HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 - MINUTES - 5/2/1990 rf CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
O ! CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 2, 1990
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs,
was called to order by Mayor Bono, in the Council Chamber, 3200
Tahquitz-McCallum Way, on Wednesday, May 2, 1990.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Broich, Hodges , Murawski ,
Neel and Mayor Bono
Absent: None
PRESENTATION: State Board of Corrections to Police Chief Don Burnett
for excellent standard rating of the Police Department.
REPORT POSTING OF AGENDA:
Report of Assistant City Clerk: The agenda was posted
in accordance with Council policy on April 27 , 1990.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. MOTEL 6 - ACME-WILEY CORPORATION APPEAL
Consideration of appeal by applicant from Planning
Commission decision for signage update for Motel 6
properties at 660 S. Palm Canyon Drive and 595 E. Palm
Canyon Drive.
Planning Director reviewed the staff report given in detail
at the last study session , and added that the prior Council
had suggested the use of the name "Hotel " instead of
"Motel "; but it is not a requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance; that the owners want to change the name on
the logo to Motel 6, which is tradmarked; that the sign
proposed is plastic and backlit; that the Planning
Commission recommended a material other than plastic.
He stated that the landscaping needs improvement; that
and a landscape architect has submitted a new design.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Paul Selzer, representing Motel 6, stated that in 1985
the trademark was modified to include a blue background;
that the presented trademark was registered in 1989; that
government code 15C11217 states that a local jurisdiction
may not require a business to change its trademark; that
the City does not have the ability to change the sign,
that considering other businesses in the area, the sign
does fit into the scheme; that many Palm Canyon signs
are backlit; that the issue of the name, is simply the
name of the company; that the color of the sign is a matter
of taste; and that the logo is a federally registered
trademark.
Councilmember Broich stated that the landscaping needs
improvement.
Mayor Bono stated that the City does not have the legal
right to change the name from Motel to Hotel ; that the
owners and the City could work out an agreement regarding
the landscaping; and that this could be the beginning
of better relationship between Hotel 6 and the City.
Council Minutes G t`
5-2-90, Page 2
MOTEL 6 - ACME-WILEY COROPORATION APPEAL (Cont)
Paul Selzer, stated that Motel 6 is willing to enter into
discussion with staff regarding landscaping; but that
the past proposal by staff had involved a $50,000
landscaping plan, and Motel 6 is not willing to spend
that much to upscale the landscaping, but is willing to
come to a mutual agreement.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Gann Carter, part-time tour director of Celebrity Tours,
stated that it is not legal to force Motel 6 to change
its name, but that there is an unwritten ordinance in
the City for no "motels" , that the City maintains a tertian
elegance by not having Motels, and that the Council should
consider the tourism industry in its decision.
Francis Brown, 670 Calle Palo Ferraro, stated that the
clientele of Motel 6 nationwide is not of the highest
quality; that the proposed signage for Motel 6 is not
in keeping with the image of Palm Springs; that during
Spring Break the commotion and activity around the Hotel
was not controlled; that there are drainage problems with
the site causing buildings on Calle Palo Feraro to flood,
for which a number of complaints have been made to City
hall .
Don Rubidoux, Palm Springs, stated that the City is only
one of the few cities that can boast of having only hotels,
not motels; that the Council should not be intimidated
by the Motel 6 owners; and that the acrylic sign is another
issue and should be considered seperately.
Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Councilmember Hodges stated that over the years only
"hotels" have been allowed in Palm Springs, but that legal
issue concerning trademarks has been addressed by the
courts; that Motel 6 has the right to its trademark, and
the use of it; that a trademark is highly protected; and
is recognizable to the public, and an asset to business;
that the City has been too restrictive in terms of colors;
and that the trademark and logo should be allowed.
Councilmember Murawski stated that although Motel 6 has
the right to use its trademark, it may wish to consider
using "Hotel 6" due to the affluence of the Palm Springs
area; and the recognition that there is a certain amount
of prestige in the tourism market for having Hotels only.
Motion overruling Planning Commission action was presented;
after which, it was moved by Broich, seconded by Murawski ,
and unanimously carried, that the Planning Commission
acton be overruled, and the appeal to allow the registered
trademark sign as submitted, be approved.
- - Or!8 Council Minutes
5-2-90, Page 3
2. P.D. 202 (QUESTMARK) & GPA 5.0539 (LAND USE)
On April 18, 1990, Council continued hearing to amend
the General Plan Land Use Element for a change from
Professional and Residential Low 6 to Community Shopping
Center; and approve a preliminary planned development
district, in-lieu of a change of zone, for property on
the south side of Vista Chino, between Sunrise Way and
Cerritos Road.
Director of Community Development stated that the applicant
requested a continuanceto June 6 meeting.
It was moved by Broich, seconded by Hodges, and unanimously
carried to deny the continuance.
Planning Director reviewed the staff report and added
that the General Plan indicates the intersection of Vista
Chino and Sunrise Way as a Neighborhood Shopping Center;
that there is a need for approximately 27 acres of shopping
facilities in this area; that the existing General Plan
designation on the subject property is Professional and
residential low 6, that the designations were established
in 1978; that the Planning Commission determined that
additional commercial development will be needed to support
the northern portion of the City; that the addition of
shopping and entertainment facilities will lessen travel
distances for the northern residents; that the proposed
change will intensify land use, and increase vehicular
traffic; that a detail environmental assessment study
was prepared by the developer; and that the Planning
Commission recommended approval .
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Mark Nissenbaum, President of Questmark Group, stated
that he met with various downtown business groups, and
with P.S. NOW; that since acquiring ; the property
misinformation about mitigation factors occurred especially
concerning the loading zone; that there are many positive
facts to the project; that a poll of 650 citizens in Palm
Springs indicated 600 were for the project; that the loading
zone would be enclosed; that no deliveries would occur
before 6 a.m. or after 8 p.m. , that most of the lessees
are committed; that no tenants are already located downtown;
that if the Council 's concern is in regard to the theaters,
the developer will eliminate them; that the design is
attractive; that off-site improvements are in excess of
$.5 million; that the project would generate $400,000
in tax revenue; that the developer considered the nearby
residents in every phase of the project; that someone
will eventually build in the area; that the Ralph' s grocery
chain, and Payless Drugs are committed to the site; that
four theater chains are committed, but can be replaced
by soft good stores, if the Council so desired; that 80%
of the stores are committed; that this would not be the
opening of a vacant center; that if the developer
overcommitted on leases, they would refer the businesses
downtown; that they would not have drive-t.hru fast Food
resturants; that the project was ecologically sound; 't'nar
the trash areas would be enclosed; that recycling would
be implemented; that no other development has made these
types of commitments; and that this would be a major project
for the Palm Springs area.
Council Minutes _ _ 079
5-2-90, Page 4
2. P.D. 202 (cont)
Paul Selzer, Best, Best, and Krieger, representing the
applicant, stated that there was no indication at the
study session that this item would not be continued, and
he was not fully prepared with background and testimony
in support of the project; that there would be no loss
in granting the continuance; that development plans began
two years ago and all mitigation factors considered; that
if the architect were present, a complete presentation
could be made; that the project will attract people to
Palm Springs; that the project is in a logical site for
northern Palm Springs; that over $1 million dollars will
be spent for site improvements; that there is considerable
incentive to the City to approve the project; and requested
that a continuance be granted.
Shiela Gratten, Sagewood Condominiums, stated that the
project is a good example why people do not trust
government; that the area is not zoned for 'the project;
that people purchased homes in the area for the peace
and quiet; that it is impossible to have a quiet loading
zone; that the proposed lessees could be directed to areas
that need tenants; that one Planning Commissioner who
voted had a conflict of interest; that the loading zone
will not silence trucks gearing up; that the delivery
schedule is ideal for downtown areas, but not for residents;
that this is a residential neighborhood, that the homeowners
are home all day; and that the project is a. commercial
investment, and should be placed in a commercial zone
to preserve the present lifestyle of the residents.
Gann Carter, Palm Springs, challenged the tactics of
Questmark, that extensions have been asked for and granted
in the past; and urged the Council to deny the proposal .
Lee Forest, Sagewood Condominiums, stated that it would
not be possible for Questmark to build a 20-store complex,
and contend that residents would not see nor hear it;
that the traffic on Vista Chino and Sunrise Way will become
gridlocked; that there will be an adverse impact on
residential homelife; and that homeowners who live near
shopping centers, cannot enjoy being on outside patios.
Alan Perrier, representing Westar Properties, stated
that the General Plan should provide protection to the
developers, and not be amended for people who speculate
on land purchases; that the proposal is actually
a community shopping center, not a neighborhood shopping
center; that allowing two shopping centers across the
street from each other will only endanger both centers,
economically, and effect the concept of a neighborhood
shopping center; and that the proposal does not comply
with General Plan; nor the Zoning Map.
Council Minutes
- " y o G Q 5-2-90, Page 5
2. P.D. 202 (cont)
Nick Baccami , 1754 Sandalwood Drive, stated opposition
to the, project; that his property is close to the north
wall of the complex; that the climate of Palm Springs
enhances outdoor activities; that the overall impact of
the Community Shopping Center is too intense; that
mitigation measures are only promises , and net enforceable;
and that the Council should consider the surrounding
residents.
Peter Koetting, 2400 North Palm Canyon, Westar Properties,
stated that consideration should be given to the definition
of Neighborhood Shopping Center; that two centers across
from each other is not in compliance with the General
Plan; that a developer should have protection when a
development is built; that the main purpose of a
neighborhood shopping center is to supply goods and services
to a neighborhood; that the center on Vista Chino and
Sunrise Way has been there since 1985; that there has
not been alot of growth in the area; that last year Westar
had a market analysis for the Racquet Club center, and
grocery store and drug store tenants had been found, but
they went with the Questmark proposal ; that the proposal
does not fit the concept of the General Plan; that there
is no need for the project in that area; that the residents
will not be served; that the project will harm the Racquet
Club property in attracting tenants; and that the project
causes unnecessary changes in the General Plan and the
Zoning Map.
John Cordes, 1733 Sandalwood, stated that the entire
scenario is frustrating; that if the developer was so
organized, a continuance would not be requested; and that
if it can not be ready when a hearing is scheduled, who
will guarantee that their promises will be kept.
Ed Detrick, Sagewood Condominiums , stated that Palm Springs
promotes a quiet, stressfree, life-style; that this project
should be built in a commercial area; that Palm Canyon
Drive is not developed properly and since there are so
many vacant stores, energy should be diverted to 'improving
Palm Canyon; and that the concept of the master plan is
large areas of residential with small pockets of commercial
locations.
David Freeman, Sagewood Condominiums , stated Ms. Gratten
expressed the views of the condominium owners; that his
property is located close to the property line; and that
if the project is approved, he will be forced to sell .
There were no further appearances, and Mayor declared
the hearing closed.
Councilmember Murawski , stated that when a person buys
property, they are aware of the zoning, and changing the
zone effects everyone surrounding the property, which
indicates a lack of concern for people.
Council Minutes - - - 081
5-2-90, Page 6
2. P.D. 202 (Cont'd)
Councilmember Broich stated that the project would impact
both downtown, and the Racquet Club Road Shopping
areas; that there are vacancies for businesses. That
an effort should be made to fill those vacancies before
approving new buildings; and that Questmark should consider
locating downtown.
Councilmember Hodges stated that it is the responsibility
of the Council to have concern for the people; that there
is a need to work with the existing property owners; that
there is no economic benefit to the new project; and that
a market and drugstore is needed in the Racquet Club Road
Center.
It was moved by Broich, seconded by Hodges, and unanimously
carried, that the Planning Commission be overruled, and
the Planned Development District be denied.
3. CASE 3.0763 - PATENCIO PROPERTY - APPEAL
Statutory appeal pursuant to Section 9411.00 C; (Appeals
Indian Trust Land) of the Planning Commission decision
regarding grading of the Patencio property W-R-3 Zone,
Indian Land, Section 22.
Assistant Planning Director reviewed the staff report
graven in detail at the last study session, and added that
the legal requirements for notification included the
applicant only, not property owners located within a 400
foot radius.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Roger Myers, E.L. Yeager Staff Engineer, representing
Mr. Patencio, stated that not all the facts had been
presented to the City Council ; that benefits would be
derived to the City; that in order to cut the grade, for
the Tahquitz project, rock and sand will have to be moved;
that the rocks can be used to fill in the flood control
channel ; that there will be approximately 10,000 to 13,000
truckloads of dirt to be removed; that the removal will
require travel through the City, over 2 to 3 months; that
City policy requires a grading ' plan; that the proposal
is a benefit to the Indian land owners; and that the Tribal
Council is committed to completing the flood control
project.
George Marantz, 211 W. Mesquite, stated opposition to
the project; that he should have received notification
about the project; that it will effect the scenic view;
that Yeager Construction bid $1 million less than the
next competitive bidder, and that the dirt will need to
be dumped somewhere in the City; and that the City Council
cannot stop the project since it is on Indian Land.
Mr. Myers, stated that the bid was considered carefully;
that the basic grading plan was to fill back to the foot
of the mountain with one step; that the dirt walls would
be 10 feet high, with 100 feet between the step; that
the wall would not be noticeable; and that there is no
acceptable alternative plan.
There were no further appearances, and Mayor declared
the hearing closed.
Councilmember Murawski stated that in view of the amount
of removal involved that the Planning Commission ' s
alternative should be followed.
- ¢ Council Minutes
5-2-90, Page 7
3.. CASE 3.0763 - PATENCIO PROPERTY (Cont'd)
It was moved by Neel , seconded by Broich, and unanimously
carried, that the Planning Commission decision be upheld.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
a) George Goldberg, P.O. Box 40156, commented on various
employees ' expense accounts; questioned a $50,000
refund to John Wessman; that the City hired unlicensed
contractors; that some Palm Springs businesses were
being used exclusively by the City; and that he was
still being harassed by the Code Enforcement Officers.
b) Pat Alquire, stated that limited facts have been given
to the Council regarding Annexation 24 & 25; that
the issue of the raceway and the annexations have
been separated, but the facts do not separate the
issues; that there are questionable economic impacts;
that the raceway would be detrimental to the
environment; that the desert is known for peace and
tranquility; that the issue was exhausted at the County
level ; that the raceway concept is not a new thing,
or a new project; that she considered it questionable
whether the Council received all the information
regarding the project, and whether Ms. [lodges received
the information she requested from staff; and that
if all the issues are not considered, the City will
be stuck with a racetrack.
City Manager reported that details of the annexation
were given at the last study session; that the
annexation is still in the analysis stages and that
more details regarding costs and benefits will be
provided as the process proceeds ; and that it was
the Council 's decision to proceed with the process
of annexing.
Councilmember Murawski stated that the people need
to trust the Council 's decision in that voting for
the annexation does not mean an endorsement of the
raceway; that annexations follow a step-by-step
procedure; that the annexation and the raceway are
separate issues; and that he is aware the people in
the City do not want a raceway.
c) Sig Zietlin, no address given, stated that the legacy
of the Council is one of mistrust, that annexing the
land will not include approval of a raceway; that
the Director of Community Development's endorsement
of the raceway has been constant; that the citizens
do not want a raceway; that the citizens are for the
annexation of the land; that there are many uses For
the land that would be non-polluting; and that the
Council may be able to overcome its legacy.
d) John Kappmeyer, 3506 E1 Gaucho, stated that pornography
is an -issue in Palm Springs, that the Zoning Ordinance
describes pornography in the CBD, and the Ordinance
should be enforced; and that pornographic materials
are on display in the downtown , and must be eliminated.
Council Minutes
5-2-90, Page 8
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont'd)
e) Bill Byrne, 301 Overlook Road, stated that the Council
should rescind the prior Council ' s endorsement of
the raceway; that the environmental impact report is
necessary for the annexation and will be paid for
by the developer; that staff has encouraged the raceway;
that the area being proposed for the raceway is
blowsand, and nature will solve the issue of building
in that area.
f) Dick Sroda, Palm Springs, stated that there are many
questions concerning the annexation; that the County
is doing an adequate job in providing services to
the area, and the City has no concern there; that
if the area is annexed the City will have to provide,
police and fire services for an area that has no
possibility of being developed, except for a raceway;
that the Director of Community Development has only
stated the positive sides of annexation; and that
if the area is annexed, the people need assurance
that there will not be a raceway, and any attempt
to develop one will be opposed.
g) Don Rubidioux, no address given, stated that the VPB
was allocated $900,000 with one-half geared for
advertising; that the Board installed an 800 telephone
number which provided alot of leads ; that a letter
was sent to the business community that the leads
would be provided at a charge of 25¢ each; that the
hoteliers already fund the Board, and are not asked
to pay again; that the Tourism Board is doing a good
job, but businesses should not have to keep paying
for services they have already paid for.
h) Bob Kaiser, 2416 Los Coyotes, President New Horizons,
questioned the reason for Annexation 24 and 25; that
the property is in the middle of nothing; and that
the developer cannot submit an application to the
City for land that is not in the City.
i ) Peter Richardson, 1270 E1 Paseo way, stated that the
annexation and raceway are separate proposals; that
there have been alot of negative comments; that the
annexation is in an investigation stage; that the
environmental impact report will answer most questions;
that the Council should not prematurely indicate a
preference; that the proposed location of the raceway
would not impact the City; that benefits to a raceway
include economic boosts, a world-class destination
point, international focus, and new entertainment;
and that the Council should wait until all the facts
are in before passing judgment.
j) Ruth Licata, 530 N. Calle Marcus , stated that the
government in Palm Springs is like a three-legged
stool - hospitality elected officers, staff, and
appointees and the people - all of which care about
Palm Springs; that SCAQMD will be meeting in the
Coachella Valley to discuss air quality, and the City
should have a representative in attendance; and that
the Coachella Valley exceeds the air quality standards
set by the federal guidelines, and should not be
compromised to offset bad air in the Western District
area.
Council Minutes
Ot 5-2-90, Page 9
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont'd)
k) Jack ? , 142 San Lucas, stated that From the trail
behind the Desert Museum, smog/fog is seen across
the valley; that in regard to the raceway, the benefits
should be seen; that the revenue from the racetrack
would allow Ms. Hodges and Mr. Murawski to fulfill
campaign promises of more police and fire protection ;
that many of the names in racing go the the various
high schools, and talk to the children about drug
and alcohol abuse; and that both sides of the issue
need to be revealed.
1 ) Shirley Barker, Palm Springs, stated she was opposed
to the racetrack; that an investigation needed to
be conducted of the Building Department, as to its
efficiency; and that one of her clients had to go
to the Building Department 16 times on the same project.
m) Ken Glassman, Rancho Mirage, stated that the greatest
asset of the valley is clean air and landscaping;
that Palm Springs has name recognition; that the next
few years are critical in the development of the Palm
Springs' image; that a racetrack would dim the image;
that the problems with the downtown area can be worked
out; that if the annexation occurs and the zoning
is changed, the developer will apply for a re-zoning;
that any public hearings concerning this matter should
not be held in the summer; and that the major problems
with the raceway are air pollution, traffic, destruction
of animal habitats, and high winds.
n) Michael Francis, Chairman of the Fire Association
Political Action Committee, stated that the annexation
needs to occur; that benefits would be gained from
the annexation; that control over the windmills would
be gained; that a train depot could be built; and
that the raceway could be considered, but the main
concern is to annex the property.
o) Franklin Brown , 670 Calle Palo Ferraro, stated
opposition to the raceway; that more air pollution
cannot be tolerated; that Motel 6 has a severe drainage
problem, and the City should not have given the
permission to build the motel ; that: the village
atmosphere has been lost and that i f Palm Springs
does not annex the property, someone else will .
p) Arishka Fairchild, stated opposition to the raceway,
and the annexation; and contended that some city
officials have investments in the proposed annexation
area.
Council Minutes
5-2-90, Page 10
LEGISLATIVE ACTION:
4. ANNEXATIONS 24 & 25 - RESOLUTIONS OF APPLICATIONS
On April 18, 1990, Council continued consideration of
applications to LAFCO for approximately one square mile,
located north of Vista Chino, east of the city limits,
an inhabited annexation, known as Annexation 24; and a
five-square mile area located south of I-10, east of Indian
Avenue, north of the city limits, an uninhabited annexation,
known as Annexation 25.
Director of Community Development stated that language
had been added to the Resolution as suggested by the City
Council in study session; that the annexation and the
raceway are two separate issues; that the proposed item
is for the annexation only; that the area is a window
to Palm Springs; that the City needs to control the destiny
of the area; that annexing the proposed area would allow
the Council to determine what developments are suitable;
that this is the first step in the annexation process;
and that the Council should be assured that the annexation
does not commit the City to a raceway.
Councilmember Murawski stated that the people will have
to trust the Council to make the right decision, just
as the Council trusts staff to give them all the information
concerning a project; and that he was in favor of the
annexation.
Councilmember Neel stated the annexation should proceed.
Councilmember Broich stated that the annexation is very
important to the future of Palm Springs; and that he has
always endorsed it.
Councilmember Hodges stated that there has not been enough
information given regarding the annexation; that she is
not in a position to vote in favor or against the issue;
that the City Manager had stated that more information
will be forthcoming as the process continues, but she
could not vote in favor of the annexation, without all
her questions answered first.
Mayor Bono stated that in the last study session, the
Council agreed that the developer, Jim Guthrie, should
proceed with the studies of the raceway, and with that
endorsement would favor the annexation.
Resolution 17106 and 17107 as recommended, was presented;
after which, it was moved by Broich, seconded by Neel ,
and carried by the following vote, that R17106 and R17107
be adopted.
AYES: Broich, Murawski , Neel and Bono
NOES: Hodges
ABSENT: None
o 8 G Council Minutes
5-2-90, Page 11
5. P.D. 211 - P.S. BOARD OF REALTORS
On April 18, 1990, Council approved Planned Development
District 211. The Ordinance to amend the Zoniing Map in-lieu
of a change of zone was to have been introduced at that
time, but was omitted.
Assistant City Clerk read title of the ordinance, as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOP14ENT
DISTRICT IN-LIEU OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR A PROFESSIONAL
BUILDING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND PASEO
DE DOROTEA, SECTION 19.
It was moved by Broich, seconded by Neel , and unanimously
carried, that further reading be waived, and that the
Ordinance be introduced for first reading.
6. RELOCATION OF HIGHWAY 111 DESIGNATION
Recommendation: That the Council consider requesting
the removal of State Highway Ill designation from a portion
of Palm Canyon Drive and if that request is to be made,
to select an alternate route for the State Highway ill.
Director of Community stated that the designation has
been an issue for years; that Caltrans and the City have
different goals; that if an alternative is designated
the ultimate goal is to designate the Mid•-Valley Parkway
as Highway 111.
Councilmember Broich stated that easterly from North Palm
Canyon Drive along Vista Chino to Gene Autry Trail , then
southerly along Gene Autry Trail to East Palm Canyon Drive,
would be the best recommendation.
Councilmember Hodges stated that this is the first of
several processes, and questioned if there would be a
public hearing.
Director of Community Development stated that a public
hearing could be held, but was not required by law.
Councilmember Hodges stated that a public hearing should
be held; that the Resolution presented gives more
authorization than just the redesignation of Highway 111;
and that without a public hearing, she was not in a position
to vote in favor of the designation.
Resolution 17108 as recommended (Alternate 1) was presented;
after which, it was moved by Neel , seconded by Murawski ,
and carried by the following vote that R17108 be adopted.
AYES: Broich, Murawski , Neel and Bono
NOES: Hodges
ABSENT: None
Council Minutes �� rq
5-2-90, Page 12
ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS: (Satisfied Agenda Posting Requirement)
7A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Recommendation that the Council consider approval of a
Resolution requesting that the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors include the City of Palm Springs in the
proposed Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space
District.
Director of General Operations highlighted the staff report
given in detail at the last study session, and no further
report was given.
Resolution 17109 as recommended was presented: after which,
it was moved by Murawski , seconded by Broich, and
unanimously carried, that R17109 be adopted.
CONSENT AGENDA:
8. Res 17110 approving Final Planned Development District 155
for property located on South Palm Canyon Drive between Cahuilla
Hills Drive and Murray Canyon Drive, R-2 and 0-20 Zones, Section
34.
9. Res 17111 adopting Revision Three to the Palm Springs Regional
Airport Master Security Program.
10. NO 4559 approving construction C01 to increase the contract
$14,220 , with R.D. Elliott Construction for extra work at
the City Animal Shelter CP87-46.
11. NO 4560 approving a design contract with NUS Corporation for
$79,755, for a federally-mandated, computer-access control
system at the Airport. A2830.
12. Res 17112 and 17113 supporting Propositions 108 and 111,
respectively, on the June 5, 1990 ballot.
13. Res 17114 declaring intention to partially close the through
street portions of Fiesta Road, Rodeo Road, Vaquero Road,
and Opuntia Road, between Chia Road and Chuckwalla Road
prepatory to Assessment District 159 cul-de-sac project, and
setting public hearing for June 6, 1990.
14. NO 4561 approving construction C01 (Final ) to increase contract
with Allred & Kyser Construction Company, for miscellaneous
street repairs, CP88-20, for $41,557.90.
15. Res 17115 and 17116 approving Payroll Warrants and Claims
& Demands.
16. NO 4562 awarding contract for $1,490, for the collection of
the remaining Downtown Business Improvement District Assessments
(DBID) to Transworld Systems, Inc. , the costs of collection
to be paid by the DBID. A2834.
17. NO 4563 cancelling A2764 with Intercommunications Inc. , of
Newport Beach, for tourism advertising services effective
July 2, 1990.
18. NO 4564 approving" an agreement with Terri Hayes and Paul Gilbert
lease at 219 South Palm Canyon, DBA GWW. A2833.
Council Minutes
5-2-90, Page 13
CONSENT AGENDA (Cont)
19. MO 4565 approving an agreement with Clinton Whiteley Associates
for production of 100,000 hospitality guides for $30,000,
A2831.
20. MO 4566 awarding contract to R.D. Elliott Construction for
office remodeling at the Palm Springs Convention Center,
CP89-11, for $44,900; and Res 17117 amending the budget to
appropriate $50,000 therefore, A2832.
21. Res 17118 approving Final Parcel Map 23597 for property bounded
by Indian Avenue, Tachevah Drive, Via Miraleste and Mel Avenue,
Section 11, Desert Hospital .
It was moved by Broich, seconded by Murawski , and
unanimously carried, that R17110 through 17118 and M04559
through 4563, and M04565 through M04566, be adopted.
ADDED STARTERS: None
REPORTS & REQUESTS:
CITY COUNCIL reports or requests - None
PUBLIC reports or requests - None
STAFF reports or requests - None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor declared the meeting
adjourned.
JUDITH SUMICH
City Clerk
--r� M 14� _
By: PATRICIA A. SANDERS
Assistant City Clerk