Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/12/2001 - STAFF REPORTS (3) CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 12, 2001 An Adjourned Joint Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians was called to order by Mayor Kleindienst, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, on Thursday, July 12, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Jones, Hodges, Oden and Mayor Kleindienst Absent: Councilmember Reller-Spurgin ROLL CALL: Present: Tribal Members Prieto-Dodd, Saubel-Elizondo and Chairman Milanovich 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 July 6, 2001. PRESENTATIONS: None. HOUSING AUTHORITY: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: FINANCING AUTHORITY: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: - No Business PUBLIC COMMENTS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. APPEAL - CASE 5.0852 —490 SOUTH INDIAN CANYON Recommendation: That the Tribal Council consider an appeal regarding Resolution 20018, overruling without prejudice the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for a motorcycle rental located at 490 South Indian Canyon Drive. Tribal Attorney reviewed the history of the land use agreement between the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the City of Palm Springs; and added that the appeal process is a part of the agreement; that one of the requirements of the Ordinance is that a joint meeting be held between the two Councils during the Tribal Council public hearing and added that this hearing will be to receive evidence from interested parties; that a decision will be rendered within 30 days; and that there have only been 23 Tribal appeals in the last 24 years. Director of Planning & Building reviewed the past history of Case 5.0852; and added that the public hearing of the City Council was continued to permit a field trip to hear the motorcycles on March 27; that at the Meeting of April 4, 2001 with a vote of 3-2-0 the Planning Commission's decision was overturned and the Conditional Use Permit was denied. Tom Davis, Tribal Planning Director, stated that on August 23, 2000 a public hearing was conducted by the Palm Springs Planning Commission to review a zoning ordinance text amendment to permit a motorcycle rental establishment to Council Minutes 07-12-01, Page 2 operate in a C-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit; that the Amendment was approved with recommendation that the City Council approve the amendment; that on November 1, 2000 the City Council adopted Ordinance 1590 approving the zoning amendment 3-1-0-1; that on January 31, 2001 the Historic Tennis Club filed an appeal against the Planning Commission decision; that on March 7, 2001 the City Council held a public hearing and scheduled a field noise test be conducted on the site set for March 27, 2001; that on April 4, 2001 the City Council upheld the appeal of the Historic Tennis Club, denying the Conditional Use Permit with a vote of 3-2; that there were approximately 78 letters generated regarding the Conditional Use Permit; that 20% of the letters were in support of the project with 80% against the project; that the matter was appealed to the Tribal Council; that the Indian Planning Commission first reviewed the case on January 8, 2001; that recommendations were made to the City Planning Commission; that the conditions of approval were not included in the City's Planning Commission approval due to the short term lease involved; that there was a modification to the conditions to add 22 which did address Tribal Planning concerns for landscaping; that the matter was then denied by the Council and appealed to the Tribal Council; that Tribal Planning Staff did review the matter with the applicant; that the hours of operation would be 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; that motorcycles were started to test the loudness; that staff determine that the noise was not unusually loud; that the arrangement between Eagle Rider and Harley- Davidson is that the mufflers may not be modified; that the area proposed for the location was reviewed for noise; that the area is already impacted by vehicle noise; that the noise level varies between 70 and 80 dba; that the proposed project is in a commercially zoned area; that the opinion of staff is that the rental of 10 motorcycles will not increase the noise level of the area; that the site was previously used as a service station; that if it were reused as a service station if would generate approximately 168 vehicles; that the rental of 10 motorcycles would be far less activity; that Tribal Planning Staff does agree and recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions and findings requested by City Planning Staff and City Planning Commission. Chairman questioned if the public was notified of possible zoning amendment changes. Director of Planning & Building stated that workshops, study sessions and public hearings were held and noticed. Chairman stated that the adoption of the Zoning Amendments did not generate any public comment until the appeal was filed some six months later; that when the appeal came forward it was upheld by the City Council on a 3-2 vote. Councilmember Hodges stated that the zoning amendment did not specify the address of the proposed site, but was a change to allow this type of rental in a C- 2 zone with a conditional use permit. Chairman stated that the hearing before the Tribal Council is to determine if the rental is a proper use of the land; that there have been two Planning Commissions that have recommended approval of the use; that the majority of the mail received by the Tribal Council was opposed to the project; that the majority of the mail received by the City Council was opposed to the project; and i Council Minutes 07-12-01, Page 3 that at this time the hearing would be opened to interested parties for comment regarding the matter. Chairman declared the hearing open. Chairman requested the applicant be available for questions. Don Harwale, Eagle Rider, stated that Mr. Swedol was in St. Louis at a franchise opening; that he would be available for questions and looked forward to working with the Planning Commissions and Council regarding the move to the downtown area. Chairman questioned if more than 10 motorcycles would be rented on any given day. Mr. Harwale, stated that the typical rental would be 10 per day; that if a special event occurred, there could be a group rental; that most of the rentals typically travel a distance through the desert; that the motorcycles are picked up at 9:30 a.m. and returned somewhere around 4:30 p.m. Chairman questioned why only 10 motorcycles are rented each day. Mr. Harwale stated that some days there is only two rented, others up to 10; but that the average is 10 per day. The following persons spoke against the project. Logan Need, Historic Tennis Club Director Nick Dibari, 521 Linda Vista Carol Markley, Mesa area Peter Dixon, Tennis Club There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that reference was made during public comments that the rental shop would be locating at the Airport and requested additional information regarding it. There was no action taken at this time; the Tribal Council will render a decision within 30 days. COUNCIL COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/INTERAGENCY REPORTS: LEGISLATIVE ACTION: None ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS: None ADDED STARTERS: None Council Minutes 07-12-01, Page 4 REPORTS & REQUESTS: CITY COUNCIL reports or requests PUBLIC reports or requests STAFF reports or requests ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 25, 2001 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 Tahquitz Canyon Way, on Wednesday, July 25, 2001, 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 Jones, Hodges, Oden, Reller-Spurgin, and Mayor Kleindienst Absent: None 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 July 20, 2001. HOUSING AUTHORITY: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: - No Business Mayor declared the meeting adjourned for the purpose of convening as the Financing Authority; after which, members reconvened as the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. 2001 SERIES A CONVENTION CENTER BONDS Recommendation: That the Council amend Resolution 20070 by specifying a reduced amount authorized to be issued of aggregate principal amount of the Finance Authority lease revenue refunding bonds, 2001 Series A (Convention Center Project) in an amount not to exceed $32,000,000. Director of Finance & Treasurer stated that the public hearing is required; that the term of the bonds will be extended by four years; and that the savings will be taken on an annual basis. Mayor declared the hearing open. Howard Lapham, no address given, read a prepared statement, copy on file in Office of the City Clerk. Philip Tedesco, no address given, stated that the bonds should be refinanced to reduce the interest rate only; and added that there are other options for parking in the downtown area other than a parking structure. Mathew Tahlala, no address given, stated that the direction of the City Council is supported by the majority of the business people in the downtown; that one must invest in what is believed in; that refinancing is nothing new; that people refinance everyday; that the Convention Center is a City facility; that the funding is needed to assist in building a parking structure; that everyone on the committee had agreed that this was a viable alternative; that the question is whether Councilmember Jones will support a new bond issue for a parking Council Minutes 07-25-01, Page 2 structure; that the people of the City elected the members to make decisions and that this is one decision the Council does need to make. Carol Markley, stated that a recent survey in the Desert Sun can not be counted on as being fact; that there is not tracking of calls and anyone can call in any number of times to register a vote; that there is not a problem with parking downtown; that spaces are available at any given time; and that there is no .opposition to refinancing the bonds to get a lower interest rates, but that the opposition is to refinancing to get funds to build a parking structure. Joy Meredith, stated that there is a parking problem downtown; that a committee met to come up with creative solutions to the problem and one was found; that there was no disagreement on the Committee that refinancing the convention center bonds was the way to go; that it is not clear what went wrong with the thinking of one of the committee members to start a referendum process against the agreed solution; that the survey in the Desert Sun is dramatic; that the City can not keep inviting people to town and not provide parking; that it is very disappointing for Councilmember Jones to reverse the committee decision; that it was thought all the members of the committee was on the same path; and that the idea was a good one to help finance the parking structure. Phyliss Silver, business owner, stated that as an owner of two businesses in the downtown, there is a parking problem; that the area is packed during season; that there is no place to park; that for 10 years the downtown suffered with no business; that now the business is here and places need to be provided for parking. Scott Kennedy, Starr Road, stated that some insinuations have been made that the people who gathered petitions for the referendum were liars; that he himself worked hard to gather the signatures and regret the insinuations by some of the Members of the Council. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Councilmember Hodges stated that the Council had decided on Option 3; that a subsequent review of the numbers was conducted with the Assistant City Manager; that should the Council choose to use the savings to create a new bond for the parking structure, the bottom line is the exact same as Option 3; that when reviewed the actual savings from the refinancing, the average over 21 years is $626,000; that the reality is that the first eight years is a savings of $383,000 each year; that the track record for the City is to refinance bonds; that the bonds do not stay in the original form for 21 years; that tacking on an additional four years through an extension, the savings over 25 years is one-half million; that the item was presented quickly; that there was not a lot of time to comprehend the results of the offering; and that the Council should reconsider its previous action. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that at the last meeting the Council was told the savings would be $600,000 each year. Councilmember Hodges stated that with the review of the numbers it is clear the Council may not be getting what it thought; that the question would be if the Council Minutes 07-25-01, Page 3 action from last week remains, and a new bond is created for the parking structure, would Councilmember Jones support the bond. Councilmember Jones stated he doubted he would support a new bond; that when the meetings were held regarding the parking downtown, the problem was presented as an employee parking problem; that some of the businesses do have a lot of employees; that the spaces available are used by those employees; that the Committee did speak of how a new structure could be financed; that there was no mention of shifting the burden from the businesses to the general taxpayer; that plans were created and ideas generated; that any of the proposals that he offered were not supported; that the problem is an employee parking problem; that Proposition 218 was passed by 64% of the voters in the City; that the Proposition requires the public to vote on taxes; that if the taxpayer has to pay for something, they should be allowed to vote on the issue; and that he personally would support whatever the voters approved. Councilmember Hodges stated that it appears that Councilmember Jones would not support a new bond issue for a parking program. Councilmember Jones stated his support would be given to whatever the voters support. Councilmember Hodges stated that as a past participant in the process against a City Council action; that the referendum process is good; that the process does allow the citizens to correct any actions by the legislative body it deems necessary to correct; that on June 27, the Council did decide to refinance the Convention Center by choosing Option 3; that the Council was told by the merchants that if something is not done to alleviate the parking problem in the downtown area the City will go backwards and a dead downtown will be the result; that personally refinancing of bonds is not the first choice; that typically support to a refinancing of bond action would not be given; that when the item was originally presented her recommendation was to support Option 1; that to switch to Option 3 she did have to be convinced; that after reviewing the situation, Options 3 is the right thing for the City; that it is disappointing that three members of the Council have decided to rescind the action taken by the Council; that the referendum process is not a process to be feared, but one that allows the residents to pursue its right; that whether it is legal or not, this item should not be on the agenda for discussion; that the option that the Council is considering is misleading; that the information is not incorrect, but uses averages, and not true annual figures; that the action of June 27 should stand; that if it does not, a parking structure will not be obtained; that the Council will be in this same position each time this issue comes forward; and that Councilmember Jones is requested to rectify the situation by not turning in the petitions and allow the City to move ahead. Councilmember Oden questioned who authorized staff to do the research regarding the last meeting alternatives; and added that the Council does have a choice, it can do nothing and allow the process to happen, or that the process can be circumvented; that comments have been made regarding the Desert Fashion Plaza and the parking available; that one must remember, that marking may not always be accessible; that it is not City owned; that the Plaza is under study at this time; that the Council is looking for a way to assist the downtown; that the information being provided is surprising; that apologies are extended to Council Minutes 07-25-01, Page 4 those that did participate in the referendum process; that there have been comments regarding the process; that all the comments were not true, but there has been a lot of misinformation given regarding the issue; that it is unfortunate that the main proponent is a colleague, but the referenda process has started and should be allowed to run its course; that as Members of the Council the governmental process should be supported and upheld; that once government starts stopping processes, when does it stop; and that it is said that Leaders do the right thing and that Managers do things right. Councilmember Jones stated that the staff work on the new proposal was done for a compromise; that the reason staff did the work was to get his vote to support the issue; that staff should explain the reason for doing what was done; and that there are other things that should be explained; that the Desert Sun did participate with two news releases concerning the privatization of the Waste Water Treatment Plant; that the articles were inaccurate; that misinformation can come from many sources; that misinformation has been given in this case by both parties; that it should not be a big issue; and that each side wants to present the best position it can. City Manager stated that when a recommendation is coming from staff, it is actually coming from the City Manager; that the Council does need to look to the City Manager for any situation that occurs with the recommendations; that the discussion did not occur in a vacuum; that in this issue the stakes are high; that a snap decision did need to be made, since it looked like the referendum would stand; that the bottom line is that the City would lose money and tried to find alternatives to lessen the loss; that the matter has been brought to the Council for discussion and for direction; that if the Council was not informed of all Options, there could be a misfeasance by the City Manager; that it is not the intent to divide the Council, and that to bring this item forward was only in the best of intentions. Councilmember Jones questioned why the four year extension. City Manager stated that the four years would allow the City to get additional savings; that if the Council did choose to bond for a parking structure it would have the ability to do so. Director of Finance & Treasurer stated that the present value of savings is $3.4 million; that at the last meeting it seemed the Council did want to take in account the possibility of a parking structure; and that staff did consider what would be the best alternative for the City. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that the relationships between Members of the City Council and the Council and staff is based on trust; that at the last meeting it was her feeling that she salvaged savings for the City; that the vote on June 27 was right; that the last vote was right to try to save something for this City; that the situation is uncomfortable; that when she does cast a vote, she is in fact casting her heart; but right now it is not clear what is right, nor who to believe. Mayor stated that the Council is struggling with the opposing views; that it is an important matter and that the issue could be debated for days; that last week an action was taken in what was in the best interest of the City; that there has been Council Minutes 07-25-01, Page 5 no additional information given at this meeting; and that nothing new has been revealed to suggest a change in position. Motion to rescind the previous action of the Council was presented; after which, it was moved by Oden, seconded by Hodges, and the debate continued. Councilmember Hodges questioned why the additional four years would be wanted; that if the funds from the bonds cannot be used, why subject the City to additional $12 million dollar debt. Susan Harrell, Harrell & Company, stated that the bond counsel is looking for creative financing for the Council to consider; that the result is to split the matter into two issues; that extending the term allows more cash flow to pay the debt and allow for investments that are difficult to come up with at this time; that over the 21 years there will be $300,000 in annual savings; and that with the four additional years the average annual saving is $600,000. City Attorney stated that the discussion to bring the matter forward could be debated and criticized, but that with the additional four years, Councilmember Jones understands that there is a vehicle created for a greater capacity to make change; that Councilmember Jones' issue was to look for savings; that as long as the savings would be found, it was felt he would go along with this mechanism to generate additional savings up to $600,000 average annual savings. Councilmember Hodges stated that Councilmember Jones has already stated he would not support a parking structure bond, so what is the point of this consideration. City Attorney stated that the assumption is being made that the need for parking will continue to exist; that the issue for staff was to find a way to generate capital; that as it is, Councilmember Jones may not support a future bond issue for the parking, but that it is the responsibility of the staff to put together a report and inform the Council of all options; that the Convention Center has refinancing mechanisms; that there are many options that the Council could choose; that each way has a cost effectiveness; that in any option a consensus must be made; that it may be that after a consensus the Council is faced with a referendum, but that the Council can only do what it thinks is best at the time; that in any event the parking needs exist, interest rates are starting to move up, that ways have been examined for the least adverse affect and that the Council does have the option of locking in as much savings for the future at this point that it can. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that it seems that part of the objective of this process has been lost; that the first consideration was to find a way to assist with the parking problem downtown; that a solution was found; that there were people who did not like the finding; and that what has ended up is good intentions gone astray; that Councilmembers Hodges and Oden are stating they want the people represented by carrying through with the referenda process; that the bottom line is that if the Council does not act now, any potential savings will be lost; that the reason for her election to the Council is to try to find ways for the City to save money, what to do with the money saved is another issue. Council Minutes 07-25-01, Page 6 Councilmember Hodges stated that the option being offered at this point is not the best option and that the Council should reconsider Option 3, as previously approved. Ms. Harrell stated that even though the funds for the four-year extension may seem high, one must consider that this is today's dollars, not in the year 2025 dollars. Councilmember Hodges questioned why this alternative was not presented originally. Director of Finance & Treasurer stated that the original considerations were to assist in building a parking structure and that the refinancing was looked at in obtaining a high return to fund capital improvements. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that the $300,000 annual savings is not enough to address the parking structure for downtown. City Manager stated that there were two questions facing staff; one was what to do with the Desert Fashion Plaza and the other how to get more downtown parking; that the only way to make either happen was to find a way to do creative financing; that the City Council direction was for staff to fix the problem with the parking downtown; that staff moved in that direction, was creative and has presented several possible alternatives; and that now the question is what the Council wants to do downtown or just take the savings and not deal with the downtown issue. Councilmember Hodges stated this should not be a complex issue; that the Council did already make a decision and that decision should be upheld; that what happens next is merely process; that if the petitions are turned in, the next step is to see if it qualifies; is so, then the Council will make a determination at its next regularly scheduled meeting; that the meeting is not that far away; that if the petition fails, all moves forward, if the petitions qualify, the Council could place the measure on the ballot and allow the citizens to decide the matter. Councilmember Oden stated that finding alternative funding for the City is important, but the belief of the citizenry is more so; that it is important that when thousands of residents say stop, that the Council do so; that in spite of the fact that the City may lose money, the Council does need to listen to its citizens; that a greater problem is being created by the past action; that the greatest concern is what about the next action the Council takes, will it also result in a referenda; and that this is the opportunity to draw the line and do what is best for the City. Mayor stated that time is an erosion of savings of the refinancing. Councilmember Hodges stated that if the petitions qualify, the action of the Council could be rescinded at that time. Mayor stated that at the last meeting a majority of the Council elected to move forward; that in order to get the savings from the refinancing, action needed to be taken; that the issue of parking does need to be resolved and that the situation before the Council did need to be locked up; that there are a number of Council Minutes 07-25-01, Page 7 options that the Council can take; and that the action taken was one that was thought to be the best for the situation. Councilmember Hodges stated that waiting one month would not affect the reissuance adversely. Councilmember Oden stated that the entire Council knows the needs of the City; that parking downtown is needed; and that the Council knows what can be done to address the issue and so do the merchants in the downtown corridor. Councilmember Jones stated that what is being said is that if the referendum certifies that the Council could rescind the action and then the entire situation would be at ground zero; that the question is whether the general public wants to pay for a parking structure or not; that the last meeting was disturbing to have two member leave, but that the issue is what is causing the division and that the Council needs to move on from this. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that the giver should have applied the advice given before sending the letter out to the residents. Councilmember Jones stated that no one listens to his comments on the Council body and that the Council has had enough augment over the issue. Councilmember Oden stated that is the point; that if a member of the Council disagrees with the majority decision of the Council, one should not go out and start a referendum. Councilmember Jones stated that the effort is being made for compromise. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that all Members of the Council love Palm Springs and want what is right for the City; that no one wants the City to loose potential savings; that the question of helping solve the parking issue could go to the voters on the November ballot. City Attorney stated that direction is needed to staff for preparation to the language for the ballot question; that if the recommended action is approved the City will have a savings; that to put this type of question on the ballot does give the potential of turning the issue into a political one; that the Council race is likewise on the ballot; that staff could move forward and look for other areas to find the ability to fund a parking structure. Councilmember Hodges stated that the recommended action is in reality a nine- year process before enough money is generated to assist with the parking issue. City Attorney stated that the four-year extension actually doubles the capacity to raise capital; that an advisory vote could be taken to determine the residents' wishes and in the meantime staff could continue to work out alternatives. Ms. Harrell reviewed options in a handout, copy on file in Office of the City Clerk. Mayor stated that the bond refinancing does not designate where the savings will go; that the Council does need to approve the Ordinance and put an advisory vote before the citizens in November. Council Minutes 07-25-01, Page 8 Councilmember Hodges stated that this action could be taken in September if necessary and does not prevent the referenda process from moving forward. City Attorney clarified the Mayor's comment. Councilmember Hodges stated that the Mayor's statement was clear; but it is questionable why this option was not presented four months ago and why it is so crucial to act today. Resolution 20139 as recommended was presented; after which, it was moved by Kleindienst, seconded by Reller-Spurgin and carried by the following vote that R20139 be adopted. AYES: Jones, Reller-Spurgin and Kleindienst NO: Hodges and Oden ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Neil Jordan, no address given, stated it is appalling that the dissention on the Council could be created by one member; that it is sad to see the referendum process ignored; that it is in the best interest of all to allow the process to move forward and the result of not allowing it to move forward is a breakdown in government. COUNCIL COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/INTERAGENCY REPORTS: LEGISLATIVE ACTION: 3. ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING &ADOPTION (Intro 7-18-01) Director of Finance & Treasurer stated that the Ordinance is before the Council for second reading; and that the previous Ordinance would be repealed, Councilmember Hodges requested clarification on the number of votes required to pass an Ordinance. City Attorney stated that a majority vote of the Council is needed. City Clerk read Title of Ordinance as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL LEASE AGREEMENT NO. 3 RELATING TO THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FINANCING AUTHORITY LEASE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, 2001 SERIES A (CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT) Council Minutes 07-25-01, Page 9 after which, it was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Jones, and carried by the following vote that further reading be waived and that Ordinance 1600 be adopted. AYES: Jones, Reller-Spurgin and Kleindienst NO: Hodges and Oden ABSENT: None ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS: None ADDED STARTERS: None REPORTS & REQUESTS: CITY COUNCIL reports or requests Councilmember Oden requested the status of the resurfacing of streets and restriping of lines. Councilmember Hodges requested that the vacant lots being used as used car lots be monitored and cited; and that the signage being placed by some realtors are in violation of the sign ordinance. PUBLIC reports or requests Karen Aguilar stated that she would assist the Council in solving any Realtor signage problems. STAFF reports or requests ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk