 2481 Cahuilla Hills, stated that he provided a 1500
gallon septic tank when he constructed his home, based on advice
he received from the City in 1976, that the area would never
be sewered and it would be too costly to 'do so; that when the
sewer is connected, the septic tank must be destroyed, which
will be an additional cost, and the hookup and assessment will
result in more money than he originally paid for the lot; and
that residents were told in the informal meetings that the Council
would override the protests in any event.
Woody Barrett, 552 Ridge Road, stated that a line to connect
his two lots would be 16-18 feet below the main line; that blasting
in the area is illegal ; and that he would not pay for the assess-
ment if he could not use the line.
Mr. Petty (above) stated that the offer to consider an exemption
makes it appear that one is easy to obtain, and is an incorrect
impression; that he assumed exemptions would be granted for
isolated cases; and questioned why the assessment should be made
for someone who cannot use it.
(j b
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 11
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
Director of Community Development stated that: in some cases the
line installed will serve the properties, bust there may be one
property with unique circumstances that makes it extremely
expensive to connect, and the question of exemption relates to
the cost of connecting, where the ability to connect is made
available through the assessment district; and in those cases,
the property would be part of the assessment„ and if a hardship
is found to exist and is justified, a recommendation for exemption
would be made to the Council .
Mr. Petty stated that those potential areas should be identified
and brought to the Council before determining if it makes sense
to move ahead with the proceedings. CONT
(56)
Lela (name inaudible) „ 1752 Ridge Road, opposed.
Bob Payne, 1855 Crestview, representing Margo Payne, stated opinion
that Mr. Pierce' s comments should be given more thought, i .e. ,
method of establishing boundaries of the district. He stated
that of two contiguous properties, each with the same terrain,
one is within A.D. 143 and the other was in .an earlier district,
with the one in A.D. 143 having an assessment 2z times greater
than the other. He stated opinion that the difference is due
to fact that all of, the problems were incorporated into A.D.
143.
Russ McDermott, 3000 Cahuilla Hills, stated that of 15 parcels
in the area, 13 have been represented by a protest and expression
of no interest in having sewers; and that he received telephone
calls from the other two, that they did not need the sewers.
Mel Gerrard, 246- Camino Alturas, stated that the sewers make
sense, but requested that the Council delay decision and eliminate
some of the very rocky areas where it is impossible to dig; that
, two years ago, his neighbors paid $3,500 for the sewers, which
are now proposed to cost him $7,000, because of the rocky areas
included. He commented on three properties not included in the
district.
Engineer stated that the three properties were inadvertently
omitted, but would be included in A.D. 145 for assessment purposes,
the work would be accomplished under A.D. 143 contract, and the
cost would be the same.
Bill Byrne, 301 Overlook, stated that if an environmental assess-
ment did not address the serious nature of the project, cost
effectiveness, he believed an attorney would be able to obtain
an injunction and stop the project.
In answer to a question from a previous speaker, Director of
Community Development stated that during the review process,
it was found that there were some areas where the sewer main
had been extended before the land was divided, therefore, no
laterals were provided, and those properties did not have the
ability to connect, which will comprise A.D. 145. He reiterated
comments by the Engineer with respect to the three lots in Area
I.
Mr. Petty (above) stated that with so many questions unanswered,
the Council should reassure the audience that it will continue
this matter and not make a decision at this time.
02 .�
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 12
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
Paul Selzer, 233 Camino Alturas, stated that he would not be
opposed if it was known that the water table would be adversely
impacted by not providing sewers, however, that is not known ;
that he was impressed with a previous speaker's comments relative
to substantial compliance; that his neighbors desire the sewer,
and if the district failed, another could be petitioned for,
however, because Cahuilla Hills was included and the experience
of a recent district in the area with lower costs, he was opposed
to the district; that he believed, through a voluntary process,
a large percentage of the remaining unconnected area will connect
to the sewer, and in those areas where development cannot take
place, voluntary compliance will have to occur in order to build,
and he felt there was time in which to do that; that he believed CONT'D
the Council should defer action, and get answers from the Water (56)
Quality Control Board; and that the City did not need a political
upheaval .
George Goldberg, prior speaker, stated that the newspaper article
indicated 90% connected, A.D. 143 represented 10%, and the City
is talking about additional districts, which appeared to exceed
100%. He requested a 30-day continuance.
Bill Howlett, 2001 S. Palm Canyon, stated that the easy areas
are subsidizing the difficult areas; that questions relate to
who bid on the project, how much was charged, and are they
competent; that discussion he had with the contractor indicated
the only difference between the flat and hilly area related to
excavation costs, and if the flat areas were re-drawn and the
contractors reappraised the flat area, it could be determined
if the prices on the flat areas are good, or if those who did
not bid realized the difficulty of the rocky areas, which may
also apply in other rocky/flat areas.
AREA J
Hank Hampton, prior speaker, stated that he owns one lot in Area
J, and questioned if it can be built upon if exemption is granted.
Mayor noted that answer to that has not been given. Mr. Hampton
stated that it seems inconsistent that the Board can allow an
exemption and then not allow construction.
Director of Community Development stated that a definitive answer
has not come forth that would enable future construction without
sewers, and the burden of proof is on the property owner to show
that a septic tank can be installed and percolation criteria
satisfied, and if that cannot -be met, he believed the Water Quality
Control Board and the Health Department have the ability to say
there shall be no building until that is done.
Relative to Item 1 . , Mayor declared the hearing closed.
City Manager stated that before the hearing, more protests were
submitted and those were being calculated; that some very good
questions were raised in the testimony, and those should be checked
out, and in some case, rechecked; and that, with the understanding
the hearing has been closed, he recommended that the Council
adjourn to Tuesday, January 24 for the sole purpose of setting
a specific date and place for concluding deliberations and
decisions - possibly considering about one month; and if the
Council wished any questions to be addressed, it could raise
those at this time or at the January 24 meeting.
(MS
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 13
1 . & 2. A.D. 143 (Continued)
Legal Counsel , Brown, stated that it would be appropriate to CONT'
continue the hearing on the Eminent Domain proceedings to trail (56)
with the Assessment District, recognizing that public hearing
is still required thereon.
It was moved by Smith, seconded by Doyle, and unanimously carried,
that deliberations on Assessment District 143 be continued to
January 24, 1984, to set date and place for action by Council ; and
that the hearing on the Eminent Domain Proceedings be continued to
trail therewith.
3. PERSONNEL RULES & MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT
Recommendation: On January 4, 1984, Council introduced Ordinance
to adopt revised Personnel Ordinance, and noted that hearing
would be held at this time on revised Personnel Rules.
Debbie Keffler, Labor Attorney, provided historic overview of (110)
the reasons why the rules were revised; that the meet and confer
obligation was commenced with the three employee units, including
sixteen meetings from July through December, 1982; that the
Personnel Board held hearings between January and March, 1983;
that final rules and the revised Personnel Ordinance were then
prepared and edited; and that the City has fulfilled its obligation
relative to meet and confer/meet and consult.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Kris Kramer, Fire Safety Unit, expressed appreciation for the
time and effort in working on the revised rules, and the ability
to participate in that process. He questioned why MOU provisions
relative to overtime, May 18, 1983, were not included in 5.1 .04.
Ms. Keffler stated that the MOU is not superceded by the Personnel
Rules, and in some cases, the MOU was included for convenience
of a single document, but the rules do not affect the legal
standing of the MOU.
Mr. Kramer stated that request had been made to the Personnel
Board to consider recommending that the Council adopt the Personnel
Rules by reference to the MOU, and any future changes in the
Rules would be part of the MOU.
Ms. Keffler stated that the Myers-Milias-Brown Act regulates
meet and confer and meet and consult, and it would not be
appropriate/ in the Rules.
Darrell Rusk, 2800 Golf Club, PEARC Field Representative, stated
that a great deal of work has gone into the development of the
Rules, and the product is something with which the employees
will be able to work.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed.
City Clerk read title of Ordinance 1211 , as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING
CHAPTER 2.40 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 2.40 TO THE PALM SPRINGS
MUNICIPAL CODE, REGULATING THE PERSONNEL_ SYSTEM WITHIN THE
CITY.
Resolution 14910, adopting the revised rules was presented; after
which, it was moved by Doyle, seconded by Maryanov, and unanimously
carried, that further reading of the Ordinance be waived ; the
Ordinance be introduced for first reading; and that Resolution
14910 be adopted.
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 14
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
a) George Whitney, 1160 Anza Drive, read a letter on behalf
of his wife, questioning when the Council would take action
on petition which she previously submitted requesting a salary
for the Mayor.
b) Bill Howlett, 2001 S. Palm Canyon Drive, requested that City
provide its documentation to show that the weed abatement (57)
on his lot was accomplished.
c) Heinz Zipperle stated that he had submitted letters and (57)
statements from witnesses that he had kept his lot clean,
and requested that the City require the same of the adjoining
lot.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION:
4. P.D. 150
On January 4, 1984, Council continued for 30 days considera-
tion of planned development district to construct a 310 room
hotel , including a 60-ft height on a portion thereof, on property
on the NE corner of Mesquite Avenue and South Palm Canyon Drive,
pending study session with Planning Commission. At the January
10 study session, Council met with Planning Commission, and (116)
requested this item be brought back at this time.
Mayor stated that he was prepared to vote on this matter, with
the understanding that the Planning Commission is looking at
the highrise policy in general .
Councilman Smith stated that he was not opposed to the project,
and believes it to be a good one; and his interest in raising
the question of high rise was to make sure that everyone was
on-board with the policy and high rise would not be going in
the wrong locations.
Planning Director stated that final plans will address final
location of access to the rear area in about the same location
as shown on the preliminary plans, unless otherwise directed
by the Council to further explore alternatives.
It was the consensus of the Council that the staff consider it
Council direction to work with the developer to find the best
solution to the question of rear access.
Res. 14911 , approving P.D. 150, as recommended, was presented;
after which, it was moved by Foster, seconded by Maryanov, and
unanimously carried, that Resolution 14911 be adopted.
5. HYDRO RELICENSING
Recommendation: That the Council consider Energy Commission
and Energy Task Force recommendations relative to hydro-
relicensing; an issue before the Council on request by SCE.
Resolution 14912, endorsing equal competitive status for (52)
municipalities and investor owner utilities in relicensing
procedures, as recommended by the Energy Commission, was presented,
after which, it was moved by Doyle, seconded by Maryanov, and
unanimously carried, that Resolution 14912 be adopted.
Oki
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 15
6. PALM SPRINGS PROJECT CONTINUATION
Recommendation: That the Council approve continuation of the
P.S. Project, as recommended by the Steering Committee, through (13
June 30, 1984; and approve agreement with Sentient Systems, in
an amount not to exceed $5,100 (or optional $8„450) .
Res 14913 approving continuation, with option if necessary, and
agreement with Sentient Systems, was presented; after which,
it was moved by Maryanov, seconded by Foster, and unanimously
carried, that Resolution 14913 be adopted.
7. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING & ADOPTION (Intro. 1-4-84)
City Clerk read title of Ord 1212 amending Zoning Text re height (103)
in GR5 Zone; and
Ord 1213 re rent control (85)
It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Foster, and unanimously carried,
that further readings be waived, and that Ordinances 1212 and
1213 be adopted.
8. PERS CONTRACT AMENDMENT - MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES
Recommendation: That the Council declare intent to amend PERS
contract to provide single highest year for computation of
retirement benefits for miscellaneous employees, and introduce (110)
ordinance for contract amendment. Second reading to be heard
February 15, 1984.
City Clerk read title of the Ordinance, as follows ;
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AND THE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORIIIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ' RF.TIRLMEN7
SYSTEM,
and title of Resolution 14914, declaring intent to approve the
amendment to the contract, as noted.
Personnel Manager stated that the costs involved in the contract
amendment include $154 for an actuarial study, and the City
contribution to PERS will increase 1 .858% of miscellaneous
employees' payroll as a result of the contract changes (City
pays employee contribution to PERS) .
It was moved by Maryanov, seconded by Foster, and unanimously
carried, that Resolution 14914 be adopted ; and that further reading
of the Ordinance be waived and the Ordinance be introduced for
first reading.
CONSENT AGENDA:
9. Minute Order 3334 approving agreement with RCFCD relative to
responsibilities of each agency regarding implementation of the (88)
revised Master Plan for Drainage.
10. Resolution 14915 approving Supplemental Agreement No. to Agr. #1783
with Pacific Express Holding, Inc. , dba Pacific Express. (51 )
11 . Resolution 14916 amending budget to appropriate funds for sick
leave and vacation payouts, authorized by MOU with employee units. (61 )
03
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 16
12. Minute Order 3335 awarding contract to Massey Sand & Rock Co. , (136)
to resurface Bogie Road, between Highway III and Ramon Road, in
amount of $87,645.
13. Minute Order 3336 approving Change Order #3, to increase contract
with Vadnais Construction Co. , to complete Pump Station #1 and (128)
sewer force main - CP 80-29.
14. Minute Order 3337 awarding contract for 4160 Volt switchgear, CP (52)
83-72, to CGI Systems, in amount of $78,997.56.
15. Resolution 14917 declaring two city-owned parcels and dwellings
at 1930 and 1950 Bogie Road, as surplus and directing sales thereof. (117)
16. Resolution 14918 and 14919 and 14920 approving Payroll Warrants (86)
and Claims & Demands.
17. Resolution 14921 approving Airport Use Agreement with America West
Airlines, for period commencing February 1 , 1984, and ending August (51 )
14, 1984.
18. Minute Order 3338 approving Supplemental Cooperation Agreement
with the County for CDBG basic funds. (85)
It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Smith, and unanimously carried,
that Resolutions 14915 through 14921 and Minute Orders 3334 through
3338, be adopted
19. PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENTS
In answer to question by Council , Building & Safety Director
stated that he met with Mr. Zipperle, measured the property line,
agreed on the boundary, contacted the contractor and confirmed
that it took a 5-ton dump truck to remove the debris from the 7 (57)
lot; that staff believes Mr. Zipperle has kept the lot clean
in the past,and felt .he would have abated the nuisance if he had
received the notice, but the Assessor's Role did not show his
latest address; and that it is recommended that the Administrative
Overhead Fee be waived. In the case of Mr. Howlett, he was not
able to view the site with Mr. Howlett, however, Mr. Howlett's
opinion is that the lot was not cleaned, and staff' s position
is that it was cleaned; that the contractor did not have time
cards, that a. flat rate was charged; that mature desert growth
is not removed, only debris and dried brush; and he recommended
that the costs be confirmed.
Councilman Doyle stated that he believed there was good faith
on the part of both Appellants, - and the staff; that he believed
there is reasonable doubt as to who did what; and he felt the
costs should be forgiven, with understanding that there be
compliance with any future notice without any hesitation.
It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Maryanov, and unanimously
carried, that the appeals be upheld and the Proceedings &
Accounting Reports not confirmed.
20. EQUESTRIAN CENTER - P.S. MOUNTED POLICE AGREEMENT
Recommendation: That the Council approve agreement with the
P.S. Mounted Police for use of the Equestrian Center, for annual
rodeo, for a term of five years, ending January 1 , 1989. (109)
Resolution 14922, approving the agreement, as recommended, was
presented; after which, it was moved by Foster, seconded by Smith,
and unanimously carried, that Resolution 14922 be adopted.
(l:'3
Council Minutes
1-18-84 Page 17
21 . CO-GENERATION - 1ST PHASE BID, WAIVER OF IRREGULARITIES
Recommendation: That the Council waive minor irregularities
in the first phase of a 2-step bidding process for the
Co-Generation facilities, CP 83-03 and 83-104, as detailed in 1:52)
report of Energy Coordinator, dated January 18, 1984.
Minute Order 3339, waiving irregularities, as recommended, was
presented; after which, it was moved by Maryanov, seconded by
Doyle, and unanimously carried, that Minute Order 3339 be adopted.
REPORTS OR REQUESTS:
22. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS - Received & Ordered Filed
a) Annual Financial Report - 1982-83 1:121 )
b) CVB 1982-83 Audit Report 1:50)
23. CITY COUNCIL reports or requests
a) MAYOR/COUNCIL COMPENSATION:
Councilman Doyle stated that he felt it would be appropriate
to set a salary for the Mayor and Members of the Council ,
beginning with the new term in April , 1984, i .e. , an annual (70)
salary of $15,000 for Mayor and $1 ,800 for Councilmembers.
Councilman Maryanov expressed opposition to the proposal ,
stating that he did not believe the Council could properly
compensate the mayor for what is clone; that in the
Council-Manager form of government, the City Manager is paid
and the Council/Mayor should be volunteers, and he believed
compensation would hurt that system; that, he finds a problem
in the disparity between the salary levels suggested, and
if considered at all , they should be closer together; and
that he believed the establishment of salaries, with potential
increases, placed a burden on the City in terms of budget
considerations.
It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Smith, and carried by
the following vote, that the staff prepare an ordinance for
consideration to provide the salaries as above noted:
AYES: Doyle, Foster, Smith & Bogert
NO: Maryanov
ABSENT: None
24. PUBLIC reports or requests - None
25. STAFF reports or requests - None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business at 1 :10 a.m. , Mayor declared
the meeting adjourned to Tuesday, January 24, 1984, at 2 p.m. ,
in the Large Conference Room, City Hall . r)
JUDITH SUMICH
City Clerk