HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 - MINUTES - 6/3/1993 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 048
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 3, 1993
An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, was called to order by
Mayor Maryanov, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Talnquitz Canyon Way, on Thursday, June 3, 1993, at
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilnnembzrs Hodges,Lyons,Re&lea-Spurgin,and Mayor Maryanov
Absent: Councilmomber Schlendorf
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: Agenda vvas posted in accordance with Council procedures on
May 28, 1993.
Introduction and roll call of Tribal Council Members: Pak Patencio, Barbara Lyons, Lucille Torres,
Marcus Pete and Chairman Richard Milanovich. Chairman Milanovich presided over the meeting.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING:
1. JOINT HEARING PRE OAK-HAN AA a,CAI` hfON S;IFIECM, C PLAIT
The purpose of the hearing was to consider concurront appeals filed with the Tribal Council by
Gregory W. Stepanicich for Canyon Development of Case 3.1154 (architectural approval
application by Myrna Oakman for a single-family residence located at 3035 Goldenrod Lane,)and
of a City Council decision regarding Case 5.0499,General Plan Amendment(approval of the Palm
Springs General Plan) with regard to property witbiian Specific Plan #1.
Chairman Milanovich and Tribal Council Attorney Art Bunco each provided an historical
perspective of the basis for the joint heating, i.e., the land use agreement between the City and
the Tribe. Mr. Bunco noted that She Tribal Council's decision would be rendered, in accordance
with the agreement,within 30 days of the hearing, and applauded both Councils in that there have
only been nine appeals since the agreement was entered in 1977. Chairnan stated that persons
wishing to speak would be given three minutes in which to make a presentation,and requested that
comments be limited to providing new information, and to the appeals under consideration.
Summary of City Actions:
Director of Planning & Zoning Evans stated that the General Plan established the basic land use
for the community, which shows the general land use potential for the City; that the updated plan
was the same for the Canyon area as essentially was adopted in 1991, when the Specific Plan was
approved; that the Specific Phan was intended to implement the General Plan, and is not a
document which L the General plan; that it needs to be considered with One General Plan and he
believes the two are consistent; that One Specific Plan contained a requirement for an
implementation plan which was to be accomplished by the riling of a planned development district,
which requires ownership of all the properly or authorized signature of owners; that as of this
date, that has not been submitted; and that the zoning is 15,000 square foot lots, and was not
intended to have been changed until the final development plan was filed. He noted the following
documents: a) Existing General Plan for the area , and the area under question, pointing out the
locations of fee and trust Hands; b) Myrna Oalcman site plan and elevations, which complies with
code and is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood; c) Canyon Cove Subdivision Plat,
noting location of two existing homes and intent that they be acquired and ,possibly relocated as
part of the Specific Plan, and the feeling that it was better to allow the building of a house that
might have to be moved later than saying the owner could not build on an appropriately zoned
piece of land which they own; and d) map that expired under the moratorium, has been requested
to be processed again, and he did not believe there was any recourse but to amend the Specific
Plan for the Canyon Project, to establish tire zoning. In answer to question by Tribal Council
Chairman, Director of Planning Bc Zoning reported that the Specific Plana s an increment of the
General Plan and it has not been implemented by the filing of the planned development district that
would cause the.zone change, which was the key to the project; and that a building permit cannot
be issued from a Specific Plan.
City Attorney stated that the essence of khe problem is that the City has sur,;rorted the project to
try to get it off the ground; that there was a one-year moratorium to stop any development not
consistent with the Canyon project; that the moratorium was extended the full two years it could
legally be imposed; that at the end of the two years, there were property Owners whose property
had not been acquired by Canyon, and they started asking what could they could do with their
property; that the single-family development is in conflict with what will be permitted in the
project; that the developer and City began negotiations, but those were not completed; that the
developer does not want to spend more money until the.final agreement is v ached, and the other
side of the issue is if the parcels are not acquired, some other development may occur; that the
City wanted to deal with the architectural approval; that the developer accused the City of bad
faith negotiation, and, therefore, he felt it was necessary for the Tribal Council and the public to
Council Minutes
6-3-93 Pg. 2
1. JOINT NEARING (Continued)
of those negotiations. He stated that there has not been bad faith and the intent all along was to
have the negotiations be successful; that Canyon Development has had three years to acquire the
property; that escrows have been terminated; that letters of credit were not provided; that
negotiations extended over a Hong period of time, and in February, 1993, the developer presented
an offer with four non-negotiable points, and caveat that if the City could not agree to those, there
was no point going further; that agreement was not reached, and since February, there;have not
been any face-to-face meetings between the parties; that. the City attempted to initiate two
meetings, and both were cancelled by the developer. He stated that the City would like to have
the project, but there seems little chance for success; that on May 13, the developer accused the
City of bad faith and he thought it was hard to negotiate with that kind of accusation, and that a
great number of charges were levied against the City in the briefs filed by the developer; that one
accusation was that the City backed down on the fn anciai obligation of the prior Council, which
was not true, i.e., the indication was there would be a$500 million assistance to the project; that
the developer indicated that the new Council uphaterally backed off, yet before the election, the
developer stated that$300 million was sufficient. He stated that the Planning Director summarized
the City's position that deals with the architectural approval and fact that the land is zoned
residential and there is an application for a project which meets the requirements; that there is a
process for amending the Specific.Plan, and the City has proceeded somewhat reluctantly, but it
is clear now that the property owners are going through the challenge that the project is
inconsistent with the Specific PIP a, although the City had hoped that projects could be concluded
and On agreement reached with Canyon Develop inept before those projects got too far along and
recognized the possibility of having, to buy some of those projects; that Canyon Development's
legal challenge and threat places the City in a position to try to clean rap potential inconsistencies
between these projects and the Specific Plan. He stated that Canyon Development's allegation that
the new Council wanted to sabotage the project are simply untrue, and pointed out that the
developer entered into negotiations with the new Council in October, after knowing that the July
letter was sent out, that project applications would be processed and asked that it not be;done;and
that the City felt the processing of applications was a legal right once the moratorium expired.
In answer to question by Tribal Council Chairman, Mr. Bunce stated that the negotiation
discussions are adequately reflected in the documents before the Tribal Council, and more
information can be provided, iiF necessary.
City Attorney stated that the City's concern bas been that the property owners are entitled to
develop their property, until such tame as something changes the circumstances; that there is no
agreement between the City or anyone else which would stop it from considering the projects
before it. In answer to question by Tribal Council Chairman, he stated that there is a General
Plan, and the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan; that regarding the zoning, it was
his understanding that through a planned development district, there would be the opportunity to
implement the Specific Plan, and, in fact, that process has not proceeded,led, therefore, the zoning
in place is that which existed before, which is residential, and pursuant to that zoning, a single-
family project would he permitted.
Summary of Indiamm Planning Coramd'ssion Actions and Analysis by '1.'ribal Planning Consultant:
Tom Davis,Consultant,described the Indian Planning Commission and its purpose,and stated that
it took the record of the appellant and the City, and reviewed and reported on it on May 11; that
there has been other material for the record submitted since then,which also should be considered.
He summarized prior City Planning Commission and City Council actions(a copy of the general
text of his comments is on file with the City Clerk), i.e., noting the adopting of the General Plan
amendment and Specific Plan la July, 1991, the adoption of the Redevelopment Project area, the
moratorium to allow acquisition of the remaining parcels, and expiration of the moratorium, and
allow the processing of applications, the action of the Planning Commission and City Council
concerning Mrs. Oat man's application, and concluding with the filing of the appeals by Canyon
Development. He stated that there are inconsistencies between the text of the General Plan and
the General Plan Nap, contrary Co standard Band use practices and State guidelines, upon which
he elaborated. He stated 'drat in Segundo v. Rancho Mirage the principle that the: purpose of
allotted trust land is to provide the "ma3zimum economic benefit" to the allottee, and noted that
sub-paragraphs of the lease for the Canyon project provides that the purpose of the lease was to
allow the hotel and related development the maximum economic benefit to the allottee owners for
their allotted trust land, and provides that alternative uses must be a reasonable intensive use. He
stated that the Indian Planning Commission found that a building permit should be issued for a use
permitted by the zone, however, the R-1-11 zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan and
adopted Specific Plan, and that in combination with the adopted Canyon Redevelopment Plan, all
of those plans supersede the zone;that Architectural Approval and subsequent issuance of a single-
family building permit is contrary to the General Plan and the Specific Plan; that issuance of a
single-family home building permit and construction thereof is contrary to the approved lease and
is, therefore, pre-empted by Federal law; that regarding the second appeal, the General Plan text
Council Minutes
6-3-93 Pg. 3
1. JOINT HEARING (Continued)
and General Plan F and Use Map is not clearly inconsistent, or consistent, twat the General Plan
refers to Specific Plan #1 as the laud use policy for the subject property, and Specific Plan #1
clearly identified the hotel resort as the proposed use, based on a City Couzoeil Resolution 17599
which adopted the Specific Plan#1, and amends the General Plan to add ;he Specific Plan land
to the Use Element of the General Plan, and that Exhibit No. 1 of Resolution 17599 implements
the hotel and related use.
Tribal Council Chairman called for Eestinony by the appellant, Canyon Development.
Don Fenmore, General Counsel for Canyon Development, stated that they learned of the City's
position only this past Friday, is a brief delivered to therm, and spent the vieekend responding to
the charges of the City, and delivered courtesy copies to all parties, and asked that the Tribal
Council members read it before maNdng a decision., He stated he was authorized to read a letter
from ISeh Shim, General Pastmer of Harley Palm Springs, L.P., gereml partner of Canyon
Development, that they are ready, willing and able to deliver sufficient £uuds and financing to
complete the project,,Canyon Park Resort ax Spa, conditioned on the delivery of an acceptable
development agreement which was promised over three years ago by the City, which he read in
full, and a copy of which is on file with Elie City Clerk.
Joseph Solomon, 7155 S. Palm Canyon, asked that the Tribal Council read the reply brief in full.
He stated that $30 million has been invested thus far in the Specific Pt"odi No. 1 boundary, a
substantial investment in the community; that Ehe Specific Plan was adopted,card is the first phase
in planning; that a subdivision map is needed and they inust acquire all of the land in order to file
the map; that they do not want to acquire Eke reanairder of the property under threat of losing their
entitlements; that they received the letter that the City would rescind entitlements, and he felt it
was a threat and needed to be prepared to negotiate differently; that afterv✓ard, they pulled out of
the land that they are now trying to purchase; that they cannot get all of the lots without the City's
assistance; that granting allies. Oman's appeal is not providing for the highest and best use of that
property, because it is in the middle of the hotel site; !hat amending the Specific Plan will allow
for owners of Trust Hand to object to the new Specific Plain and if the right to amend the Specific
Plan is eliminated, the Canyon Project plan will be unravelled forever; that any of the lot owners
can object because it will leave the plan open to challenge again. He stated that the
Redevelopment Plan and Specific Plan gave the Tribal Council control on all land; that the City
implied that there are 400 acres that the Tribal Council does not control, however, he thinks
removal of the Specific Plan will make the project crumble, and that there are only 35 acres yet
to be controlled; that he felt the Oakman appeal should be rejected out of hlMd; that two and one-
half years have been spent to protect the highest and best use of the trust Hard, and he questioned
whether granting an architectural approval of a single-family residence v✓i'1N generate millions of
dollars to the alloitees, or to the entire community by helping to revitalize it and bring new jobs;
that relative to the PDD, it is not applied for until ail Hand ownership is rani aed, and that it is a
zoning tool, and he believes that he could apply for a tentative tract map and skip the planned
development district step; that he felt there was agreement from the beginning that he had five
years from the effective date of signing the development agreement to produce a PDD; that the
Specific Plan was adopted and was hu€ended to assist the project, and if -n owner participation
agreement is not done,he cannot get the City's assistance mud therefore cannot bind the land; that
he will put forth the Netter of credit against opposition of all the land, and nsLed the Tribal Council
to preserve the highest and best use by overturning the Council's approval of Ms. Oakman's
appeal, and demand that the City rernove inconsistent overlay zoning, and remind the City that
removal of the Specific, Plan would result in derailing the project.
Greg Stepanicich, Attorney for Canyon Development, stated that there are two other issues, i.e.,
whether the decision made by the City Council would be harmful to the hef h, safety and welfare
and whether it is contrary to good planning, and that the decision of tiae Tribal Council be in
interest of the nilottees far the highest and best use of the Nand today. He-Cited that regarding the
Oakman case, the General Plan included the Canyon Project,which was the basis of the resolution
providing that the hotel was proper for the Hand, Paid single-family would,not be permitted; that
the zoning was R-a-E, and it was clear that zoning was to be amended because it was inconsistent
with the General Plan; that it was a direct conflict with it and the Specific Plan; that nothing
happened, and the zoning was not changed and did not became an issue until last Fall when they
were advised that property owners could get a building permit for single-far:1y; that they objected
to that decision; that the General Plan Update would have made it consistent with State law; that
the initial draft did not make reference to the Specific Plan and they objected on three occasions,
and later Staff included in the General Plan Update Text a reference to the 3pecifie Plan; that the
General Plan should provide for implementation of the Specific Plan and that is historically hotel
and related golf course use; that Ms. Oakman is only one instance, but ap-proval opens the door
and undermines the General Plan and destroys the Specific Plan and especially the Canyon lease
with the Pllottees as a controlling document and land use plan for the project; that based on
4 �}51 Council Minutes
6-3-93 Pg. 4
1. JOINT BEARING (Continued)
Prentis v. South Pasadena cited in the reply brief, the Oalcmara decision was discretionary, not
ministerial, and was subject to the Specific Plan and General Plan, and it was also inconsistent
wic.1 the Redevelopment Plan; that the major concern is the manner in which the City is
interpreting terms of the General Phan; that is not possible that there could a hotel and single-
family on the same property; that it must either be constructed, or the General Plan clarified that
the Specific Plan is the controlling land use plan and the hotel use is controlling on the allotted
land; that Indian land must be giveia the highest and best use to gennemite the most revenue from
it in a sound manner; that a piece-meal, case-by-case residential development by individual lot
owners will prevent forever development of the hotel,which he believes is clearly the highest and
best use. He asked that the City Council decision be,reversed, and the General Plan modified or
clarified that only hotel and related uses are allowed on the allotted land, and the controlling land
use plan will be, Specific Plan NO . I as contemplated by it and by the Indian lease.
Mike Barris, attorney representing 28 allouees under PSL1147, reitenuted historical perspective
he gave the Oakma i appeal hearing before tlue City Council, culminating with the signing of the
lease in May, 1992, followed by assurances by the City in July, 1992 that the :issue of allowing
building permits would be resolved, which was not carried out aund the Canyon Project stopped
further investments; that the decisions are affecting allottees to extend that it has staggering
considerations; that if the 00cmaua appeal is not overturned and the house is built, the lease will
terminate and$70 million in guaranteed nninimum rents will be Host, together with a ripple affect
that if this does not go forward, other developers will be uncomfortable trying to develop property
in Palm Springs; he, asked for slrailar actions by the Tribal Council as previous speakers.
In answer to question by p ribal Council CLairman,MT. Bunce stated that the Chair may determine
the length and content of the presentations. The Chairman requested that continents be limited to
three minutes, and to new information relative to the appeal.
The following parsons spolce in support Of the canyon Project, most commenting on the
importance and economic benefit to the conanaunity, and generally that it represents the highest
and best use of the land, urging; completion of die development agreement and assuring that the
project proceed:
Jim Schlecht, representing Jerry Gacz (so?), owner off 40 acres in the area.
Scott Lyle, P.S. Board of Fealtors
Myra Goldwater
John Kimberly, Los Robles
Tom Borrowman 00), Springs Cleaning ServieP.
Manny Segall, resident
Tom Suitt, P.S. Saving, Pare Andreas Partner
Zelda Segall, resident
Karen Aguilar, Mark Leslie
Robin Young, 390 Goldenrod lane, cone rented on his unsuccessful. discussions with Canyon
Development about an offer on her lot; that she has bad building plans ready since 1989; that lease
payments have been paid, and questioned if sublease gives the right to build a home or is it
superseded by the master lease,and asked what a letter on`credit from Canyon Development would
do or him, and what the Tribal Council can do to avoid this from happening again to purchasers
of lots in the new development area.
Paula Aiken, Lot 3 owner, also commented on negotiations for the sale of her interest, ending in
a sale to Mr. Solomon with eventual fforeclosure for nonpayment; that she has paid $5,000 to
maintain the lot on which she has no privileges, and that she felt the project should proceed, and
she was ready to negotiate a sale today.
Terre Rudd, 845 village Square, owner of 88 properties in the tract that is leased land, commented
on her situation of having plans ready prior to the moratorium,and ber feeling that her rights were
removed by the decision to enact the moratorium; commented on others' comments and her
interpretation that they represent a taking of her real property rights;, that she felt the issue was
the right to build a house, and the matter could relate to her situation just as easily as it does to
Ms. Oakman.
John Di'Shilcane(sp?) for Canyon Development stated that two of Mr. Young's properties were
purchased at a substantial profit to him, and the letter of credit will provide security that the
Council can move forward with condemnation if necessary and will not have to worry about the
money being there to pay the purchase prices; that regarding the Aiken property, the lot was
returned and the deposit and fee and liquidated damages paid in June, 1992; that Ms. Rudd
liquidated most of her holdings, including sale of the parcel to Ms. Oakman, and he did not
U
Council Minutes
6-3-93 Pg. 5
1. JOINT HEAPING (Continned)
believe she had been barn-led to the ercient she believes.
Tribal Council Chairman stated that the comments should be directed to the issue, and that people
are speaking to emotions and the reasons are not pertinent to the subject; that there are problems,
and everyone wants the project, but it is not helpful to blame prior actions that were felt
necessary. He called a brief recess to change recording Gapes.
Upon reconvening, Tribal Council Chair staied that many references have been made to people
„owning' lots, most of whom should have indicated ¢hey have a leasehold in the lot.
Myrna Oakman stated that she purchased her leasehold in October, 1992,because she was assured
that Mr. Solomon was finished and could not proceed, and she purchaser' it from a person who
had sold it to Mr. Solomon, who then defaulted on the sale; that her signed lease said she could
build single-family development, and it has not been amended; that she has jnaid the ground lease
of$3,000 and$1,600 in escrow additional charges,and she would like the Tribal Council to honor
the lease which was properly signed and approved by the Bureau of Indian PI ffairs in Sacramento;
that if it is denied, and the moratorium is erctended, she will be tied into a'sot that she will not be
able to develop and no one will be willing buy; that Mr. Solomon could have contacted the seller
or her last Fail,however, she called hire; that the decision will affect 50 other lot owners; and that
Mr. Solomon says he wants to go ahead, and therefore he should put up Cho money in good faith
that he is ready to buy the interests. in answer to question by Tribal Council Chairman, Ms.
Oakman stated that she is not employed by Canyon Development, nor ever:bans been; and that she
was a real estate person.
Ed Perry, speaking for 10 acres of fpw,land in the development area, owned by his daughter-in-
law, stated that her property has been in limbo for the past four years, and she has not been able
to develop it, or soil it; commended the City Council, and observed the fhaal decision whether a
person can build on the property will rest with ilia Tribal Council.
The heating was thereafter closed.
Mayor stated that the City wants the Canyon Projact, and always has wanted it; that there has only
been one change over the prior Council actions and that was a reduction frorn $500 million to
$300 million,which was publicly announced by Mr. Solomon, and he was not aware of any terms
of agreement which have been breached; and that the Council teams, and is ready for a
development agreement.
Tribal Council Chairman stated that the decision will not be easy,because it will be seen as wrong
by one side or the other; and the issues are: a) died the City correctly overin n the City Planning
Commission concerning the architectural approval matter; and b) the issue of the General Plan.
He stated that the emotions displayed should not have a bearing, on what is decided, and that the
Planning Commission, City Council, and Indian Planning Conunission reconnmendations will be
taken into account, and the Tribal Council will develop what it feels is flee right decision.
ADJOURNMENT
There were no further comments, and Mayor declared the meeting adjourned to June 8, 1993, at
2:30 p.m., in the large Conference Room, City Hall.
JUDIT[-1 SUIVITCH
City Clerk