Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 - MINUTES - 8/12/1997 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 An Adjourned 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 Taliquitz Canyon Way, on Wednesday, August t2, 1997, at 4:00 p.m., at which time, the City Attorney announced items to be discussed in Closed Session, and at 5:00 p.m., the meeting was convened in open session. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Barnes, Oden, and Spurghn Absent: Couucilmember Hodges and Mayor Kle➢ndieiist (Note: Mayor was present during Closed Session). The meeting was opened with the Salute to the Flag. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: City Clerk reported that the agenda was posted in accordance with Council procedures on August 9, 1997. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION (All Entities) - See items on Page 2 of agenda this date. a) SANDCASTLE PNA (SOFONIO) - A3817: City Attorney reported that during the Closed Session by a 4-0-1 (Hodges absent) vote, the Council approved the filial language of the Settlement Agreement concerning the abatement of nuisance/dangerous building at 2330 N. Palm Canyon Drive, initially approved on June 25, 1997. COUNCIL COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: ' a) The following persons spoke concerning Item 1: Richard Rowe, resident, submitted a letter, and urged that a full environmental assessment be made before any project is undertaken, before any demolition occurs, and before even a larger project is considered. Brad Dunning Historic Site Board member stated that the Board reaffirms its action and the commitment to that action; that the Board is comprised of volunteers who donate their time out of care for Palm Springs' present, past and future; that Palm (076- Springs is different from other Valley cities, and there must be an awareness of its 001) appearance because just its name is an attraction; that many cities in the United States have strict preservation laws; that lie questions whether it is a property owner right any more so than any other action; and that any change to the building under a Class 1 would require Council approval Bob Wynet, business owner in Palm Springs since 1974, 4550 E. Mesquite, stated he was retained by a citizens group to help develop alternative uses for the building; that he believes there are other purposes for it, and it could be very beautiful; that he believed it can be saved, and still meet the developer's needs, if they can reason together. Dick Sroda, resident, stated that other properties have been designated without the property owners consent, and the issue is a question of fairness; and he questioned why die matter was not referred to the HSPB for reconsideration as happens in cases in which the Council disagrees with the Planning Cormnission. John Connell, resident, asked that the Council stay with the Class I designation, or at least make it a Class 2; that the citizens task force has done everything that it could do, including meeting during the summer, paid for a historical site expert to explore legal aspects, and an attorney who handles such cases, who has advised that the Council should be very careful, and that lie did not believe the City Attorney is correct in the information he has given; and that Mr. Wynet was hired to help find answers to the many questions, and the task force was willing to continue in its efforts; that lie fell obstructions were placed in the way of the task force, and that Council Minutes 8-12-97, Page 2 he was not asked to work toward a "no classification;" that Frey and other notable architect's works have sold recently within a matter of days of going on the market; that he felt the Brown Act was violated when two of the three members eligible to vote on this matter met with the developer, and he felt it was a conflict that Mr. Cioffi was advising on the use of the roof, when he had just spoke in opposition to the action; that there is pending litigation; that he recommended the Council adjourn to the closed session for advice from the City Attorney; and that he felt Mr. Frey had an apology coming from the developer. Scott Kennedy, resident, commented concerning the number of Frey structures in Palm Springs, the number altered, and the number demolished; that lie did not consider it acceptable to move the roof feature, nor believe that it has been proven that it can be moved; that the reason for designating the site seems to be have been forgotten; that he questioned why so much energy was spent to appease one person; that the biggest need for the building is paint and landscaping; and that funds should be raised to satisfy Mr. Annenberg, and let the developer know his opinion is only just his opinion. Les Gathers, resident, stated that six months ago, when fie lease option on the site was obtained, he met with the I-ISPB, because of the fact that the building was a Frey structure; that a compromise was sought, in that the developer would share in (0767 the movie of the roof; that in May, Mr. Bra 001 ) g y, Bragg stated lie would do nothing to the building for one year; that four members of the RSPB were supportive; that the negative articles began to appear, and the Board's support was lost, and the rumor became that the building was going to be demolished; that he telephoned Mr. Oden and Mr. Barnes two weeks prior to the first (nearing, but his calls were not returned; and that the issue is between Mr. Annenberg and the City and Mr. Annenberg's property rights, and not an issue of Mr. Bragg. Selena Tracer, resident, stated this issue is not about the desires of one person, but , what the conununity wants and needs; that the cottnnunity needs a grand development at the north entry; that she has spoken with business people downtown, who are appalled the Council would be a hindrance to the Bragg development; and that she felt the citizens consider the site an eyesore. Janice Lyle, member of the Tramway Taskforce (an ad hoc citizen group) read in full a letter dated August 8, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, suggesting three courses of action, i.e., reclassifying the site to a Class 2, if legally permissible; obtaining written guarantee that no action will be taken to the detriment of the building for one year; and returning the subject to the HSPB for appointment of a task force to explore options and make recommendation within 6- 12 months. Dorothy Head, resident, apologized to Councilntembers Oden and Barnes, on behalf of the cormnunity, and stated that no city funds should be spent to preserve the building; and that it should be freed of the designation, and given back to Mr. Annenberg, and then see if Mr. Bragg has a plan. Don Wolf, resident, stated he sent a letter to Councitmember Spurgin, offering to donate funds, and to help raise the money. COUNCIL COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/INTERAGENCY REPORTS: None ' LEGISLATIVE ACTION: 011 Council Minutes 8-12-97, Page 3 1. HSPB 33 -TRAMWAY GAS STATION BUILDING On July 30, 1997, the Council considered rescinding Resolution 19047, and taking alternative action, and requested additional information from the City Attorney., concerning die Albert Frey Building (Tramway Gas Station) at 2901 N. Palm Canyon Drive. ' City Manager slated that if application were made for a State or Federal Historic Site designation, it would require owner approval; that at the last meeting, the suggestion was made to relocate the architectural feature (the roof, referred to here as either "the building" or "the roof") to the rail station; that the Airport Master Plan includes a dispatch and (076- slaging facility for taxis, buses, and bicycle parking, and the roof could be incorporated into 001) that facility; that he met with Mr. Amnenberg and Mr. Bragg, and Mr. Annenberg will establish the value of the structure, in order to establish how much is needed to move that portion of the building to the Airport; that there would be no City General Funds to move the structure, but in terms of the construction, those funds which otherwise would be spent for that portion could be used; and that he felt positive that an attractive amount can be achieved. City Attorney reviewed his written opinion, dated August 2, 1997, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, noting the following: a) No envirommenlal review was done in making the original determination by the HSPB, nor did the Council make any determination as part of making its decision; that such has been die practice in making these type of historic designations; that there is case law that environmental review is not required when a clearly beneficial action is being taken; and that argumeut could be made in that regard. b) The distinction between classifications 1, 2 or 3 relates to the purity of the historic piece, No. 1 being the that there has been no alteration in any major way; No. 2, there may have been a change to the piece, but it derives the same protection as a Class 1; and No. 3 means the piece is older in origin than 1945; and that any change desired in any of the three, requires a procedure that must be followed. The Council may wish to further review this aspect of the Ordinance. c) There have been 35 structures designated, not all with the property owners approval, e.g., Ingleside Intl and LeVallurius. The subject site is unique in terms of the interest it has generated; that the property owner has made his protest known, which came out of the fact that the property has not been successful as a gas station; that he has an economic concern, and there is the aspect for another project in the area, but no plans or applications have been filed; and that the City Council has been clear in its encouragement of economic development. d) He has not found any case with the saune facts as this matter, nor could he find any which were close on point; that the Odyssey Project would require an environmental review, and if demolition of the gas station structure were a part of that application, removal of the Class I designation would have to be analyzed as a part of that; that lie could find no case in which there was no other project, and there was only the designation; that the developer could Find an attorney mid make argument and claim that the designation should be set aside; that there is a 180 day ' limitation as to pursuing such a claim; that there is a level of liability that the property owner might pursue a claim; and that he felt there were some defenses on the City's behalf, but it could be sticky. e) There is case law on the possibility of removal of the designation, in which a full environmental review was required; that it is best to error on the side of review, when in doubt, or matters of great public controversy. The current designation has been in place for only one month, and he could not find a case dealing with the same Facts, but felt that the short time period undercuts the argument for a review to some degree, in order to get back to a level field; and that parties on the Council Minutes 8-12-97, Page 4 opposing side could probably find an attorney who could find argument with that position. f) Council Option 1: Do nothing. This does not mean that the building cannot be demolished or removed from the site, if it creates an undue fmancial hardship, the Council can approve the relocation or demolition. Property owner has rights and ' remedies due to economic hardship, but must obtain Council approval. There is some legal liability to die property owner. g) Council Option 2: Remove designation, and start over. Would allow a full and complete ability for review; if project does not come forward, property owner could come forward and only request demolition permit; such pernrrit is not discretionary, and building could be demolished without any further influence by the City. h) Council Option 3: Change HSPB Designation from No. 1 to No. 2. There is not a big difference between the two; approval still required to modify or make changes. The option probably will not address the property owner's concern. i) Council Option 4: 30-day stay on demolition, after initiating proceedings. The Code provides that at anytime after proceedings are initiated, the Board may impose (076- a stay order on demolition, and the City could not be forced to issue the demolition 001) permit, even though the designation may not yet have been established. The property owner has indicated there is no intent to tear down the building immediately; Mr. Bragg's letter is not legally binding, and demolition could occur. The option would result in removing the Class I designation, and proceeding to initiate the process to review the property and whether it should be designated; and as long as that is in process, there is the ability to issue the stay order on the demolition. j) Relocation of the building will require an environmental review, not necessarily a full EIR. Some aspects of the Code could be improved, and some procedures made clearer. The Code, in essence, protects property owner Frights by the "stop valves" which are in place; that there is a process in the event of economic hardship. There are very few programs in which the City is involved which do not infringe on property owner rights to some degree, e.g., public arts, rights-of-way dedication; and he did not believe the Code was Constitutionally defective. In answer to questions by Council, City Attorney stated that the: application for economic hardship would go to the HSP Board, and its decision could be appealed to the City Council; that the Board may issue a stay of demolition for up to 120 days, with an additional 60-day extension, but could do so only one time; that the Council could still require the developer's letter of intent, even with the proceedings under consideration; that the cost of an environmental assessment would be paid for as parr: of a project, and the City normally contracts for the work; that a stay order would be issued upon a threat of demolition, and although it could be ordered at this time, the developer has said he world not do any demolition for one year, and the stay order would only be good for up to 180 days, including the extension period, which might not be enough time in which to resolve the issues; that the Director of Planing & Building assured him that the City staff would not issue the demolition permit. ' City Manager stated that an environmental review would be required to relocate the roof to the Airport, as would that be true for the staging facility; that the cost for dismantling aid relocating the roof would be a separate cost apart from the Staging facility, however, the Airport will be building a structure, and it will need a roof, and the cost of the roof would be born by the Airport; and there would still need to be fundraising to cover engineering and removal costs; that regarding the ad hoc committee, if the Council concludes that relocation of the roof to the Airport is acceptable, he will need everyone involved, and the Council Minutes 8-12-97, Page 5 committee is comprised of qualified people to help in that regard; and that if environmental review is needed for the Airport, it would not be paid for by the General Pund , In response to question by Council, Mr. Bragg submitted the letter he first gave to Councilmember Spurgin on July 30, which is on file with the City Clerk. ' In answer to question by Council, Director of Transportation stated that the staging facility is included in Phase I of the Master Plan; that the Airport Commission will complete it review in September, after which, it will be sent to the Planning Commission for review, and it will proceed from there. In answer to question by Council, City Attorney stated that the City could be exposed to litigation in any event; and it was difficult to find a clear win for everyone. Mayor pro tem Spurgin stated that she felt the problem stermned from the process, and not (076- the building; that not everyone will be happy, rather a compromised has been suggested, 001) one which will keep the City out of a legal issue. Councilmember Barnes stated that he fell everyone could be happy, the task force can continue with the HSPB as a member and more involvement; that the City Attorney has offered with confidence the "under consideration" option with the ability to have a demolition stay order issued, coupled with the letter from Mr. Bragg, albeit not legally binding, which Ire did not believe would be reneged upon by Mr. Bragg, nor in his interest to do so in terms of public support of his future project; that there is no true difference in terms of protection under either Class 1 or Class 2; that his effort was to stop the demolition or threat of it, until all parties of interest could solve the problem; that he had apprehension that staff be steadfast in not issuing a demolition permit, after a long lapse of time, and doubted that if a resolution is not developed in six months, that one will be developed at all. In answer to question by Council, City Manager stated that if approved, the value would be determined with Mr. Annenberg, and fundraising could begin in September, and that with the Airport planning process, it could be possibly 6 months before being in a position to move the roof portion to the Airport. He also stated that a series of things could have happened to have avoided this situation, e.g., the City Attorney review of the Ordinance, the CEQA process, and a variety of processes in place, and he assured the Council that it would never happen again. Mayor pro tern Spurgin stated that a staff opinion was asked for on June 18, and die response was that staff recormnended the designation, but air opinion was never gotten from the City Attorney, and if that bad happened, and the Council heard what was presented this date, the outcome may have been different. Councilmember Oden stated that the proposed use of the Spanish hn has caused a similar scenario to develop; that it indicates the people in the community are active and get involved and care about the cohnnunity; that comments have been made that the Council is uncaring, but three major projects were approved downtowrh at the same time, yet it has been labeled business unfriendly because of this one decision; that this is an opportunity to express healing for the corn munity; that sometimes being right is no longer important, rather what is best for the community to move forward must be considered; that the fourth option is a win-win, and the building will be preserved and there will be time in which to make plans for the future, and it allows the developer to move forward. Mayor pro tern Spurgin read a note from the Director of Planning& Building that the site is locked out of the permit system, and can only be accessed by him, and the Building Official. Councilmember Barnes appreciated Councilmember Oden's comments, and added that he believed the issue was blown out of proportion, for which some individuals are responsible; that the HSPB members did their job, and will continue to do so; that the option provides Council Minutes 8-12-97, Page 6 the security to improve the property, and no one wants a historic site which is a shambles; that the No. 1 designation refers to a pristine site, an honor, or level of distinction; that the architectural feature will be placed where everyone can appreciate it, and it will qualify as a Class 2 designation; that his intent always was to buy time in which to save the structure in a way that makes sense for everyone; that he maintained lie did not make a mistake, rather a decision based on the information he received from all sources; and that he did not have a personal preference regarding the structure. Mayor pro tern Spurgin stated that while she opposed the original ,diction, the Council agrees most of the time, but if everyone agreed, a full Council would not be needed; that the Council relationship must be able to allow agreement to disagree, and still move ahead and be polite and friendly; that she supports the fourth option, even though it is not exactly what she hoped for, but represented a compromise, and she would not put the City in legal jeopardy. City Attorney read title of the Resolution, noted minor language changes, and specific new "further resolved" clause, as follows: OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 19047, DESIGNATING THE TRAMWAY GAS STATION, 2901 NO. PALM CANYON DR. AT TRAM WAY, AS A CLASS 1 HISTORIC SITE, DETERMINING THAT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED TO CONSIDER A DESIGNATION OF THE STATION UNDER CHAPTER 8.05 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DETERMINE ANY ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES. "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs ' deems that proceedings have been initiated for designation of an historic site acid directs that these proceedings be continued by the Historic. Site Preservation Board to consider alternatives, and that the IISPB be authorized to issue an order staying any threatened demolition or aheralion under Section 8.05.170 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, if necessary, while such proceedings are pending; and..." Resolution 19112, rescinding R19047, as reviewed by the City Attorney, was presented; after which, it was moved by Oden, seconded by Barnes, and unanimously carried, Hodges and Kleindienst absent, that R19112 be adopted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business at 8:15 p.m., the Mayor pro tern Spurgin declared the meeting adjourned. —\" JUDITH SUMICH City Clerk 1