Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 - MINUTES - 1/28/1998 k` CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1998 A Joint Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, and the Agua Caliente Band of Calmilla Indians was called to order by Mayor Kleindienst, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, on Wednesday, January 28, 1998, at 5:30 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: Councilmembers Barnes, Hodges, Oden and ' Mayor Kleindienst Absent: Councilmember Reller-Spurgin ROLL CALL: Present: Tribal Councilmembers Gonzales-Lyons, Pate, and Chairman Milanovich Absent: Tribal Councilmembers Pete and Gonzales Jr. The Meeting was opened with a Salute to the Flag and a Moment of Silence. REPORT POSTING OF AGENDA: Assistant City Clerk reported that the agenda was posted in accordance with Council procedures on January 23, 1998. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN CLO13ED SESSION (All Entities) - See items page 3 of agenda this date. COUNCIL COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/INTERAGENCY REPORTS: None JOINT HEARINGS WITH TRIBAL COUNCIL: I ATRIUM ENTERPRISES, INC., CUP 5.0648A & FRANCIS L. CUMMINGS AND AUTHUR W. DIAZ JR. ' Conduct joint public hearing to receive testimony concerning two appeals filed with the Tribal Council by Atrium Enterprises, Inc. (Appeal 18), and Francis L. Cummings and Arthur W. Diaz Jr., and Cameron Williams, by Charles Duke (Appeal 17), attorney for appellants, from City Council modification of Planning Commission action for two temporary tent structures for purposes of an in-line skating rink and ice skating rink and pro-shop, locker rooms, and restrooms, to be located at the southeast corner of Ramon Road and Crossley Road, M-1 Zone, Section 20. Tribal Chairman stated that the appellant must be an aggrieved party or possess a legal interest to protect; and questioned whether Appeal No. 18 conformed to the requirements. Cameron Williams, attorney for appellant on Appeal No. 18, stated that while all the requirements may not be met, the appellant does in fact have a lease that is pending before the Bureau of Indian Affairs which is contingent on the outcome of this hearing. Tribal Attorney stated that the requirements have been discussed, and it is not clear if the appellant meets the requirements; that the Ordinance is clear in that one must be the landowner, or an aggrieved party; and that since the lease has not been approved, it is questionable whether there is a basis for an appeal. Mr. Williams, attorney for appellant, stated that negotiations have been entered into with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but they are now in limbo, due to the appeal; that Atrium , Enterprises is an aggrieved party; and that there are damages. Tribal Chairman Milanovich stated that it is his opinion the Atrium Enterprises does not have a legal standing within the scope of the Ordinance. Mr. Williams stated that his party submits there is standing, but dboes comply with the wishes of the Tribal Council. Joint Council/Tribal Minutes , fhMai 1-28-98, Page Tribal Chairman Milanovich stated that in the best interest of the Ordinance, there should be no legal standing given to the appeal. It was moved by Pate, seconded by Gonzales-Lyons, and unanimously carried, Patencio and Gonzales Jr., absent, to dismiss the appeal due to lack of standing. Tribal Chairman Milanovich stated that while the issue is abrupt, it is not in the best interest of the Tribal Council to deviate from the Ordinance, and added that Appeal 18 is dismissed. He questioned that in light of Appeal 18 being dismissed, whether the appellant for Appeal 17 wished to proceed. Charles Duke, attorney for appellants on Appeal 17, stated that his clients did wish to continue, and did not want any misunderstanding on anyone's part. Director of Planning & Building reviewed the staff report. Tribal Council Planning Consultant stated that the appeal was filed in August; that there is a related case concerning the matter of the Palm Springs Marketfair; that the request is that conditions 2, 10 and 27 are in violation of the appelIant's rights; that the grant of right-of- way required is across Indian land; that there is case law regarding such rights-of-way; and the result of the cases is just compensation of fair-market value must be paid; that if the proposal is one for a permanent facility, the requirement for right-of-way is governed by "just compensation"; but if there is a short term use, the question becomes one of entitlement; and that the Tribal Planning Commission recommended upholding Appeal 17. City Attorney stated that the City was looking at the use of this property in the short term use; that it is a temporary facility; that in view of the use, the question was what exception is justified; that the structure proposed was a tent structure; that for the proposed length of time it would be in use, in fact be in violation of the Building Code; and that is why the ' dedication was requested for permanent use. Tribal Chairman questioned the relevance of the City Attorney's comments. City Attorney stated that Mr. Duke is requesting clarification that the Indian owners are entitled to compensation of the right-of-way; that the City is recommending an approved form of dedication; that the Tribal Planning Commission has recommended the same thing; that some of the facts are alittle confusing, since the person who wants to use [lie property was not present; and that a confusing message may be sent. Tribal Chairman stated that the facts are clear; that there presently is an "island" of land separated from the rest of the improvements; that there is a dangerous situation that can be corrected; that the right-of-way does in fact have value; and that the owners will be giving up use of the property. City Attorney stated that the dedication is the value of property, and that if someone develops the property the improvements could be made. Tribal Chairman stated that the City should have a mechanists to credit the value of the improvements to the property to the developer. City Attorney stated that the actual principle is that the right-of-way does have value and that a permanent use of site is valuable, but there is no one to develop the site permanently, ' so then the Tribal Council may wish to continue the appeal. Tribal Chairman stated that the property owners' issue is clear. It was moved by Gonzales-Lyons, seconded by Pate, and unanimously carried, Patencio and Gonzales Jr., absent, that the appeal be upheld, and that the property owners are entitled to just compensation. Joint Council/Tribal Minutes 1-28-98, Page 3 Mayor declared the bearing opened, there being no appearances the bearing was closed. Tribal Chairman Milanovich stated that the proper paperwork whit be forwarded to the City. Adjourn Joint Meeting: ' PUBLIC COMMENTS: None ADDED STARTERS: None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business; Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. JUDITH SUMICH _CiL Clerk 9 ' By: PATRICIA A. SANDERS Assistant City Clerk