Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 - MINUTES - 7/1/1998 1I."Ni CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 1, 1998 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 Taliquitz Canyon 'Way, on Wednesday, July 1, 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, Olen, Reller-Spurgin, and Mayor Meindienst Absent: None The meeting was opened with the Salute to the Flag, and an invocation by Rev. Andrew Green, Church of St. Paul's of the Desert. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: City Clerk reported that the; agenda was posted in accordance with Council procedures on June 26, 1998. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION (All Entities) - See items on Page 5 of agenda this date. PRESENTATIONS: Proclamations: Desert Aids Project-Marc Haupert Plaques to former Commissioners Drawing for Electric Bike Participant Giveaway-Hough & Austin - Winners: Julie Austin, P.S.H.S. Teacher, and Charles F. Hough, Self-employed. A stand-by winner's name was drawn and placed with the City Clerk in event the stafir is unable to contact one of the winners within 30 days. HOUSING AUTHORITY: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: FINANCING ' AUTHORITY: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: - No Business APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Barnes, and unanimously carried, that the Minutes of May 6 and 20 and June 3 and 17, 1998 be approved. (Note: Public Comment "a)" and Additional Legislative Item A9 were actually heard at this point, but are reflected for numeric purposes in agenda item order.) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - SINGLE-FMvIILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS Planning Commission Recommendation: That the Council amend the Municipal Code to allow Iunited special events at single-family residential properties which are held to benefit non-profit organizations; approve the filing of a Negative Declaration of (103- Environmental Impact. 050) Director of Planning & Building reviewed the history of this matter from March 12, 1997 and the Council's action in April, 1997, to uphold die existing codes and ordinances to prohibit cormnercial uses, however, no action was taken regarding penalties; that subsequently the City prosecuted a case against the; owner of the "Presley Honeymoon Hideaway" for conducting a commercial activity at a residential property and that case remains in the midst of court proceedings, and the result of the judge's failure to issue a requested restraining order on the event contemplated at the location, on the basis that there was no proof of difference between the event held and the other types allowed, has caused the review of the ordinance, including discussions with the tourist industry; that the largest estates in the City have been used historically for a wide variety of events; and that the Planning Commission recommended prohibiting commercial, but allowing limited charitable and political, under a land use permit. Council Minutes 7-1-98, Page 2 Planning Manager detailed the provisions of the proposed ordinance, the findings that would have to be made of a land use permit, and the possible fees that would be imposed to cover staff costs for monitoring and enforcing the permit. Assistant City Attorney stated that he was the City's trial counsel in the Lewis case; that he believes the proposed ordinance fully conforms to the legitimate concerns raised by the trial court (charitable event distinction, ability to use property for that, distinction between commercial and charitable) and that the court took a very narrow view; that if the City attempts to enforce the ordinance, the same result may be likely and he believed the Council's and community's position will have to be reached at the Appeal Court level, and he did not know if that would be the case if there was not the same trial court judge, who ignored an Appellate Court decision and took a myopic view of the law; and that the proposed ordinance is a reasonable accommodation of the concerns he expressed. Director of Planning & Building stated that there have been a number of charitable events which did not come close to complying with the proposed regulations; that the Commission wanted to protect people in the single family zone, and felt that tourism activities should take place in commercial areas. In response to Council question, he stated that the City staff will enforce the ordinance through complaint basis, also the Police Department receives complaint calls, and those will have to be investigated and worked through Code Enforcement; that the Director must make findings that the proposed location can handle the nwnber of people from a number of points: traffic, fire, safety, parking, etc.; that valet parking or busing would be required; and that the noise ordinance would have to be looked at to allow some of the outdoor events which have previously been held. Mayor declared the hearing opened. Tony Merchel, Los Angeles, stated that he conducts architectural tours for non-profit and educational organizations, which do not have a negative impact, rather a positive impact; that his type of operation does not require valet service; that architectural tours are a necessary part of a conference to be held in Palm Springs next Spring, and he is concerned that they may not be possible under the proposed ordinance; that there have been six such tours over the past five years, with a maximum of 240 people in all; and that non-profit, academic tours should not be included in the restriction. Sally Presley Rippingale, resident, stated that the City has one thing to sell, and that is tourism; and that she has authored a number of books about the Racquet Club, and other tourist guide books. Sylvia Schmitt, Rancho Mirage, provided a copy of a Gennan Publication showing Palm Springs' celebrity homes; that she is often contacted by the CVB for celebrity homes to offer to groups; that celebrity homes offer a huge attraction for corporate business, and the media; that she favored allowing a limited number of events with limited number of guests for a one year period, and offered her expertise in developing standards; and that she supported the establishment of fees, perhaps to be used to fund improvements in the neighborhoods of the celebrity sites, e.g., streets and other aspects of the neighborhood. Tun Ellis, hotelier, stated that a spirit of cooperation is needed, and not pitching one segment of the community against another, and it may be more reasonable to compromise rather than battle in court; that events continue to take place, and they are not regulated; that the tourism industry supports the regulations reviewed by the Planning Manager; that regardless of the type of event, noise is still noise; that the neighborhood's concerns are noise and traffic and not what takes place; that two years ago, the Council was asked to study this matter more, and he was not certain as to how "schooled" the Council is on the subject, and he asked that it carefully make its decision, and that it be fair for everyone. Dave Baron, attorney representing the Trabell Trust in the Lewis case, stated that it does not make sense to have to go to court again and to appeal; that there have been some Council Minutes -1-98, Page 3 problems with bad operators, some events ran late, and were noisy and impacted the neighborhood; that charitable events have not been a problem in the past and are not a problem today; that he questioned why those who have been known for fundraising in the community should be impacted, that the Council cannot preclude political events, and he suggested a sunset date, with specific limitation as to number of people and the number of events each month, and those regulations reviewed by the Director; that he ordy sees a legal mine field, otherwise; and he suggested rejecting the proposed ordinance, and sending it back to staff to develop some kind of compromise that makes sense. Eric Meeks, resident, stated that the celebrity residential homes must be treated as jewels and treasures, and considered a resource that could be used better for the City; that the future trend is to do business from the home, and these are a ;greater scale; that the community supported gaming, a larger airport, and the Councill should look to these homes in the same way, and come up with a way to use them to building a better future. Clare Shaffer, resident, stated she resides across the street from the Kemper estate, at which a recent event had 450 people, and for which it took 1 1/2 days to set up, and during which a generator was running during the entire event; that it took another day to break it down; that cars blocked three fire hydrants, and were double and triple parked; that the police department would not issue tickets to those in front of the fire hydrants; that the Council should support people who own property; that she purchased her home because it was R-la, a nice neighborhood, nice schools and in Palm Springs; that she considers any commercial use a violation of her right of R-1 ownership; that movie celebrities came to Palm Springs as a retreat and a hideaway; that the Kemper estate is 1 1/2 acres and cannot handle 450 people, let alone 650 people; that die event at die estate had security, but it was for the event, and not for the neighborhood; that she could not have used her outside patio because of the noise and klieg lights; that there was no advance notice; that people walked into the neighborhood, causing dogs to bark; and that she supported the proposed ordinance. Christine Parker, resident, stated she also spoke for her neighbors, the Bernies, stated she would not complain about the architectural tours or occasional parties, but that is not what happens, rather a business is being conducted; that she did not understand how the R-1 zone can be used beyond what the Zoning Code allows; that she appreciated the uniqueness of the homes, but residential zones must be kept residential. James DeSanto stated that he knew of the Presley home when he purchased his property, but did not know there would be wild parties at it; that he has reported a number of instances of flagrant violations; and he supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Darrell Meeks, Morongo Valley resident, stated he did not think there should be any commercial ventures in R-1 zones, and if the situation were reversed, the Council would to allow residential use of vacant commercial buildings on Talquitz Canyon; that the parties will not stop at 10 p.m., and most actually start at that time; that he felt die regulations need to include that the site be owner occupied, and as such, they should have an event of any kind, and if they live elsewhere, they are only doing the event for profit. Patricia Barton, resident, stated she purchased her home in 1996, because of close proximity to schools and her temple; that she has called many times for the very intrusive noise from some events heard inside of her house; that this matter would not be an issue, if the law had not been violated in the first place; that there must be a strong ordinance to stop them from happening; and that she wanted the residential neighborhood protected. Larry Harris, resident, stated that tourism is the City's number one industry, and the tour of the homes is a facet of the tourist business; that many of the homes have a great historical interest, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been lost since they were shut down, as well as a loss to the City in terms of positive; public relations and good will, which will further result in lost conferences and business; that there; were Council Minutes 7-1-98, Page 4 some isolated incidents which caused complaints, but many have had events without any complaints; and he urged considering rules to allow continuing the celebrity tours on a positive basis, and eliminating commercial events. Dick Sroda, resident, stated that he does not live in any of the areas, but the problem ' has not been solved in ten years; that it involves absentee landowners who make money and whether the people who live in these areas can expect to have codes enforced; that he questioned who will enforce the ordinance, and doubted it would be the police department unless it did not have anything else to do, and this would be a low priority; that the owner should have to occupy the dwelling, and that being the case, he did not believe a person would deliberately aggravate his neighbors very many times; and that enforcement after an event does not solve the problem. Man, spoke in support of finding a balance between the residents and the business communities. Bruce Kendall, resident, spoke in support of the proposal, and stated that R-1 across the country is the same - no commercial, and nothing other than residential without a special permit or agreement in the neighborhood; that a fundamental reason for a city to exist is to have control over land use; and that if the issue is not resolved, it will continue to keep coming up. There were no further appearances, and the hearing was closed. In response to questions by Council, Planning Manager stated that the tour for educational purposes or charitable purposes might qualify as a non-commercial event, and would have to apply for a LUP; that four tours per day would be equal to one special event, but would have to be conducted between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.; that one of ' the operator's concerns is that the number of people requires larger buses, especially those coming from out of town. Councilmember Hodges stated that it is an important consideration because of the large number of architecturally significant homes, and she felt there would be more of this type of activity in the future; that the ordinance does not address that aspect, and that it is not a party. Director of Planning & Building stated that it could be defined and included in the ordinance, and be non-commercial in nature, and with the exception of the larger buses, there would be little impact; that care must be taken not to create an opportunity to get around the provisions; and that the intent of the recommendation was to have a tight ordinance, and if there were more than three complaints, the operation could be shut down. Assistant City Attorney stated that in the Lewis Case, the trial judge was concerned about tours in terms of trash, stomping on landscaping, etc., and he felt significant legislative control would be granted because of the immediate significant impact on the neighborhood. In response to question by Council, he affirmed that the ordinance would not apply to an individual having a graduation party for their own child, to events in which people visit or pay respects as a result of funerals or deaths, and that the ordinance makes a difference between charitable and commercial events, and he agreed that in terms of impacts on the community, there is no real difference. ' Councilmember Oden stated that the Council has gone around on this issue many times, and each time some new element confuses what was thought to be the resolution of it; that a few events have been insensitive to the neighborhood; that he felt the issue can be addressed, and all of it looked at; that there is so much regulation, he questioned how it will be monitored and enforced; and that it does not address the issues which the community faces, rather it creates a new set to be addressed. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that if it is going to be regulated, it must be enforced; that many estate homes have fundraising events which benefit the community and individuals give their homes in order to achieve those goals, but the ordinance Council Minutes 7-1-98, Page 5 would have the effect of saying "flunk you for the money, now pay a permit fee" but the property owner has a right to be able to use their home in that way; that there has to be a compromise if everyone really tried to do so, and she; favored sending the ordinance to staff, the neighbors, and the attorneys to see if one can be found which works for everyone. ' Councilmember Hodges stated she was not certain if everyone can come together on this issue; that it has been going on for two years; that the staff and the Planning Commission have worked to try to find a solution to send to the Council; that it may come to choosing between one or another; that she did not think a person should be restricted from having a charitable event in their home, and cited a recent event which benefited the Dog Park, which probably would not have been able to meet the regulations; that residents also have a right to live in peace and harmony and to have the quality of life they wish in their homes; that the proposal is a compromise; that there can be no commercial activity; that she favored a provision regarding the educational and architectural tours, otherwise, she supported the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Barnes stated that he had no objection as to the noise, traffic, and size of vehicle regulations, and felt that a good promoter would work under those conditions; that he would like to see more in terms of how to treat the tours, and how enforcement will be addressed, in that by the time the police department was able to respond, die tour would be gone; that lie found it hard to support the ordinance as written; that the total issue of enforcement needs to be addressed, and if that is workable, it might be possible to allow more than three events; and that he did not support commercial use in the R-1. Mayor stated that the neighborhood does not know what type of event is happening, only the impact it has; and he questioned how the regulations will be enforced, assuming a person has taken out a permit. Director of Planning & Building stated that a large event usually means advanced ' preparation, and the City will likely receive telephone calls, or if it is an event underway, complaint calls will be received; that likely the Police Department will respond at night, and he assumed that the department will have to understand the ordinance and be inquisitive, and enforcement may be difficult at night; that if there is another event within 3 weeks, a record will have been established; that permit would be required, and would have to be posted, and the investigator should be able to see the permit; that neighbors are very helpful in these cases; and that asking a guest is an easy way to find out what kind of an event they are attending. Mayor stated that the Council is being asked to codify in some way a means that will clarify when an event is of one:type and not another, when they appear to be the same in terms of noise, crowds, etc; that functionally, conunercial and non-commercial events are the same; that the issue is putting together something that addresses respect for the neighborhood, and responsibility in carrying out an event; that the regulatory aspect of the proposed ordinance is mindboggling, and he could not support that much regulation; that it is difficult for the Council to tell people how they should respect their neighbors; that he did not see a compromise solution, and suggested that the Council must figure out something that it thinks makes sense, either through the staff or through a subcommittee of the Council along with others it feels would be appropriate to develop a solution. Following discussion, it was moved by Kleindienst, seconded by Reller-Spurgin, and ' unanimously carried, that a subcommittee of the Council be formed to develop a compromise solution, and to include others it deems appropriate in the process. Mayor and Councilmember Barnes agreed to serve as the committee. PUBLIC COMMENTS: a) City Attorney Statement Regarding Item 2 (read at beginning of meeting): (103- 038) Council Minutes 7-1-98, Page 6 City Attorney stated that he has concluded that to the extent that the Sign Ordinance can be utilized to enforce the display of banners, flags, etc.., it needs to be rewritten to the extent of freedom of speech/political issues; that the City can regulate size, place and manner of display, but cannot prohibit the display of flags because it would fall into the freedom of speech protection category; and that the staff, therefore, recommended referring the matter to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation regarding a Sign Ordinance amendment as to size, place and manner of display regarding flags, including protections regarding the visibility of signs on neighboring properties. Mayor stated that the Council has been working to find a legal resolution to this issue, and wanted to share at this point that action taken will be how to codify regulations, and not how to prohibit flags. b) Comments concerning Item 2: Michael Haas, resident, cited his opinion as to myths associated with flying the "rainbow" flag and that it is not true that there will be no economic ramification to remove them, in that persons looking for gay-oriented businesses will go elsewhere and spend their money; that the sign ordinance should be amended; (103- and that the Cityshould stop wasting time on enforcing the flag 038) P g g g issue, and it is not a business issue, or local neighborhood issue. Scott Harlow, resident, stated that he did not think the ordinance needs to be amended, in that the rainbow flag fits the definition in the Ordinance. Don Koethtg, resident, stated that the citations were erroneous, and therefore should be rescinded, so they do not come up again. Maurice Bratt, stated he has a radio program and acknowledges that the code enforcement person is only doing their job; that the rainbow flag only indicates that the business flying it is gay friendly for people to either come and spend their money, or to stay away if that is their choice; and does not represent anymore than an AAA designation. Ron Loya, resident, stated that the significance of the rainbow flag is it has been a representation of civil rights struggle for cultural diversity; that the ordinance does not get to the root of the problem, and that more sensitivity training is needed for City staff, and this should never have been a problem. c) Comments on matters not related to an agenda item: Betty Beadling, President of the Mizell Senior Center Board, stated that center is well respected in the Coachella Valley and one of the most outstanding centers in Riverside County, yet the City continues to fund it at a level much less than other cities fund other centers in the Valley; that during the past year, the Center was promised $120,000 if the utility tax was approved; that the tax was approved, but the City paid less than one-half of the $120,000, and the Center now has a deficit of$54,000 for the 97-98 fiscal year; that the issue of funding was not brought to the Council for a direct vote per se, so there is no record of how members voted; that other cities fund between 60-100% of their centers; that one would expect the City to be proud of the work the Center has done and the money it raises, and give at least 20% of its funding; and that she hoped the Council would appropriately fund it. Darrell Meeks, Morongo Valley, stated that the Council forgave a portion of the Palm Canyon Theatre rent in return for remodeling work which it did, and that the Council has a rule that if an amount is in excess of $5,000 it requires three affirmative votes. Note: Under Council Comments at the end of the meeting, in response to question by Council, City Clerk clarified that the Charter requires three Council Minutes 7-1-98, Page 7 affirmative votes for approval of an expenditure of $50,000 or more; and that the Council's policy prior to the Charter adoption, was $100,000. Joe Kress, resident, stated that the number of senior citizens in Palm Springs is growing, and that the older the population becomes, the greater will be the ' needs of the seniors. e) Comments concerning Item A9: Dick Sroda, resident, stated that any public comments on this matter should have been allowed after the presentation; that no one runs their own workers (096- compensation insurance program, and the City should not be running its 001) program; that the costs are not known, because they are: spread throughout different budget accounts; and that there is no independent medical source which charts the City's claims. f) Comments concerning Item 8: Marvin Bryant, resident, stated that if the Council approves the project, there will be a lawsuit filed; that attorneys have said the agreement is illegal; that (078- there is a 10% overrun which was allowed in the original contract, and $311000 072) is now being added because an additional 170 issues had to be answered in the EIR, which were brought up because the EIR was not complete; and after the FIR is approved, the Fish & Game will not issue a permit. COUNCIL COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/INTERAGENCY REPORTS: - None LEGISLATIVE ACTION: 2. DISCUSSION OF THE CITY'S SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING FLAG AND ' BANNER REQUIREMENTS In response to question by Council, City Manager stated that the citations can be (103- rescinded, and a letter sent to that effect. 038) It was the consensus of the Council that the City staff letter should be shnply rescinding the citation; and that the letter from the Mayor's office be sent concerning any inconvenience which it may have caused. This matter was referred to the Planning Commission for further review, e.g., the number of signs, location, size (not type), as suggested by the City Manager. No formal action taken. 3. DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Recommendation: That the Council authorize negotiating an extension to the existing (108- contract with APCOA, to incorporate the downtown parking management program, as 004) outlined in study session of June 10,1998. As requested by City Manager this matter was deferred to July 15, 1998. 4. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ALLIANCE , Update, discussion, and direction, if any, relative to the process for consideration of creating an alliance for the operation of the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. (127- 005) As recommended by the City Manager, this matter was deferred to July 22, 1998 ;Study Session. 5, MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - VIDEO SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (103- 048) Council Minutes 7-1-98, Page 8 Recommendation: That the Council amend the Municipal Code to require convenience stores under 2,500 square feet of indoor retail space, engaged in, but not limited to the sale of groceries, sundries, household items, beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages, to be required to install and maintain video surveillance equipment. As requested by City Manager this matter was deferred to July 15, 1998, 6. ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING & ADOPTION (Intro. 6-17-98) City Clerk read title of Ord 1557 re: increased membership of Parks & Recreation (103- Commission; after which, it was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Oden, and 048) unanimously carried, that further reading be waived, and 01557 be adopted. 7. PALM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN - EIR Recommendation: That the Council approve an agreement with Tom Dodson & Associates to prepare the EIR for the Palm Hills Specific Plan application (Case 5.0732) for $159,725, paid by developer, including 10% administrative fee, A3998. ) City Manager highlighted the recommendation, and added that the costs are fully-funded by the developer. Minute Order 6181 as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Oden, and unanimously carried, that MO6181 be adopted. 8. MT. FALLS GOLF EIR CONSULTING SERVICES AMENDMENT 1 Recommendation: That the Council approve amendment No. 1 to contract with Dudek ' & Associates (formerly Smith, Peroni & Fox) to prepare additional work to complete the (078- EIR for Mt. Falls Golf Preserve, at Via Monte Vista and Crescent Drive in the 072) Tachevah Debris Basin, for a total of$31,127, A3735. City Manager highlighted the recommendation. Director of Planting & Building stated that the amendment will not result in exceeding the overall cost of$100,000; and that there are still studies which the developer has the ability to submit; and that the maximum amount to the City is $100,000 and any amount over that must be paid by the developer. City Manager noted that this is only an FIR and not approval of the project per se. Minute Order 6182 as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Barnes, and unanimously carried, that MO6182 be adopted. 9. ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS: A9. CITY WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE PROGRAM City Manager stated that this matter came to him through Councilmember Reller- Spurgin and Tom Kieley, to reduce the cost of worker's compensation and provide a ' quality service by shifting from an internally provided program to a private insurance agency operation; and that he met with representatives, and it would make sense only if (096- there be shown an actual savings in the current fiscal year. 001) Edith Shorter-Harris, Wausau Insurance Companies,-and Brian Rogers, Dodge, Warren & Peters, gave a presentation in support of the City changing from a self-insured worker's compensation coverage to a premium insurance program, which they projected would save the City $31,000+ in the 1998-99 fiscal year, and annually $416,000+ in subsequent years; that the company would take on the risk for administration and analysis as to what causes the losses, and for design programs to eliminate the losses. Various numbers and proposed factors were reviewed. Council Minutes 7-1-98, Page 9 In response to question by the Council, Mr. Riley and Ms. Shorter-Harris agreed that the comparison was that of a 3/4 year to that of a full year for the City costs, since it was challenged to not make a cost increase in the current fiscal year, and some costs therefore needed to be deferred into the following year. , In answer to question by Council, OMB Manager advised that some of the costs that are incurred by the City are spread throughout the budget to user departments, whenever an employee is out on injury leave. Tom Kieley stated that he.had nothing to gain from the proposal, and felt that if there was little to be gained, it would not be worth the trouble; that he has had time to study the figures; that there are costs which the City is paying that are: significantly greater than the costs that it would pay if it went with the fully insured program; that the $608,000 to pay the "tail claims" are from prior claims and those moneys are set aside in reserves, and the City will continue to pay those regardless of the proposal, and are not costs which should be attributable to the proposal for a full insurance plan; that part of the savings would come from savings of staff costs, which will not be needed when an administrator is hired; that the administrator would take over administration of the program and the "tail" as well; and that the City may wish to utilize that staff in some other manner, and it will still have to write checks. Ms. Shorter-Harris stated that a person is still needed to receive the claims and relay information, and it should not be construed that a position could simply be "erased." It was the consensus of the Council that this matter should be reviewed in study session; and that additional information be provided, i.e.: extent of savings that will actually be experienced; issues of concerns of the City Manager; a true comparison of figures; where funds are allocated for worker's compensation payments; how much the reserve ' fund is; how the proposal relates to current staffmg levels and nnpact on those levels; and clarification as to what is meant in the proposal when it refers to "the TPA will aggressively close out those (trail) accounts, and how that would be accomplished. This matter to be set for July 22 study session. CONSENT AGENDA: 10. Res 19319 approving Final Map Tract 28636 to divide property at 5,40 Tamarisk Road into (137- six parcels, Landau Development Co., Section 11, A3999. Hodges abstained, due to client 107) relationship with her employer. 11. MO 6183 through 6187 (5) approving amendments to five agreements with engineering firms: Mainiero Smith & Associates, ASL Consulting Engineers, BSI Consultants, NRO (112- Engineering, and Sanborn A/E, for plan check engineering to extend said contracts through 005) September 30, 1998; and MO 6188 providing staff direction concerning RFP process and final recommendation for new contracts. 12. MO 6189 approving agreement with ASL Consulting Engineers for construction staking of (143- the Palm Springs Train Station Phase 2, for a total of$18,275, CP97-08, A4000. 006) 13. MO 6190 approving Settlement Agreement with Rita & Edwin Carattini concerning a tort (096- claim. 005) 14. MO 6191 approving Change Order 3 to contract with American Asphalt Repair & ( 136- ' Resurfacing Company, Inc., for a decrease of$7,524.23 for the 1997-98 annual slurry 058) program, CP97-16, A3913. 15. MO 6192 approving Amendment 6 to contract with Isbill Associates, Raytheon (051- Infrastructure, Inc., to add composite as-built record drawings of Airfield Electrical 021) Systems, and Farrell Drive relocation field administration for a total increase of$304,500, A3138. Kleindienst abstained due to prior FPPC ruling concerning the Airport Master Plan. Council Minutes 7-1-98, Page 10 16. MO 6193 approving purchase of preventive maintenance for printing equipment from A.M. (084- Multigraphics for 1998-99, for $18,204. 016) 17. MO 6194 approving an advertising space contract with P.S. Life Magazine for Airport (050- related advertising in the P.S. Desert Resorts Facilities Guide 98-99, for I I I,550. 001) ' 18. Res 19320 approving an Encroachment License to allow various planters and canopies on (136- Palm Canyon Drive and Via Lola within the City right-of-way at 140 Via Lola, (Las Palmas 029) LLC) A4001. 19. Res -withdrawn- approving an Encroachment License to allow updating irrigation and landscape of median island in Mountain View Place from Mission Road to Prescott Drive, within City's right-of-way for property at 328 Mountain View Place (Jacqueline Autry). 20. MO 6195 awarding contract to Xios Painting Co., to repaint the Boys & Girls Club, CP97- (085- 45, a CDBG funded project, A4002. 013) 21. Res 19321 and Res 91322 approving Payroll Warrants & Claims & Demands. Note abstentions, if any: Councilmember Warrant N Payee Particular Nature of Conflict Hodges 932785 Bldrs Supply Client of Employer (086- 932846 DWA Client of Employer 016) 932886 G & M Const. Client of Employer 932896 Granite Client of Employer 933020 Purnel Const. Client of Employer Reller-Spurgin 933066 Spurgin DC Spouse It was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Oden, and unanimously carried, that Resolutions 19319 thriugh 19322 and Minute Orders 6183 through 6195 be adopted; with abstentions noted in Items 10, 15 and 21. ADDED STARTERS: (Determine eligibility for consideration) None REPORTS & REQUESTS: 22. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS - Received & Ordered Filed (121- a) Treasurer's Investment Report, April, 1998 002) CITY COUNCIL reports or requests a) Boards & Commissions: If desired, appointments for remaining vacant unexpired terms, or further direction to City Clerk. It was moved by Kleindienst, seconded by Reller-Spurgin, and unanimously carried, that the following two appointments be approved: (060- Parks & Rec. 1, 1-yr. term (new) 6-30-99-Shelly Sanders 021) 1, 2-yr. term (new) 6-30-00-Maraca Craig Mayor requested Councilmembers to consult their calendars, and contact the secretary as to possible dates for interviews regarding the remaining appointments: Public Arts 1 full term Human Rights 1, 1-yr. term, 6-30-1999 1, 2-yr. term, 6-30-2000 1, 1-yr. term, 6-30-1999 b) Councihmember Hodges expressed her appreciation for the many cards and get- well-wishes to her for a speedy recovery from her injury. Council Minutes 7-1-98, Page 11 c) Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that the Senior Center issue needs to be addressed; that it has been hanging and the Center has never been given an (061- answer, and she requested it placed on a future agenda. During Public 0 61- 23) Comments, Mrs. Beadling questioned the specific date for consideration, and ' City Manager indicated the next regular meeting was Judy 15, 1998, at. which it could be on the agenda. d) Councilmember Oden stated that there are homeless people seen at different times in the downtown area, and clearly in entryways to businesses, which causes people to go in the opposite direction; that it is an issue which needs to be addressed, and there is a greater impact that perhaps was previously considered. He stated he would discuss it further with the City Manager and get something back to the Council. e) It was the consensus of the Council that study sessions begin at 6 p.m., instead (114- of 5:30 p.m., unless the agenda begins again to warrant an earlier starting time. 009) PUBLIC reports or requests (See Item c) above) STAFF reports or requests - a) City Manager inquired as to possible date for joint meeting with Tribal Council; July 28, was suggested, but not convenient; another date: to be determined. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business at 11 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ' JUDITH SUM CFF City Clerk