Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 - MINUTES - 1/17/1996CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 17, 1996 A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, was called to order by Mayor Kleindienst, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, on Wednesday, January 17, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., at which time, the City Attorney announced items to be discussed in Closed Session, and at 7:00 p.m., the meeting was convened in open session. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilnembers Barnes, Hodges, Oden, Spurgin, and Mayor Kleindienst Absent: None The meeting was opened with the Salute to the Flag, led by Boy Scout Troop 262, and a Moment of Silence, with a later invocation by Rev. Jeff Rollins, First Baptist Church . PRESENTATION: PSHS Student Body Report REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: City Clerk reported that the agenda was posted in accordance with Council procedures on January 12, 1996. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION (All Entities) -See items on Page 5 of agenda this date. HOUSING AUTHORITY: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - No business FINANCING AUTHORITY: Mayor declared the meeting adjourned for the purpose of convening as the Financing Authority; after which, members reconvened as the City Council. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Mayor declared the meeting adjourned for the purpose of convening as the Community Redevelopment Agency; after which, members reconvened as the City Council. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Hodges, seconded by Spurgin, and unanimously carried, that the Minutes of December 6 and 20, 1995, and January 3, 1996, be approved; Oden abstaining on the minutes of December 6, 1995. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PD-58 AMENDMENT - GIVENCHY SPA & RESORT At request of Councilmember Spurgin, consideration of Planning Commission action taken on December 27 regarding a required wall and landscape plan inn the service area for the above project. Councihnembers Barnes and Hodges stated they would abstain clue to client relationships. Director of Planning & Building reviewed his report, noting that applicant requests the approval of the landscaping plan in -lieu of the Commission's requirement for the block wall; that the Commission felt the wall was needed for the long term, because of the potential for plant damage by frost; that die area in question relates to the service area, which is non -conforming; that in approving modifications to tnon-conforming uses, the Commission and Council have discretion to require full current code compliance; that the Commission felt the hedge and wall were needed; that the staff felt the wall was redundant, and the multiple rows of hedge were sufficient. He: displayed the plans and reviewed the areas in question, and responded to technical questions by Council. Mayor declared the hearing opened. Rose Narva, appellant, stated that the appearance and aesthetics of the complex are their benchmark in the creation of the project, and the effort to become an international property; that they are fully committed to it being finely honed in every aspect of its appearance to its customers. (116- 100) 0009 Council Minutes 1-17-96, Page 2 PD-58 AMENDMENT - GIVENCHY SPA & RESORT Darrell Meeks, resident within a mile of the property, staled that it is a beautiful project, and he did not agree that the wall should not be required, as the area can be seen from Highway 111; that if the project were a new construction, it would be required and not be permissive; that with the amount of funds and effort invested, the complex is practically new; that there may be health department reasons for installation of the wall; that the Council should visit the site; that the Planning Director appears as an advocate of the appellant; and he questioned what assurance there is that if the hotel is sold, that the new owner will maintain the landscaped hedge, or replant it if it is damaged by frost. Dick Sroda, resident, expressed disturbance at overturning the Planning Commission decisions, which lie felt should be followed, unless the Commission erred in terms of a point of law; that he questioned whether citizens would want to serve on the Commission, if the Council overrules its decisions, and perhaps the Council would wish to make all planning decisions. There were no father appearances, and the hearing was closed. Councilmember Spurgin stated that she asked for the matter to be heard, and the key issues that the services area was not modified as part of the project, and that the intensity of its use will in fact decrease because the intensity of the hotel itself will decrease; that if the owners, in spending so much to make the renovations, will want to make sure that the hedge is well maintained; and that the project is a high -quality one, and a beautiful structure. Councilmember Oden stated that he is supportive of business in the community, and quality business of this nature is desired; that he has observed the project in progress, and has no doubt that it will be kept up; that the appeal raises issues which the Council has ' concurred in its workshop need to be looked at more closely - the perception of making concessions for some, and not for others; and that the Council needs to be aware of the perception that staff and conunissions are not supported, and a close look at restructuring will be considered. In answer to questions by Council, Director of Platuring & Building stated that the block wall would be 6-ft, and the hedge is on a 12-ft trellis of bougainvillea, with added rows (116- of planting, which have a 5-6 ft. growth at this time; that Commission felt that the need 100 ) for a solid gate across the service entry (condition No. 76A) was needed even with the overlapping landscaping, but could be looked at if the wall is not required; that the operation is proposed to keep the area clear and use it for other uses than just delivery services. Mayor stated that the Council's review is one of the merits of the project, and not the individuals involved; that the Council should look at whether the project addresses the spirit of the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; that he generally did not favor overturning the Commission, however, there is a process for appeal, and a final decision to meet the spirit of the law; that he visited the site, and considers it a beautiful addition to the community, and lie did not believe it would be other than kept up to the highest level; that he believed a visual screening already is in place with the landscaping which exists; and that if the vegetation does not work out, that the owners will respond. Resolution 18770 overruling the Planning Commission decision, and allowing a landscape ' screen instead of a masonry wall for screening the service area (prior condition No. 76,) was presented; after which, it was moved by Kleindienst, seconded by Spurgin, and unanimously carried, that R18770 be adopted; Barnes and Hodges abstaining. 0010 Counril Minutes 1-17-96, Page 3 2. PNA - APPEAL - WINDMAGIC Consideration of appeal by Gerald Alhern, dba Flag & Kite Factory, from posting of Notice of Violation issued for an illegal outdoor display of merchandise at 314 N. Palm Canyon. Director of Planning & Building reviewed his report, and displayed photographs, noting ' that different product materials were displayed on January 5, but creating the same violation as depicted in the more recent photos. He stated that the Downtown Development Director and the Planning staff have been working on an ordinance which would allow some outdoor product display, unusual items of a unique nature, and not standard products offered for sale within the building; and noted! that currently there are about 20 businesses downtown with products being displayed outdoors. Mayor declared the hearing opened. Jerry Ahern, appellant, stated that the windsocks and banners are quality items; that he is located upstairs; and that he tried not displaying the merchandize and did not make any (057- money. He displayed a sample of his product. 007 ) There being no further appearances, the ]tearing was closed. In answer to questions by Council, Director of Planning & Building reported that any area outside of the building is considered "outside" including the area of the building overhang; and that the two flags shown in the photograph are also violations. City Attorney explained that the purpose of outdoor display is for attracting attention, and anything on the exterior of the building to draw attention to it is considered signage; that it is not uncommon to prohibit such type of items (nags, banners, etc.) and if the Council is uncomfortable with that categorization, there are broader implications to be considered, ' i.e., equal enforcement of the same rules; that the existing ordinance consistently has been interpreted in that manner; that an alternative is to revise the ordinance so others in similar circumstances will be subject to the same privileges and be treated in the same manner; that the effect would be to declare no enforcement of 1➢he flags, banners aspect and to look to such a revised ordinance, following the hearing and other processes for Zoning Ordinance amendment. Director of Planting & Building reported that the revised sign ordinance amendments are scheduled to be returned to the Council in the near future in a workshop with the Commission; and that others will make the same argument concerning the need for the display in order to continue in business. Councilmember Hodges stated that while the particular product under consideration is not bad looking, the implication of allowing dresses, tee-shirts, and other products hanging outside of stores becomes a problem; that it is probably correct that more could be sold, if merchandise was displayed outside, but that may not be wanted for the community; that the sign ordinance needs modifications, and can be loosened; and that it would not be proper to approve the appeal, which would result in allowing others to do the same, without having defined parameters that the Council may wish to revise. She added that the revised ordinance recommendations do not address these issues in any event, and that it is the nature of the particular product under question which causes it to fall under the Sign Ordinance, as well as the product display. In answer to question by Council, City Manager stated that the study item is set for I January 31, however, it will take some time to prepare changes. Councilmember Barnes agreed that the ordinance needs to be looked at, and changes made, e.g, the items appear or are perceived to be a sign, yet the: question could be raised that if it were a dress or shirt with a company logo on it, would that make it a sign, also, or the question as to what constitutes a "building," and that it becomes an almost unmanageable situation the way it is written and interpreted; that he recognized that people receive the rules and regulations from City staff in order to help them develop their business plans, but this is a "catch 22" and while the subject products are attractive 0011 Council Minutes 1-17-96, Page 4 2. PNA - APPEAL - WINDMAGIC and festive, they remain merchandise. He stated he felt trapped by the conflict between the regulations and the Council's desire to make it possible to succeed in business in Palm Springs, and the Council needs to start with revisions to the ordinance. ' Councilmember Oden stated he spoke with a very upset person concerning their sign; that the issue is the Sign Ordinance, and not just the immediate concern; that the Council cannot do anything without opening "pandora's box" and this needs to be addressed; and that it very frustrating for people who want to be successful and who have invested money in the community, not to be assisted in making that happen. Councilmember Spurgin stated that there is no better place to display a windsock, than in the wind. It was moved by Kleindienst, seconded by Hodges, and carried by the following vote, that the staff prepare a resolution, with findings, for denial of the appeal: AYES: Barnes, Hodges and Kleindienst NOES: Oden and Spurgin ABSENT: None Mayor declared a brief recess, and upon reconvening, business resumed. INTERAGENCY REPORTS: a) Councilmember Spurgin provided an update on the City Hall Renovation Committee work, scheduled repainting, and fundraising. ' b) Councilmember Oden on his attendance at meetings and functions since the last meeting, including the Community Care Council at the Mizell Center, and its work with a resource center at die P.S. Mall, to address various needs of the community. c) Mayor reported on the progress of a community based committee to look at the benefits of the Information Highway and fiberoptics. PUBLIC COMMENTS: a) Betty Tuminello, resident, stated that Our Lady of Solitude Catholic Church has been working with youths to reduce the potential for gangs, and has formed a basketball team, and is looking for a place to locate practice; that many of the youth live in the Coyote Run Apartments, however, use of on -site facilities is limited to residents. She asked that the Council intercede in any mariner possible to allow the team to practice there. She also noted that the team needs uniforms. b) Darrell Meeks commented on businesses which the Council approved use of outdoor display of merchandise, and contended that Item 1 above was based on selective decision making. He stated that the film festival was beneficial to his (116- business, and questioned when reports will be submitted by the Celebrity 100) Tournament, and the road race promoters. c) Dick Sroda commented on the FPPC ruling concerning conflict of interest of the ' Mayor, and his expectation that officials follow the intent and letter of the law. LEGISLATIVE ACTION: 0012, Council Minutes 1-17-96, Page 5 3. AIRPORT - AIP-17 & AIP-18, RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FINAL CHANGE ORDER Recommendation: That the Council approve Change Order No. 3 (Final) to contract with Granite Construction, for the above project, for an increase of $315,304, and a 67-day time extension, CP94-45, A3534. Director of Aviation reviewed details of his memorandum, noting that the deadline for , completion of the project was September 1, 1995, which otherwise would have caused the diversion of air traffic; that extra time was built into the bid, however, it was eaten up (051- with a problem with die asphalt segment of the bid, which necessitated a rebid; that $4.9 010 ) million was budgeted for the project, and the FAA grant was based on original estimate of $5.3 million; that the $3.9 million bid was substantially below estimates and budget; that the bottom line amount, based on the actual number of units installed, was a contract of $3.55 million; that during the project, delays were experienced - some! by the contractor and others because of lack of product availability of a piece of equipment - that the completion date was a fixed date, and work shifts increased to 24-hours per day; that at the conclusion of the work, the contractor laid claim to amount for that added shift coverage; that negotiations resulted in the final change order for an increase as noted, bringing the total cost of the project to $700,000 less than the project estimate. He explained the FAA specification for a particular piece of equipment, which experienced significant problems in the heat; and stated that the project has resulted in a first-class runway, which will serve the Airport well into the 21st century, and which was completed within budget, and within FAA requirements. Councilmember Barnes stated that bids must include time limits, otherwise contractors will stretch the time out; that the key is to be realistic in those; that contractors cannot fit the schedule, there is the opportunity for liquidated damages to be specified, otherwise the risk is on the contractor; and that he spoke with the City Manager and the Director of Aviation, who answered his questions, noting that the specifications for the pavement setting equipment should have been considered in terms of the heat, and that was not the contractor's fault; that the contractor's claim regarding the costs for construction acceleration including legitimate overhead, however, the amount was too bit; and he recommended the negotiators in arriving at something more realistic; and that future contracts need to be written to preclude similar excuses. Councilmember Spurgin stated that the bid was $1 million less than the estimates; and even with the change order, the amount is $700,000 under the 'budget; that there should be realistic specifications; and that she appreciated the under -budget result. Director of Aviation stated that the $1 million under budget was questioned, and the contractor assured that the project could be done for that amount. In answer to questions by the Mayor, Ire stated that the pave -set equipment worked extremely well when the temperature was not hot; that Seattle was the nearest location where it had been tested; and that it was a requirement of the FAA specifications; that the taxiway is narrower than the runway, and it was known that a six-month project was being undertaken to be completed in three months. Minute Order 5680 as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Spurgin, seconded by Oden, and unanimously carried, that MO5680 be adopted. 4. CV MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN - MOU Recommendation: That the Council approve a Memorandum of Understanding with I Federal, County, and other city govermnents in the Coachella Valley, for the preparation of a Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, A3629. Director of Planning & Building stated that the process for the plan is included in the General Plan; that this is possibly the most cost effective manner in which to address it; (123 that a variety of representations are included; that the development community will 1 ultimately pay the costs in the long tern, in time, money and possible litigation. In answer to questions, he stated that the MOU is an agreement for the development of the plan; that once the plan is adopted, and permits issued by the State and Federal agencies, the developers would participate, and there should not be other than complying projects; 0013 Council Minutes 1-17-96, Page 6 4. CV MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN - MOU (Continued) that the planning process will take 2-3 years. He commented on the recent mitigation issue at the Airport, concerning the fringe -toed lizard. City Attorney stated that a Section 6 was added to the MOU, which requires that in the development of the plan, there be an economic development analysis of the impact on development, along with potential funding sources, and implementation be through a fair share contribution by State, Federal, and local agencies. In answer to question by Council, Director of Planning & Building stated that the plan is called for in the General Plan, and once developed, it will allow the developer to address a primary concern, i.e., money and time, before making substantial investments into a project. He added that the alluvial fans, washes and mountain sides will be the primary areas affected. Councilmember Hodges stated that this is a good example of what CVAG is all about, and of working through a broad issue; and that staff time and efforts will be covered by grant funds. Councilmember Barnes noted that the action is to support the planning, and is not a commitment to anything else, and that the plan will come forward later, which will provide the opportunity to look at achieving the balance between development and environmental needs. Minute Order 5681 as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Hodges, seconded by Oden, and unanimously carried, that MO5681 be adopted. 5. ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING & ADOPTION (Intro. 1-3-96) ' City Clerk read Lille of Ord 1528 re street numbering north of I-10; after which, it was (103- moved by Hodges, seconded by Spurgin, and unanimously carried, that further reading 045 ) be waived, and 01528 be adopted. 6. ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS: None CONSENT AGENDA: 7. Res 18771 accepting Instrument of Release from the FAA, dated December 22, 1995, (072- concerning the Corporation Yard 9.4965 acres, from 1949 Grant Deed restrictions 003) (commonly referred to as Civic Center site). 8. Res 18772 thin 18774 approving (2) Payroll Warrants and (1) Claims & Demands. (086- Abstentions: Hodges 906294, 906387; Spurgin 906424; and Barnes 906421. 014) 9. MO 5682 through 5687 (6) approving claims settlement agreements, i.e.: Glancies, $9,500; Maneely, $45,000; Walter, $14,500; Allstate/Beech, $12,920.80; Liberty/Bock, (096- $6,000; and National Fleet/IBM, $6,195.44. 005) It was moved by Spurgin, seconded by Barnes, and unanimously carried, that R18771 through 18774 and MO 5682 through 5687 be adopted; Barnes, Hodges and Spurgin abstaining on warrants, as above noted. ' ADDED STARTERS: None REPORTS & REQUESTS: 10. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS - Received & Ordered Filed a) Treasurer's Monthly, November 30, 1995 (121- 002) 0014 Council Minutes 1-17-96, Page 7 11. BOARDS & COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Boards & Commission Appointments (2 full and I vacant terms, Human Rights Commission, Airport Commission Noise Subcommittee). Consensus: appointments to be considered at Council workshop January 23, and appointments made at future meeting. Following discussion, and selection, the following members to serve as noted: Agency Sub -croup Designee/alternate (060- CVAG Exec. Committee Hodges/Oden 010) CVAG Energy & Envir. Vacant/vacant CVAG Human/Conn Resource Vacant/Vacant. CVAG Transp. Kleindienst/Spurgin CVAG Pub Safety Spurgin/Vacant CVAG Youth Commission Barnes/Hodges PSDRCVB Exec Bd Kleindienst/Oden PS VPB Ex-officio on Bd Spurgin/not applicable Sunline & Sunline Sery Group Kleindienst/Barnes PS Recycl Santa Rosa Mt. Consery Bd (City liaison) CV Mt Cons Bd (City Liaison) Tri City inter -city committee City Fin. Committee CVJPIA Bd Spurgin Ilodges/Vacant Vacant Hodges/Oden Kleindienst/Spurgin City Manager/Rent Control Coord CITY COUNCIL reports or requests a) Mayor and Councilmembers reported on various civic and community organizational meetings and events which they attended, subsequent to the last regular meeting. b) Mayor reported that the City Council will continue its workshop on developing a five-year plan, to January 23. c) Councilmember Hodges requested that the joint dinner meetings with the City boards and commissions be resumed. Consensus: To make this a subject of the workshop. PUBLIC reports or requests a) Don Frank commented on convicts of interest, noting there are also appearances of conflict, and asked if members leave the room whenever there is a matter on which they must abstain, including in his opinion, that one should also leave the dial. 0015 Council Minutes t-17-96, Page 8 STAFF reports or requests a) Director of Aviation provided an update concerning the aspect of the ROARE agreement dealing with the curfew, noting that the Airlines have been in (051- negotiation on this matter, and letter from the Air Transport Association indicates 028 ) ' no support for proceeding with a curfew, however, there is no intent to deviate from the current curfew which is followed. b) City Attorney stated that regarding the Mayor's conflict, it should not be construed that the FPPC ruling applies to all Airport issues, in that the inquiry was related to the Airport Master Plan; that on the agenda for this meeting, the two items concerning the Airport did not relate to any decision regarding the runway, nor have an affect on property around the Airport. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business at 9:40 p.m., Mayor declared the meeting adjourned to a continuation of the Council Workshop, on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, 2 p.m., Large Conference Room, City Hall. JUDITH SUMICH City Clerk