HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/1986 - MINUTES CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 1986
An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council or the City of
Palm Springs, California, was called to order by Mayor pro tern
Smith, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, on Thurs-
day, December 11, 1986, at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Apfelbaum, Birer, Foster,
and Smith
Absent: Mayor Bogert
The meeting was opened with the salute to the Flag and a moment
of silence.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CATV
Purpose of Hearing: To afford the public in the franchise
area appropriate notice and participation in 1) identifying
the Future cable-related community needs and interests;
and 2) reviewing the performance of the cable operator
under the franchise during the current franchise term.
Assistant City Manager reviewed his report, dated Decem-
ber 11, and noted that since the franchise was renegotiated,
the term was reduced, thereby ending in 1989; and because
of recent changes in Federal Law, the City is mandated (89)
to hold public hearings within at least 36 months prior
to the expiration of the franchise for the above stated
purpose. He stated that based on the input received,
Warner Cable will submit a proposal for renewal of the
franchise, which will be negotiated, and a public hearing
held thereon.
Connie Pettit, Warner Cable, stated that they have conducted
weekly studies of new customers, and quarterly surveys
asking the same kind of questions of established customers;
that they have made contact with community leaders to
query how the cable can best interface with them, how
they see the growth of the community; that they have met
with homeowners ' associations and others to establish
better relationships; and that they track telephone
responses, telephone courtesy, services provided, billing
questions and resolutions; and that she hoped to capture
what it is the company does right, and what improvements
it needs to make.
Wayne Hill , Warner Cable corporate office, discussed trends
in cable service, and stated that they are trying to serve
different viewing needs, recognizing that certain capital
investments need to be made, and a movement toward that
end will be part of the negotiations; that it is possible
to provide a good, solid cable system, with variety of
channels, good service, and a clear picture; that there
are technological changes, and building those into, the
system will also be part of the franchise renewal process;and the biggest trend facing cable companies is the extent
of competition.
Mayor pro tern declared the hearing opened.
Council Minutes
12-11-86, Page 2
1. CATV (Continued)
Albert Kikke, requested consideration be given to
broadcasting in stereo.
Ed Farrell , 900 Saturnino, #107, stated that he has had
a positive experience with the cable service, and suggested
that the "Nashville" channel be included.
Charles McFall , 1150 E. Amado, No. 20A-1, voiced objection
to extending the franchise to Warner, and stated that
he experiences daily interruptions of service, which are
treated lightly by the company; that the decibel level
fluctuates from channel to channel , and should be equalized
by the company; objected to advance payment of the rate,
and the limited number of channels available compared
to CVTV and Desert Hot Springs' service; and that other
companies should be asked to bid.
Seamus Nunan, 1300 Sagebrush, questioned when stereo broad-
casting would be available; how much power the local manager
has to resolve issues; why a "cafeteria" approach could
not be taken when selecting channels for the Palm Springs
Package, instead of taking some a person does not wish
in order to get others; why there is no one to respond
to weekend inquiries; and stated that other communities
in the valley receive free those channels for which Palm
Springs' residents must pay.
Selma Bernstein, 2000 Tamarisk, offered similar comments
concerning paying for channels other communities receive
' free, and paying rate in advance; and requested C-Span
and CNN.
Martha Gilbreath, 2040 Calle Lileta, stated that she has
been told by the company that four others must make the
same complaint before anything will be done to resolve
her complaint; questions why the rates are high, why not
bids from other companies, why not negotiate in Palm Springs
instead of "back East;" why rate is paid in advance, and
how do the elderly and low income people get taken care
of, some of whom cannot get out; why the financial station
is turned off at 4 p.m. , precluding the daily market
closings; and stated that she asked others to come to
the meeting, but received an "it won't do any good"
response.
Leon Block, 622 Highland, opposed paying in advance for
service, and stated that there is no rebate on the bill
for interruptions in service; that the bills are hard
to read; that the picture quality is poor, although somewhat
improved after he called to complain; and that he gets
"double talk" from the company.
Dean Berkus, Box 1704, Palm Springs, questioned why decoders
are needed for each set, when new televisions sets are
capable of receiving premium channels without them;
supported stereo broadcasting; and supported broadcasting
National Public Radio, and FM.
Mary Wall , 1881 Araby, questioned why Channel 10 was not
used for some of these additional services.
Albert Cohn, 3515 Ridgeview Circle South, stated that
other companies offer cable news; that it is unfair to
pay two months in advance, and then to be charged interest
on the money paid in advance if it is not paid by the
first of the month, which is not always possible because
the bills do not come in until late in the month.
Council Minutes
12-11-86, Page 3
1. CATV (Continued)
Gloria Reyes, Calle San Raphael , questioned why there
is not a broader range of selection of channels; why the
rate is paid in advance; and requested "Dodger Vision,"
which is offered in other areas.
Steven Smith, 1233 Via Escuela, made similar points as
the previous speakers; and stated that there should not
be an exclusive franchise, and between now and 1989, Warner
should show good faith and add the same selection for
the same monthly service charge as in Palm Desert; that
advanced billing should be prohibited; and that "prime
ticket" channel should be offered.
Harold Good, 2182 Joyce Drive, commented on a recent problem
in terms of "repossessing" the decoders , and suggested
that there should be a detailed receipt given as to exactly
what was removed, with a signature on the part of the
resident. He also stated that there has been improvement
in the attitude of the office staff, people smile more,
the company is involved in community affairs, but it still
needs to look to solving billing problems.
Betty Morgan, requested C-Span. .
Benton Hudson, 6417 Arroyo, stated that all of the surround-
ing communities have better television service for less
money, which is not a good situation for the residents,
or the tourist industry.
David Gura supported a commitment to radio FM.
Abram Zakar stated opinion that a questionnaire of customers ,
might produce a similar, or greater, response as evidenced
at this hearing.
Assistant City Manager stated that under the current situa-
tion, Warner needs only to provide 20 channels; that it
is providing 24 channels ; that after renegotiating the
franchise, Palm Springs should have no less than a 54
channel capacity; that under Federal Law, Warner determines
which channels will be offered; that unless the existing
company is totally off-base and incapable of operating
the system in the community, the City must negotiate with
it, and cannot go out to bid; that Warner does not have
an exclusive franchise, nor is it intended to offer same;
that all negotiations will be conducted in Palm Springs;
and that the company is probably willing to offer monthly
billings, however, it involves an extra cost.
Charles McFall accused staff of whitewashing what was
being said by the public, and challenged the process to
be followed.
An Unidentified Woman stated that only Los Angeles Channels
2 through 13 are offered, and the remainder are subject
to special rates, which is not the case in other nearby
communities.
Aurora Johnson, 2627 McCarn Road, questioned why the company
charges a new installation charge when a person is a current
customer, and simply moves from one address to another
where the cable is already installed; and that it appears
futile if neither the City, nor the residents, have any
alternatives but to accept what Warner offers.
Council Minutes
12-11-86, Page 4
1. CATV (Continued)
There were no further appearances, and the hearing was
closed.
No action required. Mayor pro tem suggested that if anyone
who did not speak wished to provide input, that they do
so in writing and submit it to the Assistant City Manager.
' COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Mayor pro tem convened Community
Redevelopment Agency for purpose of conducting a joint public
hearing.
2. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - PA1B7 - WELWOOD MURRAY PLAZA
Consideration of a Disposition and Development Agreement
with Welwood Murray Plaza (John Wessman) for development
of a retail/restaurant complex on the south side of Tahquitz
Way, between Palm Canyon and Indian Avenue.
Economic Development & Housing Director stated that the
City and Agency entered into a Participation Agreement
with Mr. Wessman to look at rehabilitation of the McCallum
Building, and perhaps surrounding buildings; that it has
been amended and restated, and was being submitted for
City and Agency approval ; and that tax exempt financing
has been assembled over the last week, based on allocation
from the State. (124)
Tom Cunningham, legal counsel , Morgan, Lewis & Bocius,
reviewed the proposed resolutions, i .e. , one each of the
City and Agency to approve the amended and restated
participation Agreement (Nos. 2329 and 157, respectively) ,
which includes parcels which have not yet been acquired,
and that the Agency will use its abilities to assist in
such acquisitions; and resolution of the Agency to approve
the various documentation related to the financing package.
Redevelopment Director stated that the amended and restated
participation agreement which was available prior to the
start of the hearing, was further revised, as follows:
Page 8, Paragraph A. , second sentence, to read, "The
Developer shall . . . . . . . . . . . . .to retail , restaurant and
office. . . . . . . . . . . . "
Page 9, Paragraph E. , sub-paragraph 2. , first sentence,
to read, "The Participant shall not. . . . . . . the Agency,
which approved(al ) shall not be unreasonably withheld. "
Page 10, Paragraph A. , sub-paragraph 2. , first sentence,
to read, "In accordance with . . . . . . . . . . .appraisal
completed by the Agency, in conjunction with the
Participant, on or. . . . . . . . . . . . "
Page 11, sub-paragraph 4. a. , first sentence to read,
I "The Participant. . . . . . . . . . .interest of at least 50
years. . . . . . . . . . . . . "b)
He stated that the agreement is a major expansion from
that which was originally negotiated with the developer,
describes Agency' s assistance in acquiring the Library,
the Willard and Strebe properties south of the Library,
but leaves that open to future decision depending upon
how developer's negotiations proceed for that purpose;
stipulates that there will be no additional costs over
those included in the original agreement, and the
developer will pay for anything else; provides escape
clauses for the Agency, and protection from future
litigation.
9 53
Council Minutes
12-11-86, Page 5
2. PAIN (Continued)
In answer to question by Council , concerning adequacy
of notice and letter from Jeremy Crocker, Redevelopment
Director stated that at the time the financing decision
was being considered, Mr. Crocker asked if any additional
agreements were being considered, and he informed him
that there were none; that he informed him early this '
date that a new agreement was being prepared, i .e. , for
this meeting, was enroute, and he would let him know when
it was available; that he called him when it arrived,
and a copy was made for him at 9:45 a.m. , with instructions
to inform him that minor changes (those rioted above) were
being made; and that Mr. Crocker picked up the copy later
in the afternoon on this date. He also stated that as
of December 2, there were no other agreements, except
those previously approved, and which have been incorporated
into the new agreement, which he was privy to after the
Council received it.
Mr. Cunningham stated that there is no reason to reschedule
the hearing; that the Council/Agency was receiving it
for the first time, and Mr. Crocker has no greater right
than the Council/Agency; and that the agreement implements
Council/Agency resolutions previously approved, and he
did not see anything to preclude going forward at this
time.
Mayor declared the hearing opened.
Tuck Broich, 1130 Manzanita, questioned If proper notice
was given (staff response was affirmative) , and stated '
that a revised document should be available for public
review before the last minute, as well as before the last
minute for the Council .
Seamus Nunan, questioned what impact the project would
have on the downtown library.
Deyna Hodges, 2122 E. Baristo, also questioned if the
Library would still be a library.
Redevelopment Director stated that the issue revolved
around a concept: to expand and remodel the McCallum
Building, hopefully, to use the Library as a retail complex,
as well as properties to the south, to make a greater
retail complex; that Mr. Wessman has been working on his
own to acquire the other properties, and asked the City
if there was a chance of getting the Library site, and
he was aware of the reversionary clause ; that there is
reason to believe that the heirs might be conducive to
a buy-out or negotiate their interest, and allow the site
to no longer be restricted to library use; that the proceeds
from the sale would go to the Library Fund:; that the Agency
was asked to use its capabilities if Wessman could get
the funds together, and negotiations came to a standstill ;
and that if parcels do not come together, the bottom line
is that the bonds amount would be reduced and repaid.
He stated that the Library building would not be changed.
Ms. Hodges stated that she believed other people would
have been at the meeting if they knew of the expanded
project.
Council Minutes
12-11-86, Page 6
2. PA1B7 (Continued)
Redevelopment Director stated that if all negotiations
between the developer and property owners are unsuccessful ,
the matter would come back to the Agency to determine
if it wished to utilize eminent domain proceedings, in
which case a resolution of necessity and public hearing
would be required.
Economic Development & Housing Director read sub•-paragrph
4.a. , of Page 11 of the agreement, regarding purchase
of the unacquired properties.
City Manager stated that the agreement does not take the
place of law, and questioned legal counsel as to whether
there was anything in the agreement that would abridge
legal procedures of the Agency, concerning use of eminent
domain, should it later be considered as a possibility.
Legal Counsel Cunningham stated that there is nothing
that would frustrate the normal process of either the
Agency or the City.
Redevelopment Director stated that he had been in touch
with Mr. Stoever, and the wording at the end of the
paragraph was suggested by him; and it has been cleared
by legal counsel as a proper procedure to use.
Agency Resolutions 451 and 452, approving financing
documents and the amended and restated participation
agreement, respectively; and Council Resolution 16071,
approving the amended and restated participation agree-
ment, were presented, after which, it was moved by Birer,
seconded by Apfelbaum, and unanimously carried, Bogert
absent, that Resolutions 451, 452, and 16071 be adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor pro tem declared
the meeting adjourned.
I — JUDITH SUti171CCH
City Clerk