Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 - MINUTES - 5/10/1993 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 10, 1993 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, was called to order by Mayor Maryanov, in the Multi-purpose Building of the City of Desert Hot Springs, 11-777 West Drive, Desert Hot Springs,convening jointly with the City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs,on Monday, May 10, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Conmcilmembers Hodges, Lyons, Rellen'-Spurgin, Schlendorf and Mayor Maryanov Absent: None The meeting was opened with the Salute to the Flag and an invocation by Councilmennber Schlendorf. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: City Clerk reported that the agenda was posted in accordance with Council procedures on May 7, 1993. (Note: The purpose of the meeting was to jointly discuss annexation and sphere of interest matters related to the two cities. No action was taken by the City of Palm Springs, and these:minutes are not intended to reflect motions attempted by the City of Desert Hot Springs). PUBLIC COMMENTS: a) The following persons spoke concerning the City of Palm Springs proposed annexation: John Warner North Palm Springs resident, believes that the supervisorial and water district boundary lines and city limit boundaries should be the same, i.e., the railroad tracks. Mrs. John Warner did not believe Palm Springs would be as strict as the County concerning the wind turbines, and the annexation should be voted on; urged a boundary south of 1-10. Paul Allen supported I-10 as boundary line. (054- 005) Monte Lukov commented concerning his opinion of Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs'identity and need to grow with dignity; supported 1-10 as boundary line. Fred Noble, North Palm Springs,wind industry owner, stated that when he tried for an annexation to Desert Hot Springs, it was not receptive to his overture; that be negotiated an agreement to do so with Palm Springs; that he hopes to redevelop the turbines into fewer more high powered ones; that in his opinion residents of North Palm Springs do not want to annex to either city; that annexation, as proposed, is in the best interest of the County, since it would retain 75% of the property tax; that there are many cities on both sides of I-10 along its corridor in multiple counties, and there is already precedence for that; and that if they are not annexed, there will be jobs lost. Abby Silverstone, North Palm Springs resident, commented on the historical development of the wind farms, also holding opinion that Palm Springs is financially desperate, and unable to keep Indian Canyon open, and, therefore, questioned how it would do so if it annexed the area, and feared Palm Springs would relax County ordinances on noise. DISCUSSION ITEM: 1. ANNEXATION & SPHERE OF INTEREST Mayor Maryanov stated that he opposed the wind farms in the 1980s because of the tax credit issue, not from an energy production standpoint which no longer exists; that this is an era of ecological concerns, concerns for future residents, and protecting both as the year 2,000 (054- approaches. He added that he met with the former City Manager and Mayor of Desert Hot 005) Springs, along with the City Manager of Palm Springs, and representatives from Cathedral City, and worked out a boundary compromise, which was reported in a joint press conference at the Regional Airport, that the compromise included Palm Springs' withdrawal of opposition to the Desert Hot Springs application before LAFCO,which was done in goad faith; that there is nothing "natural" about an 1-10 boundary line; that it was only recently discovered by the Palm Springs City Council that Indian Canyon Drive was not on the CVAG major arterial list, even though it serves to connect many valley residents as well as upper desert communities, and has been added to the list, and the all-weather aspect must be addressed regardless of the annexation issue. He questioned what the reason was for Desert Hot Springs' decision to not remain with the terms of the agreement. nn 6 Council Minutes 5-10-93 Pg. 2 1. ANNEXATION & SPHERE (Continued) Director of Planning&Zoning, Doug Evans,provided an overview of the nunexation as originally proposed, and as it was later drawn to reflect concessions to accommodate the mutual agreement. Desert Hot Springs Planner noted that the EIR and draft General Plan were received in a timely manner, and were made available at their city hall. Mr. Evans noted that the process began in May, 1991. Mayor Segrist stated that at the time of the tri-city meeting, Palm Springs represented that there was no intent to be north of I-10. He added there was no reason for PaPm Springs to take a corridor that historically would be Desert Hot Springs'; that Palm Springs will receive a lot of money from the wind industry, but the annexed area excludes the adjacent mobilehome owners who live there, and who will not have any voice in the matter. Councilmember Weisman, DHS, stated that it was not to Desert Hot Springs' advantage to have the annexation occur, and during her election in November, she was urge to not participate in the agreement that was made. Councilmember Been, DHS, stated that the two new councilmembers wanted more information, and he felt Palm Springs was to have removed its objection to DI-IS annexation,but the annexation was not possible because Palm Springs' objection skewed the time table. Mayor Maryanov noted that the agreement was made, and the opposition by Palm Springs was withdrawn; that it was not a result of hidden meetings, and was in the newspaper, and he did not receive one call that the announcement did not represent Desert Hot Springs' position; and that he only first heard that such might not be so when the new council took offm; and that it was not a unilateral decision on the part of the former Desert Hot Springs mayor. Councilmember Kerr, DHS,agreed that I-10 is not a natural boundary,and added that historically Palm Springs has not extended to I-10, rather the area has been known as County area of North Palm Springs; that he disagreed with the precepts of the agreement, and did not think the trade-off was fair; that Palm Springs needs the revenue; that DHS is not looking to annex it now, because it cannot provide the protection for the area, nor did he believe Palm Springs could either. He commented regarding lack of opportunity to cross the washes during inclerncnt weather; that the wind industry is uninhabited, but provides the tax revenue to the County nor fire services; that DHS is geographically, socially, and economically connected with the residents who live in the area, and who will have to live with noise and visual pollution, and therefore, he did not support the annexation by Palm Springs. Mayor Maryanov emphasized that the annexation would create additional revenue for the County, because of the wind farm upgrade that would occur; and that ridge-line 4avelopment of wind turbines is, and was, opposed regardless of where they occur. A 5-minute recess was called. Councilmember Lyons stated that he thought it was a little late to dispute the agreement. Councilmember Schlendorf commented that consideration of annexation was started because of a request from property owners in the area, and it was unfair to accuse the City of land grabbing. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin noted that Palm Springs will be required to spend money in terms of cleanup of some parts of the area, and it is not a sole question of reve nine. Comments concerning fire protection services for the area, and the all-weather crossing of Indian Canyon were reiterated. Mayor Maryanov noted that if that is the only objection, a plan can be worked on to address those. Director of Planning& Zoning Evans stated that the plan for services pursuant to the annexation looked at a range of services, e.g. a fire station and satellite police station north of I-10 at some time in the future; short-term services may include joint staffing of the county fire station, 24- hours series of units of police,which have been scheduled into the cost projections. He added that when Indian Canyon is closed now, the major concern is the inability to get emergency services to the area. Councilmember Ken•stated that the County has not reviewed the proposal yei,and the County fire station in the area is directly linked with services to Desert Hot Springs Mayor Segrist stated that the concerns of the people living in the surrounding area must be addressed, and he proposed that the area be both removed from the Desert 1-Tot Springs Sphere, and that Palm Springs not proceed with the annexation, until a plan for services is provided. Council Minutes 5-10-93 Pg. 3 1. ANNEXTION & SPHERE (Continued) Councilmember Hodges stated that Palm Springs is not looking to hurt any residents of any of the area that has requested to be annexed; that in the long run, she felt that once the property is annexed, the surrounding area will benefit from the services that ultimately will have to be provided, and may also wish to be.annexed in the future. Mayor stated that joint efforts should be underway to consolidate services and avoid duplication of services wherever possible. Councilmember Schlendorf added that discussion is critical,and she felt there will be major studies about services throughout the Coachella Valley. Councilmember Weisman agreed as to CVAG Transportation measures and adding Indian Canyon to its list,and felt it would take Somme time before it is actually improved; that she could see where some services could be blended with other cities, but felt perhaps Desert Hot Springs was too far to the north to fall within that concept. In response to question, Director of Planning & Zoning stated that the; various annexation laws were looked at, and it was felt there was a strong support from the property owner to annex, and the proposal was constructed based on malting a successful attempt, rather than a difficult annexation, involving long and significant public relations and educating voters. Councilmember Kerr restated his concern about fire service impacts, and taking the "]heart" out of the County revenue for the area. Discussion continued in this vein, Desert Hot Springs members expressing concern to be assured that annexation would not impact their City in terms of financial burdens, or services provided to it. (Reference should be made to Desert Hot Springs City Council Minutes for unsuccessful motions.) No specific motion was adopted by the City Council,and it was the consensus of the two Councils that staff should bring back more information concerning services and firiancial impacts, and that the two Councils meet again on May 24, 1993, at 6 p.m., in Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs LAFCO deadline is June 24. Councilmember Kerr, Desert Hot Springs, asked that staff information include why Palm Springs wants to annex the area, because he was still not clear in that regard, and observed that perhaps North Palm Springs should simply retrain North Palm Springs. ADJOURN There was no further business, and Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. JUDITH SUMICH City Clerk