Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0818 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 18, 1992 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE taw * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Spiegel led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Bob Spiegel Jim Richards Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Dick Folkers Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 4, 1992 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by commissioner Jonathan, approving the August 4, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Spiegel abstained, Commissioner Richards was absent) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized the August 13, 1992 council meeting pertinent actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 92-15 - WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT CORP. , Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to transfer a 92 .04 ' x 127 . 731 area in the southeast corner of lot 14 to lot 15 on Catalina Way, to allow for the construction of senior apartments . vow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . (Commissioner Richards arrived at this time. ) VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. C/Z 92-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a recommendation of approval to the city council of the prezoning of the Suncrest Country Club site located on the north side of Country Club Drive and east side of Monterey Avenue R1M (Single Family/Mobile Home Residential District) for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact pertaining thereto. See attached verbatim minutes by Court Reporters of Palm Springs, Exhibit A. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing C/Z 92-3 to October 20, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . B. Continued Case No. PM 27463 - RK DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval subdivision of a 6 .57 acre parcel into four lots located south of Green Way/Sego Lane and east of Beacon Hill . Mr. Diaz reminded commission that this item was continued to allow the applicant to discuss the conditions of approval from public works . Staff recommended approval of the map. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 MR. JOHN SANBORN, Sanborn Engineering in Palm Springs, informed commission that he represented RK Development. He stated that he hoped this item would have been before the commission last April and thought they had an acceptable project with dividing lots from a large piece. He said there were three existing buildings that needed to be separated because the partnership wanted to split them up among themselves. He indicated that Mr. Folkers was requiring a condition of an easement running through the property that would be 24 ' between parcels 2 and 3, which was to serve as a through way from Ritter Circle from the south up to Sego on the north. He informed commission that he had major concerns with that and asked who would pay for the easement and improvements . He said that he requested from Mr. Folkers ' staff some background data (i .e. traffic studies, etc. ) to support their request. To date they had not received anything. He stated that he did not know the real justification and felt a 24 foot easement between two major streets did not provide adequate or safe traffic flow. He distributed photographs he had taken and described them. He stated that the city's proposal was to remove the existing carport and eliminate the seven parking spaces . He was concerned about the liability of the blind intersection as people come down behind the buildings to the "intersection" and the main thing was what the service a 24 ' alley between Ritter Circle and Sego would accomplish. He felt it would be a tremendous hazard to the city, his client and the property owner behind them on Ritter Circle. He felt there would be a loss to the value of the property because the offices that would open directly onto that easement would not be as desirable and there would be severance damage to their clients if the city required this and felt the cost to the city was expensive because there was a major Edison Company transformer on the corner, the trash area would have to be relocated, Edison vaults were in front, and there was a major water valve and detector check valve that would have to be relocated. Based on these concerns he requested that the condition be deleted. He said that he would still like to get that information from Mr. Folkers ' office as to the traffic impact. Mr. Folkers showed a drawing that depicted a situation that he said had been discussed for several years because of the project area 3; he noted an environmental impact report had been done at that time. One of the things that came out of that study was that there was poor circulation and when it was �.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 developed under the county, there was a lot of inadequate parking provided and inadequate circulation. He said the three key elements that public works tried to correct as part of project area 3 ' s first phases were the connection between Joni Drive up to 42nd Avenue; a connection from Cook Street to Green Way via an extension to 42nd; and connection from Ritter Circle northerly. He said that there had been three meetings with Sanborn Webb Engineering, so it was something they had discussed. He indicated that when going into project area 3, some of them made the assumption that the first year (FY 1992- 93) would bring in a lot of money, but they had received only a small amount. As a result, the ambitious plans to make the connections had been reduced in scope to trying to work with developers to try and procure or protect the rights-of-way. There were some problems, but if they did not at least get the 24 ' right of way, in the future when they wanted to do something the city would have to buy the right of way. He said that staff did not have all the answers right now. As to the traffic study, he did not recall there was a request for a traffic study. Mr. Sanborn said that a letter was written requesting the study. Mr. Folkers apologized and said that one would be provided. He stated that from public works ' standpoint, there were several options, but still felt strongly that the 24 foot easement should be provided. Public works felt that within the next five years they would be back trying to purchase that right-of-way. They could not see any other way to get the necessary circulation for the area. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he understood what public works was after, but felt that 24 feet would not get a street, only part of a parking lot. Mr. Folkers stated that in some communities alleys were only 20 feet wide. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the cars would be backing out of a parking lot to get into this future street. He asked if Mr. Folkers had a reconfiguration. Mr. Folkers stated that ultimately the city would have to purchase additional right of way and create additional parking; there was a lot involved including conflicts with the Southern California Edison vault; the GTE structure, awnings, driveways, and parking structures; a whole series of problems, which was something that would have to be faced in the future. Commissioner Richards stated that, the city recognized the problem with circulation and understood staff ' s recommendation, but felt that a cost effectiveness was needed. He noted that if the applicant was not trying to split the lot, the city would have had to take a different approach. Mr. Folkers pointed out that looking at the situation with the 4 No MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 Water District' s property, that was not an inexpensive alternative either. He said that any way was going to cause the city to spend a considerable amount of money. He indicated that they had hoped that project area 3 would bring in a lot of money, but it had not. Commissioner Richards asked what staff would propose if they had the money and what the estimated cost would be; Mr. Folkers said that assuming Mr. Sanborn was the engineer, they would have him work for both the developer and the city because he had done the survey and had the information to reach a plan acceptable to both parties . He said this involved the property off Ritter Circle also. Commissioner Downs asked why the property on Ritter Circle could not use Ritter Circle; Mr. Folkers stated that the city needed a connection between the two and needed to pick up property for circulation. Commissioner Downs noted that Ritter Circle went onto Merle Drive. Mr. Folkers stated that a tie was needed because there was a problem with businesses further north needing to get to businesses to the south and vice versa, the traffic had to come out onto Cook Street. He felt this connection would eliminate excess traffic on Cook Street. r. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in general easements had a monetary value and the lot splits come to the planning commission on the consent calendar; he asked if the commission could condition an application on the granting of an easement. Mr. Hargreaves stated that he did not want to render a definitive opinion on this matter, but noted that if the commission wanted to condition the development, the condition imposed had to be directly related and had to address an impact that this particular project' s approval was going to cause. He said that the commission would have to identify an impact of this action, which was a lot split, and show the particular exaction would address an impact of that action. Commissioner Richards asked if it would be fair to say that the application in front of the commission had no real impact, all they were doing was financially splitting property and nothing had been created but a change in ownership. Commissioner Richards asked the developer what impact this split would have regarding traffic or anything that would create any kind of impact because of the lot split. Mr. Sanborn replied there would not be one, because the three buildings were existing right now and the easement goes between two of the existing buildings . The parcel on the corner was vacant right now, but if a building was built, he felt it would not have an impact on the easement. His concern %NW 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 was that a 24 ' wide alley was not a safe circulation between two major thoroughfares. He felt the city would have a liability problem. Mr. Folkers stated that later on they would have to go in there and provide additional modification, removing parking and creating additional parking and things like that; they were asking for the 24 feet right now and later they would purchase additional area and relocate facilities, the SCE vault and GTE transformers . He said they might even take down part of a building. Commissioner Richards asked where on the list of priorities this item was located; Mr. Folkers replied that there was nothing in the 1992-93 CIP budget that involved this project, but it was in the RDA funding for future years and was not a high priority. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not like the idea of taking an existing building, especially when someone was just coming in with a parcel map. He felt the city would have to pay what was required at the time it was ready to proceed. He did not feel it would be fair to the existing owners . He also felt that 24 feet was not enough. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project; there was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with Commissioner Richards and did not see a nexus between the condition and the request and felt it was a straight forward subdivision. He said that he would move for approval with the deletion of the public works condition. He indicated that he agreed with the goal of public works, but did not feel this was the proper time or way to accomplish it. Commissioner Spiegel felt that the city was taking advantage of the moment and did not think that was right. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1585, approving PM 27463, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 Tyr C. Continued Case No. TT 27524 - WILSHIRE WEST, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 17 . 64 acres of PR 17 . 5 zoned land located on the south side of Hovley Lane, 1930 feet east of Portola Avenue into 82 single family lots having minimum lot sizes of 7200 square feet and minimum widths of 60 feet. Chairperson Whitlock noted that the applicant was requesting a 60 day continuance to October 20, 1992 . She asked if the applicant was present or anyone who wished to address the commission; there was no one. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing TT 27524 to October 20, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . D. Case No. TT 27561 - JASCORP, Applicant vrrr. Request for approval of a tentative tract map to create 28 single family lots in the western portion of the Winterhaven development located in the PR-5 zoned property on the south side of Hovley Lane approximately 730 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Diaz reminded commission that this item was continued to allow the developer and existing homeowners to get together and come to an agreement. He noted that the agreement was before commission and recommended approval of the tentative map with the addition of this agreement as a condition to the community development department conditions . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOE SWAIN stated that he did not want to address the commission at that point. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . %ftw 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 MRS. JOAN GOLDBERG of Winterhaven, stated that they had reached a tentative agreement that was subject to the approval of their membership. She said that their meeting was on September 19 and the proxy votes were due in on September 10 . She was confident that everything would go well . Commissioner Spiegel asked if this item was approved now and the homeowners association did not approve the agreement, what would happen. Mr. Hargreaves indicated that a condition of approval based on an action by two outside parties was not appropriate. Mr. Diaz noted that if the agreement was not ratified, all the other conditions would apply and the map would proceed. Commissioner Richards stated that in the past the commission had not intervened in those disputes. Commission discussed a continuance to September 15 to wait for the results of the ballots . Mrs . Goldberg clarified that the vote would be done solely by proxy and the deadline was September 10 . Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Swain agreed with a continuance to allow for this action. MR. JOE SWAIN stated that money was an issue. He said that he had signed an agreement with the homeowners association that he would honor. He informed commission that the four week continuance from last month to this month cost him over $13,000 and another postponement would be another $13,000 and it was a hardship. He said that he needed a decision now. He said that the CC&R' s had to be re-written, there was a budget being done that had to go to the department of real estate and all that was needed was the planning commission approval . He informed commission that he had made a commitment to the College of the Desert to give them a piece of the donation for the construction management because he wanted to give some of the money back to the community. He stated that a continuance would be a financial hardship. He asked for an action that would allow him to proceed. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Swain could not go forward until the homeowners vote came in; he would have the planning commission approval a few days following that vote so this would not be a delay to continue it to September 15 . Mr. Swain stated that the last time when he was here when he could not get a decision, he filed an action against the homeowners association to get a decision. He said that there had been some discovery and an opinion that stated that the access rights to the property could exist through the main entry with 8 ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 or without their approval, except that he wanted an amicable tow solution and fair share. He signed a document that they would Pay half the maintenance costs and contribute capital in exchange for using the tennis courts . He felt that if he had to go another 30 days he would have to re-evaluate his Position. Commissioner Richards noted that when a developer come to the city with a proposal, they put their money up and take their chances . When Mr. Swain came before the commission at the last hearing, he did not have the part to the equation that was needed. He was attempting to rescue a situation to the benefit of himself and the city attorney indicated serious problems in dealing with a condition that handles an outside body; the commission was attempting to do what it could, but an applicant took their chance when proposing something. Mr. Hargreaves stated that if the project were approved with the agreement as a condition, if it turned out the agreement was not adopted by the homeowners association, the agreement would disappear as a condition and the project would go forward without this condition and with all the other conditions intact. If commission was prepared to approve the project with or without the agreement, not withstanding that the agreement might disappear in another month, then they could do so. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the agreement was even relevant to what the commission was considering. He said they were looking at a map and if the applicant had to gain legal rights from the association, they could just approve the tract map and it was up to him and them to work the situation out. Mr. Hargreaves indicated that if the project could stand alone without the agreement and meets the codes and the city did not have a problem with proceeding without the agreement, then commission could proceed. Commissioner Jonathan felt the agreement had only to do with whether or not the applicant could get access to the map as submitted. Mr. Diaz stated that the matter had been continued in order to get this matter straightened out; that was done between the board and the applicant. He said that the board spoke as representative of the residents on occasion and if the commission placed the condition on the map to "hammer" that out, if it was not voted in then they would have to fight out the action. He recommended that commission approve it with the understanding the if the homeowners don't approve it, they will end up in court. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the city would condition the approval on the homeowners association voting yes . If they did that and the homeowners said no, then the attorneys could get together and the developer would have to .. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 come back. Mr. Hargreaves indicated that this was a .riil disappearing condition and if it was not agreed upon, it would disappear and the project could proceed without it. He said that the project had to be able to stand alone without any kind of agreement from the homeowners association, but if the project needed an access and this was the only contemplated access, then that was another matter. Commissioner Jonathan stated that was a condition of the tract map; if he could not get that access, then he could not do the project. Mrs . Goldberg noted that in the contract between the developer and homeowners association, Mr. Swain was requesting access through their gate and use of the tennis courts . She said that if Mr. Swain chose to offer another access, then he would just have to deal with the city. She indicated that he wanted his development to be part of their organization as far as the closed community, the gate, the phone system and access to the phone system to enhance the sale of his property. She felt the commission should wait until the result of their vote was in. MR. BILL DALENSKY, homeowner in Winterhaven and on the negotiating committee, felt there was more involved in the agreement than just access to the gate and use of the r.rii tennis courts; there was the problem if their membership voted negative, which he hoped they wouldn't, but if they did his layout it would not be acceptable because two of Mr. Swain' s lots were entering onto their streets . Mr. Diaz stated that whether or not Mr. Swain had access would be a separate legal condition if the agreement was rejected. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards moved to continue this matter to September 15 . Commissioner Downs seconded the motion. Commissioner Downs said that the continuance would be faster then going back to court for a decision. Commissioner Richards said that he was assuming that in the by-laws this was the only way the board could pass something of this nature; there was acknowledgement from the audience. Commissioner Jonathan felt this was unfair to the developer; he had presented a tract map that could stand on its own and if he was not able to acquire access through the vote of the homeowners or through the operations of the courts, he would have to come back. Commissioner Spiegel asked if the developer could do anything before the vote on the loth. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 v . Commissioner Jonathan felt that he probably could and did not see a need for the commission to review it again. The tract map would not change between now and then and if they do or don' t get the vote, that wasn't the commission' s concern. Commissioner Spiegel clarified that it should be passed on the condition and if the condition was not met then the developer would come back with a new set of plans with revised access . Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Commissioner Spiegel said that he had no problem with that. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not like a stamp of approval that was conditioned upon a vote that the commission had no control over. Mr. Hargreaves noted that when a condition was attached to a project, for a tentative map there was a process whereby it was determined if the conditions had been met and if they have, they go ahead with the final. The problem with the agreement was that it was a long-term agreement. It wouldn' t be completed by a particular date in the future and there were ongoing parts of the agreement that would never be met and was for the life of the association (i .e. 50% of the maintenance fees) and did not know if the commission should place those kinds of terms into the conditions of approval . Commissioner Richards felt that was a good point. Commissioner Jonathan too noted that the condition of approval was entering into the agreement, not performing the agreement. Mr. Hargreaves stated that to get around that one of the conditions of approval could be an agreement between the developer and homeowners association. Mr. Diaz said that was the intent. Commissioner Richards stated that he would withdraw his second. Chairperson Whitlock noted that the commission had dealt with gated community issues in the past and they had always deferred the problems behind those gates for resolutions amongst those owners and did not see why it should be different in this case. She said that because the map could stand alone she was in favor of passing the project. Commissioner Downs stated that he would move for approval . After further discussion it was clarified that the approval was without a condition requiring the agreement. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Diaz if he concurred with commission' s decision; Mr. Diaz noted that what would occur was that if an agreement was not reached, then the homeowners association would have to litigate and the issue of access would be determined by the courts . VMW 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1992 Action: err Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1586 , approving TT 27561, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS None. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adjourning the meeting to September 1, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 35 RAMON A. DIAZ, 9ec ary ATTEST: 10 CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 12 010 CERPFIM-!� PALM DESERT x � PLANNING COMMISSIQN ETIt vow LOCATION CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL.. CHAMBER • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT. CALIFOM-1 ;- : i. •� y1ti DATE AND TII s : • TUESDAY,7AUGGUST 19' 1 s'. ^'S � r REPORTEI P e TAMA RA As M`I 1" ' r C.S.R. NOS: .ram E COURT REPO OF PALM SPR ' 2601 East Tkhquitz Canyon Way Suite 202 Palm Springs, California 92262 - (619)323-9908 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S : 2 3 4 CAROL WHITLOCK, CHAIRMAN 5 BOB DOWNS, COMMISSIONER 6 SABBY JONATHAN, COMMISSIONER 7 ROBERT SPIEGEL, COMMISSIONER 8 JIM RICHARDS, COMMISSIONER 9 RAMON A . DIAZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 ROBERT W . HARGREAVES, CITY ATTORNEY 11 TONYA MONROE, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 3 1 TUESDAY AUGUST 18 , 1992 , 7 : 00 P . M . 2 3 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 4 5 2 6 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : THAT WILL TAKE US TO OUR FIRST 7 PUBLIC HEARING, 92-3 . THE CITY OF PALM DESERT IS THE 8 APPLICANT. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION 9 OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PREZONING OF THE 10 SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB SITE, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 11 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND EAST SIDE OF MONTEREY AVENUE, 12 (SINGLE—FAMILY/MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) , FOR THE 13 PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY �.. 14 OF PALM DESERT, AND APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PERTAINING THERETO . 4 16 MR . DIAZ, MAY WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. s 17 MR . DIAZ : YES, MADAM CHAIRPERSON, MEMBERS OF THE 18 COMMISSION . 19 THE COMMISSION WILL RECALL THIS MATTER WAS 20 CONTINUED TO ALLOW THE TENANTS OF SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB TO 21 MEET WITH THE STAFF AND THE OWNER TO SEE IF SOME TYPE OF 22 AGREEMENT COULD BE WORKED OUT. AT THIS POINT AN AGREEMENT 23 HAS NOT BEEN WORKED OUT. 24 MEETING WITH THE OWNER TODAY THERE WERE SOME 25 CONCERNS THAT HE HAD WITH THE PREZONING . AND I THINK AT COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 4 1 THIS POINT WE SHOULD MAKE CLEAR EXACTLY WHAT THE ACTION 2 TONIGHT IS . 3 THE ACTION TONIGHT IS THE PREZONING OF THE 4 PROPERTY. IT IS THE FIRST STEP TO THE ANNEXATION PROCESS . 5 BUT THE REAL ARGUMENTS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT TODAY 6 IS, SHOULD THE PROPERTY BE PREZONED, WHAT WILL WE PREZONE 7 IT. NOT THE ISSUE OF WHETHER IT SHOULD COME IN, WHETHER 8 WE' RE GOING TO HAVE OUR RENT CONTROL LAWS VERSUS THE 9 COUNTY' S . THAT' S THE ISSUE, THE ZONING . 10 EVENTUALLY THOSE OTHER ISSUES, OF COURSE, WILL 11 BE ADDRESSED . THEY WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE 12 COUNCIL HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION, AS WELL AS THE 13 L.A. F. C . O . HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION . 14 IN LOOKING AT THE ZONING, FIRST OF ALL, STAFF 15 INDICATED AN R-1-M ZONE. IN SPEAKING TO THE OWNER HE 16 WOULD PREFER A PR-7, A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 17 SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE ZONE, RATHER THAN THE R-1 MOBILE HOME 18 ZONE . STAFF REALLY DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS . 19 FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE ON THE COMMISSION WAY 20 BACK WHEN, WHICH THERE IS ONLY MEMBER WHO IS SITTING TO MY 21 RIGHT HERE AT THAT TIME, YOU ' LL RECALL THAT THE R-1-M 22 ZONE -- BOB, I THINK YOU WERE WITH US, TOO -- THE R-1-M 23 ZONE WAS CREATED FOR ONE PURPOSE, AND ONE PURPOSE ONLY. 24 THAT WAS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A LOOPHOLE IN THE STATE 25 REGULATIONS DEALING WITH MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 5 1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES . AT THAT TIME THE STATE 2 SAID IF YOU CREATE ZONES FOR MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISIONS AND 3 ALLOW CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION IN THOSE ZONES, YOU DO NOT 4 HAVE TO ALLOW MANUFACTURED HOUSING CONSTRUCTION IN THE R-1 5 ZONE , 6 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : CORRECT. 7 MR . DIAZ : SO WE WENT THROUGH AND CREATED THIS 8 ORDINANCE AND REZONED ALL OF THE MOBILE HOME PARKS R-1-M . 9 AFTER ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS THE STATE CLOSED THAT 10 LOOPHOLE, SO THERE IS REALLY NO REASON FOR THE R-1-M ZONE . 11 THE R-1-M ZONE ALLOWS THE DENSITY OF SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE, 12 THE SAME AS THE PR ZONE, THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, SEVEN 13 UNITS PER ACRE ZONE . �.. 14 THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE SUNCREST COUNTRY 15 CLUB ON THE WEST SIDE IS ALSO ZONED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL jq3 F 16 DEVELOPMENT, SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE . 17 SO, THEREFORE, AT THIS TIME STAFF WOULD HAVE NO 18 PROBLEM PREZONING THIS PROPERTY PR-7, WITH THE STIPULATION 19 THAT IF, AT A FUTURE DATE -- AND WE KNOW THAT WAL-MART AND 20 MR. MAYER HAS TALKED TO US ABOUT REZONING THE CORNER OF 21 MONTEREY AND COUNTRY CLUB . IF, AT A FUTURE DATE, THAT 22 PROPERTY COMES IN FOR REZONING, THAT STAFF WOULD ENTERTAIN 23 THAT THE VACANT LAND THAT THE APPLICANT OWNS ADJACENT TO 24 THE SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB WOULD BE REZONED TO THE SAME 25 DEPTH THAT MR . MAYER' S PROPERTY IS . THAT IS, MR . MAYER' S COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 6 1 PROPERTY, HE' S REQUESTING A ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL AT A 2 CERTAIN DEPTH IN THE BACK OF THAT R-1 8, 000 SINGLE-FAMILY 3 DETACHED HOMES . too 4 WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE IS WHEN THAT CHANGE OF 5 ZONE COMES IN, THAT WE CHANGE THE ZONE ON THIS PROPERTY 6 SIMILAR SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT CONTINUITY, BUT NOT DO 7 IT AT THIS TIME . BECAUSE TO ZONE IT AT THIS TIME THAT WAY 8 WOULD BE A SPOT ZONE, WHICH WE CANNOT DO BY STATE LAW . 9 PLUS, I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY . 10 THE OTHER ISSUE WHICH I SPOKE TO THE OWNER ABOUT 3 11 RELATED TO THE CITY' S VERSUS THE COUNTY' S RENT CONTROL . 12 AND HERE WE' RE A LITTLE BIT -- STAFF IS A LITTLE BIT 13 CONFUSED, BECAUSE AT ONE POINT EVERYONE WAS ASSURING US 14 THAT OUR RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE WAS NOT AN ISSUE, THAT THE 15 MAJOR ISSUE WAS PARAMEDIC SERVICE AND ADDITIONAL POLICE 16 SERVICE. THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE 17 PARAMEDICS VERSUS SPRINGS AMBULANCE . I THINK THOSE ISSUES 18 HAVE BEEN STRAIGHTENED OUT. IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS ON 19 EXACTLY WHAT THE PARAMEDICS DO, I CAN ANSWER THEM THIS 20 EVENING. 21 BUT THEN SUDDENLY THE ISSUE OF THE RENT CONTROL 22 CAME UP AGAIN . AND WHILE I SAID THAT IS NOT BEFORE US 23 THIS EVENING, PERHAPS THE OWNER' S CONCERN THAT IF THERE 24 ARE RENT CONTROL ORDINANCES TAKEN BACK TO 1983, AND HE HAS 25 SOME LONG-TERM LEASES, THAT THAT WOULD BE QUITE COSTLY . COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 7 1 AND I THINK HE WANTS TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT THAT IS 2 WHAT HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT. IN MY CONFERENCES WITH HIM 3 TODAY HE INDICATED THAT IF THE CITY' S -- HE WOULD PREFER 4 TO COME IN UNDER THE COUNTY' S RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE, IF 5 THAT IS POSSIBLE . NOW I WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH 6 THE CITY ATTORNEY, IF WE COULD COME IN WITH THE COUNTY' S 7 RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE . 8 THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS THE 9 COUNTY HAS 100 PERCENT OF C . P . I . INCREASE, THE CITY' S IS 10 75 PERCENT OF C . P . I . INCREASE . 11 HIS BIGGEST CONCERN, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE RENT 12 CONTROL, IF IT CAME IN UNDER THE CITY, BE TAKEN -- NOT BE 13 TAKEN BACK TO 1983, AND THOSE THINGS WORKED OUT, BUT HE ... 14 CAN ADDRESS THAT. 15 BUT AGAIN, OUR ISSUE TODAY IS THE ZONING . IN } 16 SUMMARY, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE PREZONE THE f 17 PROPERTY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SEVEN UNITS PER 18 ACRE, AND THAT WE SEND THIS UP TO COUNCIL WITH YOUR 19 RECOMMENDATION . AND IF YOU HAVE ANY FEELINGS ON THE OTHER 20 ISSUES AFTER HEARING THE OTHER PEOPLE ON IT, 21 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL ON THAT FOR THE ZONING 22 HEARING, WE CAN ALSO TAKE THAT. BUT, AGAIN, THE MAIN 23 THRUST TONIGHT IS THE ZONING . 24 THAT WOULD CONCLUDE THE STAFF REPORT. 25 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 8 1 I WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THE a 2 APPLICANT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION . 3 PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF . 4 MR . BEFELD : GERHARD BEFELD, OWNER OF SUNCREST 5 COUNTRY CLUB . 6 MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY 7 WIFE AND I ARE THE SOLE OWNERS OF SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB, 8 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF TODAY' S PROPOSED PREZONING . THE 9 PROPOSED PREZONING WAS INITIATED BY A REQUEST FROM A 10 MINORITY OF THE TENANTS RESIDING IN SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB 11 AS A PRELUDE TO ANNEXING MY PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF 12 PALM DESERT. 13 AT THIS JUNCTURE, I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH 14 INFORMATION TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE THE MERITS OF THE woo 15 PLANNING COMMISSION' S PROPOSED ACTION, OR, IN PARTICULAR, 16 THE CONTEMPLATED ANNEXATION OF MY PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF 17 PALM DESERT. THEREFORE, AT THE OUTSET, I RESPECTFULLY 18 REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONE ANY ACTION ON THE 19 PREZONING REQUEST, UNTIL I HAVE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY TO 20 IDENTIFY AND EXPLORE THE REASON FOR ISSUES RAISED BY AND 21 RAMIFICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION WITH BOTH THE 22 PLANNING STAFF AND THE RESIDENTS OF SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB, 23 PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO DO NOT SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION . 24 SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROPOSED 25 ACTIONS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING : COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 9 1 MY PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED ENTIRELY ON THE NORTH 2 AND EAST BY PALM DESERT GREENS, A MUCH LARGER MOBILE HOME 3 PARK WHICH, CURIOUSLY, IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED 4 ANNEXATION . WHY IS MY PROPERTY THE ONLY PROPERTY TARGETED 5 TO BE PREZONED AND ANNEXED WHEN IT IS SURROUNDED BY 6 PROPERTY WITH PRECISELY THE SAME USE? 7 MATERIALS CIRCULATED BY THE PRIMARY PROPONENT OF 8 THE ANNEXATION DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CITY OF PALM DESERT' S 9 RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE 10 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION . THE RENT CONTROL ISSUE IS A 11 SERIOUS ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE FUTHER EXPLORED, PARTICULARLY 12 SINCE IT IS THE UNDERLYING BASIS FOR THE ANNEXATION 13 REQUEST. 14 IF THE PROPERTY IS ANNEXED, WILL THERE INDEED, 15 AS SOME RESIDENTS CONTEMPLATE, BE AN INCREASE IN THE 16 QUALITY, SCOPE AND RESPONSIVENESS OF FIRE, POLICE AND 17 PARAMEDIC SERVICES, AS WELL AS A DECREASE IN THE COST OF 18 SUCH SERVICES? WHAT OTHER ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENTAL AND 19 COMMUNITY SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE AREA? I 20 UNDERSTAND THE CITY MUST SUBMIT A PLAN FOR PROVIDING 21 SERVICES WITHIN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED . WHAT IS 22 THE CONTENT OF THIS PLAN? 23 FROM THE CITY' S STANDPOINT, HAS THE CITY 24 PREPARED, OR DOES IT INTEND TO PREPARE, A COST/BENEFIT 25 ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INCREASED COSTS INVOLVED COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 10 1 IN PROVIDING GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES TO THIS AREA, AND OTHER 2 COSTS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION, ARE WARRANTED? 3 REGARDING ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RIVERSIDE 4 4 COUNTY AND PALM DESERT ORDINANCES, CODES AND POLICIES 5 PERTAINING TO INSPECTIONS, STREET DESIGN, SIGNAGE AND 6 OTHER REQUIREMENTS, WILL AN ANNEXATION OF MY PROPERTY 7 RESULT IN MY BEING REQUIRED TO MAKE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS 8 IN THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED 9 SINCE THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY 10 ORDINANCES AND CODES? 11 IF FORCED TO ACCEPT A CHANGE OF ZONE ON MY 12 PROPERTY, I WOULD PREFER THAT THE DEVELOPED PORTION OF MY 13 PROPERTY BE ZONED PR-7, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PR-7 14 ZONING OF THE ADJACENT MAYER PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE 15 NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONTEREY AND COUNTRY CLUB, AND THAT MY 16 UNDEVELOPED TWELVE AND A HALF ACRES BETWEEN SUNCREST AND 17 THE MAYER PROPERTY BE PREZONED COMMERCIAL. 18 I CURRENTLY HAVE A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WITH 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOR THE INSTALLATION AND SHARING OF COSTS 20 TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE ENTRANCE TO SUNCREST, 21 WHICH WILL ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE AREA. HOW WILL 22 THIS BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION? 23 FINALLY, I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS REGARDING THE 24 CITY" S MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY ANNEXATION, DESPITE THE 25 FACT THAT I , AS THE SOLE LANDLORD OF THE PROPERTY IN COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 11 1 QUESTION -- THE ONLY LANDLORD AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSAL -- 2 HAVE EXPRESSED MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL . 3 IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES IN 4 ADDITION TO THE AFOREMENTIONED ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE 5 EXPLORED PRIOR TO ANY MEANINGFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE 6 PREZONING OF MY PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF COMMENCING 7 ANNEXATION PROCEDURES . IF, CONTRARY TO MY REQUEST, THE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDES TO ACT ON THE PROPOSAL TODAY 9 INSTEAD OF DENYING THE REQUEST, OR AT LEAST POSTPONING ANY 10 ACTION PENDING ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUES, I 11 HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO REGISTER, ON THE RECORD, MY PROTEST 12 TO THE PROPOSED PREZONING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF MY 13 PROPERTY TO THE CITY AT THIS TIME.. 14 THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION . 15 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO € 16 WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL? 17 PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND 18 ADDRESS . 19 MR. FEINSTEIN : MY NAME IS NORLIE FEINSTEIN . I ' M A 20 HOMEOWNER IN SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB . 21 PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM IN ERROR TONIGHT . I 22 LISTENED TO MR . DIAZ, AND AM I TO BELIEVE TONIGHT' S 23 MEETING IS ONLY TO ACT ON THE PREZONING, NOT ON 24 ANNEXATION? HOWEVER, SINCE INFORMATION OTHER THAN THAT �... 25 HAS BEEN STATED, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MENTION A COUPLE OF COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 12 1 THINGS . 2 A MINORITY INTEREST DID NOT INSTITUTE AN 3 ANNEXATION PROGRAM; 61 PERCENT OF THE HOMEOWNERS DID . I 4 ONLY WOULD NOT GO THROUGH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT. I 5 REMAIN QUIET. 6 HOWEVER, I AM IN FAVOR AND WILL ASK THE 1 COMMISSION TO DO WHAT THE MEETING IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE, 8 AND THAT IS THE PREZONING . AND HOPEFULLY THEY AGREE ON 9 DOING SO, AND IF NOT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASSERT THAT WHAT I 10 WOULD SUGGEST AND HOPE IS THAT THAT ISSUE BE PASSED BACK 11 TO THE COUNCIL. 12 THANK YOU . 13 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO 14 WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? 15 PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, YOUR 16 NAME AND ADDRESS . 17 MS . CONLEY: HI, MY NAME IS SHIRLEY CONLEY AND I LIVE 18 AT SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB . 19 I JUST WANTED IT TO GO ON RECORD THAT I WOULD 20 PREFER TO STAY IN THE COUNTY. MR. FEINSTEIN -- I WAS AT 21 THE LAST MEETING -- SAID THAT HE REPRESENTED THE TENANTS 22 OF SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB . WELL, I DON'T EVEN KNOW 23 MR . FEINSTEIN, AND I DON 'T KNOW HOW HE CAN REPRESENT ME 24 WHEN I DON'T EVEN KNOW HIM OR KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT . AS 25 FAR AS I 'M CONCERNED, I WOULD LIKE TO STAY IN THE COUNTY . COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 13 1 I 'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT BEING ANNEXED INTO THE CITY . 2 THANK YOU . 3 MS . MOLEVER : HI , MY NAME IS CATHY MOLEVER, AND I %aw 4 LIVE IN THE SAGEWOOD DEVELOPMENT. 5 I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO PLEASE 6 CONSIDER . I HAVE AN EIGHT-AND-A-HALF YEAR OLD WHO SAT 7 THROUGH THE LAST MEETING AND ALSO CAME TO THIS MEETING . 8 SHE HEARD THAT THERE ARE 280 RESIDENTS, WHICH TO ME IS 9 HARDLY A MINORITY, WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR HEALTH 10 AND SAFETY WHO LIVE IN SUNCREST. AND THEN SHE HEARD OF 11 THE INTERESTS OF THE HOMEOWNER -- THE LANDOWNER WHO DOES 12 NOT LIVE IN SUNCREST, SO HIS HEALTH AND SAFETY IS NOT 13 AFFECTED BY THIS . 14 AT SOME POINT I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION, IF I 15 BRING MY DAUGHTER, TO EXPLAIN HOW YOU WEIGH HEALTH AND 16 SAFETY OF 280 PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, VERSUS 17 THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF ONE ABSENTEE HOMEOWNER -- OR 18 LANDOWNER, I SHOULD SAY. AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO 19 PURSUE THIS, BECAUSE AS A PARENT I AM HAVING A HARD TIME 20 EXPLAINING HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS . 21 THANK YOU . 22 MR . EMDE : MY NAME IS SHERRILL EMDE AND I AM A 5 23 RESIDENT OF SUNCREST, NO . 300 . 24 I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH MR . FEINSTEIN . HE %mw 25 DOES NOT REPRESENT ME . AS A MATTER OF FACT, MR . FEINSTEIN COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 14 1 DOESN ' T EVEN LIVE AT SUNCREST. HE STATES HE ' S A PROPERTY 2 OWNER, THAT' S CORRECT . 3 THERE ' S A LOT OF BAD INFORMATION GOING ON ABOUT 4 THE BENEFITS AND SO ON OF ANNEXATION . I 'VE BEEN THROUGH 5 THIS BEFORE IN VENTURA, AND THE CITY WAS WELL MEANING, BUT 6 THEY COULDN 'T FOLLOW THROUGH . AND I REALIZE THAT YOU 1 PEOPLE HAVEN ' T MADE A BUNCH OF PROMISES OR ANYTHING LIKE 8 THAT, BUT WE GET INFORMATION LIKE WE' RE GOING TO GET FREE 9 AMBULANCE SERVICE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE IS NO FREE 10 LUNCH . 11 AND I REALIZE THAT THE CITIES ARE IN BAD 12 FINANCIAL SHAPE, JUST LIKE THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND 13 EVERYBODY ELSE . 14 I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF 15 THIS, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE PROBABLY SIGNED THAT PETITION 16 THAT WAS PUT OUT, STARTED BY MR. FEINSTEIN AND TWO OTHER 17 GENTLEMEN WHO ARE NOT ASSOCIATED, IN ANY OFFICIAL 18 CAPACITY, WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR ANYTHING LIKE 19 THAT. 20 I ASKED QUESTIONS IN THE BEGINNING, AND I GOT NO 21 CONCRETE, SOLID ANSWERS . I ASKED ABOUT INCREASE IN TAXES, 22 WHICH I 'M SURE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE PLACE SOONER OR LATER, 23 AND I GOT A FIGURE OF 50 TO 70 DOLLARS PER YEAR . AND I 24 KNOW THAT ISN'T REALISTIC . 25 THE ONLY THING I COULD EVER COME UP WITH THAT COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 15 1 THEY WERE GETTING AT WAS THIS FREE AMBULANCE SERVICE . AND 2 AS I SAID BEFORE, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE UNDER THE 3 MISCONCEPTION THAT WHEN YOU NEED TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL YOU ftw 4 CAN CALL AN AMBULANCE AND GET A FREE RIDE OVER THERE, BUT 5 THAT ISN' T THE CASE . 6 SO I WOULD NEED TO HAVE A LOT MORE INFORMATION, 1 AND A PROJECTION FROM THE CITY AND EVERYONE ELSE, AS TO 8 WHAT WE' RE LOOKING AT DOWN THE ROAD TAXWISE AND 9 EVERYTHING . AND I REALIZE YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER . YOU 10 CAN 'T GIVE THAT INFORMATION, BECAUSE NONE OF US KNOW WHERE 11 THIS ECONOMY IS GOING . 12 BUT LIKE I SAY, I KNOW A LOT OF SATISFIED PEOPLE 13 THAT LIVE THERE, AND I AM ONE OF THEM . I 'VE BEEN THERE 14 NINE YEARS . OUR FIRE SERVICE, IN MY OPINION, IS 15 EXCELLENT. THE FIRE STATION, THE COUNTY FIRE STATION, IS 16 ON THE CORNER OF PORTOLA, AND I HAD THE OCCASION TO CALL 11 THEM ONE TIME ON A 911 EMERGENCY, AND THEY WERE THERE, I 18 MEAN, IN FIVE TO SEVEN MINUTES . 19 AND SO IF THERE ARE ANY BIG ADVANTAGES, I 'M NOT 20 AWARE OF IT. AND I REALIZE THERE ARE COSTS FOR YOUR 21 GOVERNMENT ALSO, THE TAXPAYERS OF PALM DESERT, AND I WOULD 22 JUST LIKE TO BE MADE AWARE OF WHAT BIG ADVANTAGE THIS 23 THING IS . 24 I THANK YOU VERY MUCH . 40 0W 25 MR . DIAZ : SIR, WHEN YOU CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 16 1 911, WAS IT FOR A FIRE? 2 MR . EMDE : NO, IT WAS A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. - 3 MR . DIAZ : AND THEY WENT? 4 MR . EMDE : YES . AND I ' M NOT SURE WHETHER THEY CALLED 5 THE PARAMEDICS, BUT THEY RESPONDED AND TREATED THE MAN ON 6 THE SITE, AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE PARAMEDICS ARRIVED 7 AND TOOK HIM TO EISENHOWER HOSPITAL. BUT THE SERVICE WAS 8 EXCELLENT, AS FAR AS I 'M CONCERNED . 9 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : THANK YOU . 10 MS . BURNS : I 'M GRACE ANNA BURNS, AND I 'VE BEEN A 11 RESIDENT OF SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB FOR 12 YEARS . I WAS 12 THEIR FIRST VICE PRESIDENT AND SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE 13 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND I HAVE WATCHED SUNCREST 14 COUNTRY CLUB GROW, AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN THE 15 GROWTH PERIOD . 16 BUT BASICALLY, WE' RE VERY, VERY HAPPY BEING IN 17 THE COUNTY, AND I 'M VERY MUCH AGAINST BEING ANNEXED . I 18 DON'T FEEL THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AT THIS TIME REALLY HAS 19 THAT MUCH TO OFFER US . 20 AND ALSO, I 'VE HAD SOME PEOPLE CALL ME WHEN THEY 21 WERE PUTTING THIS PETITION OUT AND ASK ME WHAT IS GOING 22 ON, DO YOU RECOMMEND IT? AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM WHAT THE 23 CITY WOULD HAVE TO OFFER AND WHAT WE ALREADY HAD, AND IT 24 WOULD JUST BE MORE TAXES AND MORE GOVERNMENT. 25 THE BIG ISSUE, AS I UNDERSTAND, WAS THE RENT COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 17 1 CONTROL . BUT AS WAS ALREADY MENTIONED, THE CITY IS ONLY 2 75 PERCENT OF THE C . P . I . AND GERHARD IS 100 PERCENT OF THE low 3 C . P . I . , WHICH, FIGURING IT OUT, WORKS OUT TO BE ABOUT 4 THREE DOLLARS A MONTH LESS PER RESIDENT, WHICH REALLY 5 WOULDN 'T COMPENSATE FOR THE ADDITIONAL COST IT WOULD COST 6 US BEING PART OF THE CITY . 7 I FEEL THE PEOPLE DIDN 'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY 8 WERE SIGNING . I LOOKED OVER THE PETITION THAT WAS SIGNED, 9 AND THERE ARE QUITE A FEW THAT ARE TWO SIGNATURES PER 6 10 HOUSEHOLD . ALSO, VERY FEW OF THEM ARE REGISTERED VOTERS, 11 AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, IN THE RESEARCH I ' VE DONE, 12 THAT 20 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THE PETITION 13 SHOULD BE REGISTERED VOTERS . SO ALL IN ALL, I DON 'T FEEL 14 THAT THE PETITION SHOULD BE DECLARED VALID AT THIS TIME . 15 I THINK IT SHOULD BE RESUBMITTED AFTER THE RESIDENTS HAVE 16 BEEN PROPERLY INFORMED AND DECLARED WHETHER THEY' RE 17 REGISTERED VOTERS OR NOT . 18 THANK YOU . 19 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : THANK YOU, MRS . BURNS . 20 IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WISHES TO 21 ADDRESS -- PLEASE STEP FORWARD . 22 MR . MALABY : I AM HAROLD MALABY, AND I AM A RESIDENT 23 OF SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB, SPACE NO . 146 . 24 I WISH TO OFFER THE COUNCIL AN APOLOGY, BECAUSE 25 I THOUGHT IT WAS AT 7 : 30, AND I DROVE DOWN FROM BIG BEAR, COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 18 1 SO I 'M A LITTLE LATE . SORRY ABOUT THAT . 2 THE THING THAT I FIND INTERESTING IS THAT IN THE 3 INFORMATION THAT WE PUT OUT IN REGARDS -- WELL, I AM ALSO 4 THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR G . S . M . O . L . FOR OUR PARK . AND FOR 5 THAT, AS BEING A REPRESENTATIVE FROM G . S .M . O . L . , IT IS 6 PART OF MY DUTIES TO KEEP THE PEOPLE INFORMED IN SUNCREST 1 AS TO WHAT THE CURRENT LAWS ARE IN THEIR BEHALF, WHAT 8 SACRAMENTO IS DOING IN REGARDS TO MOBILE HOME RESIDENCY 9 LAWS, AND THIS TYPE OF THING . 10 WE ALSO HAVE AN IN-HOUSE NEWSPAPER THAT COMES 11 OUT MONTHLY CALLED THE DESERT BREEZE . IN THE DESERT 12 BREEZE THERE WAS A PIECE THAT I WROTE IN REGARDS TO THE 13 CURRENT LAW CHANGES . PRIMARILY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT -- 14 WHAT SPURRED -- WHAT SPURRED THE ARTICLE WAS THE U . S . 15 SUPREME COURT RULING IN REGARDS TO RENT CONTROL . 16 BUT THE ITEMS THAT WERE MOST IMPORTANT -- AND 17 I 'VE SHOWN THIS TO MR. DIAZ, AND I 'VE MET WITH MR. DIAZ 18 AND GERHARD BEFELD, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THESE SAME 19 ITEMS -- WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO US IN SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB 20 IF WE WERE ANNEXED TO THE CITY? 21 NUMBER ONE, IMPROVED POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO 22 MORE OFFICERS ON PATROL. NOW TALKING ABOUT THAT JUST 23 MOMENTARILY, I 'VE TALKED AND I ' VE HAD SEVERAL 24 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CORKY LARSON . AND CORKY HAS TOLD ME 25 HERSELF THAT SHE WOULD ADVISE US AND URGE US TO GO INTO COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 19 1 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT BECAUSE OF BETTER POLICE 2 PROTECTION AND MORE PATROLS; THAT THE COUNTY WAS IN SUCH 3 FINANCIAL STRAITS THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER GOING TO BE %aw 4 ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL PATROLS . 5 SHE ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE, LIKE, 6 CURRENTLY FROM BEAUMONT TO INDIO ON THE EVENING PATROL, 7 THAT THERE WERE TWO OFFICERS ON DUTY ON THAT PATROL . AND 8 THAT CERTAINLY, IN OUR OPINION, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. AND 9 SO SHE HAS URGED US -- AND I HAVE THIS IN WRITING -- TO 10 COME TO THE CITY AND PETITION THE CITY FOR US TO GO INTO 11 THE CITY THROUGH AN ANNEXATION PROCESS . 12 THE SECOND ITEM WAS NO CHARGE FOR PARAMEDICS AND 13 CITY AMBULANCE SERVICES . NOW WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS AN 14 ADDITIONAL $48 PER YEAR PER RESIDENT FOR THOSE SERVICES 15 THAT YOU FOLKS PROVIDE . AND THAT WAS FULLY EXPLAINED TO 16 THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED THE PETITIONS . 17 LET ME JUMP TO THE PETITIONS FOR A MINUTE, 18 BECAUSE IT WAS JUST STATED THAT SOME -- ON THESE PETITIONS 19 THAT WERE SIGNED, SOME OF THE HOMEOWNERS SIGNED TWICE . IN 20 OTHER WORDS, WHAT THEY MEANT BY THAT IS THAT THE HUSBAND 21 AND WIFE BOTH SIGNED FOR ONE HOUSEHOLD . THE 60 PERCENT 22 SIGNATURES WERE ONLY COUNTED ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD , 23 WE DID NOT COUNT TWO SIGNATURES PER HOUSEHOLD, WE ONLY 24 COUNTED ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD . SO THE PETITIONS `ow 25 THAT YOU HAVE, OR SOMEBODY IN THE CITY HAS, WITH 60 COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 20 1 PERCENT WITH 200-SOME-ODD SIGNATURES, ARE ONLY ONE 2 SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD . 3 THE CITY SERVICE -- ANOTHER ITEM WAS THAT THE 4 CITY SERVICES WERE CLOSER AND MORE AVAILABLE THAN THE 5 COUNTY. THAT IS TRUE . AND, HERE AGAIN, CORKY LARSON HAS 6 ONCE AGAIN URGED US TO GO INTO THE CITY, BECAUSE WE WOULD 7 HAVE BETTER SERVICES RENDERED TO US BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE 8 PROXIMITY TO WHICH THOSE SERVICES ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO 9 US . 10 THE FOURTH ITEM IS -- WELL, THE FIFTH ITEM IS 11 25 PERCENT SAVINGS PER YEAR ON ALL LAND RENT INCREASES 12 CHARGED BY THE PARK OWNER, WHICH MEANS THAT YOUR CITY 13 ORDINANCE, IN REGARDS TO RENT CONTROL, INDICATES THAT THE 14 PARK OWNER WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO CHARGE US 75 PERCENT OF 15 THE C . P. I . INCREASE, RATHER THAN WHAT HE' S DOING NOW IS 16 100 PERCENT. 17 YES, WE ARE INTERESTED IN RENT CONTROL, BUT THE 18 MAIN EMPHASIS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT FORTH IS WE ARE 7 19 ALSO INTERESTED IN THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF OUR PEOPLE . 20 OUR PEOPLE ARE 55 -- THE PARK IS A 55 AND OLDER PARK . 21 EVERY DAY THAT GOES BY WE GET A LITTLE OLDER. AND, 22 UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE ILLNESSES, AND CRITICAL, AND WE DO 23 NEED A QUICKER RESPONSE, AND CERTAINLY AT A LOWERED COST. 24 THE $48 THAT YOU FOLKS ASK US TO PAY TOWARDS THE PARAMEDIC 25 COST IS EXTREMELY REASONABLE, EXTREMELY REASONABLE, AND WE COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 21 1 WOULD BE VERY, VERY FORTUNATE IF WE WOULD COME UNDERNEATH 2 THOSE GUIDELINES . tow 3 NOW THAT IS IMPORTANT TO US, BECAUSE A LOT OF 4 PEOPLE HAVE PAID FIVE, SIX, $700 FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES 5 FROM OUR PARK TO THE LOCAL HOSPITAL . AND WE THINK THAT 6 THAT WOULD BE BETTER SPENT IN OUR OWN POCKET, BECAUSE MOST 7 OF US ARE ON LIMITED INCOME, FIXED INCOME . AND IF WE CAN 8 SAVE -- I MEAN, WE WANT TO DECREASE OUR CASH FLOW JUST 9 LIKE -- I MEAN, WE WANT TO INCREASE OUR CASH FLOW BY 10 DECREASING OUR EXPENSES, JUST LIKE THE CITY DOES , BUT IT 11 IS TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO COME INTO THE CITY. 12 NOW I DON 'T THINK WE' RE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS 13 EITHER . WE SPEND OUR MONEY IN THE CITY, WE OPERATE HERE �.. 14 IN THE CITY, WE LIKE THE CITY, WHY NOT BE PART OF THE 15 CITY. THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE THAT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH 16 WITH OUR PETITIONS THEY THOUGHT WE WERE IN THE CITY . THEY 17 DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT, WHICH WAS KIND OF STARTLING TO ME, 18 BUT THAT' S THE WAY IT IS . 19 SO IT' S BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY 20 COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ACCEPT US INTO THE CITY . NOW 21 WHAT THE COUNCIL DID WAS THEN TO PUT THE CHARGE ON THIS 22 BODY TO SEE WHAT' S THE MECHANICS OF THAT AND HOW DO WE GO 23 ABOUT DOING THAT IN REGARDS TO ZONING AND THIS TYPE OF 24 THING . tow 25 THE COUNTY IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED -- AND WE COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 22 1 HAVE CONTACTED THE COUNTY -- AND THE COUNTY IS INTERESTED 2 IN LETTING US GO, PER SE, OR WORKING WITH THE CITY SO THAT 3 WE CAN BECOME A PART OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT . I REALLY 4 DON 'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS . 5 THE TAXES ARE STILL GOING TO BE COUNTY TAXES . 6 THEY ARE GOING TO BE CHARGED BY THE COUNTY. 75 PERCENT OF 7 IT, AS I UNDERSTAND, WILL CONTINUE TO GO TO THE COUNTY , 8 THE OTHER 25 PERCENT WILL GO TO THE CITY. IF I 'M WRONG ON 9 THESE STATEMENTS, THEN THIS IS THE PLACE TO TELL ME THAT 10 I 'M WRONG, BUT THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD. 11 THERE IS NOBODY IN THE PARK, THAT I KNOW OF, 12 THAT HAS A VENDETTA AGAINST THE PARK OWNER. WE ' RE NOT 13 OUT -- I MEAN, IT ISN'T -- THE INTENT OF THE PETITION IS 14 TO COME INTO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. IT IS NOT THE NO 15 INTENT TO GET BACK AT THE OWNER. THAT' S SILLY. THE 16 REASON OF OUR INTENT TO GO INTO THE CITY IS SO WE HAVE 17 BETTER POLICE PROTECTION, BETTER SERVICES AND THE 18 PARAMEDICS, AND THE LAST TAG ON IS THE RENT CONTROL . 19 NOW THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PARK POSSIBLY, AND 20 VERY LIKELY SO, IS NOT IN FAVOR OF RENT CONTROL, BECAUSE 21 IT IS GOING TO CUT INTO HIS CASH FLOW . I UNDERSTAND THAT. 22 LET' S GET IT RIGHT UP FRONT. BUT WE ARE ALSO INTERESTED 23 IN CASH FLOW . BUT THAT IS NOT THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THIS 24 WHOLE THING . 25 IT IS NOT GOING TO INCREASE OUR TAXES IF WE ARE COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 23 1 INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. OUR TAX BASE 2 IS GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME . IT IS STILL GOING TO BE IN 3 THE COUNTY. THE ADDITIONAL COST TO OUR RESIDENTS OF ftw 4 SUNCREST IS THE $48 PER YEAR FOR THE PARAMEDICS . AND WE 5 FEEL, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THERE FEEL, THROUGH 6 PETITION, THAT THAT IS A BARGAIN, THAT IS A REAL BARGAIN . 7 SO I URGE THIS BODY TO GO FORTH AS SOON AS 8 POSSIBLE WITH THE ANNEXATION . 9 THERE WAS ALSO SOME THOUGHT OF, WELL, WE' RE 10 GOING TO TIE THE ANNEXATION ALONG WITH THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL 11 THAT WE' RE TRYING TO PUT IN IN FRONT OF OUR COMPLEX . IT 12 HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED BY SEVERAL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE 13 CITY THAT THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND THE ANNEXATION HAS 14 NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER . THEY' RE TWO SEPARATE 15 ENTITIES . THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IS ALREADY IN PROGRESS, IT 16 IS GOING THROUGH THE REGULAR CHANNELS, AND SO THAT IS THE 17 WAY IT IS . . BUT WE' RE NOT TRYING TO TIE THOSE TWO 18 TOGETHER . THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE PACKAGES . 19 AND I THINK THE ONE THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS HERE 20 TONIGHT IS WHETHER OR NOT -- WE ARE GOING INTO THE CITY OF 21 PALM DESERT THROUGH THE ANNEXATION PROCESS . THAT HAS 22 ALREADY BEEN -- IF I 'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED 8 23 BY THE COUNCIL. THE QUESTION IS, THE MECHANICS OF IT, I 24 THINK, IS WHAT WE' RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. `" 25 IS THAT RIGHT, MR . DIAZ? AM I WRONG ON THAT? COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 24 1 MR . DIAZ : THE ONLY THING THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY 2 THE COUNCIL IS TO ACCEPT THE PETITION AND START THE 3 PROCESS . NOTHING ELSE HAS HAPPENED . THE START OF THE 4 PROCESS IS A PREANNEXATION HEARING . ALL OF THESE THINGS 5 WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT, I KNOW I AM GOING TO HEAR THEM AGAIN 6 WHEN WE HAVE THE HEARING FOR THE ANNEXATION BEFORE THE 7 COUNCIL, NOT THE ZONING, AND ALSO BEFORE L. A . F . C . O . , LOCAL 8 AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . THAT IS WHERE THOSE 9 ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE . 10 MR. MALABY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION . 11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : MR . MALABY, STAY THERE A 12 MINUTE, PLEASE . I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT SOME NUMBERS 13 ARE, OKAY? 14 WHAT IS THE AVERAGE RENT THAT YOU WOULD ASSUME 15 PEOPLE ARE PAYING FOR YOUR SPACE? 16 MR . MALABY: WELL, YOU KNOW -- 17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : WHAT DO YOU PAY? 18 MR. MALABY: IT IS A DIFFICULT ONE, BECAUSE OF THE 19 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF WHERE THE SPACE IS LOCATED . ONE 20 UP BY THE GATE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT DOESN 'T HAVE THE GOLF 21 COURSE AMENITIES TO IT, OR ONE BY THE GOLF COURSE OR ONE 22 CLOSER TO THE SWIMMING POOL OR ONE CLOSER TO THE -- 23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : THE PURPOSE OF MY 24 ILLUSTRATION, IT DOESN 'T NEED TO BE CLOSE . JUST GIVE ME A 25 BALLPARK . COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 25 1 MR . MALABY: I DON 'T KNOW . 2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : WHAT ARE YOU PAYING? 3 MR . MALABY : CAN I RELY ON THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEHIND ftw 4 ME? WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATION FROM THE SUNCREST HERE . 5 BUT I WOULD SAY PERSONALLY, MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, I 6 WOULD SAY A BALLPARK AVERAGE ONE WOULD BE $450 . 7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : OKAY. 8 MR. MALABY: NOW, WAIT A MINUTE, CAN I ASK -- 9 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : NO, NO, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF 10 IT IS 300 . YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE I 'M GETTING . I 11 AM TRYING TO COME AT A DIFFERENT PLACE . IF IT IS 200 OR 12 500, I DON'T CARE . THE PURPOSE OF MY QUESTION IS TO 13 DETERMINE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE PERHAPS IS IN THIS RENT �.. 14 CONTROL ITEM, OKAY? 15 IF THE INFLATION THIS YEAR, LET' S SAY, IS 16 3 PERCENT, AND SOMEBODY IS PAYING 200 OR THEY' RE PAYING 17 500, THE DIFFERENCE FOR 200, IT WOULD BE, I GUESS, SIX 18 DOLLARS, AND THE DIFFERENCE FOR SOMEBODY AT 500 WOULD BE, 19 I GUESS, $15 . ARE MY NUMBERS RIGHT? I MEAN, PER MONTH, 20 OKAY? IF THE DIFFERENCE OF THAT NUMBER IS 75 PERCENT OF 21 THE 3 PERCENT, OKAY, IN THE EXTREME CASE, WHATEVER THE 22 INCREASE WAS -- 23 MR. MALABY : RIGHT . 24 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : IN THE EXTREME CASE IF THE lamw 25 PERSONS PAYING 500 PER MONTH, THE $18 WOULD BE -- COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 26 1 APPARENTLY 75 PERCENT OF THE 18 WOULD BE WHAT -- CASH FLOW 2 SAVINGS AS YOU INDICATED WOULD BE; IS THAT CORRECT? 3 (MULTIPLE OUTBURSTS FROM THE AUDIENCE . ) 4 MR . MALABY: THE CASH FLOW SAVINGS THAT A RESIDENT 5 WOULD RECOGNIZE UNDER YOUR CURRENT ORDINANCE WOULD BE 6 25 PERCENT -- 7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : RIGHT. 8 MR . MALABY: -- OF WHAT CURRENTLY IS BEING CHARGED TO 9 THEM NOW . 10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : OKAY. 11 MR. MALABY: RIGHT NOW THE OWNER GETS 100 PERCENT OF 12 THE C . P . I . INCREASE, AND IF WE WERE IN THE CITY OF 13 PALM DESERT, YOU WOULD ONLY GET 75 PERCENT. 14 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : IN EITHER EXTREME IT IS 15 EITHER GOING TO BE SOME PERCENTAGE OF $18, WHICH WOULD 16 BE -- 17 MR . MALABY: IN MY PARTICULAR CASE I THINK -- IF YOU 18 ALLOW ME, IN MY PARTICULAR CASE, AND I AM STRICTLY GOING 19 BY MEMORY -- I DID THIS CALCULATION LIKE 12 MONTHS AGO -- 20 IF THAT IS THE CASE, IN MY PARTICULAR CASE I WOULD SAVE 21 MONTHLY SOMETHING LIKE -- SOMEPLACE BETWEEN EIGHT AND TEN 22 DOLLARS A MONTH . 23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : I DON 'T UNDERSTAND . 24 MR. MALABY: WELL, IN OTHER WORDS, THE 25 PERCENT 25 THAT WOULD ORDINARILY BE GOING TO THE LANDLORD WOULD NOW COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 27 1 STAY IN MY POCKET, HE WOULD RETAIN THE 75 PERCENT OF THE 2 100 PERCENT THAT HE' S NOW CHARGING . 3 ARE YOU WITH ME? 4 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : I AM, BUT -- 5 MR . MALABY : SO THE 25 PERCENT THAT I WOULD BE SAVING 6 WOULD BE SOMEPLACE BETWEEN EIGHT AND TEN DOLLARS A MONTH . 7 SO LET' S SAY -- FOR SIMPLE MATH, LET' S SAY IT IS TEN 8 DOLLARS, SO I WOULD BE SAVING $120 PER YEAR IF I WAS IN 9 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT UNDER YOUR CURRENT RENT CONTROL 10 LAWS . 11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : MAYBE I HEARD SOMETHING 12 WRONG . I HEARD HERE -- 13 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN : ON A. $500 SPACE THE SAVINGS 14 WOULD BE $3 . 75 ASSUMING THE 3 PERCENT C . P . I . INCREASE . 15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : WELL, 120 AND THREE DOLLARS 16 TIMES 12 IS -- 17 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : $48 . 18 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : WHAT I THINK IS GOING ON HERE 19 IS REALLY A LOT OF MISINFORMATION . 20 MR. MALABY : SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT, MR. RICHARDS? 21 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : MY POINT IS THAT -- I AM 22 TRYING TO REALLY ESTABLISH WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE TO YOUR 23 POCKET IF YOU WERE IN THE CITY OR OUT OF THE CITY? THE 24 $48 -- IT APPEARS TO ME, IF A PERSON IS PAYING $500 A 25 MONTH, AND THE INCREASE -- AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE ' RE COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 28 1 ONLY TALKING ABOUT, THE WAY THE RENT CONTROL GOES, IS ONLY 2 APPLIED TO THE INCREASE, NOT TO THE BASIC RENT, ONLY TO 3 THE INCREASE . fto 4 MR. MALABY: C . P . I . INCREASE . 5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : IF THE INCREASE IS 3 PERCENT 6 THIS YEAR ON $500 A MONTH, I THINK THAT COMES TO $15 A 9 7 MONTH . IF THAT $15 A MONTH, YOU THEN HAD TO TAKE 75 8 PERCENT OF THE 15, THAT IS WHAT WOULD BE APPLIED IN THE 9 CITY OF PALM DESERT VERSUS 100, YOU ' RE TALKING ABOUT $15 10 OR 11 OR -- 11 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : FIFTY BUCKS A YEAR. 12 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : -- OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 13 THE DIFFERENCE REALLY IS, YOU ' RE SITTING HERE 14 REPRESENTING A GROUP OF PEOPLE, YOU ' RE TELLING ME $120, fto 15 AND I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW YOUR NUMBERS . 16 MR. MALABY: WELL, MR. RICHARDS, I WOULD LIKE TO 17 RESTATE SOMETHING ONCE AGAIN TO YOU . 18 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : OKAY. 19 MR. MALABY: IN THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PUBLISHED TO 20 OUR PEOPLE IN OUR PARK, THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN OUT 21 TO THOSE PEOPLE WHEN THEY SIGNED THE PETITION IS THE SAME 22 INFORMATION . AND I WENT OVER THOSE FIVE COUNTS WITH YOU 23 AS TO WHY DO WE WANT TO COME INTO THE CITY. NOW THE 24 PRIMARY THING -- SEE, YOU ' RE ZONING IN ON THE FIFTH ITEM . 25 THE FIRST ITEM IS SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PARTICIPANTS COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 29 1 OR OF THE -- 2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : NO, I DON 'T WANT TO GO OVER 3 THAT. WE HEARD THAT TESTIMONY, OKAY? 4 MR . MALABY: OKAY, FINE . 5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : I 'M ASKING YOU A SPECIFIC 6 QUESTION AND YOU APPEAR TO ME TO BE DEAD WRONG, OKAY? 7 MR . MALABY : WELL, I DON 'T KNOW HOW I AM DEAD WRONG . 8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : YOU HAVE GIVEN ME A NUMBER 9 OF -- HOLD IT, I LISTENED TO YOU . 10 YOU HAVE GIVEN ME A NUMBER OF $120, WHAT YOUR 11 APPROXIMATE SAVINGS, YOU THOUGHT, WOULD BE . WE HAVE A 12 GENTLEMAN HERE ON THE COMMISSION THAT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN 13 THIS SITUATION, AND I DON 'T THINK. IT TAKES A ROCKET 14 SCIENTIST TO FIGURE OUT THAT AT $500 A MONTH, AND WE HAVE 15 AN INFLATION FACTOR OF 3 PERCENT, THAT THE NUMBER IS $15 16 PER MONTH, AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE 17 CITY IS, IS THAT THE COUNTY SAYS -- 18 MR. MALABY: WHAT IS 25 PERCENT OF 15? 19 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN : 3 . 75 . 20 MR. MALABY: THEN YOU TAKE 3 . 75 TIMES 12 -- 21 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN : $45 . 22 MR . MALABY: AND THAT IS WHAT THE SAVINGS WOULD BE . 23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : OKAY, IT IS 45, NOT 120 . 24 MR. MALABY: OKAY. %ow 25 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : I JUST WANT THE NUMBERS, COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 30 1 OKAY? 2 ALSO, IF THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE CITY CHARGES 3 FOR THEIR FIRE CONTROL OR FIRE -- WHAT IS THAT? 4 MR . DIAZ : FIRE ASSESSMENT. 5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : -- FIRE ASSESSMENT IS 48, IT 6 LOOKS LIKE TO ME THAT WE' RE REALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT MUCH 7 DIFFERENCE IN MONEY; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? 8 MR . MALABY: NO, I DON 'T BELIEVE SO . 9 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : I ASKED YOU -- 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER : HOW ABOUT YOUR LIFE, THOUGH, 11 THE DIFFERENCE? 12 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : THE WHAT? 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER : YOUR LIFE. 14 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : NO, IT HAS -- 15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: THE DIFFERENCE IS -- 16 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : WE DON 'T -- 17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : NO, I AM JUST TALKING ABOUT 18 COST. 19 MR. MALABY: ELECTRIC BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. 20 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : SHE IS TALKING ABOUT LIFE . 21 WE' LL GET TO THAT OTHER POINT LATER . I DON'T MEAN TO -- 22 MR . MALABY: WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY TO YOU IS WE ARE 23 A 55 AND OLDER PARK . 24 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : MR . MALABY, I AM NOT 25 QUESTIONING THE OTHER FOUR ITEMS, OKAY? COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 31 1 MR . MALABY : OKAY . 2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : I JUST WANTED THE VERACITY OF 3 YOUR PREVIOUS STATEMENT TO BE UNDERSTOOD, AND I DON 'T 4 THINK THAT IT IS . I THINK THAT CLEARLY, FROM DOLLARS AND 5 CENTS, FROM WHAT I ' VE HEARD HERE, JUST DOLLARS AND CENTS, 6 NOT SAFETY, NOT ANY OF THE OTHER THREE ITEMS, THAT IT IS 7 ABOUT A PUSH . 8 MR . MALABY: HOW CAN YOU PUT A DOLLAR FACTOR ON 9 SAFETY? 10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : WE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED 11 THAT. 12 MR. MALABY: HOW CAN YOU PUT A DOLLAR FIGURE ON 13 AMBULANCE -- �.. 14 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : MR. MALABY, WE HAVEN'T EVEN 15 DISCUSSED THAT PRO OR CON . I JUST ASKED YOU -- YOU GAVE 16 US A NUMBER; THE NUMBER, IN MY ESTIMATION, WAS NOT 17 CORRECT, OKAY? NOW WE'VE GOT TO COME TO SOME AGREEMENT ON 18 BOTH ENDS . 19 THANK YOU VERY MUCH . YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION . 20 MR . MALABY: OKAY . 21 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : THANK YOU, MR. MALABY. 22 IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT -- 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER : YES, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW 24 WHERE YOU GOT THE 3 PERCENT INFLATION FACTOR, WHEN LAST 25 YEAR OUR PARK OPERATED ON A C . O . L. OF AROUND 6 PERCENT, COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 32 1 WHICH IS THE REGIONAL INFLATION FACTOR, NOT NATIONAL . 2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : WELL, IT HAPPENS TO BE MY 3 BUSINESS . THE ANNUAL INFLATION FACTOR OF THIS YEAR WILL too 4 BE AROUND -- 5 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : JIM, PLEASE . 6 IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, WOULD YOU 1 PLEASE STEP FORWARD, IDENTIFY YOURSELF . 8 MR . FEINSTEIN, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD YOU . IF YOU 9 DON 'T MIND, LET' S SEE IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO 10 WISHES TO ADDRESS US . 11 ONE AT A TIME . PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF . GIVE 12 US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS . THANK YOU . 13 MR . RESSLER: WALT RESSLER, I LIVE AT SUNCREST, SPACE 14 252 . 15 I KNOW A LOT IS GOING TO BE SAID HERE . THE ONLY 16 THING I WOULD SAY, WHICH I THINK MR. MALABY DID NOT BRING 17 UP, WHICH THIS GENTLEMAN OVER HERE BROUGHT UP WHEN WE HAD 18 OUR MEETING IN OUR LITTLE CLUBHOUSE, THAT OUR TRASH PICKUP 19 DOWN, WHICH WE PAY NOTHING FOR, WE WILL NOW PICK UP . WHEN 20 W8-GO TO THE CITY, WE ARE GOING TO PICK UP A BILL FROM THE 21 CITY, OR SOMEBODY, THIS TEN DOLLARS A MONTH, WHICH IS 22 ABOUT $120 A YEAR, WHICH IS ANOTHER ITEM WE' RE GOING TO 23 HAVE IF WE GO INTO THE CITY, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE RIGHT 24 NOW . 25 AND ON THE RECORD, I AM AGAINST GOING TO THE COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 33 10 1 CITY UNDER THE PRESENT STANDARDS . BECAUSE I FEEL IF THE 2 GREENS COMES INTO THE CITY, WE SHOULD GO INTO THE CITY . 3 IF WE GO INTO THE CITY, THE GREENS SHOULD GO INTO THE %ow 4 CITY. I THINK IT IS BETTER FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT TO 5 HAVE THAT WHOLE AREA, WHICH WOULD TAKE IN COUNTRY CLUB 6 DRIVE, FRANK SINATRA FROM MONTEREY TO PORTOLA, THAT WHOLE 7 AREA, THAT WOULD BE THE CITY, THEN THE CITY WOULD HAVE 8 EVERYTHING THEY WANT. EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE CITY. 9 WE'RE THE ONLY LITTLE SECTION RIGHT THERE THAT IS STILL 10 COUNTY. AND I FEEL THAT TO GET US ALL IN IN THE CITY, WE 11 AND THE GREENS HAVE TO COME IN TOGETHER. 12 THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY, BUT I AM AGAINST IT 13 AT THE PRESENT TIME . AND I DO WANT TO BRING UP WE ARE 14 GOING TO HAVE A RUBBISH COLLECTION, AND IT IS GOING TO BE 15 ABOUT TEN DOLLARS, SO THAT IS ANOTHER $120 TO ADD ON TO 16 OUR BILL. 17 THANK YOU . 18 MR. DIAZ: MADAM CHAIRPERSON, TO CLARIFY STAFF' S 19 RECOMMENDATION, WE RECOMMEND THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE 20 PREZONING, SEND THE PREZONING QUESTION UP TO THE COUNCIL, 21 AND RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT -- ONE OF TWO THINGS . 22 EITHER, ONE, THAT THE PETITION BE RECIRCULATED IN THE 23 PARK, OR SECONDLY, THAT THE FOLKS IN PALM DESERT -- IN THE 24 SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. THE ISSUE '"- 25 TONIGHT IS THE PREANNEXATION ZONING . COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 34 1 ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW WE' RE GETTING PEOPLE THAT 2 DON'T WANT IT, THAT DIDN'T WANT IN . AS YOU RECALL LAST 3 TIME, IT WAS ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WANTED IT. 4 THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS SIMILAR TO THE 5 PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB PEOPLE . THE PALM DESERT COUNTRY 6 CLUB PEOPLE, WHEN THEY CAME TO THE CITY TO COME INTO OUR 1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, THEY PAID FOR THAT APPLICATION WITH 8 L. A. F. C .O . THEY RAISED THE MONEY AND PAID FOR THAT 9 APPLICATION WITH L.A. F. C . O . , SO THAT IS ANOTHER 10 ALTERNATIVE . 11 SO WHAT I AM SAYING IS, LET' S MOVE THE 12 PREANNEXATION ZONING ON, BUT HAVE THEM RECIRCULATE THE 13 PETITION . THAT WAY THE PEOPLE CAN HAVE A YEA OR NAY 14 PETITION AND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHERE IN THE HECK THEY 15 STAND . 16 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT 11 THEY' RE DOING . 18 (MULTIPLE OUTBURSTS FROM THE AUDIENCE . ) 19 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : PLEASE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE US 20 YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS . 21 MR. GRUBER: MY NAME IS TOM GRUBER AND I AM A 22 RESIDENT OF SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB, SPACE 299, HAVE BEEN 23 FOR FIVE AND A HALF YEARS . 24 THE CURRENT INFLATION RATE MIGHT BE 3 PERCENT, 25 MR . RICHARDS; HOWEVER, WE HAVE PAID 6 AND 8 AND 9 PERCENT . COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 35 1 MY RENT STARTED AT 460 FIVE YEARS AGO, IT IS NOW 571 . I 'M 2 SURE IT WILL GO OVER 600 NEXT APRIL . IF YOU EQUATE THAT 3 BACK, IT WILL NOT BE 3 PERCENT . GOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT IT 4 WILL BE NEXT YEAR AND THE YEAR AFTER . WE' RE LOOKING FOR 5 SOME SEMBLANCE HERE OF CONTROL. 6 I , FOR ONE, USE THE CITY FACILITIES EVERY DAY. 7 I COME INTO YOUR PARK, AND I FEEL, AS RESIDENTS OF 8 SUNCREST, WE SHOULD PAY OUR PART FOR THE CITY. WE SPEND 9 OUR MONEY HERE . WE' RE AN ISLAND TOTALLY SURROUNDED BY THE 10 CITY OF PALM DESERT. 11 AND AS FAR AS THE 3 PERCENT, MR . MALABY' S 12 NUMBERS ARE ACCURATE, YOURS ARE WRONG . 13 THANK YOU . `w 14 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : ALL RIGHT, MR . FEINSTEIN . 15 MR . FEINSTEIN : THANK YOU . THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO 16 WITH OTHER THAN FACTS AND FIGURES . 17 MR . RICHARDS, I LISTENED TO YOU AND I RESPECT 18 YOU . I ALSO GET THE C . P . I . REPORT MONTHLY. IN MY 19 PARTICULAR CASE -- AND I ' LL BE VERY SPECIFIC -- I PAY $515 20 A MONTH . THE C . P . I . IS BETWEEN 3 . 2 AND 3 . 4, DEPENDING ON 21 WHAT AREA. NOW, IF I SELL MY UNIT, MY RENT GOES TO 582, 22 11 PERCENT, PLUS 3 PERCENT WHICH IS COMPOUNDING . THOSE 23 ARE SPECIFIC FIGURES . THOSE ARE -- I HAVE A HEART 24 CONDITION . "`p 25 MS , MOLEVER : GODDAMN YOU, MR . RICHARDS . GODDAMN COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 36 1 YOU . 2 (BREAK IN PROCEEDINGS . ) 3 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, 4 LET' S TRY AND RESUME. 5 IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WANTED TO 6 ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE PREZONING? 7 MR. ZIER : MY NAME IS FRANK ZIER (PHONETIC ) AND I 8 LIVE AT SPACE NO . 2 AT SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB AND I OPPOSE 9 THE ANNEXATION . 10 THANK YOU . 11 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? 12 PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND 13 ADDRESS . SOMEONE RAISED THEIR HAND . 14 WOULD YOU LIKE TO STEP FORWARD? 15 MR. BACHRACH : MY NAME IS JERRY BACHRACH AND I LIVE 16 AT SUNCREST. 17 I AM IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION, AND ALSO I AM 18 OPPOSED TO THE FACT THAT THEY' RE QUESTIONING THE VERACITY 19 OF THIS PETITION BY SAYING WE SHOULD RESUBMIT IT. NOW I ' M 20 NOT ON THE COMMITTEE, I 'M ON THE PETITION, I SIGNED THE 21 PETITION . NOW IF THAT PETITION WAS SIGNED BY THAT MANY 22 MEMBERS WHO CAME TO MEETINGS AND WERE SPOKEN TO -- AND 23 WE' RE DEALING WITH FACTS THAT WERE RECOGNIZED -- I CAN ' T 24 SEE YOU DOUBTING THE VERACITY OF THE COMMITTEE WHO DID 25 THIS, AND I DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO REAPPLY IT . COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 37 1 MR . DIAZ : MADAM CHAIRPERSON, LET ME CLARIFY ONE 2 THING . 3 WE ARE NOT DOUBTING THE VERACITY OF THE 1� 4 PETITION . ANNEXATION LAW WOULD GENERATE AN ELECTION, IN 5 ANY EVENT, IF THIS IS 25 PERCENT WRITTEN VOTER PROTEST. 6 THE REASON I SAID TO RECIRCULATE THE PETITION AND MOVE 7 THIS ON, THAT WAY WE KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE . SOME 8 PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE 9 SIGNING, OKAY? I 'M NOT DOUBTING THE PEOPLE WHO PASSED 10 THAT PETITION . 11 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES 12 TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? 13 MR. BEFELD : GERHARD BEFELD . . v" 14 ACTUALLY I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK MAYBE 15 RECIRCULATING THE PETITION WITH AN INFORMATION SHEET 16 PREPARED BY BOTH SIDES, OR SOMETHING, MIGHT CLEAR UP SOME 17 OF THIS . THE WAY THE PETITION WAS ORIGINALLY CIRCULATED I 18 THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS . SO I WOULD SUPPORT 19 CIRCULATING IT MAYBE SIMILAR TO THE WAY THEY DO 20 PROPOSITIONS WITH PRO AND CON ARGUMENTS . 21 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : CAN WE HEAR FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS 22 PART OF THE PETITION STARTERS IN REGARD TO WHAT MR. BEFELD 23 JUST SAID? WHERE' S THE G . S .M . O . L. GUY AT? 24 DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? WOULD A FACT SHEET *A.. 25 WITH EACH SIDE REDO THE PETITION SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 38 1 BOTH SIDES WERE SAYING? 2 MR . MALABY: (NO RESPONSE . ) 3 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : NOW DON' T TAKE ALL NIGHT, 4 PLEASE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY 5 ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR FEELINGS ON IT. 6 MR . MALABY: TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THOSE WHO SIGNED THE 7 PETITION WERE FULLY AWARE WHAT THE PETITION STOOD FOR, AND 8 I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO SEND THE PETITION BACK WITH PRO 9 AND CON AND SO ON AND SO FORTH . I THINK WE HAVE OBTAINED 10 A MORE THAN SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF SIGNATURES THAT WERE 11 REQUIRED , WE DID WHAT THE CITY SUGGESTED THAT WE DO, IS 12 TO PREPARE A PETITION AND SEND IT OUT. WE'VE DONE THAT 13 AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO FORWARD . 14 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : THANK YOU . TA 15 MR . DIAZ, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU . 16 MR. DIAZ : YES . 17 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: MR. BEFELD WOULD LIKE TO HAVE 18 THE PETITION REDONE WITH A STATEMENT FROM EACH SIDE. THIS 19 GENTLEMAN DON'T WANT TO DO IT AGAIN . YOU ' RE SUGGESTING 20 THE PETITION GOES OUT AGAIN . I WOULD LIKE SOME 21 CLARIFICATION FROM SOMEBODY ON SOME OF THIS . 22 MR. DIAZ : THE REASON THAT I SUGGEST THE PETITION GO 23 OUT AGAIN, OR WE ALL SIT DOWN AND TALK, IS, AS I INDICATED 24 WITH THE PEOPLE THERE WHEN I MET WITH THEM, MORE IMPORTANT 25 THAN WHETHER YOU ' RE IN THE CITY OR NOT IS THE FACT THAT COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 39 1 YOU DO HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT IS A COMMUNITY, IDENTIFIES AS 2 A COMMUNITY AND IT IS STRONG . AND ONE THING WE DO NOT 3 WANT TO HAVE, IF ANNEXATION GOES OR IF ANNEXATION IS 4 DEFEATED, A DIVIDED COMMUNITY. SO WHATEVER IT TAKES . IF 5 IT IS RECIRCULATION OF THE PETITION, ONE THING, OR MAYBE 6 HAVING A MEETING WITH THE LEADERS OF BOTH GROUPS TO 7 CLARIFY ANY OF THE CHANGES, IS ANOTHER THING . 8 BUT ALSO, WHEN YOU GET TO THE L. A. F . C . O . 9 HEARING, IF THERE IS 25 PERCENT WRITTEN PROTEST FROM THE 10 PEOPLE IN THE PARK, THEN WE' RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION 11 ANYWAY . 12 SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, PROCEED 13 WITH THE PREANNEXATION ZONING, AND THAT WON 'T -- IT WILL 14 NOT HOLD ANYTHING UP . AT LEAST THIS IS DONE . 15 COMMISSIONER SPIEGEL: DO I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, 16 THAT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TONIGHT THERE WILL STILL BE AN 17 ELECTION? 18 MR . DIAZ : IF THERE IS 25 PERCENT WRITTEN PROTEST, 19 THERE WOULD BE . 20 IN THE PAST, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE ANNEXED 21 AVONDALE AND PALM VALLEY, THERE WASN'T ANY PROTEST, SO THE 22 AREA CAME IN AND WE DID NOT HAVE TO HAVE AN ELECTION . IT 23 REALLY DOESN 'T MATTER THE SIZE OF THE ANNEXATION AREA -- 24 AREA BEING ANNEXED . 25 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : WELL, MY FEELING IS -- WELL, COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 40 1 I ' LL WAIT UNTIL YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF YOU ' RE 2 GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . 3 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES 4 TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC 5 HEARING? 6 MS . CONLEY: MY NAME IS SHIRLEY CONLEY, AGAIN . 7 I THINK THAT THE PETITION SHOULD BE SENT AROUND 8 AGAIN WITH THE PROS AND CONS . WHEN I WAS APPROACHED TO 9 SIGN THE PETITION, A GENTLEMAN CAME TO MY DOOR ON HIS 10 BICYCLE, SOMEONE I DON'T KNOW, AND HE SAID, "THIS IS A 11 PETITION . WE' VE GOT TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY OF PALM 12 DESERT. " HE SAID, "HAROLD MALABY SAID YOU SHOULD SIGN 13 IT. " I SAID, "I DON 'T EVEN KNOW HAROLD MALABY, " WHICH I 14 DON'T. TONIGHT IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER SEEN HIM . 15 NOBODY EXPLAINED ANYTHING TO ME . I DON 'T KNOW 16 WHAT IT IS GOING TO COST ME . I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE BOTH 17 SIDES REPRESENTED AND SPELL IT OUT AND SAY WHAT IT IS 18 GOING TO COST FOR PARAMEDICS, FOR TRASH PICKUP, OPPOSED TO 19 WHAT WE' RE PAYING IN THE COUNTY. WE SHOULD KNOW . NOBODY 20 KNOWS . EVERYBODY IS JUST GUESSING . I FEEL IT SHOULD BE 21 SENT AROUND AGAIN . 22 THANK YOU . 23 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : THANK YOU . 24 MR . BEFELD: GERHARD BEFELD, FOR THE LAST TIME . 25 I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT, AS FAR AS THE COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 41 12 1 CITY IS CONCERNED, THERE ARE COSTS, YOU KNOW . AN ELECTION 2 WILL OCCUR, BECAUSE IF THE LANDOWNER -- 25 PERCENT OF THE www 3 LANDOWNERS PROTEST, IT ALSO CAUSES AN ELECTION, WHICH IS A 4 SIGNIFICANT COST. THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR ELECTIONS . 5 AND MY OPINION IS MAYBE WE SHOULD GET THIS CLARIFIED 6 INTERNALLY, AND THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD PAY THE FEES AND NOT 7 MAKE THE CITY BEAR THE BRUNT OF THIS, AND JUST HANDLE IT 8 THAT WAY. 9 THANK YOU . 10 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I 11 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? 12 MR . GRUBER : TOM GRUBER AGAIN . 13 I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE. THING PERFECTLY CLEAR �.. 14 HERE. WE HAD A MEETING AT SUNCREST, AN OPEN MEETING 15 WITH -- MR. DIAZ WAS THERE. WHAT WAS THERE, 200 PEOPLE 16 THERE, TWO OR 300 PEOPLE? 17 MR. DIAZ : YEAH, THAT' S POSSIBLE . 18 MR . GRUBER : MR . DIAZ SPOKE. WE HAD PROS AND CONS . 19 EVERYTHING WAS LAID OUT BY MR. MALABY. THIS WAS NOT DONE 20 UNDER THE TABLE . I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS LADY SIGNED THE 21 PETITION . BUT AFTER THAT MEETING, EVERYONE IN THIS 22 ROOM -- AND IF THIS WAS NOT AUGUST 18TH, WE WOULD HAVE 300 23 PEOPLE HERE, BELIEVE ME . BECAUSE WE SPENT TIME ON THE 24 PHONES, EVERYONE IS GONE, IT' S THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST. THIS .r 25 THING WAS DONE RIGHT. THE PETITION WAS SIGNED BY PEOPLE COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 42 1 WHO KNEW FULL WELL WHAT THEY WERE DOING . 2 THANK YOU . 3 MS . BROWN : MY NAME IS BECKY BROWN AND I LIVE AT too 4 SUNCREST. 5 I HAVEN 'T HEARD ANYBODY BRING UP THE FACT THAT 6 WOULDN'T 99 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO CALLED AN AMBULANCE, 7 WOULDN 'T THEY BE COVERED BY INSURANCE? I DON'T THINK THAT 8 THEY WOULD BE BEARING THE BRUNT OF AN AMBULANCE BILL. 9 THAT IS JUST A THOUGHT. 10 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : ALL RIGHT, LAST CALL. 11 I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR 12 COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS . 13 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : MY LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT I 14 STARTED -- AND UNFORTUNATELY, I HOPE DOESN'T LEAD TO A 15 PROBLEM FOR MR. FEINSTEIN -- SIMPLY A LINE OF QUESTIONING 16 I WAS TRYING TO GET AT WHAT I TERMED THE FACTS TO BE . I 17 KIND OF THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF UNKNOWNS IN THIS THING, 18 NOT UNLIKE THE LADY, BARBARA -- I ' M SORRY, BUT I FORGET 19 YOUR LAST NAME. 20 MS . CONLEY: ARE YOU TALKING TO ME? 21 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : YES . 22 MS . CONLEY: SHIRLEY. 23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : EXCUSE ME . THAT IS TERRIBLE . 24 BUT I JUST THINK THAT YOU FOLKS OUGHT TO KNOW A 25 COUPLE OF THINGS . YOU OUGHT TO KNOW THEM, AND IT OUGHT TO COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 43 1 BE PRETTY SIMPLE . 2 WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST YOU? THERE IS ANOTHER 3 FACT HERE . PARAMEDICS TOOK SEVEN MINUTES TO GET HERE . I 4 WANT TO SEE -- I WANT TO SEE IN WRITING OR I WANT TO SEE 5 SOMEBODY COME BEFORE ME AND SAY, I 'M A FIREMAN, YOU KNOW, 6 IF I GET A PHONE CALL FROM SOMEBODY IN SUNCREST AND I GET 7 A PHONE CALL FROM SOMEBODY ACROSS THE STREET AT THE 8 APARTMENT HOUSE OR SOMETHING, OR, YOU KNOW, I RESPOND 9 DIFFERENTLY. I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, AND PERHAPS 10 STAFF HAS THAT, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. AND I THINK YOU 11 FOLKS OUGHT TO KNOW IF THERE REALLY TRULY IS A SIGNIFICANT 12 DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF PROTECTION . 13 YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU FOLKS OUGHT TO BE IN THE tow 14 CITY ANYWAY, CONTRARY TO HOW YOU ' RE HEARING ME TALK . I ' M 15 JUST LOOKING FOR THE FACTS, SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE 16 FACTS ARE, SO YOU DON'T COME TO US LATER AND SAY, LOOK, 17 YOU DIDN'T TELL ME ABOUT THE TRASH, YOU DIDN 'T TELL ME 18 ABOUT THIS, YOU DIDN'T TELL ME ABOUT SOMETHING . 19 I THINK THAT THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, AT YOUR 20 REQUEST, OKAY, AT YOUR REQUEST, SHOULD PROVIDE YOU THOSE 21 FACTS . THEY SHOULD PROVIDE THEM TO YOU . YOU ARE 22 REQUESTING ANNEXATION, YOU SHOULD REQUEST AND GET THOSE 23 FACTS LAID OUT AS TO ALL OF THE DOLLARS THAT COULD BE 24 INVOLVED, ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE DOLLARS, AND WE OUGHT TO wow 25 SEE SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM THE LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 44 1 WE ' RE BEING -- HEARSAY . MAYBE THEY DON 'T COME TO THE 2 FIRES FAST, MAYBE THEY DON'T COME TO WHATEVER . 3 PERHAPS IF THERE ARE TWO CALLS AT THE SAME TIME, 4 AND ONE IS IN SUNCREST AND ONE IS SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE 5 CITY, I MEAN, I FEEL KIND OF HARD PRESSED TO BELIEVE THAT 6 THERE IS GOING TO BE A DIFFERENCE FOR SOME FIREMAN OR 7 PARAMEDIC SITTING HERE SAYING, WELL, YOU' RE NOT HERE , 8 MAYBE THERE IS THAT. MAYBE I 'M WRONG . I 'D LIKE TO SEE 9 THAT. 10 BUT YOU FOLKS OUGHT TO SEE IT EITHER IN WRITING, 11 OR IN SOME FORM OF COMMUNICATION, FROM THE VARIOUS 12 PARTIES, WHETHER IT BE POLICE OR FIRE OR AMBULANCES . 13 I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED . 14 SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE TAXES GO 75/25 . 15 WOULD SOMEBODY TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT? 16 MR . DIAZ : THE CITY RECEIVES, AS A RESULT OF PREVIOUS 17 AGREEMENTS WITH RIVERSIDE COUNTY, RECEIVES 25 PERCENT OF 18 THE PROPERTY TAX THAT IS COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY. IT GOES 19 TO THE COUNTY. 20 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : IS THAT JUST ON THIS PARK OR 21 EVERYWHERE? 13 22 MR . DIAZ : EVERY NEW ANNEXATION . NOW THAT DOES NOT 23 MEAN 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL TAX BILL, JUST 25 PERCENT OF 24 WHAT THE COUNTY IS TO RECEIVE . 25 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : THAT MEANS THAT IF THE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 45 1 COLLECTS IT FOR SOME OTHER AGENCY, WE ' RE ONLY TALKING 2 ABOUT THE PORTION THAT GOES TO THE COUNTY? taw 3 MR . DIAZ : THAT' S CORRECT. 4 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : OKAY . THAT WAS NEW, AND 5 THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP . 6 I ' M IN AGREEMENT WITH MR . BEFELD, IN THAT I 7 DON 'T QUESTION THE VERACITY OF YOUR PETITION, I REALLY 8 DON'T. I 'M SURE YOU FOLKS HAVE HAD ENOUGH MEETINGS . 9 YOU ' RE PROBABLY UP TO HERE. 10 I DO THINK THAT THE CITY OUGHT TO PROVIDE YOU 11 SOME ANSWERS IN WRITING TO THE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED 12 BEFORE, AND THAT YOU HAVE THEM AND YOU OUGHT TO HAVE A 13 VERIFIED -- SOME KIND OF AN ELECTION OR SOME KIND OF A 14 BALLOT OR SOMETHING . IT WILL GET TO THAT ANYWAY. AND IF 15 THERE ARE 25 PERCENT THAT ARE ON THE FENCE OR DON 'T WANT 16 IT, IT WILL GO THAT WAY. SO I 'D FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF 17 THIS PREZONING WERE POSTPONED FOR ENOUGH TIME TO GET THE 18 FACTS IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY. 19 I HAD A LOT OF SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER 20 PARTS OF THIS THING . I DON'T THINK THAT THIS GENTLEMAN ' S 21 OTHER PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU 22 FOLKS ARE UP TO . NOTHING WHATSOEVER. 23 I THINK THAT -- I HAVE A HARD TIME, TO BE 24 TRUTHFUL WITH YOU, HARD TIME WONDERING HOW TO RECONCILE f.., 25 THE -FACT THAT YOU FOLKS, AS PEOPLE WHO PAY RENT TO HIM, COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 46 1 CAN TAKE AWAY SOME OF HIS RIGHTS, OKAY? I THINK THAT YOU 2 HAVE A LOT OF RIGHTS, TOO, BUT IT CERTAINLY STARTS TO GET 3 A LITTLE BIT CLOSE, IN MY MIND, WHEN SOMEBODY IS THE SOLE 4 OWNER OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND L. A. F. C . O . SAYS THAT YOU 5 CAN GET TOGETHER AND MAKE A PETITION THAT MIGHT DO HIM 6 SOME HARM . MAYBE IT WON 'T, BUT IT MIGHT DO HIM SOME HARM . 7 SO I HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM WITH THAT. 8 BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO POSTPONE THIS FOR A 9 MONTH . I THINK THE FACTS OUGHT TO BE PUT ON THE TABLE 10 EXACTLY AS TO WHAT THE DOLLARS ARE . IF YOU NOW HAVE TO 11 PAY WHATEVER, AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY THAT, I THINK IT 12 OUGHT TO BE IN YOUR HANDS, AND IT OUGHT TO BE SOME SORT OF 13 A SITUATION THAT YOU FOLKS ALL SEND US A BALLOT OR YOU DO 14 IT YOURSELF. 15 I AM MOVING FOR POSTPONEMENT WHEN THE TIME 16 CLEARS . 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: WHEN MIGHT WE GET THAT 18 INFORMATION OR SOMETHING? 19 MR. DIAZ : WELL, I CAN GET YOU THAT INFORMATION 20 TOMORROW . I MEAN, THE COST OF TRASH PICKUP AND THE 21 PARAMEDICS, THAT' S IT. AND AS I INDICATED TO YOU AT YOUR 22 MEETING, THE TRASH PICKUP THAT YOU HAVE, THE CONTRACT THAT 23 YOU HAVE CURRENTLY, WOULD CONTINUE TO RUN . AT THE END OF 24 THAT CONTRACT, THEN YOU WOULD BE UNDER THE CITY' S TRASH . 25 BUT I CAN GET THOSE FIGURES FOR YOU TOMORROW . COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 47 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER : OUR CURRENT LEASE AGREEMENT 2 SAYS THAT THE LANDLORD PICKS UP THE TRASH . am 3 (MULTIPLE OUTBURSTS FROM THE AUDIENCE . ) 4 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : HOLD ON A MINUTE . THE PUBLIC 5 HEARING IS CLOSED . WE' RE ATTEMPTING TO POSTPONE THIS . I 6 THINK THERE ARE STILL SOME QUESTIONS . I THINK THAT 7 PERHAPS SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS COULD BE BETTER SERVED 8 AFTER SOME OF THE FACTS ARE KNOWN . 9 I SEE THAT THERE IS ALSO NOW DEVELOPING ANOTHER 10 PROBLEM, THAT THE TRASH IS NOW INCLUSIVE IN YOUR RENT, AND 11 PERHAPS THAT NUMBER WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED . 12 THERE ARE SOME THINGS HERE THAT PERHAPS ARE NOT 13 FAIR TO EITHER SIDE. LET' S HEAR WHAT THE REST OF THE ter.• 14 COMMISSION IS INCLINED TO THINK . 15 COMMISSIONER SPIEGEL: MY PERSONAL FEELING IS THAT 16 NOT ONLY SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB BUT ALSO PALM DESERT GREENS 17 SHOULD BE PART OF PALM DESERT. IT IS SURROUNDED BY 18 PALM DESERT, AND BOTH AREAS USE PALM DESERT, AND IT SHOULD 19 BE PART OF PALM DESERT. 20 BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW ALL 21 OF .THE FACTS BEFORE YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO . 22 I WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE ONE-MONTH OR POSSIBLY 23 TWO-MONTH POSTPONEMENT. 24 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : WE HEARD EARLIER A GENTLEMAN SAY �..P 25 THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PACKING THIS PLACE TONIGHT HAD COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 48 1 THEY FELT A NEED TO DO SO, BUT THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE 2 OUT OF TOWN . I DON 'T THINK A MONTH ALLOWS THEM AN 3 OPPORTUNITY TO CIRCULATE INFORMATION WITH THE COSTS 4 INVOLVED, AND SOME CULMINATION OF FINAL OUTCOME BEFORE 5 THEY COME TO US . 6 SO IF WE' RE ALL OF THE MIND TO POSTPONE THIS, I 7 THINK WE NEED TO POSTPONE IT TO AT LEAST A COUPLE OF 8 MONTHS TO ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REBALLOTING, IF THAT 14 9 IS WHAT THEY DECIDE TO DO, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, TO 10 CIRCULATE THE COSTS INVOLVED AND THE PROS AND CONS . 11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : I THINK, MADAM CHAIRMAN, THAT 12 THERE REALLY ISN'T A TIME PROBLEM HERE ANYWAY. SOMETIMES 13 WE DEAL WITH THINGS THAT COST PEOPLE LOTS OF MONEY IF WE 14 WAIT ANOTHER WEEK OR MONTH . I THINK HERE IT IS A QUESTION 15 OF GETTING THINGS DONE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME . SO I CONCUR 16 THAT TWO MONTHS IS PROBABLY A REASONABLE REQUEST. 17 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : MR. DOWNS OR MR. JONATHAN? 18 COMMISSIONER SPIEGEL : I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE 19 POSTPONE IT. 20 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING 21 FOR A MOTION TO CONTINUE . 22 DO WE WANT TO SPECIFY A DATE, OR DO WE WANT 23 SUNCREST TO GET BACK WITH US? 24 MR . DIAZ : I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A DATE CERTAIN . 25 MR . RICHARDS : I WOULD LIKE TWO MONTHS . COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 49 1 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : THAT WOULD TAKE US TO 2 OCTOBER 20TH . vw 3 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS : I THINK THAT IS A BETTER 4 TIME . 5 I MOVE FOR THE CONTINUANCE TO THAT DATE . 6 COMMISSIONER SPIEGEL: I ' LL SECOND . 7 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : IT' S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO 8 CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 20TH . 9 ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 10 (AYES . ) 11 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : OPPOSED? 12 (NO AUDIBLE OPPOSITION . ) 13 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN : SUSTAINED . 14 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN . 15 I 'M SORRY THIS WAS ON SUCH A SOUR NOTE . WE' LL SEE YOU IN 16 A COUPLE OF MONTHS . 17 (WHEREUPON, THE ABOVE PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 18 8 : 25 P . M . ) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS 1 CERTIFICATE 2 OF late 3 NOTARY PUBLIC 4 5 I, TAMARA A. MIRZA, NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF 6 CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY: 7 THAT THE FOREGOING HEARING WAS TAKEN BEFORE ME AT 8 THE TIME AND PLACE THEREIN SET FORTH; 9 THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES AND ALL 10 OBJECTIONS MADE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING WERE RECORDED 11 STENOGRAPHICALLY BY ME AND WERE THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED, SAID 12 TRANSCRIPT BEING A TRUE RECORD OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE 13 WITNESS . 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE SUBSCRIBED MY NAME THIS 15 DATE: AUGUST 27, 1992 16 17 18 19 20 A ARA A. MIRZA 21 C . . R. NO . 6874 22 23 24 25 26 COURT REPORTERS OF PALM SPRINGS ro r � � co co m 1> m � � m SEGO LANE EXISTING CUREB I CsUTTER - r 'U,rrr 0 0 m n m I �m m X mx E (P to I E X Z d A L) m �' r7 I G1 i I U 00 Ul 0 mu Cd ( 9 m0 N OJ V C _ o 24' o� z z L, A Ao N > N r _ co0 z N zff-- m A rA o� JN& 4 x Y 1 MW LOMM SOM FROM SEW LADE V s. 2v" Lomm NORTH FROM ALLEY evo SANBORN/WEBB, INC. Civil Ensin a • Land surve�o . Architects Lsnd Flamers PALM SPRINGS, CAUPORMA Fz- 4 rrr �a 3 NEW Lomm mm*mN ams AT m w. w NEW Lomm wr*m mw& AT wn " " _ O SANBORN/WEBB, INC. _ a PSP� NG �NALM SPPJNGS U vwW LOOKING SOUTH FRONT wTWEEN BLDG& �F VIEW LOOKM WEST FROM ALLEY ' _ SANBORN/WEBB, INC. Civu_ Architects ead Surveyo pbuaae" PALM 3PRERG3. CALiFOPNIA Suncrest Country Club 73-450 Country Club Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 August 18, 1992 Hand-Delivered City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Change of Zone 92-3: Suncrest Country Club Planning Commissioners: My wife and I are the sole owners of the Suncrest Country Club property which is the subject of the above-referenced proposed pre-zoning. The proposed pre-zoning was initiated by a request from a minority of the tenants residing at the Suncrest Country Club r e to the City of Palm Desert. a prelude to annexing m o ty as g Y property rtY P At this juncture, I do not have enough information to adequately evaluate the merits of the Planning Commission's proposed actions or, in particular, the contemplated annexation of my property to the City of Palm Desert. Therefore, at the outset I respectfully request that the Planning Commission postpone any action on the pre-zoning request until I have additional opportunity to identify and explore the reasons for, issues raised by and ramifications of the proposed annexation with both the Planning Staff and the residents of the Suncrest Country Club, particularly those residents who do not support the annexation. Some of the issues raised by the proposed action include the following: (1) My property is surrounded entirely on the north and east by Palm Desert Greens, a much larger mobile home park which, curiously, is not included in the proposed annexation. Why is my property the only property targeted to be pre-zoned and annexed when it is surrounded by property with precisely the same use? (2) Materials circulated by the 12' - nr000nent of the annexation demonstrate that the City of Palm Desert's rent control ordinance is the driving force behind the request for annexation. (See attached Resident Newsletter) The rent control issue is a serious one that needs to be further explored, particularly since it is the underlying basis for the annexation request. (3) If the property is annexed, will there, indeed, as some of the residents contemplate, be an increase in the quality, scope, and responsiveness of fire, police and paramedic services, as well as a decrease in the cost of such services? What other �... additional governmental and community services will be provided to the area? I understand the City must submit a Plan for providing services within the area proposed to be annexed; what is the content of this Plan? City of Palm Desert Planning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 2 tow (4) From the City's standpoint, has the City prepared, or does it intend to prepare, a cost benefit analysis to determine whether the increased costs involved in providing / Y P g governmental services to this area and other costs relating to the proposed annexation are warranted? (5) Regarding any differences between Riverside County and Palm Desert ordinances, codes and policies pertaining to inspections, street design, signage and other requirements, will an annexation of my property result in my being required to make additional investments in the property which would not otherwise be required since the property is currently in compliance with County ordinances and codes? (6) If forced to accept a change of zone on my property, I would prefer that the developed portion of my property be prezoned PR-7, which is consistent with the PR-7 zoning of the adjacent Mayer property located on the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, and that my undeveloped 12.5 acres located between the Suncrest Country Club and the Mayer property be prezoned commercial. (7) 1 currently have a tentative agreement with Riverside County for the installation and sharing of costs to install a traffic signal at the entrance to Suncrest Country Club, which will enhance public safety in the area. How will this be affected by the proposed annexation? Finally, I have serious concerns regarding the City's moving forward with any annexation despite the fact that I, as the sole landowner of the property in question -- the only landowner affected by the proposal -- have expressed my opposition to the proposal. In all likelihood, there are other issues in addition to the aforementioned items that need to be explored prior to any meaningful consideration of the pre-zoning of my property for purposes of commencing annexation proceedings. If, contrary to my request, the Planning Commission decides to act on the proposal today instead of denying the request or, at least postponing any action pending additional investigation of the issues, I have no choice but to register, on the record, my protest to the proposed pre-zoning and to the annexation of my property to the City at this time. Thank you for your consideration. Re ectfully sub tted, � J Gerhard Befel logo cc: Ramon Diaz and Steve Smith 'Rent Control Law • • U ese cS upem eCo u r tq?,.,u lin . . . r g WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO US? Background information: DESERT SUN NEWSPAPER 4/4/92 "The 1988 Escondido ordinance rolled back rents to 1986 levels. It also prohibited park owners from increasing space rents when a mobile home is sold and required them to get City Council permission for rent increases. Many desert cities, including Pa Lm Springs and Palm Desert have similar laws which limit rent increases in mobile 'nome ;arks and prohibits increases following the sale of coaches." PALM DESERT CITY - MOBILE HOME PARK R= REVIEW (Chapter 9.50) 9.50.060 Maximum Rent "the maximum rent for each mobile home space that management of a mobile home park shall request, demand or receive shall not exceed three-quarters (3/4) of the increase in the cost of 'Living indicated in the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I. ) . The increase shall initially be calculated from the monthly space rent charged on April 28, 1983 and shall be determined based upon the latest availabile C.P.I. for the twelve-month period preceeding the date of the increase." THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (Ord. �606) Establishing a Mobile Home Rent Review Committee The County's answer to rent control is the establishing of a Rent Review Committee to do jut what it implies "review" rent increases when brought to the Committee's attention. Their rent control is next to nothing. The County's Ord. 4606 was amended as of 4/21/92 which stated the park owner may not increase rent space at time o= resate more than the average of the three highest rents on comparable spaces the mobile home park. The official writing of this change is coming to the writer the week of 4/27/92. �I SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB - RENTAL AGREIIy:NT Most homeowners in Suncrest signed a IC year lease stating we would comply with " California Civil Code Protlsicn. �` . ' ;Mobilehome Residency Law) . Note: look at your lease a7reemer- ,, ,a^-- r.F {i rst paragraph (or for older leases page three, paragraph eight) . we s1, n' = read was the California Civil Code Provision 798. 17(a) " . .the first paragraph of a rental agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall contain a provision not:_fying the homeowner that the Agreement will be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation or initiative measure adopted by any local governmental entity ,inicn establishes a maximum amount that a landlord may charge a tenant for rent. " Note: It is the writer's opinion ghat management did not fully disclose to the leasee what they were signing by not spelling out the leasee's forfeiture of rights to be protected by rent control laws. This opinion is being considered by some governmental agencies whereby action may be taken to rule such rental agreement illegal. Time will tell. A long term lease - such as a 10-year lease works in the favor of the park owner. Not the homeowner. Our leases are prepared so that if a law came about it would not apply if the lease was still in effect. GSMOL has been telling us for years not to get locked into a long lease. Keep looking on your Suncrest Rental Agreement—page low one 42, TERM—you can request a shorter term, 12 months or less. Note: If we were included in an ordinance or law allowing us rent controls and we were still under a rental agreement as we are now, the rent control would not apply to us until ( 1 ) 10-year agreement with Suncrest ran out; (2) management would let us out from under our rental agreement with them. WHAT IS OUR COURSE OF ACTION? Knowing the above information we must take action and not just accept where we are as final. 1 . Becane a part of the best rent control that is available to us. City of Palm Desert has such laws now. 2. Do not sign a long term lease with park owners. Sign a maximum of 12-months. It is your option and right. What would it mean to you if we in Suncrest were to be annexed into the City of Palm Desert? 1 . Improved police protection due to more officers on patrol. 2. No charge for Paramedics and City ambulanc- service. 3. City services closer and more availabl than County. 4. Approximately $48.00 increase to each of us per year for free ambulance and ftw paramedic service. 5. 25% savings per year on all land rent increase charged by park owner. Currently park owner keeps all monies charged to us via current CPI amount. With the City of Palm Desert the landowner could only charge 75% (3/4) of said rent increase to us. The remaining 25% ( 1/4) would be a direct savings to us. ACTION - ACTION - ACTION - ACTION A. When asked to attend a community meeting on the matter of annexing to the City of Palm Desert - DO IT, and ask any and all questions. B. Sign the required annexation petition which states you are in favor of Suncrest becoming a part of the City of Palm Desert. We need approximately 51% of the homeowners signatures (one per home) before the City will take action. C. Be patient for Suncrest to become a part of the City of Palm Desert. The City has stated it will take from six months ':o a year depending on opposition and processing time. If we have enough homeowners in favor of the annexation, it will happen. H^sold Malaby GSMOL 01547 Representative Space #146 346-4402 WINTERHAVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AVAIL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 1032 PALM DESERT, CA 92261 (619) 560-2717 RECEI\/ED AUG 17 1992 QMMUNlh GC,ELOPMINTDEPARIMAJ Ile I�f NFtM DF�FR1 August 14, 1992 Mr. Joe Swain Jascorp 7981 1 Country Club Dr Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Dear Mr. Swain: Listed below are the items discussed with the Negotiating Committee, Joan Goldberg, and you on August 13th. Upon mutual approval of these conditions, this proposed agreement will be sent to the entire membership of Winterhaven Homeowners Association for review and voting. The agreement between Winterhaven Homeowners Association and Jascorp is as follows: 1. Jascorp will forthwith take steps necessary, if any, in order to have Jascorp's real property de-annexed from the effect of the existing CC&R's so that Jascorp's real property is not encumbered thereby. If Jascorp is successful in doing so, Jascorp will, upon issuance to Jascorp of a final subdivision public report by the California Department of Real Estate relating to its subdivided property, pay Winterhaven HOA the sum of $28,000.00 and will reimburse it for any of its legal expenses in modifying its organization documents, if necessary. Further, Jascorp will pay Winterhaven HOA, at the close of escrow of each subsequent lot, $1,000.00 to be used to upgrade the shared used f aci 1 i ti es. 2. The parties hereby agree to the shared use of certain facilities of each and to a sharing of costs. In that regard, Jascorp and members of the homeowners association to be formed by Jascorp and their guests and ,,�,,, invitees shall be entitled to use, in common with members of Winterhaven, Mr Joe Swain „ugust 3, 1992 Page 2 t le front access gate and its attendant facilities, Winterhaven's streets and walkways, Winterhaven's tennis courts (but not to the use of Winterhaven's swimming pool), and Winterhaven's drainage and flood control facilities. Members of Winterhaven and their guests and invitees shall be entitled to use, in common with Jascorp and members of the homeowners association to be form by Jascorp, facilities of the Jascorp association consisting of the streets and walkways of the Jascorp association and the drainage and flood control facilities on Jascorp's property. 3. Henceforth and as long as the Winterhaven Association is in existence, Jascorp (and later the Association to be formed by Jascorp) will pay and reimburse Winterhaven 50% of Winterhaven's expenses of maintenance and reserves for replacement of the main gate and its related facilities, 50% of Winterhaven's expenses for the maintenance of the tennis courts, including reserves for replacement thereof and a prorata share of utility expenses relating to the main gate and the tennis courts. Because the r.r expenses of each party will be approximately equal for expenses related to the streets and the flood control facilities each party will bear their own expenses in connection therewith. 4. Jascorp will arrange for access to its property during the periods of construction by a means other than the main gate. 5. Winterhaven will be responsible for maintenance and replacement of the main gate and its related facilities, that portion of the perimeter wall which now circles tract 17794-1, all common area facilities which now exist in tract 17794-1 together with maintenance of the landscaping in the Hovely Lane right-of-way adjoining tract 17794-1. Jascorp shall be responsible for the maintenance and replacement of the perimeter wall surrounding tracts 17794-2 and 17794-3 and will construct, maintain, and replace the streets in the Jascorp property. In additions, Jascorp will maintain the landscaping located in the Hovely Lane right-of-way adjacent the Jascorp property. 6. Jascorp may, but only with a prior approval of the'Board of Directors of Winterhaven, make any capital improvements and modifications to the facilities. tlr Joe Swain August 3, 1992 Page 3 7. Winterhaven HOA hereby agrees that it will not actively oppose Jascorp's project before municipal authorities by appearing at hearings or other-wise voicing opposition to its project. C As it pertains to item *6, Jascorp shall not prohibit Winterhaven HOA from voicing opposition to the City of Palm Desert should the Architectural integrity of the community be jeopardized by any proposed construction of a structure on Jascorp's property which would be out of character for the surrounding area. 9 Jascorp agrees to withdraw their pending lawsuit filed July 15, 1992, with no further demands to be made to Winterhaven HOA. 10. The essence of this agreement is the continued mutual cooperation and consultation between Winterhaven HOA and Jascorp during the development of the Jascorp property. .. This letter is intended as an offer which will become an agreement upon signature by the parties hereto. If the foregoing is consistent with the agreement as you understand it, please sign below. Upon receipt of this signed agreement from you, it will be sent to the membership of Winterhaven for approval. The foregoing is agreed to: ya/6'L Q / Joe Sw , Jascorp Date nterhaven HOA Gate