HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-27MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Snyder convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
H. PI.FIlGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro-Tempore Richard S. Kelly
III. INVOCATION - Mayor Walter H. Snyder
IV. ROLL CALL
Present: Excused Absence:
Mayor Pro-Tem Richard S. Kelly
Councilman S. Roy Wilson
Mayor Walter H. Snyder
Also Present:
Councilman Buford A. Crites
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Bruce A. Altman, City Manager
Bill Adams, Deputy City Attorney
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/P.I.O.
Carlos L. Ortega, ACM/Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency
Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development
Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works
Paul Shillcock, ACM/Director of Economic Development
Paul Gibson, Director of Finance
Patrick Conlon, Director of Building & Safety
Frank Allen, Director of Code Compliance
Larry McAllister, Director of Human Resources
Linda Moore, Acting Environmental Conservation Manager
Catherine Sass, Public Art Coordinator
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Adjourned City Council Meeting of June 10, 1991, and the Regular
City Council Meeting of June 13, 1991.
Rec: Approve as presented.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY . - Warrant Nos. 0516
and 0614.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. AMENDED CLAIM NO. 168 AGAINST THE CITY by Antonio Navarrete in an
Amount in Excess of $10,000.00.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Deny the Claim because the incident occurred outside
the jurisdictional limits of the City of Palm Desert; 2) direct the City Clerk to
so advise the Claimant.
D. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Materials Testing and Special Inspections for Civic
Center Addition.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Contract No. 00-556 with ICG Incorporated
in the amount of $12,556.00 plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $1,256.00;
2) instruct the Director of Finance to appropriate said amount from the already
budgeted Civic Center addition account.
E. RESOLUTION NO. 91-72 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, Setting Solid Waste Collection Service Rates Within the City of Palm
Desert and Rescinding Rates Established Under Resolution No. 90-79.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt.
F. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT No. 00-557 for Engineering Services for
El Paseo Median Modifications.
Rec: By Minute Motion, award Contract No. 00-557 to The Holt Group for
engineering services with fees, subject to successful negotiations with staff.
G. CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER from the Local Agency Formation Commission
Relative To Proposed Funding Sources.
Rec: By Minute Motion, refer to staff for report and recommendation.
H. REOUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. 00-485 for Curb and
Gutter and Cross Gutter Repair Program.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for
the subject project.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * _ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Supplemental Agreement No. 00-558 Between the
County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert for Community Development Block
Grant 16th Year (1990-91).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the 16th year (1990-91) Supplemental Agreement
No. 00-558 with the County of Riverside, authorizing staff to release $6,000 to
Desert Community Outreach's Food Pantry and $10,000 to the Joslyn Cove
Communities Senior Center.
J. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Three -Way Stop at Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane
East Intersection.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve staffs recommendation to change the traffic
controls at the subject intersection from a one-way to a three-way stop; 2)
authorize staff to implement the project.
K. CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER from the City of Palm Springs Relative to Graffiti.
Rec: By Minute Motion, refer to staff for report and recommendation.
L. RESOLUTION NO. 91-73 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, Setting Forth Its Findings and Authorizing the Destruction of Files
from the Department of Building and Safety That Have Been Microfilmed.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt.
M. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION from the City of Pomona Opposing Water
Company Surcharges for Reduced Water Consumption.
Rec: By Minute Motion, refer to staff for report and recommendation.
N. CONSIDERATION OF A REOUEST from the Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage/Indian
Wells Board of Realtors Opposing a Model Water Closet Retrofit Ordinance.
Rec: By Minute Motion, refer to staff for report and recommendation.
3
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
O. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1991 MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Receive and review Master Drainage Plan dated June,
1991; 2) instruct staff to schedule a public hearing for July 11, 1991, for
consideration of an ordinance adopting the subject plan and setting fees for
drainage facilities in accordance with the Master Drainage Plan; 3) authorize
staff to negotiate Contract No. Q0-559 with NBS/Lowry as a consultant for
support in review of annexed areas as needed and as staff support for
engineering design consultant sectional as well as quality control, said contract
not to exceed $15,000 per year unless authorized by City Council.
P. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Susan Mack from Her Position as a Member of
the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Rec: Receive with sincere regret.
Q. LETTER FROM JAMES L. LAMB Requesting Approval of the Waiver of a Late
Penalty Charged His Business License.
Rec: Refer to staff for report and recommendation.
R. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of One -Year Extension of Contract No. 00-452 with Davis
& Associates.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the extension to Contract No. 00-452.
S. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Amendment to Contract No. 00-086 with Carl Warren
& Company.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 00-086.
T. FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 MARKETING PLAN for the Palm Desert Promotion
Committee.
Rec: Receive and file.
4
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESER CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
U. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Extension of Time for Plans Filed in the Department
of Building and Safety by Pamela Smallwood.
Rec: Refer to staff for report and recommendation.
Councilman Wilson removed Items E, 0, & Q for discussion under Section IX, Consent Items
Held Over.
Upon motion by Kelly, second by Wilson, the balance of the Consent Calendar was approved
by unanimous vote of the Council.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
None
VII. RESOLUTIONS
None
VIII. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 648 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS
FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS
Mr. Allen reviewed the report in the packets, noting that staff recommended an
amendment to Section 5.86.140exempting private golf and tennis clubs located in major
country clubs and athletic clubs which provide massage services for members.
Councilman Wilson asked why this was being limited to private clubs and asked how the
amendment could include a municipal course.
Mr. Allen responded that this could be done by deleting the word "private", and
Councilman Wilson stated this was satisfactory to him.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 648 to second
reading amended to delete the word "private" from Section C. Councilman Wilson seconded the
motion, and it carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
5
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. ORDINANCE NO. 649 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 3.28.020, 3.28.030,
3.28.040, 3.28.070, AND 3.28.110 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
Mr. Allen reviewed the staff report, noting that this was the result of an audit of the
records of operators collecting transient occupancy tax in the City. He added that the
amendment would expand the definitions and terms contained in the Municipal Code to
make them more clear.
Councilman Wilson moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 649 to second
reading. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 650 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.36.010 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHING SPEED ZONES ON DEEP
CANYON ROAD FROM FRED WARING DRIVE TO MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that staff recommended changing the speed
limit on Deep Canyon Road north of Fred Waring Drive from 40 mph to 35 mph, based
on the Traffic Engineering Study by the Technical Traffic Committee.
Councilman Wilson moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 650 to second
reading. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote.
D. ORDINANCE NO. 651 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.36.010 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHING NEW SPEED ZONES ON
MERLE DRIVE WEST OF COOK STREET, VELIE WAY, JONI DRIVE, MERLE
DRIVE EAST OF COOK STREET, 42ND AVENUE, AND SHERYL AVENUE EAST
OF COOK STREET.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that this was an area that had been annexed
into the City. He stated that studies had been done and that staff recommended approval
of the speed limits as listed in the ordinance.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 651 to second
reading. Councilman Wilson seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote.
r
6
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * }- * * * * * * * * * * * * * 's * * * * * * * * * * *
For Adoption:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 647 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTION (C) OF SECTION
9.24.0300F THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NOISE CONTROL.
Mr. Altman stated that no changes had been made since introduction of this ordinance,
and he recommended its adoption.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 647, and Mayor
Snyder seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was 2-0-1 with Councilman Wilson
ABSTAINING. Because ordinances require 3 affirmative votes for passage, the ordinance was
deferred to the meeting of July 11, 1991.
IX. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
E. RESOLUTION NO. 91-72 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, Setting Solid Waste Collection Service Rates Within the City of Palm
Desert and Rescinding Rates Established Under Resolution No. 90-79.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt.
Councilman Wilson stated he had asked that this item be held over to explain that he would
abstain from voting on it inasmuch as he had not been present during its presentation at the meeting
of June 13, 1991. Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 91-
72, and Mayor Snyder seconded the motion. It carried by a 2-0-1 vote with Councilman Wilson
ABSTAINING.
O. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1991 MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE.
Councilman Wilson stated he had removed this item to discuss whether or not to hold
this public hearing the same night as the hearing on the Big Horn Sheep - July 11 th. Mr.
Folkers responded that it was desirable to move forward with this plan in order to raise
very old and outdated fees. He did not know whether or not it would receive much
public testimony. Mr. Altman said that he would have it placed first on the agenda.
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Receive and review Master Drainage
Plan dated June, 1991; 2) instruct staff to schedule a public hearing for July 11, 1991, for consideration
of an ordinance adopting the subject plan and setting fees for drainage facilities in accordance with
the Master Drainage Plan; 3) authorize staff to negotiate Contract No. 00-559 with NBS/Lowry as a
consultant for support in review of annexed areas as needed and as staff support for engineering design
consultant sectional as well as quality control, said contract not to exceed $15,000 per year unless
authorized by City Council. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote.
Q. LETTER FROM JAMES L. LAMB Requesting Approval of the Waiver of a Late
Penalty Charged His Business License.
Councilman Wilson stated he had removed this item to ask staff to consider coming up
with a sliding scale formula for late fees so that a person paying five days late would not
be subject to as high a penalty as one paying 25 days late.
Councilman Wilson moved to refer to staff for report and recommendation. Councilman Kelly
seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote.
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO
COACHELLA VALLEY TELEVISION'S TRANSFER TO PALMER CABLE
ASSOCIATES.
Mr. Altman noted the staff report in the packets and stated that Mr. Ortega would
answer any questions.
Councilman Wilson asked if there was any updated information on the City's ability to
review and approve rate increases in view of the FCC's latest ruling.
Mr. Ortega responded that he had requested a copy of the FCC's ruling regarding the
number of stations that must be available in the area before effective competition exists
and would be reviewing it to see how it applies to Palm Desert and whether or not there
is a grandfather clause for existing cable companies.
Councilman Kelly asked if there was a hurry to approve Coachella Valley Television's
transfer to Palmer Cable Associates and felt perhaps this matter should wait until we are
sure the new regulations will be concluded in a satisfactory way for the City.
Councilman Wilson responded that this would only transfer the name from the old
Coachella Valley Television to the new corporation.
Mr. Ortega added that the current signatory on the franchise agreement was Palmer
CableVision, and staff recommended that the agreement be signed by the new division,
Palmer Cable Associates.
8
MINITI'FS
REGULAR PALM DESERT I'Y COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * ;--* * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * *
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 91-74, approving the transfer of the
cable television franchise from Coachella Valley Television to Palmer Cable Associates, was adopted
by unanimous vote of the Council.
B. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Palmer CableVision Update.
Mr. Ortega stated he had no additional report at this time.
2. Update on Tri-Cities Sports Facility.
Mr. Diaz reported that the individual from the firm doing the noise study would
return from vacation on July 2nd at which time noise readings would begin on the
existing ball fields. He added that in terms of the notice of preparation, the main
issues were noise, traffic, light pollution, a bridge over the San Pascual channel,
and concern for property values. He said all issues would be covered in the
Environmental Impact Report and that staff was now looking at September or
October for a hearing before the Planning Commission on the EIR.
3. Prohibiting Left Turns on Portola Avenue at Goleta Avenue.
Mr. Altman noted there was a memorandum in the packets from Mr. Folkers who
would answer any questions by Council.
XL CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. PETITION from Lori Carangelo and Jane Barnett Relative to the Abatement of
Neighborhood Noise Disturbance (Continued from the Meeting of June 27, 1991).
Mr. Allen reviewed the staff history of this matter and offered to answer any questions.
Upon question by Councilman Wilson relative to the letter from Mr. Robert Turkington
of Haztech Systems, Inc., an independent noise consultant, Mr. Allen stated he felt the
consultant should have contacted him to see what kind of equipment the City was using
to obtain sound readings. He added that he did not put much stock in the report.
• Councilman Wilson suggested that Mr. Allen contact Mr. Turkington to discuss this
matter and provide him with information about the equipment being used so that he will
not have to work from assumptions.
Upon question by Councilman Kelly, Mr. Allen responded that he felt the problem had
been resolved. He said the church had been cooperative and that the chimes were below
the ambient sound level.
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MS. LORI CARANGELO, 72-670 Thrush #1, said she was satisfied with the reduction
of sound level but still disputed the methods used to obtain the readings. She said she
wanted some kind of official determination by the City so that they would not have to
again go through the process of going from house to house to obtain signatures and file
a petition. She said she would also like for there to be a better method of reporting
these situations in the future.
Councilman Wilson suggested that staff periodically do sound readings in the area to
make sure the sound level remains consistent.
Councilman Wilson moved to accept the staff report and instruct staff to periodically monitor
the decibel level. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote of the
Council.
B. J EOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Agreement No. 00-549 Between the City of Palm
Desert and the Coachella Valley Water District.
Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report, noting that this agreement dealt with certain future
obligations of the Coachella Valley Water District to underground adjacent power lines
if an assessment district is created for undergrounding of electrical lines in the Cahuilla
Hills area.
Upon question by Councilman Kelly, Mr. Ortega responded that the water line was one
which served a broader area than just the water tank. He said the District would be
relocating a line that would be in the way of the berm that will shield the tank from view
and, because of the cost, would like to postpone the undergrounding until the entire line
can be done.
Councilman Wilson stated this was the first time he had seen the Planning Commission
enter into an agreement and asked if it was a usual procedure.
Mrs. Gilligan responded that she had asked the City Attorney's office to check into
whether the Commission could enter into an agreement. She said that Doug Phillips had
advised that the Planning Commission could enter into such agreements; however,
because there had never been any agreements in the past signed by the Commission, he
suggested it be placed on the Agenda for ratification.
Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, ratify the approval of the Planning
Commission and approve Agreement No. 00-549 for undergrounding of certain overhead utilities for
Water Tank Project Valley Zone Reservoir in the Cahuilla Hills area. Councilman Kelly seconded the
motion, and it carried by unanimous vote.
XII. OLD BUSINESS
None
10
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT ITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * -. * * * * * * * * * * * * *-* * * * * * * * * * * *
XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE CLOSING TWIN PINES RANCH.
Upon motion by Kelly, second by Wilson, the item was added to the agenda because of an
urgent nature and having arisen after the agenda was posted by unanimous vote of the Council.
Council.
Mr. Diaz reviewed the report, noting that Twin Pines Ranch was a ranch and
training facility for youth who have been in trouble and that it served the entire
County. He said staff felt this was the type of facility that should be expanded
in the Valley and not closed and recommended that Council support the City of
Indio's request.
Councilman Wilson said he was sure the County was aware of the need for these
types of facilities; however, he was also aware of the need for budget cuts and
would not want the County telling the City of Palm Desert where to make cuts
in its budget.
Councilman Kelly said he was concerned because we are asking the County not
to charge us for booking fees, but we are asking that they continue to provide this
type of service. He added that he did not feel knowledgeable enough about the
whole program to oppose it.
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, the item was tabled by unanimous vote of the
B. CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Adams requested a Closed Session at an appropriate time pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(a), pending litigation (Concerned Merchants v. City of Palm
Desert), and 54956.9(b), potential litigation (two claims against the City).
C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
1. Availability of Access to the Civic Center.
Councilman Kelly expressed concern with pedestrian access to the Civic Center
and said he frequently saw people trying to enter the buildings from the front.
He felt with all of the programs we have to get people out of their cars and
walking, the Civic Center was not very "pedestrian friendly", and he asked that
11
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
staff look into alternatives that would make the expansion of the Civic Center
more pedestrian friendly.
Councilman Wilson suggested perhaps a walkway between the two buildings
to encourage pedestrian traffic and also directional signs.
Mr. Altman stated that the Civic Center Steering Committee would look into
this matter.
2. Report on Library.
At the request of Councilman Kelly, Mr. Diaz reported that a communication
had been received from Di. David George of College of the Desert asking for
additional discussion relative to the location of the City library on the College
of the Desert campus. He said a meeting had been held with Dr. George,
Board of Trustees Chairman Julie Bornstein, Mayor Snyder, Mr. Altman, and
staff to discuss the plans. Upon question by Councilman Wilson relative to
the State grant, he said no further progress had been made; however, staff was
still working with the City of Rancho Mirage on the tax issue.
o City Council Committee Reports:
None
XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
MR. JOHN DOWNS, 53-360 Avenida Martinez, La Quinta, addressed council on behalf of
the John Downs Desert Football Conference and read a prepared statement requesting
Council's support of this youth organization.
Staff was directed to look into this matter and report back to Council at a future meeting.
Councilman Wilson moved to adjourn the meeting to Closed Session at 5:20 p.m. pursuant to
Government Code Sections 54956.9(a) and (b), pending and potential litigation. Motion was seconded
by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
Mayor Snyder reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with no action announced from Closed
Session.
XV. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION
None
XVI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C
None
12
NrIINUTF.S
REGULAR PALM DESERT "Y COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * ._ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XVII. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
None
XVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF AN ANNEXATION CHANGE PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 FOR LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-6, MONTEREY MEADOWS.
See verbatim transcript attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A".
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 91-71, approving the annexation to
the subject assessment district, was approved by unanimous vote of the Council.
B. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1991-92 LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO.4, PARKVIEW ESTATES.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and recommendation and offered to answer any
questions.
Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in
OPPOSITION to this matter. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing
closed.
Upon motion by Kelly, second by Wilson, Resolution No. 91-72, levying the 1991-92 assessment
for District No. 4, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council.
C. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1991-92 LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO.81-3, THE VINEYARDS.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in
OPPOSITION to this request. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing
closed.
Upon motion by Kelly, second by Wilson, Resolution No. 91-25, levying the 1991-92 assessment
for District No. 81-3, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council.
D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1991-92 LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2, CANYON COVE.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and recommendation.
13
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in
OPPOSITION to this request. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing
closed.
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 91-77, levying the 1991-92 assessment
for District No. 2, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council.
E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1991-92 LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 5, COOK STREET/COUNTRY
CLUB.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and recommendation.
Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in
OPPOSITION to this request. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing
closed.
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 91-1a, levying the 1991-92 assessment
for District No. 5, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council.
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1991-92 LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 6, MONTEREY MEADOWS.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and recommendation.
Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in
OPPOSITION to this request. The following individuals spoke against the levying of an
assessment on homeowners of Sonata I at this time:
MR. ROGER HUGHES, 40-896 Sonata Court.
MR. MAX MARKITIS.
MR. KEN FULTON.
MR. ROSS OFEE, 40-990 Sonata Court.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Folkers stated that it was staffs recommendation that Sonata I be deleted from the
resolution levying the assessments for fiscal year 1991-92 and that the Council adopt
Resolution No. 91-79 with that amendment.
Councilman Wilson asked if staff would then proceed to try and get a meeting set up
with the property owners and the developer, and Mr. Folkers responded that staff would
do so and would report back to Council as soon as possible.
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * _-* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Wilson moved to waive further and adopt Resolution No. 91-79, levying the 1991-
92 assessment for District No. 6 and excluding Sonata I. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion, and
it carried by unanimous vote.
G. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1991-92 LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1980-1, PRESIDENTS' PLAZA.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and recommendation.
Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in
OPPOSITION to this request. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing
closed.
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 91-$Q, levying the 1991-92 assessment
for District No. 1980-1, was adopted by unanimous vote.
H. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENTS.
Ms. Moore reviewed the staff report and showed a video outlining the Source Reduction
and Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Elements. She offered to answer any
questions.
Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in
OPPOSITION to this request.
Councilman Kelly commended Ms. Moore and said he felt she had done an excellent job
explaining the program.
MR. DAN EHRLER, Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, stated that this project was
something the Chamber's Environmental Affairs Committee was very much aware of.
He expressed support of the project and said the Chamber would do everything it could
in terms of facilitating communication and seeing that the program is implemented
successfully.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to review and consider all
comments for incorporation into the SR&RE and HHWE Preliminary Draft. Councilman Wilson
seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote.
I. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY PROJECT AREA NO. 3.
See verbatim transcript attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B".
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Member Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 248, approving the
Final Owner Participation Rules, Final Method of Relocation, and Agency Report to the City Council.
Member Wilson seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote.
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, and unanimous vote of the Council,
Mayor/Chairman Snyder closed the public hearing.
J. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS LIMITS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION.
Mr. Altman noted there was a report in the packets and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the audience.
With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed.
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 91-K, establishing the appropriations
limit for the 1991-92 Fiscal Year, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council.
K. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED
FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92.
This item was considered as a joint public hearing with the Palm Desert Redevelopment
Agency.
Mr. Altman briefly reviewed the staff report, noting that staff had followed up on all
issues raised in the Budget Study Session. With regard to the Palm Desert Children's
Choir request for funding, he stated it had been included in the budget. He thanked staff
for its participation in the budget process.
Mayor/Chairman Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR
of or in OPPOSITION to this matter.
MS. JULIE BORNSTEIN spoke as a member of the Civic Arts Committee and expressed
the Committee's support of the additional allocation for the Palm Desert Children's
Choir. She offered to answer any questions.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor/Chairman Snyder declared the public hearing
closed.
Councilman/Member Kelly discussed the matter of the public art coloring book, noting
that the recycling coloring book had cost approximately $1.00 per book. He said a bid
had been received for $.67 per book if we do the art work ourselves. He said he felt it
would be an excellent way to promote the Art -In -Public -Places program and asked that
$3,374.00be included in the budget for 500 copies of the public art coloring book.
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT 1TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "4 * * * * * * * * * *
Upon question by Councilman/Member Wilson regarding the funding for the coloring
books, Mr. Gibson responded that there were funds in the budget available from the
Chamber of Commerce cuts that he had not deleted, and funds could be allocated from
this account for the printing of the coloring books.
Noting for the record that he was not endorsing the salary compensation plan that would be
discussed under recommendation No. 2 and No. 5 of the staff report, Councilman/Member Wilson
moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 91-2 , adopting a program and financial plan
for the fiscal year July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992, to include an additional $4,000 for the children's
choir and $3,374 for the public art coloring book, and by Minute Motion, approve the 1991-92 Fiscal
Year Budget for the Redevelopment Agency. Councilman/Member Kelly seconded the motion, and
it carried by unanimous vote of the Council/Redevelopment Agency Board.
Councilman Wilson expressed concern with not seeing the actual resolution dealing with
the salary compensation plan until after discussion in Study Session. He asked that in
the future staff provide it for study session as well as a copy of the previous year's
resolution so that Council can look at exactly what it is being asked to approve.
Other Council concerns were as follows:
With regard to the recommended 10% temporary increase for the Director of
Code Compliance to supervise purchasing, Councilman Wilson said this matter
had not been discussed during study session.
Mr. Altman responded that this matter had been discussed with members of the
Personnel Committee.
Councilman Wilson stated that in comparing this resolution with the 1990-91
resolution, he noticed that an Associate Planner position had been eliminated
(because Catherine Sass had been moved to Public Art), and there was an
Assistant Planner position that was not there last year.
Mr. Gibson responded that it was a promotion for an individual from one position
to another.
Mr. Altman added that the Personnel Committee had agreed that all title changes
would be held until the new Human Resources Director is hired. This particular
position would be one of the items reviewed.
Councilman Wilson questioned Group B listed on page 5 of the resolution and
said there was an additional position that had not been included in Group B list
year. He said he did not recall discussing this matter.
Mr. Altman responded that this particular position was moved to Group B because
it is a supervisory position now.
17
M NUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT C1TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Wilson questioned the step increases and said he did not realize that
there would now be 10 steps (A-J) instead of the 9 (A -I) shown on last year's
resolution, and those individuals at the end step would get an 8% increase instead
of 6%.
Mr. Altman responded that those individuals would have to wait five years from
their last raise before getting the additional 2%.
Councilman Wilson questioned the "Y"rating as defined in Mr. Allen's memo and
said he understood it differently. He said the "Y"rating according to what he was
familiar with meant the salary was frozen until the salary schedule catches up.
Mr. Allen's definition was worded so that the position that is "Y" rated receives
the annual cost of living increase, which means it would never catch up.
Mr. Altman responded that this issue had been discussed with Councilmembers
Kelly and Benson of the Personnel Committee.
Councilman Kelly agreed with Wilson and said he had expressed a great deal of
concern during the Committee discussions.
Councilman Kelly said he was concerned because he could not determine by
looking through all of the information provided exactly what percent increase each
particular position would receive for the next year due to cost of living, merit
increase, market increase, etc. He said he was used to working with a plan where
he is able to see each position to see what the total increase will be for the entire
year.
Councilman Wilson stated that because this resolution required three affirmative votes
for adoption, and because he was not prepared to vote in favor, he would suggest
continuing the matter to July 11, 1991, with the assurance to staff that he would have no
problem making it retroactive to July 1st. He asked that prior to the July 11, 1991,
meeting another study session be held to discuss the Human Resource Officer position
and the various job title changes as well as concerns raised by Council at this hearing.
Mrs. Gilligan noted that Council already had a 3:30 p.m. study session scheduled for July
1 lth to meet with representatives of Equity Directions.
Mr. Altman suggested that Council vote on the resolution and place it on the next
Agenda for ratification.
Councilman Kelly noted that he agreed with Councilman Wilson and was not prepared
to vote in favor at this time.
Councilman Wilson added that there were several employees who were at the higher end
of the salary schedule who would receive an 8 % increase. He expressed concern because
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT r Y COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * *_.. * * * * * * * * * * * * —•* * * * * * * * * * *
the Los Angeles Times had indicated that thousands of people would be laid off this year,
and he felt it would be bad policy to give such large raises at this time and in this kind
of environment.
Councilman Kelly moved to continue the review and recommendation by City Manager and
Committee reviewing the Human Resource Officer position and the various job title changes as well
as consideration of Resolution No. 91-$2, rescinding Resolution No. 90-$1 and adopting allocated
classifications, authorized positions, compensation plan, related employee benefits, and new
Memorandum of Agreement for the 1991-92 Fiscal Year, effective July 1, 1991, to an adjourned
meeting to be held at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 1991. Councilman Wilson seconded the motion,
and it carried by unanimous vote.
XIX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D
None
XX. ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Kelly, second by Wilson, and unanimous vote of the Council, Mayor Snyder
adjourned the meeting at 10:37 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 1991.
ATTEST:
n?
i�SHEILA Ij/ ILLIGAN, CITE CLERK U
CITY OF R.M DESERT, CALIFORNIA
/47A)9/
WALTER H. SNYDER, -MATOR
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * st sr a* st ss ss Mt Mg Mg s* s* s* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4*
EXHIBIT 'A'
Snyder: The first public hearing will be a consideration of an annexation change pursuant to the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
No. 89-6, Monterey Meadows. Mr. City Manager.
Altman: Yes, Mr. Folkers will brief you on this one, Mr. Mayor.
Folkers: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. As you recall at the last meeting, there was the
concern expressed by the citizens with regard to the assessments that were presented for
your approval. Since that time, Tom Bassler of my staff has been working with both
residents and Barcon Development to sort out the situation. I would like to have Tom
give you a little overview of what he went through and what he discussed and then we'll
proceed. Tom.
Bassler: Mayor, Members of the Council. This public hearing was continued from our last
meeting and essentially what it does is, it annexes the existing or enlarges the existing
Assessment District for the Monterey Meadows area. Basically, it expands the boundaries
to include Hovley Lane West from Portola to Cook Street, and the actual proceeding or
the adoption and annexation does not, in any way, levy any taxes or assessments against
the property owners but brings us into a district, because the developments along this
property or along Hovley Lane West have been conditioned to either provide for
landscape maintenance of the common or perimeter landscaping either through a
homeowners association or through annexation or incorporation into an assessment
district. So that's the proceeding of the annexation, basically sets up a ghost assessment
district and then as needed we will be taking over the maintenance and then assessing
and levying the taxes against the property owners as needed. The question that was
raised by Councilman Crites last time was were the developers actually conditioned to
be within the Assessment District or form an Assessment District and there's a report
that was dated June 19th, where we looked at the Conditions of Development through
the various developments that are now formed in that area, and it shows that all four new
developments that we are proposing to take over the maintenance have been conditioned
in the Conditions of Development or through other further changes to be incorporated
into a maintenance district. The questions of the actual assessments itself should be
covered under the public hearing that will follow for the levy of assessment against the
properties that are not within that district. But this actual, the annexation procedure
itself, we recommend to continue so we have the mechanism to fulfill the requirements
that have been placed on the developers at this time.
Snyder:
Shonside:
Folkers:
Any questions from the Council? Thank you. This is a public hearing that was opened
at the last meeting, and the public hearing remains open. I'll take testimony from
anybody who is in favor of this item. Or testimony against this item?
--- gentlemen, I would like to pass out something which is pertinent to part of what I'll
be talking about.
Want me to pass them out to the Council?
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * s * * * 4t s * a ** ** *s ** ** aR *s ** s* 4* ** y* ** ** ** 4* **
EXHIBIT 'A'
Shonside: What I'm passing out, gentlemen, is an excerpt section from the CC&R from Sonata I,
which is pertinent to what I will be talking about. Honorable Mayor and Members of
City Council. We, the homeowners of Sonata I, tract 23982, are here in force or are
represented by a letter of proxy for absentee homeowners. I have researched all our
purchase documents, including the CC&R's and have found nothing written, typed, or
printed where we were previously advised of an assessment district prior to the close of
escrow. On October, and again in December of 1988, correspondence took place
between the City of Palm Desert and Barcon Development Company, the builder of
Sonata I, to the effect of a future assessment district. But since these documents were
never recorded, they were not picked up by our Title Company. Knowing this, Barcon
drew up their own version of the CC&R and may have intentionally omitted the
impending Assessment District and inserted the term Maintenance District. That section,
which you have in front of you, relieves us financially from any County or City maintained
property. Portola Avenue, which is our main thoroughfare, and which vehicular traffic
travels in excess of 50 miles an hour. As such we enjoy no benefit from the landscaping
on Portola, as an eight foot wall separates that landscaping from our homes. We have
been advised that the landscaping design came from the City. Knowing of the future
assessment district, why did the City design the landscaping so high in maintenance if
Sonata I is being assessed more than any other development on Hovley Lane? Now the
City plans to assess the sum of $636.00 to every homeowner. This represents an
approximate 32 % increase in our taxes. Many of us are retired on a fixed income or
have children to support and this would constitute a financial hardship. All this for an
assessment we knew nothing about, nor benefit from. This is purely a case of
nondisclosure, and a violation of real estate law. We the homeowners of Sonata I refuse
to accept this assessment and are prepared to bring action until this matter is amicably
resolved. Therefore, we hereby request this assessment be postponed to give all
interested parties ample time to respond and possibly reach a solution. In conclusion,
we feel the City of Palm Desert should continue to seek financial reimbursement from
Barcon Development Company until this matter is resolved and not from the
homeowners. Thank you.
Snyder: Thank you sir. Anyone else who would care to give testimony in opposition?
Taylor: Good evening. This is that nervous lady again. But I have a lot of things to say
regarding our opposition against the proposed assessment. First I would like to start out
by saying that we would thank you, we would like to thank the Council for graining us
a postponement for the last two weeks. Greatly appreciate that. Sonata I and Barcon
Development, we had asked for and received no correspondence or contact through Mr.
Bassler. Mr. Bassler said he would not arrange any meetings between Sonata, between
Barcon Development and us. So we told him that we didn't ask him to do that, but we
thought it would be in the favor, in the benefit of everyone if that would happen. It did
not happen so we got together, had a homeowners meeting, went through our CC&R's
and decided that we had to seek action on our own and that's what we're hear for.
Several of the things that Larry, Mr. Shonside presented, I have here also so if it geu
repetitious I'm sorry. I did my preparation without him and he did his without me. On
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * s s s * * s s * s s s • s * INC a ss a r* s* s* ss ss s« 4* s« *s s* 4* s* * 4* 4*
EXHIBIT 'A'
June 17th I received a copy of the Planning Commission's meeting whereby it stated that
landscaping maintenance on Hovley Lane, Portola Avenue shall be provided for by the
homeowners association. It was approved by adoption of the Planning Commission on
October 4, 1988. This was never told to us as buyers of the Sonata I development, as
buyers in the Sonata I development. I also received a copy of a staff report of a meeting
with Barcon Development and the Department of Community Development whereas the
department agreed to create a public street assessment district to maintain perimeter
landscaping. That is the first time perimeter landscaping is ever mentioned in any
recorded or unrecorded document. It does not identify the area, it never, ever mentions
perimeter. It doesn't mention it on my lot, I purchased lot 6 in Sonata development.
It doesn't say anything about a perimeter. It says that I own lot 6. This is one, this is
the one and the only time the word was ever mentioned. This modification was approved
December the 20th, 1988. I wasn't offered any further information and after reading my
real estate purchase contract agreement, escrow instructions, CC&R's, and finding no
written reference of an assessment or the perimeter of Sonata I, I started some research
with a Title Company. I then decided that there was nondisclosure of same. I did seek
the advice of counsel to review the CC&R's and other documents of record. Counsel
did reiterate that there was total nondisclosure of an assessment of or the perimeter.
He also advised me that there was definite cause for recourse against Barcon
Development and the City of Palm Desert. I am not here to make any threats, I am just
here to tell you gentlemen that we are not going to sit still for this. We think it was
totally unfair, we were never notified, and the laws are very defined in real estate. It
cannot be hazy, fuzzy, unclear. They must be stated and fully disclosed, fully disclosed.
Nondisclosure is not a forgiveness of the real estate law by you nor me. As a developer,
as an attorney, and as a real estate agent, I don't believe it is excusable of Mr. Gold.
That was the gentlemen that I bought my property from, that signed my real estate
purchase contract. I would like to refer to a subdivision improvement agreement, the
date of the agreement, gentlemen, is February the 27th, 1989. The date of the recording
July 10th, 1989. On this document, and it starts out at the top, as a subdivision
improvement agreement. The date of agreement, February 27, 1989, Barcon
Development and it states the cost. As we start with Article I, it is no longer agreement,
gentlemen, it is a covenant. A covenant I should have known about in my CC&Rs.
There is no mention of this covenant in my CC&Rs. There was never any mention of
this on my real estate purchase contract. There has never been any mention of it from
anyone. This was done by research by my attorney. I would like to read an agreement,
some wording that's in this agreement, that states. I had to blow it up for these guys,
excuse me. Okay. Article V states that subdivider agrees that any and all existing
facilities that expressly set forth in this agreement shall not be damaged by reason of
construction or other public improvement in connection with this agreement, the
subdivider or its contractors and that, if necessary, subdivider will protect such facilities
against any and all damage at subdividers expense. The improvement security referred
to on line 4, page 1, which was in the amount of $250,000.00,shall be held and retained
until specific releases are obtained from the utility companies and all the districts
involved. In the event that the subdivider fails to perform any obligation hereunder,
subdivider authorizes City to perform such obligation 20 days after mailing written notice
of default to subdivider at the address given below. And this is where it gets real good.
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT Y COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * s * * s s * * s s *---• s • s • sig as 41g MI at ss s* 4* 4* s* 4* ss s* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4*
EXHIB1T 'A'
And there's no reason that the property owners should have to pay that. The subdivider
has agreed to pay the entire cost of such performance to City. It doesn't state until when,
until there's an assessment, its says until he's released. Who gives him the right, who has
the right to release a subdivider? In the event, seeings how, gentlemen, this was a
covenant, it would have been very prudent had the attorney advised Mr. Roy Wilson that
this should have become part of the CC&Rs or that it should have been delivered to the
future buyers of Sonata I. I think that would have been very wise. Unfortunately, that
did not happen, but the City has a chance to rectify that. The City has a chance to
handle that. The City is going to get the chance to handle that. Number VII in this
same document, in this agreement, the covenant, in the event the subdivider fails to
perform the obligation hereunder, subdivider agrees to pay all costs and expenses
incurred by City in secure and performance of such obligation, including costs of suits,
including costs of suits and reasonable attorney fees. Subdivider hereby binds itself, its
executors, its administrators, and assigns and agrees to indemnify and hold the City
harmless for any losses, claims, demands, actions, or causes of actions of any nature
whatsoever arising out of and in any way connected with the improvements agreed to be
constructed and installed hereunder by subdivider, including cost of suit and reasonable
attorney, attorney fees. Gentlemen, that is the redeeming factor for the property owners.
If it is necessary for us to have to seek legal recourse, Barcon pays for your, your lawsuit,
our lawsuit against the City and they pay for it against themselves. That's the only
redeeming factor in this document that was not revealed to the homeowners. And I want
to tell you, it feels pretty redeeming to me to know that I wouldn't be fighting against
myself as a taxpayer, because basically, if I had to sue the City of Palm Desert that's what
I would be doing, but thank you, Mr. Wilson, that was covered in here. There is the
appearance of the district of nonintent to identify lots that refer to this agreement and
again never mentions the outside perimeter. It's vague and unclear as to what areas that
we're talking about. On the back of this agreement its says see Attachment A.
Attachment A is a (inaudible), it says to Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Number
one, street improvements. Number two, water system. Number three, sanitary sewer
system, and number four, monumentation. What is monumentation? Does anyone know
what monumentation is?
Folkers: This would be the establishment of the boundaries for the subdivision.
Taylor: Um-hm. Just to establish other boundaries for the subdivision.
Folkers: Yes, ma'am.
Taylor: Um-hm. Is there anywhere in here that place the perimeter of the property in this
agreement? But refers to?
Folkers: I'm not familiar with the document, so it's, I can't really tell you, ma'am.
Taylor: Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bassler. I did obtain a tract map of this
perimeter property. It is not anywhere on my CC&Rs, it is not on the map attached to
my title policy. And it does refer to the lots, A through E, that show which lots cover
23
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
s s s s s # i s s s s s • * s s • * st * * * * * ss s* ss ss st sr ss ss *t s« st st s*
EXHIBIT 'A'
the outside perimeter. These lots aren't listed anywhere on this agreement. This
agreement, this was signed on the lots when it was dedicated to the City, this was, this
dedication was accepted on April 7, 1989. The agreement was July the loth, 1989. All
of this was in place just after, excuse me, just before the sale of these lots at Sonata I,
but we weren't told about this. It is never in any document. There seems . to have been
a great accommodation to the developers, 1 can understand that. Its great the developers
are going to come to the area and beautify our City. We need it. We have nice homes
in Sonata I. We love our homes. Its also nice that you're going to have taxpayers like
myself and my other 16 neighbors that can be able to afford to pay their taxes and keep
the development beautiful. Your developer will leave, and we will still be here for the
next 30 years taking care of this property. The cost of this proposed assessment for the
next 30 years is approximately $21,000.00 without figuring in what the cost of living
increases may be for the next 30 years. I did not calculate that. $21,000.00,gentlemen.
That means that my house is, would, would then be less 21,000 less because that's an
encumbrance on my property. That's a burden on me and the other homeowners, as we
did not plan to have this. It didn't, it wouldn't really matter whether or not, or who can
or cannot afford this assessment. If we were going to afford the assessment, have to
afford the assessment it should have been told to us prior to the purchase of the property.
But there is so many changes in here that it was very obvious along the way that when
we went to the developer, in our meeting we discussed this, every homeowner that bought
this property had asked the developer are there any assessments of the outside perimeter,
are there any homeowners fees? We were all told no. Nothing like that in this
development. Your responsibility is your property. I'm going to accept that as law,
gentlemen. The agreement must be settled in the favor of the homeowners, with the
homeowners having final approval. I don't mean that the homeowners intend to accept
any responsibility for the outside perimeter. What I mean is that I feel that its up to the
City since the City made the agreement with Barcon Development and didn't make sure
that us property owners had a say so in it. Its up to you now gentlemen, since you had
such a good agreement together that you work out another agreement together, and we're
going to give you the opportunity. If it becomes necessary, we have agreed that we will
seek legal recourse. That's not what we want to do. We don't even want to be here
tonight. We haven't even had dinner yet. I'm sure some of you haven't either. We want
to be doing other things. It's summer, it's beautiful. The children are out of school, no
one wants to be here tonight. We had to be here tonight so that we could be heard.
We have in our complex 16 units. We have two of the homeowners here that have
partial disabilities. I'm sure that these two homeowners must have expenses that arise
that are unexpected. They don't need another unexpected expense. We have eight
homeowners here that have families, which means that they have, most of them have two
or more children. I'm sure they always have unexpected expenses. They don't need any
more surprises. We have five retirees here. Three or four of those retirees moved from
condominium complexes because they did not want to have any homeowners fees or
those monthly assessments that never stop growing. Some of us are not prepared for this
unforeseen burden. It was not okay for the developer to say, it is heresy that he did say
this, and I believe it, but it is not okay for him to assume or say that if you can afford
a $200,000.00home you should be able to afford $60.00 a month. No one asked him to
be our financial adviser, he doesn't get to decide how we spend our extra $60.00a month.
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT .'Y COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * sk sr sM ss sr st s« ss st 9* ** 9* s* s* ss 9* 9*
EXHIBIT "A"
We get to decide that. We are pleading, I will humble myself, yes, pleading, gentlemen,
that this matter be settled with Barcon Development. The homeowners intend, do not
intend to plan to decrease the maintenance, the homeowners do not feel they have any
responsibility, we do not intend to have any more homeowners meetings regarding the
care of the perimeter of Sonata I. We expect to be heard from, from Barcon
Development and the City of Palm Desert. We expect the both to settle this matter.
We don't think that its up to us to settle it. If it becomes necessary, we know what
recourse we have to take, and we are prepared to take it. What we have here,
gentlemen, last but not least, it appears that its the same thing as the early colonists had
that were faced when they came from England which started the American Revolution.
Taxation without representation. This is 1991, gentlemen, let's be fair. Let's be friends.
Thank you.
Snyder: Thank you.
Gilligan: Ma'am, ma'am, would you give your name and address for the record, please, we're
recording.
Taylor: Surely.
Gilligan: The actions of the meeting.
Taylor: My name Louise Taylor. I live at 40-925 Sonata Court.
Gilligan: Thank you.
Taylor: Thank you.
Snyder: Thank you. Anyone else care to testify in opposition? Seeing no one, I'll close the
public hearing and ask the staff for additional considerations of this matter and the
Council.
Folkers: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I feel somewhat humbled by the discussion that
went on, because it wasn't our intention to take food out of people's mouths or cause
problems for anybody. It was an intent to follow through on something that we felt in
good faith we were having to do. And this was the development requirements of the
developer were such that the assessment district would be set up. It was my
understanding that the City would be involved as the mediator in the process between
Barcon Development and the Sonata I folks. And apparently that didn't happen. For
that I apologize, because it was our intention to solve the situation. We will solve it.
One of the suggestions I have and this again may or may not go, may be acceptable to
the people involved, but it would be my recommendation that we proceed as we have
in other cases with a zero assessment for this year, with the idea that the developer would
be responsible and possibly the City may have to support this for the remainder of the
assessment year. In the meantime, get this sorted out because at this point in time there
is 'a lot of legal issues that have been brought up that I'm not aware of, and I'm sure the
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * s* * s * * s * s ik 0 0 0 *t ss ss st * s* st ss 4* st 4* ss s* 4* 4* 4* 4*
EXHIBIT "A'
representative for the City Attorney is not aware of, and I don't know if all these matters
can be resolved tonight. It was our intention to proceed with having this matter go
forward and this, I guess, is something that the Mayor can bring before the people to get
their viewpoint on. If we do go with a zero assessment, it allows everything to go in
process but they will not be assessed and we can get it sorted out.
Wilson: And what is the down side of taking no action and setting up no assessment district until
we get some answers to these questions as to one, why notification wasn't given by the
developer to the people who purchased the property during escrow. Those kinds of
questions I think need to be answered.
Folkers: Okay, it will not be possible. If it is decided that everything is legal, if we don't proceed
at this point then its not possible to have this assessment district go into this next year's
tax roll.
Wilson: And the maintenance remains the responsibility of the developer?
Folkers: Well, at this point in time it is the responsibility of the assessment district according to
the information that we have here. Are you posing a question?
Wilson: I'm posing a question to you. If we don't have an assessment district.
Folkers: Then it.
Wilson: Then it remains in the, the responsibility of the developer.
Folkers: No, it basically means that nobody will be responsible for the assessment district,
therefore, the maintenance of the perimeter so, for the remainder of the year if the
residents or the developer or the City does nothing, it will look similar to what Desert
Falls did a few years ago.
Kelly: Did we release the developer yet?
Folkers: Yes sir.
Kelly: When did we do that?
Folkers: I don't have the exact date, but he was released. Some of the information that the lady
was reading there had to do with conditions of his development, and he took care of all
of those conditions, therefore, the monies were released. In other words it would be as
far as the water, sewer, gas, there was a whole series, a whole checklist or punch list of
what, that he has to complete before we release the project and all that was taken care
of. The one thing, the fly in the ointment, is the assessment of the perimeter.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESER1 1TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * `s * * * * at * * * 4t st aIt st st st st st st st st * s* 4* is *t *t
EXHIBIT 'A'
Kelly: You're saying that you think its impossible to get all the answers tonight and that we
have to, we have to move one way or the other to get, if we're, if its zero, what's the
difference if we have it on the tax rolls or not.
Folkers: I believe there's an option to get it corrected at a later point in time if we have
something on the books, but if we have nothing on the books, we have to wait a full year.
Kelly: Oh, okay.
Altman: Yeah, I think also Mr. Mayor you'd have the legal mechanism that is fulfilling the
condition of the developer. They have a legal vehicle to do it, so I think what Dick
suggests is if you go zero assessment, we would say for this year, at worse case, we would
pay for it. But in future years, you know, you have the assessment district formed and
not a question formed. Bill, do you have any comment on it?
Adams: Well, I hesitate very much to jump into something that's been going on for a long time,
but could I post a hypothetical situation for you? If no reference had ever been made
to this developer to talk about bringing this property into the assessment district, if that
had never been mentioned, and the Council now wanted to follow the normal procedures
for forming an assessment district or for annexing this property to the assessment district
you'd be right where you are now, except that there wouldn't be the discussion of what
did the developer say or not say. From what is before the Council tonight, and in this
series of hearings is the question of annexation of the property to the maintenance
district. The, from a legal standpoint, the standpoint of the, of that action, what the
developer did or didn't advise the buyers of the property is irrelevant. The process of
annexing property to a maintenance district is set out in the Streets and Highways Code.
The, the underlying primary requirement is notice to the property owners. The Code
provides three ways of giving that notice. It can be given by posting the property, or by
mail, or by publication in a newspaper. In this instance, I'm advised that it was done
in two of those three ways. By posting and by publication. Publication takes the place
of all other means if you wish to do so. But in this case there was, there was over notice.
I mean, there was both publication and the posting. And the fact that that notice was
given is, is borne out by the fact that the property owners have appeared for the public
hearing. Now at that public hearing, which began last meeting I understand and was
continued to this one, the property owners have the right to protest the annexation. If
more than 50% or more of the property owners protest the annexation, then the Council
has two choices. You may abandon the proceedings and not annex the property to the
district, or you may overrule the majority protest by four -fifths vote. If, if as I mentioned
in the beginning, if there had never been a requirement that the developer bring this into
the, annex this property to the district, you would be at exactly that same place except
that there wouldn't be the discussion of what did the developer say or not say. Now,
where that does become relevant is that if it is not annexed to the district, then the
developer has not carried out all of the terms and conditions of his development. You
know, that may, for whatever penalty or sanction may be involved there, but as far as the
process of annexing this property to the district, it has nothing to do with what the
'developer did or did not say to the buyers. The notice goes to the property owners. If
27
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CTTY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * s * s s s s s s # s s s * * as ss • s. s* ss ss * s« s« ss 4* 4* s* .* 4* ** * s*
EXJIIBTT 'A'
the, now the developer is one of the property owners and these, and the good folks that
are here discussing it with you are also property owners, but they have all received
notice of this proceeding, and they have their right to file a protest and those protests,
I presume, have been received.
Snyder: Thank you Bill.
Altman: I've got an idea, Mr. Mayor. I would suggest you do this. That you keep the public
hearing open, you continue it until September which gives us some time to sit down with
the folks, you're not doing an annexation to the district, but you're not saying you're not
going to do one. Then let's sit down with all the parties. If we're talking a zero
assessment anyway, we're not going to be out any money. Number two, if, if we turn
down the annexation to the district then we may run into problems in trying to have a
link as to what the condition was in the first place. But that will give ample time where
nobody's going to be assessed, nothing is formalized until we have time to sit down with
everybody and come back with a more full report, I think in September, because next
month I don't think there's time to come up with a report and after tonight, we're too
late to do an assessment for this year anyway. Well either way, though, I think keep the
one open.
Bassler: The, the annexation actually involves 265 parcels and property owners. The annex, like
I stated earlier, the annexation itself does not levy or commit them to any tax or against
their property. That, those follow, that is being recommended though in Item F on the
agenda, which is a totally separate subject. The fact is that we, within the boundaries
of this annexation that we're setting up there are four new subdivisions along Hovley
Lane that are being incorporated or assessments. The residents of Sonata I, 16
homeowners represent a portion of those 265 people annexing into the assessment
district. We have prepared an engineers report that says that if the City maintains this
property, this is going to be the assessment to these individual parcels throughout the
year. So the annexation proceeding should carry on through, because we have other
properties that we need to provide the maintenance for in the district through the year
and unless we receive any protests to it, we won't have the mechanism to do it. The fact
is that they are within the district, does again, doesn't commit them to any commitment
unless it is levied at a, during the other public hearing for the levy of assessment. So.
Wilson: Is that figure correct for the next item on the agenda? A $636.00 assessment?
Bassler: The, yeah, for the item, its (inaudible) now, request approval for levy assessment for
Assessment District No. 6, there is actually five individual subdivisions within that
assessment district and each subdivision pays its proportionate share of the cost for
maintenance, and unfortunately for Sonata I, with only 16 homeowners and just under
1,000 linear feet of parkway landscape maintenance, the estimated costs break out to
$626.00 per parcel a year. Other developments along Hovley Lane there, the original
district of Monterey Meadows, I believe their assessment for the next year is going to
be $139.00, down on the far corner, The Glen, which will be coming in as part of the
annexation process, is around $400.00 and several of the other subdivisions range from
28
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT 1TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * s * s s * -v. # * s * *s * * ss IOC * Me MC * s* s* 4* s* s* s* ss 4* s* s* s* s*
EXHIBIT 'A'
just under $200.00 to $400.00 a year. But the unfortunate situation is that the amount
of landscaping that is there and is part of the perimeter landscaping and the cost of
maintaining that divided amongst so few people creates that situation where it is a very
high cost individually. All of this was laid out in the engineers report for the assessment
and again the annexation into the district does not in any way commit them to paying
an assessment and if it is deemed that we will do a zero assessment for their particular
parcel, that can be changed during the next public hearing, Item F, for what goes against
the tax rolls. And presently the developer, Barcon Development, is still maintaining the
perimeter maintenance on it. He has been maintaining it for approximately two years
now and, again, other subdivisions and developers along Hovley have been maintaining
their perimeter and, again, they were conditioned to either annex into or form an
assessment district for the, for the ongoing maintenance of the perimeter properties that
were conditioned as part of their development and essentially its an ongoing process and
something that we're doing throughout the City with other districts.
Wilson: I have a couple of questions for the City Attorney or staff. I'll throw it to the City
Attorney first. This, did you get a copy of this section 303 that was handed out?
Adams: Yes, I did.
Wilson: Am I reading this correctly when it says not withstanding the foregoing, I'm not sure what
the foregoing is because we're only given one page, it says owners shall have no
responsibility to maintain any area of improvements upon any area which lies within the
maintenance district of the City of Palm Desert or Riverside County. Does that imply
that they do have responsibility for maintaining the area if it is not included in a
maintenance district, i.e., the Assessment District.
Adams: I think it falls short of that. I would not read it in that mariner. This does, the individual
homeowner, as I understand it, I may have been misinformed, but I'm not sure that there
is a homeowners association.
Folkers: No.
Adams: For this group. I believe there was not. Each homeowner would be responsible as far
as physically maintaining. He would be responsible for maintaining his own property,
and this property is some of the excess lots that show on the subdivision map, I think they
were probably designated by letter. And those lots would become the property of the,
either of the maintenance district or of the City to be maintained through the
maintenance district. There, though there would not be liability on the homeowner, on
the individual homeowners to go out and maintain that property there, where they would
have a responsibility is not physically to maintain but to pay the annual assessments
through a maintenance district.
Wilson: What is the intent of that section?
29
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL Mr.GiuvG JUNE 27, 1991
* * * is * * * * * * * s * s s * • • a INC MC s* INN s* Me s* s* 4* 4* s* 4* 4* s* s* 4* 4* 4*
Adams:
Wilson:
Adams:
Wilson:
Folkers:
Wilson:
Adams:
Folkers:
Adams:
Wilson:
Adams:
Wilson:
Kelly:
Adams:
Snyder:
Folkers:
Snyder:
EXHIBIT 'A'
As I read it, its saying that they shall not have responsibility to maintain it if its in a
maintenance district.
If its in a maintenance district, but the other side of the coin, if it is not in a maintenance
district what is the obligation, that's not, what's not clear to me in the reading of that
section.
If it does not say that, I mean, I, I, under, I can see just what you're saying, the only thing
is that there is no way that I'm aware of, without a homeowners association or something
similar, that that burden of physical maintenance could be put upon the buyer of an
individual lot to then require him to go down the street and maintain a piece of property.
The property in question is that, the -ownership of that retained by Barcon? Has it been
deeded over to the City, where's, what's the?
If its public easement.
Public easement.
Those lots would normally be dedicated as part of the recording map.
Well, its the perimeter property.
No.
Second question I have is for staff and maybe the attorney. Is it possible
Manager's recommendation and approve this assessment district for all
the Sonata I portion and continue that portion until September?
possibility?
I know of no reason you could not. You could not add property, but I
reason you couldn't subtract.
Thank you.
What does Tom say about that?
That he'd rather not.
I thought you had something.
No, no. I think the lady wants to speak.
Okay.
to take the City
property except
Is that a legal
don't know any
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* # s * * * s * * * * s * * * * • • * Mt lit st * * * Mt Mg st ss st st s* *t *t sit ss 4*
EXHIBIT 'A'
Taylor: It was asked whether or not this property was dedicated to the City. According to the
documents I have, the perimeter property was dedicated.
Wilson: We already got that answer.
Taylor: Okay.
Wilson: Thank you.
Taylor: Also, I was told by Mr. Bassler that Barcon Development had notified the City as of July
the 1st, they would no longer accept the maintenance on this, but I just heard Barcon
is going to continue to maintain this, so that is a question that we need resolved or that
is, I don't understand.
Folkers: Mr. Bassler is over there.
Taylor: Oh, excuse me, Mr. Folkers, I'm sorry. That I don't understand because we were told
that he would no longer be maintaining it as of July the 1st and that's why we were
notified. One thing I'd like to say, it sounds as though when you talk the annexation
having nothing to do with the assessment, but then obviously its going hand in hand,
we're talking about needing these dollars to maintain these districts and if you're going
to get them from the assessments, but we keep saying the annexation has nothing to do
with it. So, I, I don't understand that. Maybe I'm a little dense, but, I don't.
Wilson: It's two separate actions.
Taylor: It's two separate actions, but they.
Wilson: .The first action is is there a district or isn't, and the second action which you would have
opportunity to speak to is what the assessment be or should it be zero, should it be 626,
what should it be? So those are two separate actions.
Taylor: Okay.
Bassler: In discussing it, like I said, presently Barcon Development is maintaining the perimeter
maintenance as well as all other developers down the street are maintaining the
maintenance of the perimeter landscaping. At present, there is no real legal means for
the developer to continue on. He's, if he sells his last property and has no other interest
in it, as far as I'm aware of he can walk away. The utility bills are presently in Barcon
Development's name. If he stops paying the utility bills the street lights go out, the water
meter get shut off and the electric meters get shut off. Part of the process of the
assessment district is for those, establishing the assessment district or levying an
assessment against the property owners there. As far as the City take over the payment
of the utility bills, so there is a common or one singular entity maintaining the property
and in turn its kept up. So I have talked with Irwin Golds of Barcon Development, I've
talked with the property owners last week as far as trying to set up a meeting, I've talked
31
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * s s * s s * s * * * sr * *s st 0 ss ss GIs ss st ss 4* 4* s* s* s* s* s* s* s*
EXHIBIT "A"
with Larry Shonside and Louise Taylor and the decision that I got back from talking to
Larry Shonside was that the, I did offer to have a meeting here at City Hall using our
administrative conference room somewhere, sometime during the week if they could set
up a time with the property owners, and I got dates from Irwin Golds of Barcon
Development as to when he would be available to meet and when I talked to Larry
Shonside on the telephone he said that the decision was made that the property owners
were going to meet independently without the developer or without us getting involved
in it and that's where the matter rested.
Folkers: Thank you. Okay, that clarifies that. It would be the staffs recommendation, Mr. Mayor
and Members of the Council, that we proceed with the annexation as proposed and that
when we get to the item involving this district that discussion be held in the, this Item
E, taken under advisement by the Council as far as the decision as to assessment.
Snyder: The alternative would be to approve the assessment. Let them handle it themself.
Kelly: When we do this (inaudible)?
Folkers: Yes, by taking action you will not assess them anything. It just sets up the district.
Snyder: I'm not talking about that.
Folkers: Okay.
Snyder: I'm talking about an assessment district. (inaudible)
Folkers: Okay, that is a possible action too, as the City Attorney indicated.
Snyder: Then they could not be brought into it for another year.
Folkers: That's correct.
Snyder: They would also lose all their maintenance.
Folkers: If the contract, if the developer walks away.
Snyder: If they're not an assessment district, we would not pick it up.
Folkers: That's correct.
Snyder: That's my point. Then they would have a year to decide whether they wanted to get back
in it or not.
Folkers: Yes sir.
32
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT ( Y COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * 1k at 0 * * ss a * ss s* 4* * 4* ss s* s* 4* s* s* ** s*
EXHIBIT "A"
Wilson: So the options are, one, approve the assessment district excluding this area or approve
it as recommended by staff. The entire amount and then address their concerns.
Folkers: Address their assessment under that item, yes.
Kelly: It comes up later.
Adams: Mr. Mayor, it just, a problem occurs to me. Mr. Wilson asked earlier is there any reason
you couldn't drop them out. There is an obligation, a condition of approval imposed on
the developer that the property be annexed to the assessment district. If the Council
takes the action of eliminating those lots from the assessment district, that may be
relieving the developer from that obligation. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm simply
saying it could have that effect of relieving the developer from the obligation at least as
to those properties left out.
Wilson: I think there are two down sides, one it might, yes, if we were to exclude them, one, we
may be as the City Attorney just said, giving the developer an out so he has no
responsibilities. I think there's a second down fall if we exclude them, and that is that,
you know, what happens during the next year. These 16 homeowners may feel that they
want some form of maintenance there. They will have no mechanism to have a
maintenance, a vehicle to provide the maintenance, thus the area that the developer
doesn't continue it and if we relieve him of that obligation, I don't see why he would
want to continue it. That could then basically seriously impact the property values of
that project if the perimeter dies, the street lights go out, and the people there have no
mechanism to pick it up and handle it. So I think the staff recommendation is probably
the best one. I would move it.
Kelly: Second.
Snyder: Been moved and seconded that the annex to Assessment District No. 6, Conditions of
Development be approved, and we will address the matter of the Sonata when we get
to Item F. It's been moved and seconded would you please vote.
Gilligan: The motion carries by unanimous vote.
33
i
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
• • • • * • • • • * * * * * * * * sR * * sr INC 411, I ss st sk st a• st s• s• •• s• •• 4* ••
EXHIBIT 'B'
Snyder: The next item on the agenda is a joint public hearing for consideration of Final
Environmental Impact Report and Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Agency
Project Area No. 3. I will call the meeting to order. This is a joint meeting of the City
Council and the Redevelopment Agency. Members of the City Council also sit as
members of the Redevelopment Agency. To make it official, I will ask for a roll call.
Gilligan: Member Benson and Member Crites are excused absences. Member. Vice -Chairman
Kelly.
Kelly: Here.
Gilligan: Member Wilson.
Wilson: Here.
Gilligan: And Chairman Snyder.
Snyder: Here. Prior to the opening of the public hearing, it is necessary for the Agency to
consider and act on the following items. Owner participation rules, method of relocation,
Agency report to the City Council. The Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency will now
consider action on the owner participation rules, the method of the relocation, and the
Agency Report to the City Council as follows: One, resolution approving the owner
participation rules, the method of relocation, and Agency report to the City Council. Mr.
Ortega.
Ortega: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mayor, you have a report before you that explains what the owner
participation rules would be. That, that those apply to business owners, owners of
property in the area. If there is to be any relocation to implement the plan, what the
Agency proposes to do to assist and advise those people of the relocation procedures.
There is also an Agency report to the Council that explains all of the plans. It explains
all the meetings that we have had with taxing jurisdictions, and the property owners in
the area and includes the Environmental Impact Report and several other documents.
These you would adopt prior to acting on the public hearing items.
Snyder: The City Council has received these documents. They have them in front on them. They
have had them for some time. I would like a resolution now approving these documents.
Kelly: You need that Resolution 248 before the public hearing. Is that right?
Snyder: Right. Yes, before we can continue this.
Kelly: I move approval of Resolution Number 248.
34
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT C COUNCIL MEETING N
NE 27, 1991
* * • * * * s * s * s s s * * * * * * * ss sr ss 4* * 4*s« 4* 4* y* s* 4* 44s 4* 4* 4* 4*
EXHIBIT "B"
Wilson: Second.
Snyder: Please vote.
Gilligan: The motion carries by unanimous vote.
Snyder: I will now declare the public hearing open. The purpose of this joint public hearing is
to consider: One, the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 of the
Redevelopment Agency and two, the final Environmental Impact Report on the
Redevelopment Plan. Opening comments by the Executive Director.
Ortega: Mr. Mayor, this is the first time that anybody in the public, including those people in the
project area, have had an opportunity to formally address the Board and the Agency on
this matter. Prior to this we have had five citizens, we had five citizens meetings. Those
meetings, all the property owners have been notified, and we have in the report to
Council a list of the agendas of the subjects that were discussed and a roll of all the
people that attended. In addition to any testimony you may receive tonight, there are
comments in writing that have been submitted. You may, as part of the public hearing
process tonight, additionally receive comments. It is our intent to have those comments
that can be addressed tonight, addressed either by Council or the consultant. This
evening staff and consultants will present evidence and testimony pertaining to the
Redevelopment Plan and the final Environmental Impact Report. Further, we will take
public testimony in connection with the Redevelopment Plan and final EIR.
Snyder: Thank you. Under the law, it is my responsibility to preside over this joint public
hearing. The State law under which we are acting is Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health
and Safety Code, commencing with Section 3,000, 33000, commonly referred to as the
Redevelopment Law and the California Environmental Quality Act, commonly referred
to as CEQA, commencing with Section 21000 of the Public Resources Code. This
combined public hearing on both the Redevelopment Plan and final Environmental
Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan, so please make it clear when you are
speaking whether your remarks are directed to the Plan or the Environmental Impact
Report or both. The order of procedure will be as follows: First, the staff will present
the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the Environmental Impact Report, and other evidence
and testimony in support of the Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. Second, we
will receive any written comments. And third, we will receive any evidence or oral
testimony from those present concerning the Redevelopment Plan or the Environmental
Impact Report. We ask that you confine yourself to the subject at hand and to no new
comments only. Now if the staff will proceed with the staff presentations.
Ortega: I would like to, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mayor, request some introductory comments
about the reasons for the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The proposed Project Ara
includes approximately 764 acres of residential, office, commercial, industrial, public, and
open space uses. The projected area is located in the City of Palm Desert, County of
Riverside, and generally includes that area of the city bounded by Portola Avenue and
35
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * s * s s s s s s s s s * * * a 0 0 0 AS * ss 4* ss AS SS s* 4* s* ** *s ** ** YIES
EXHIBIT 'B"
Cook Street to the west, the corporate City boundary and Carlotta Drive to the east,
Hovely Lane and Running Springs Drive to the north, and the Whitewater River Channel
to the south. The Portola County Club is not a part of the Project Area. Those
boundaries for the Project Area are as designated in an exhibit that you have received,
which we have labeled Exhibit A. The area selected is a proposed Project Area
characterized by a variety of conditions which adversely impact the economic potential
of the properties within the Project Area, and health, safety, and welfare of the Project
Area residents. In many respects, development in the Project Area has occurred in an
unrestricted and unplanned manner. This has resulted in a combination of conditions
that have led to blight as defined in the Redevelopment Law. Tonight we have present
to answer questions, legal and otherwise, Bill Strauss, who is the Agency's legal counsel.
We have Felice Acosta and Susan Kelly from the firm of Rosenow Spevacek Group.
They are our main consultants. We have Scott Weisner and Patrick Mann who are with
Cotton Beland and Associates, who is the firm that developed the Environmental Impact
Report and we have Mr. Moe Waddie, DKS, who provided the traffic analysis for the
project. In addition, what I would like to do at this time, which you have been handed
to you is Appendix E, which is a photo study and that was taken of the area by the
consultants. I would at this time request the following documents be entered into the
record. Exhibit A, the affidavit of Publication of Notice of the Joint Public Hearing.
Exhibit B, Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Joint Public Hearing to each property
owner in the Project Area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. Exhibit C,
Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Joint Public Hearing to the governing bodies of each
taxing agency within the Project Area. Exhibit D, Report of the Agency to the City
Council, including Final Environmental Impact Report. Exhibit E, the Redevelopment
Plan. Exhibit F, the taxing agencies response to the Plan. Exhibit G, public
communications concerning the Plan. Exhibit H, additional reports from staff and/or
consultants, supplemental Traffic Analysis Report, mitigation monitoring program.
Exhibit I, additional letters, comments, and responses, if any, from responding agencies
and public hearings regarding the final EIR. These documents will be part of the record
and in order for us to have a complete set of documents, I will now present all of these
to the City Clerk.
Snyder: These documents will now be made part of the record and have so been ordered.
Ortega: Now I would like to introduce Felice Acosta from Rosenow Spevacek Group, who will
give us a summary of the Plan and the report to the Agency.
Acosta: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, I will now refer to and summarize the contests
of the Redevelopment Plan and the report of the Agency to the City Council. The
Agency's report to the City Council is the basic and supporting documentation for the
Redevelopment Plan. My testimony will also supplement the facts contained in the
report and should be considered as part of the record. The Redevelopment Plan for
Project Area 3 provides the legal framework in which the Agency may operate and take
actions in their efforts to redevelop and improve the Project Area. The Redevelopment
Plan provides a financial and legal mechanism to assist the Agency and improve the
adverse conditions within the Project Area and insure that adequate public infrastructure
36
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT IT COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* s * * s * * s * s s *•* s * * • • • • • • * * * * a* s* s* s* s* s* s* s* ** s* **
EXHIBIT 'B"
is created and economic development is provided within the Project Area. The
Redevelopment Plan document sets forth the goals of the Project Area, the Project Area
boundaries, actions which the Agency may take in implementing the Redevelopment Plan.
These actions include property acquisition, participation by owners and tenants,
conformance, certificates of conformance for owners, cooperation with other public
bodies, property management, the ability to make payments to taxing agencies to alleviate
financial burden or detriment, the relocation of persons displaced by the project,
demolition clearance or providing public improvements and site improvements for the
project, rehabilitation in moving structures by the Agency and provisions for seismic
repair, property disposition and development, and provisions for affordable housing.
Additionally, the Plan contains permitted land uses which, in this case, are the land uses
which set forth in the City's General Plan as they now exist or will be or changed or
amended in the future. The Plan also contains a method of financing, which includes
specifically provisions for tax increment financing. The Plan sets tax increment limits of
$360,000,000.00and authorizes the Agency to issue tax allocation bonds. It provides a
limit for the Agency of issuing debts for 30 years and provides a limit on the amount of
indebtedness at any one time of $100,000.000.00. The Plan also provides for cooperation
with the City to implement the Plan, provides for the duration of the Plan of 40 years,
and includes procedures for amendments which are compatible with the State's California
Redevelopment Law. I will now summarize the report to the Council. The report to the
City Council from the Agency, which the City Council has received in your agenda packet
has been prepared pursuant to the law. It contains information, documentation, and
supporting evidence for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. This information has
been compiled by City staff, legal counsel, and consultants over the last nine months.
It documents the adverse conditions that are found within the Project Area that can only
be remedied through the powers of redevelopment. The report to Council is formatted
and contains the following sections and information. The reasons for selecting the Project
Area, the section generally describes the overall conditions found in the Project Area that
are detrimental and which require redevelopment to remedy. A description of the
specific projects proposed by the Agency and how these projects will improve or eliminate
the conditions of blight. This section also provides an explanation why the redevelopment
of the Project Area cannot be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private
enterprise acting alone or the City'suse of financing alternatives other than tax increment
financing. Section B of the report contains a description of the physical, economic, and
social conditions found in the Project Area. This section details the conditions that were
found through a visual survey that was conducted by a consultant and other analysis
conducted by City staff. The survey details deteriorated housing that is need of repair
and renovation, residential neighborhoods that are lacking in sewers, curbs, gutters and
sidewalks, industrial and commercial properties that contain numerous site constrains and
impaired circulation. It documents inadequate and the lack of proper infrastructure
throughout the Project Area. Specific conditions within the Project Area include ate,
obsolescence and deterioration, defective design, faulty interior arrangement and exterior
spacing, inadequate provisions for light and ventilation and sanitation, lack of open space
and recreational facilities, inadequate public improvements and inadequate community
facilities. Section C of the report analyzes the proposed methods of financing of the
Redevelopment Project. This section details the use of tax increment revenue for this
37
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * s s s * s s s * 0 411 0 a s st s* Mt ss s* s« 4* ** s* s* 4* s* s* *s *s
EXHIBIT "B"
project. It estimates that the project, the public improvement cost on the project's list
at $104,000.000.00pf which the project is proposed to fund $43,000,000.00. At financing
over 25 years, that would mean that this project would approximately cost
$245,000.000.00. This section also analyzes the potential tax increment revenue to the
Redevelopment Agency over the 40 year life of the Plan and our analysis .indicates that
this project may generate approximately $285,000,000.00over the 40 year life of the Plan
making it economically feasible to redevelop the area. Section D of the report is the
relocation plan. Although the plan does not anticipate any displacement, State law
requires that the Agency adopt a relocation plan to protect the citizens and businesses
of the community. This section of the report contains the relocation plan that you adopt
this evening. Section E is an analysis of the preliminary plan for the Project Area that
was adopted at the beginning of this process. Section F presents a report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission on the Redevelopment Plan. Section G
summarizes the citizen participation program that was conducted during the adoption
process. That was briefly outlined by Mr. Ortega. Section H analyzes the conformance
of the Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan. Section I is the Environmental
Impact Report, which will be reviewed by the environmental consultant. Section J is the
report of the County Fiscal Officer, which has calculated the base year's assessed
valuation for this Project Area at $152,000,000.00. Section K is the report of the Fiscal
Review Committee which contains the comments and concerns of the affected taxing
agencies. Section L is the neighborhood impact report which specifically analyzes the
effect of the Redevelopment Plan on the residential neighborhoods within the Project
Area. Section M is an analysis of the (inaudible) report prepared by the
Auditor/Controller. It also contains a summary of the Agency's consultations with the
various affected taxing agencies and an analysis of the report of the Fiscal Review
Committee, including the Agency's response to that report. Additionally, there are three
appendix. Appendix A and Appendix B dealing with sections of the law, and Appendix
C is the pictorial survey which you received this evening. That concludes my summary
of the report to Council. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to
answer them.
Snyder: Any questions? Thank you for your report.
Acosta: Thank you.
Snyder: Mr. Ortega.
Ortega: Now we will have Mr. Scott Weisner who will talk about the Environmental Impact
Report.
Weisner: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, members of the audience. Good
evening. My name is Scott Weisner. I'm with the environmental consulting firm of
Cotton Beland and Associates. We have been retained by the Agency to complete the
Environmental Impact Report on the project you have before you. Excuse me. The EIR
is just one component of the report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan. This
document is an informational document to be used by the decision makers and the
-- 38
rS
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING NNE 27, 1991
* is s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0 * 0 *s se 0 s« s* * k 1* s« s« ss ss ss sr ** *« 4*
EXHIBIT 'B'
public. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR for a redevelopment project is termed a
Program EIR. A Program EIR is prepared in conjunction with the adoption of a
Redevelopment Plan is a more general document than an EIR, which may be prepared
for discreet development projects. This EIR analyzes potential future development
contemplated in the Project Area, however, it does not analyze specific projects that may
be developed within the Project Area itself. I think an important distinction to be made
regarding this project and the EIR is that the Redevelopment Agency does not propose
all development considered in the EIR. Much of the development that will occur in the
private market place over the life time of the plan, this Redevelopment Plan focuses on
providing necessary infrastructure improvements throughout the entire Project Area to
make the area more attractive to development. I would also like to note that as
individual project applications are submitted to the City, additional environmental review
at the project level will be, will occur. I would also briefly, for part of the record, go over
the EIR process to date. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency, mailed out a
notice of preparation to all the taxing and responsible agencies, as well as interested,
individuals indicating the Agency was in the process of preparing an EIR and requested
any additional comments from those taxing and responsible agencies. With regard to
information that should be contained in the EIR, that Notice of Preparation is sent out
for a 30 day review period. At the end of that 30 day period, we prepared what is called
a Draft EIR. This document is made available to the public for a 45 day review period,
at which time the Agency held a public hearing on the information contained in that
document and solicited public testimony on the information that was contained therein.
At that hearing, no members of the public provided oral testimony. In addition to oral
testimony during that 45 day review period, the Agency also accepted written comments
regarding any information contained in the EIR. At determination at the 45 day review
period, we had received four written letters from three agencies and one individual. As
part of the final EIR, we are required to prepare written responses to all comments
received during the 45 day review period. We have done so and those are included
within the final Environmental Report that you have before you. The final
Environmental Report essentially consists of the draft EIR, as well as the comments and
written responses to those comments. I would like to briefly summarize the results of
our environmental analysis on the project. The EIR analyzed all 20 issue areas contained
the CEQA check list. Overall, the project would have beneficial impact on the
environment by improving the conditions within the Project Area through various
programs and infrastructure improvements. Also, potentially significant impacts can be
avoided, mitigated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level. However, two
impact areas were found to be significant and unavoidable. Adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan will require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations,
which essentially indicates that the decision making body has determined that the benefits
of the project, the overall benefits of the project outweigh any adverse environmental
impacts that may result. The two areas that we found as significant were in the areas
of air quality and traffic. I would like to briefly discuss the air quality. Projected air
emissions generated by total development throughout the Project Area will exceed the
suggested threshold criteria of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Now
this is essentially important because the entire South Coast Air Basin is considered an
nonattainment area, although conditions may not be as adverse out here in the desert
39
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * s # s s * • s s* 0 as as * ss ss s« st ss * ss s* s* s* ss 4s *t ss ss
EXHIBIT 'B'
area as maybe the more urbanized L.A. area, it is still contained within that air basin and
given the fact that air basin is a nonattainment area, the emissions generated by the
development within the Project Area is considered significant. Mitigation measures have
been outlined completely in the EIR to substantially lessen these impacts, however, they
will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. The traffic study was also prepared that
considered the impacts of project generated traffic as well as regional background growth
on ten intersections in the vicinity of the Project Area. The results of this study indicate
that project and regional traffic will result in intersection approaches at four intersections
falling below accepted City/State levels. A comprehensive series of street and
intersection improvements outlined in detail in the EIR would result in the operation of
all intersection approaches at acceptable levels, with the exception of three approaches
at the intersection of Fred Waring and Portola. One approach at County Club and
Portola and two approaches at Country Club and Monterey. The Redevelopment Plan
also proposes a number of street improvements within the Project Area to improve
circulation along Cook Street. Although conditions may be tolerable along Cook Street
presently, this situation will not continue in the future and the proposed improvements
will substantially lessen the impacts. As part of the EIR process, a mitigation monitoring
program has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources
Code and has been submitted to the Agency as part of the record. That completes my
presentation at this time. Myself and Pat Mann, a Principal of our firm, as well as Moe
Waddie from DKS Associates who have provided the traffic study are available to answer
any questions you may have. Thank you.
Snyder: Thank you for your presentation. Any questions from the Council? Mr. Ortega.
Ortega: Mr. Mayor, at this time the consultants will summarize any written comments that they
have alluded to on the Redevelopment Plan and the final EIR.
Acosta: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council we have four written correspondence to date.
The first one is dated June 26, its from the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks
District. In summary, this letter expresses support for the Project Area from the Parks
and Recreation District. The District would like in return for the Agency's commitment
to an early construction of the Parks and Recreation gymnasium and community center
at the Palm Desert Civic Center pursuant to the lease agreement with the District dated
May 23, 1990. In return for this commitment, the District is willing to forgo requesting
a pass through agreement for the District's share of the tax increment generated within
the Project Area and permit the Agency to use the District's share of such tax increment
in funding the construction of the recreation gymnasium and community center. They
point out that this arrangement is intended to be similar to that existing agreement with
the Agency for Project Area No. 2. And that is the information provided in the Parks
and Recreation correspondence. The second correspondence is dated June 24 and its
from the Coachella Valley Water District. The Water District indicates that they
understand that the City is considering a Project Area north of Whitewater River storm
channel on both sides of Cook Street and that the Water District percentage share of tax
revenue from this area is approximately 6.94%. This revenue, they indicate, is used for
storm water and general District functions and that the needs for these funds continue.
40
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * 0 0 * s* * 4* sk 4* s« 4* ** s* s* 4* s* s* ** ** ** s* s*
EXHIBIT 'B"
They request that the Agency review the situation and pass through all of their increment
to them. In briefly responding to this letter, the Agency I believe is aware that the staff
has met with the Water District and are in consultations with them to document whether
or not there is any financial detriment and once confirmed, once if there is confirmed
detriment, to work out a mutually acceptable agreement. (end of tape) ... hearing notice
map that was hash marked showing proposed or future access that may be required in
improving the circulation in that area. They point out that they believe this would be
extremely expensive and that they don't believe that this would lessen the traffic on Cook
Street. In response to this, I think the City Council and Agency will find that although
access and improvements for this problem is indicated on the projects list, a specific
project has not been specifically located and I believe that the information that was
provided on the public hearing map was done so to give people a general idea of where
access may be taken to improve these problems, but certainly no final decision on where
access would be taken to remedy this problem has been made at this time. The last
letter is from the law offices of Peters and Kolosky and they represent the Mountainview
Fall Homeowners and Vista del Monte, Montas Homeowners Association. They express,
the Homeowners Associations desired to be removed from the Project Area. They
indicate that they believe there is no justification for including these properties within
the Redevelopment Area, citing that the Redevelopment Area is primarily commercial.
They don't feel that there is any reason why they should be imposed the burden of
providing funds for the bridge over Cook Street. Additionally, they express an opinion
that the Redevelopment Agency, they additionally go on to say that they believe that this
power is, only applies to Project Areas that were adopted or in existence as of July 1,
1978, and they request that the Redevelopment Agency confirm that they do not have
the power to, to, the power or right to levy special assessments against any properties
within the redevelopment zone. They also request that their comments be responded to
in writing as provided by the Health and Safety Code. Additionally, they believe that
there is no legitimate reason for the two projects, two residential projects to be included
in Project Area 3, however, they would have no problem in being included in Project
Area No. 2. Briefly, that summarizes all of the written comments that we have received
to this point.
Snyder: Thank you. We have received the reports from staff and their consultants and now I will
take oral testimony in favor. We will now hear or receive any statements or testimonies
from those present in favor of the Redevelopment Plan or Environmental Impact Report.
You have the opportunity to pose questions to the staff and the consultants through the
Chair. We ask that comments be limited to the subject at hand and to new issues only.
Staff responses to comments and questions will be held until all testimony has been
received. Is there anyone who would care to testify in favor of this Redevelopment
Agency, step forward now.
Matlock: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Altman, and Mr. Ortega, my name is Jack
Matlock. I am here tonight on behalf of the Desert Sands Unified School District, the
College of the Desert. I should rephrase that, they're the Desert Community College
District now, the Palm Springs Unified School District and the Coachella Valley
Mosquito Abatement District. In addition, I have been asked to speak on behalf of the
41
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL Mr.G i u4G JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * s * s s s s s s s • • s s* s* ss ss ss ss OP s« ss 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4*
Snyder:
Van Slurp:
Snyder:
Horowitz:
EXHIBIT 'B'
County Superintendent of Schools who had a conflict and could not be here tonight,
although I don't represent them. But all of these agencies have reviewed both the
Environmental Impact Report and the Redevelopment Plan and speak in favor of both
of those. It has been our pleasure to work with all of your staff, and especially we've
enjoyed the relationship that has existed between the Council and all of these public
entities. I'm very pleased to report to you that much of the help that you have given over
the years is very visible in the schools. You have probably the nicest campus right here
next door to you that you'll find up and down any parts of the State. It is undergoing,
of course, a great deal of change and the hope is that it will be completely renovated one
of these days with your help, and we look forward to that continued relationship. As I
have indicated, the staff has always been very cordial to us, answered our questions,
visited with us, resolved our problems, and we are most appreciative. They do an
excellent job on your behalf, and again, we thank you for the support of all the
educational entities and we lend our support to the project.
Thank you very much sir. We appreciate your report. Anyone else who would care to
testify in favor?
Hello Mr. Mayor, Council Members. My name is Steve Van Slurp. I represent R.K.
Development. R.K. owns the majority interest in Cook Street Industrial Park. We
support the plan, we support the idea of improved traffic circulation in the Cook Street
area, and we do agree that this congested area will become worse if something isn't done
in the near future. Our concerns in the area have been expressed to staff already. The
properties in question. R.K.'sproperties, there are a number of properties there that may
have to be realigned to accomplish the improved circulation, and we suggested
alternatives that staff has not looked at yet. It has been represented to us that the
proposed street alignments are tentative at this point, and we look forward to working
with you and suggesting alternatives to accomplish your goals out there on Cook Street.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Anyone else who would care to testify in
favor? Seeing no one, I will hear or receive any statements or testimony from those
present in opposition to the Redevelopment Plan or the Environmental Impact Report.
You have an opportunity to pose questions to the staff and the consultants through the
Chair. We ask that comments be limited to the subject at hand and no new issues. Staff
responses to comments and questions will be held until all testimony has been received.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Leo Horowitz and I reside at 318 Tava
Lane, Palm Desert, in the Mountainview Falls community. This community of 100 homes
does not suffer from urban blight. Our community was completed about six years ago
and through excellent management has retained the ambience and well groomed
appearance equally or superior to any other community in Palm Desert. Most people
would agree that our community is a nice place to live. Senior retired citizens, balanced
with young families that reside in Palm Desert all year are elated to reside in upgraded
homes affordably. My wife and I moved from Los Angeles to escape the traffic and
unhealthful air pollution. Our City planners state they would divert our taxes from the
42
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT :IT COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* s * * # * * * # s s *'s • * s * I* 4* 4* s sk st ss s* ss s« *s 4* s. ss * 4* sr ss
EXHIBIT 'B"
State to utilize this income for the necessary improvements outlined in this plan. While,
in fact, they cover up the real purpose of assessing homeowners for the benefit of
subsidizing private business enterprises. The country clubs on Country Club Drive, the
Marriott Desert Springs Hotel, land and properties owners of the Cook Street Industrial
Parks, business interests on Highway 111, plus the City of Indian Wells will be the true
recipients and beneficiaries of Cook Street improvements. Quoting from the Desert Sun,
June 26 issue, quote redevelopment alters the picture for Valley. Continuing the quote,
it was originally intended to help fight urban decay, but in California Redevelopment Law
increasingly is being used to subsidize private enterprise by communities strapped by the
tax revolt of the 1970's. Critics argue that redevelopment process is being abused. End
of quote. I do not oppose the redevelopment process. As a critic, I only oppose the City
planning devices of including single family and condominium communities within the
Redevelopment Plans. All improvement costs should be borne by private interests and
all of the City of Palm Desert to equitably improve the City. I vehemently am opposed
to the inclusion of our Mountainview Falls community within this Redevelopment Plan
No. 3. Council Persons are elected officials that should be represented, representing
private as well as homeowner interests with honesty and integrity. Please do not sacrifice
our inalienable democratic rights of choice. This would be a travesty of fairness and
justice. I wish to retain my rights of home ownership and opt to whether I wish to live
here permanently or whether I wish to relocate. If our homes and community are
included within the Redevelopment Plan No. 3, we face eminent danger of losing our
rights to the bureaucracy with a cloud over our heads by the City, of buying and/or
destroying our homes, being unable to sell our properties to whomever we please and
of a permanent cloud on our titles of eminent domain and/or condemnation or the City's
right of future assessment on our properties. Finally, the City should address serious
problems of blow sand onto all of our communities in north Palm Desert, which will
depreciate the value of our homes considerably. Thank you very much.
Snyder: Thank you sir for your comments. Anyone else who would care to testify in opposition?
Barko: Your Honor, Members of the Council. My name is Robert L. Barko. I have been
designated to represent the Mountainview Falls Homeowners Association, also the Vista
Del Montanas Homeowners Association, and I had a phone conversation with the
Carlotta Rest Home indicating their opposition to being placed in this Redevelopment
Area. Incidentally, this lady, what is your name? Felice brought up a very pertinent fact
that I wasn't aware of. I didn't realize that we were in a slum area. As she pointed out,
the Redevelopment Area is a slum, and it wants to be rebuilt. Now let me point out one
thing, if you will. According to this redevelopment map, I'm sure she didn't mean us,
this is the industrial area that's the slum area she's referring to that wants to be rebuilt.
This annexation, which is Mountainview Falls, Vista Del Montanas, the Carlotta, and
everything in this area, is new and has been built within the last five to ten years. How
can that be called a slum? How could it be? Why should it be put in a Redevelopment
Area that it is not going to benefit from? It would not, it has it's own sewers, it has own
facilities, it has all its, everything it needs. Yet we're being placed in this thing strictly
as a tax base. And I, I, one minute please. To continue, I represent about 400 plus
voters, Vista Montana, Vista Del, I mean Mountainview Falls, Vista Del Montanas, and
43
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * s s s s s * s * * • ilk ak * * * Mt ss *k sk s* * *k s* 4* *k * *k s*
EXHIBIT 'B'
others who object to being placed in this Redevelopment Area. They don't object to it,
they demand that they be excluded from this area. I attended all of the redevelopment
hearings, the meetings, and asked who would pay for the indebtedness that would be
incurred assuming that the Redevelopment Project went through and the industrial area
could not support its obligation, its bonds, its borrowing, its bank loans, whatever. And
I was told by Mr. Ortega and his counsel that we would be assessed to make up for this.
No. When I said, when I said assessment is taxation. Oh, no you'll be able to
participate. What is the difference? Its all taxation. So they're telling us that they want
us in the area so they can tax us in case they screw up or excuse me, if they don't get the
money they expect to get from this development area. So then its going to become the
homeowners' responsibility to carry this. I don't feel that we should be obligated that
much. We're all working people and have very nice homes and want to keep them tha.
way. They also have condemnation procedures that they can hold over our heads which
also lowers or questions our property values. If we go to sell, we have to disclose that
we have condemnation procedures over our heads and that may make the difference
between selling our property or not, for those that wish to do that. We have, incidentally,
I don't know whether you're aware or not, but we, we and I'm talking about
Mountainview Falls, Vista Del Montanas, and all of the agencies that are within that
corner, this square corner, have been assessed for improvements on Cook Street, the
signals that would go in, and the bridge on Whitewater. They were done when the
development was built. And I asked Mr. Ortega and his counsel, or his panel, where the
money was, and I was told at these meetings that it was in the transportation fund. And
I'm quoting on this. And I says, well then I can find it, there's a record of it. No was
the answer. Its buried in the fund. And I said in other words you don't have it. No,
we've spent it. The last part was my comment. Anyhow, its not there. If we are placed
in this Redevelopment Area, we'll have no recourse except to procure legal
representation under the U.S. Code Title 42 and 43 of the U.S., of 1983, a law for
violation of our civic rights to own property and due process under the 14th amendment.
I highly recommend that we be removed from this Redevelopment Area. We can serve
no benefit and the area definitely will not benefit us. In addition to that, as a
representative of the Associations, I request minutes of the meetings and specifically the
minutes of the meetings that continue from hereon out, including the closed meeting that
is going to be held July 11, and I think I'm entitled to that according to the Brown Law.
And I would like to know exactly how this issue is voted on by each member, who voted
for and who against. As a representative of the Association, I am obligated to tell each
and every one of our members, each one of our homeowners, who voted and how they
voted. And to bring that up whenever necessary. You know people have a tendency
to forget, so its nice to remind them once in awhile. Anyhow, my point, my main point
is that, that we should not be in this development area. All of our facilities are new, and
we have no reason to be in it and I whole, wholeheartedly hope that you can see to
exclude us from it and let us keep our happy homes and be the happy families that we
are. After all we don't, we're not contributing to crime, we're not contributing to juvenile
delinquency, or anything else. We're the good old American home people, and we want
to stay that way. Thank you very much.
Snyder: Thank you for your testimony, sir.
44
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * s * * s • s *- s * • s s * st * et * * * s« si sr * * s* * ss INC �« 4 s* s*
EXHIBIT "B"
Barko: Oh, your Honor. I have petitions here of our homeowners, and I'm saying probably 200.
I'm guessing, I did not count them. Husband and wives who show their displeasure at
being in the Redevelopment Area, and I would like to give them to the Council. These
are people that want to be excluded. Thank you.
Snyder: They have been duly received and will be recorded.
Hudson: Brad Hudson representing the County of Riverside. 46-309 Oasis in Indio. I want to
preface my remarks by thanking the Council and Agency for allowing me to come here
tonight and make a presentation. I would also like to congratulate City staff. I think
they have worked hard on this plan, we've worked with them. I think you know from my
previous appearances here we have some fundamental disagreements over basic
redevelopment issues, but I think through our continued hard work we can resolve a lot
of those. As you are well aware, the County of Riverside is the taxing entity that levies
ad valorem property taxes within the project area. We finance the, our current services,
with the increases in assessed valuations due to new development, transfers of property,
and the annual two per cent levy that's allowed by law. When Redevelopment Agencies
are formed, these increases that we would expect to finance our current services go to
the Agencies, which makes it difficult for the County to continue to finance these services
as the cost of living increases. Also, the various projects that the Agency endeavors to
complete and if they're successful, create a lot of jobs, a lot of low income residences in
the community as a result of the low and moderate requirements, and these folks require
County services and without the property taxes that we would get from these increases
in assessed valuations it is very difficult, not only to finance the existing services but also
to financing, finance the additional services that are required by the growth and that the
Project Area, if it is successful, generates. We, I was the Chairman of the Fiscal Review
Committee, and we made several recommendations that all the taxing entities felt would
help alleviate some of these problems that I've just mentioned. Of particular significance
is, I think, would be cooperative agreements that would pass through certain amounts of
the County's revenue so that we may be able to continue to provide the criminal justice,
health, welfare, and other services that the residents of Palm Desert expect and certainly
deserve. We would like the Agency to evaluate various projects within the Plan and try
to come up with alternative funding sources in lieu of tax increment financing. To be
more specific, I think the Cook Street project is a pretty good example. Its identified for
funding through the Measure A Program. The City receives certain Measure A funds
and also the City is in the process of forming an assessment district to help pay for some
of these improvements, and we encourage that and we hope that you will look at all the
improvements in the plan and where possible try to identify those alternative funding
sources so that the schools and the County and other taxing agencies can hope to expect
as favorable a pass through agreement as we can. We would, Mayor Snyder's laughing.
In addition, I think we would like to see short term bond redemption schedules to
minimize the impact of financing, and certainly I think the Agency already has reduced
the, the limitations of the plan from what was initially stated in the preliminary report,
and we appreciate that, and I think that goes along with the previous recommendation
that the Fiscal Review Committee gave to the Agency. With regard to the EIR, we have
45
MINUTES
RBGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
• • • • * * * * * * s * * * * * ss * ss OP Ws ss ss ss .s .s s* s. st .. ss .* ss
r.iituD11 "B"
a couple of concerns and primarily its, we feel that the EIR doesn't adequately assess
what the impacts of the Plan would be to the County. How would the County continue
to provide services in light of the diversion of tax increment? We would like you to
consider that, consider that an impact as much as you do any other impact, air quality,
transportation, housing, any of those impacts we think that the effect on the County in
providing increased services with less revenue is significant and should be addressed both
in the Environmental Impact Report and compliance with CEQA and also in the
Redevelopment Plan, as is specified in the Redevelopment Law. I have here a, basically
a list of some of our objections to the Plan in a letter that I composed, and also I would
like to resubmit for the public record the report of the Fiscal Review Committee. And
again, I've, I would like to congratulate the staff again. I think they've worked hard on
this plan, and we've met with them, we've enjoyed working with them, and we want to
continue to work with them. Unfortunately, we do have to register this objection at this
time because we don't have a cooperative agreement right now, and I think we're close,
and I'd like to come back here in a couple of weeks and plan an agreement or have the
Chairman sign an agreement and pick up one from you guys, so again, I appreciate the
opportunity to comment and thank you for letting me be here today.
Snyder: We appreciate your comments and we appreciate you coming. We're both in CVAG,
so you know how hard we're working on other alternatives and will continue to do that.
We do appreciate your working with us. It is important to us that the County and the
City find a way to do things together. We have other problems, as you know, that we're
working on, and I assure you our staff and our consultants will work with you in any
objections or suggestions you have submitted.
Hudson: Thank you. I almost forgot. I wanted to congratulate you on your Source Reduction and
Recycling Element and your Household Hazardous Waste. I think that was a shining
example of how the jurisdictions can really get together and knock something out in an
unbelievable short time frame when they have to and when they work together.
Snyder: Thank you very much.
Hudson: Thank you.
Snyder: We appreciate your. Anyone else who would care to testify in opposition?
Augustine: My name is Wanda Augustine, and I live 74-861 Merle Drive. I'm concerned with
respect to the redevelopment project about the maps we received by certified mail where
it designates certain proposed streets. I have a number of signatures of concerned
citizens and residents in the area who oppose the access street of Merle Drive to the
industrial park and the extension of Rebecca to Hovley. If needed, I can provide more
signatures with more time.
Snyder: Thank you very much. They have been received and you will receive an answer. Does
anyone else desire to present a statement concerning this Plan?
46
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * • * * * * * * * * * * * as * *, a s* s* *It— ss * s« ss * 4* ss s12 s* ss 4*
EXHIBIT 'B"
Prince: Yes, my name is Jack Prince. I'm a property owner. Myself and my partner own parcel
624-290-042 in the Cook Business Park, and we oppose the annexation of our property.
Snyder: Your comments have been duly recorded.
Griffin: My name is Cody Griffin. I live at 74-716 Leslie. We're concerned about opening up
of Rebecca Street and to the industrial area and another little small street, there would
be a new one. We have a sand barrier of tamarisk trees that separates us from the
industrial park and the only thing that's opening up Rebecca is going to put all those
service trucks, 18-wheelers, down through a residential section. There are about 200
homes in there and there are no other out streets or anything, so why do we have to put
up with all those 18-wheelers and service trucks coming down through a residential
section? Thank you.
Snyder: Your comments will be recorded and we will attempt to analyze this situation. Any other
testimony?
Williams: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Michael Williams, 74-809 Merle
Drive. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, however, the same issue of access into
the industrial park from the residential area. It is my understanding as, from a statement
by staff or consultants earlier that there are no specific plans, no specific plans. The
question, however, is that if no specific plans exist obviously there are some tentative
thoughts of plans. The question is, how will those plans be formulated and what will the
role of residents and homeowners in the neighborhood be relative to those plans.
Obviously, it is a matter of some concern on the basis just of the previous comments, and
my concern as it is, I'm appreciative that no specific plans currently exist but how will
those plans be formulated once this plan is already, the Redevelopment Plan as a whole
is already intact? My concern is what right will we lose to participate in that decision
making, once the plan is in effect?
Snyder: Your questions are good ones, and the odds are that they'll be answered tonight or they'll
be answered in the future. At the close of testimony here we will ask the staff and the
consultants to answer some of these questions.
Williams: Your Honor, may I address the Council one more minute?
Snyder: • I think we'll give you one minute.
Williams: Okay. I neglected to say that the signatures I turned in, the petitions are a minor
amount. We did not get the rest of them. There is a considerable amount more that
could be forthcoming if needed, and I also would also like the, the homeowners that are
present to stand up from Mountainview Falls and Vista Montanas showing their support
at being taken out of the Redevelopment Area. Please stand, all of those opposed.
Snyder: Thank you sir.
47
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * s * * s * s s s • sr rs ss ss sr ss ss ss 4s s« ss 4* 4* s* s* *s s* 4* s* 4*
EXHIBIT 'B'
Williams: Okay, thank you.
Snyder: Is there anyone else who would care to present testimony? -
Sanchez: My name is Ignacio Sanchez, and I live at 74-821 Merle Drive. My wife and I are
opposed to some of the effects of the Redevelopment Plan, like for instance, street
connecting the Merle Drive to the industrial park and the (inaudible), and one thing that
concerns me the most is like seems like nobody in the area, everybody there wants to
be out of the Redevelopment Plan and it looks like we are the only one that are going
to be assessed for the improvements on Cook Street and that concerns me a lot. Thank
you.
Snyder: You bet.
Lane:
My name is (inaudible) Lane (female) and I live at 42-570 Christian Street. The
Christian Street is connected from Sheryl Drive from Cook Street, and everybody seems
to live at the end of the cul-de-sac, and everybody seems to come in, there's jogs and
turns in the area and everyone comes up my cul-de-sac, and they don't see a through
street so they make a turn. So if there is an opening to Rebecca or any one of these
streets, everyone is going to get muddled up and there is, its a residential street or streets.
Children are playing, children get off of the buses, there is no street sidewalks, so they
are walking in the streets. So if any increase in traffic, it will be dangerous to the
children. And Merle Drive I understand, is a raceway and there should be bumps put
up there so people wouldn't go by it so fast. Thank you.
Snyder: Thank you for your comments. Any other, anyone else care to testify? Then we will
have staff and consultant responses.
Ortega: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mayor. There's some issues that throughout the meetings
that we have had with the residents, apparently continue to be misunderstood. I would
like for people other than myself to explain how tax increment works. Mr. Barko has
been at every one of those meetings, and I'm sure that a lot of people that are here are
here because of what he has reported to them about how we are going to assess them
to finance the improvements. I would like to, at least for tonight, maybe not put that
issue to rest, maybe we can't because its a tough concept to understand. There's also the
issues that have been raised about the map that went with the notice about some
alternatives for some street improvements that would take inter -area traffic off of Cook,
for example. Inter -industrial traffic off Cook Street. I think that's raised some concerns,
and I would like to explain basically the process that we will use before we decide on any
particular alternatives. The related issue is with regards to connection of the industrial
area with the residential area. I think that's an issue that those citizens can put to rest
because after analyzing it, I think the Public Works Director has some other alternatives
that would not create those impacts. But first what I would like to do is, is for Mr. Barko
again. He and I have had this discussion at every time about how his opinion is that
we're going to assess those people. I would like to have the Agency legal counsel
48
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT TY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * *-- * * * * * * * ss * ss rs s* s* sit ss 1* * 1* ss 4* 1* 1* *t s* 4*
EXHIBIT 'B'
indicate to him that the Agency could not authorize to levy any assessments. At least
not this Agency at this time as part of this project. Mr. Strauss.
Strauss: A Redevelopment Agency has no power to levy an assessment, and it has no power to
levy a tax. There is one qualification with respect to its power to levy an assessment.
With respect to the Project Area that was formed before July 1, 1978, and bonds issued
before July 1, 1978, and third if those bonds issued before July 1, 1978, and a Project
Area formed before July 1, 1978, go into default, then a Redevelopment Agency has the
power to levy assessments on property. Given the fact that we are now in 1991 and that's
the earliest that this Project Area could be formed, of course, those assessment powers
don't apply. Again, they have no power to levy a tax either and there is no qualification
on that. A Redevelopment Agency derives its revenues from taxes that are already paid.
In other words, each year property owners make tax, property tax payments. Those
property tax payments are collected by the County Auditor and distributed to the taxing
agencies, except if its a Redevelopment Project area a portion of those taxes are diverted
to Redevelopment Agencies and that doesn't mean that you are paying any more or any
less tax. It's taxes that are already paid. Let me say one other thing. The, both the
letter that was, I can't remember the name of the firm, it was Peters, Peters and
Kovalsky. The letter that was delivered from that firm and both the first two gentlemen
that spoke, one of them standing at the microphone right now. Your objections to me
sounded as if they were objections being made in connection with an assessment district
proceedings, and that is not what this is. It's not what it is at all. And I think this letter
is also written, its written as if it were protesting an assessment district proceedings.
There is words like benefit the property owners and assessments and so forth and that
just isn't what is happening here.
Barko: Your Honor, Council, I, of course, am not an attorney and I'm just have to relate what
my council, or our council stated that they can be assessed or as Mr. Ortega said
participate, and he did that at all of the meetings, I shouldn't say that, at most of the
meetings I attended. He said that, and. his words were you will be assessed or participate.
Any way you look at it, it is a taxation. If you have read the Desert Sun, they have had
an article in the last day or two on redevelopment areas, and it points out in a nut shell
how a redevelopment area can be manipulated to where developers can develop it to
their own best interests and.
Snyder: I have to tell you that the article in the Desert Sun is obviously one not of full confidence
nor legal rights. It is an opinion of a very inexperienced reporter writing his, his
thoughts. The thing that we have to live with here, and you have to live with is what is
the true legal definition of what we are doing and what we are not doing and what can
or can't happen. And we, of course, have two attorneys here to try to explain to you
what the rules are and what the law says.
Barko: Your Honor.
Snyder: And we, we, and it is being recorded, and we will not mistake or what the law says. We
will live within the law and we have no intentions of doing anything else.
49
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * • • * • • • st at at st st Or st st st ss st st st ss ss s* M s* ss ss sit
EXHIBIT 'B'
Barko: You're right, your Honor.
Snyder: The problems of mixing assessment districts and Redevelopment Agencies actions is one
of the problems that gets people confused. This is not an assessment district we're
looking at the moment. We're looking at a Redevelopment pack.
Wilson: Mr. Mayor, could I make a comment? All five members of the Council, the City
Manager, and most of the staff live in a Redevelopment Area, a Project Area. There
is not a stigma attached to living in this. There is no additional taxation that is levied
on the property owners. I've lived in a Redevelopment Area for about ten years now,
my property has benefitted greatly from that by the building of the Palm Valley Channel,
which protects my home from flooding that wiped out my neighborhood just several years
before that channel was built. I do not pay any more taxes than I did back before the
Redevelopment Agency was established. What has happened is the money that went to
the County, and that's why the County was here discussing this, and we do work out pass
through agreements with them, but the money that is collected by the County stays in the
area to take care of improvements in that area rather than going to Riverside. And that's
the basic issue that is before us. Do we want to retain that money locally to improve the
general area, or don't we? And there is no, and I can give you my honest statement
that there has been no impact on my property in ten years on the negative side. There
has only been improvement from the fact that I am now living in a Redevelopment Area.
Barko: I can appreciate your viewpoint, however, I was told by Mr. Ortega that we would be
assessed and participate in the form, and that is of taxation, but.
Wilson: I can assure you that will not happen.
Barko: Just a minute.
Wilson: Because that would have to come before this Council. We are not going to do that.
Barko: I was also told by an attorney that there are loopholes in the law to where that can be
done. Now I'm not an attorney, so I am not qualified to discuss that in depth. You do
have two attorneys here. I'm at a disadvantage, but the attorney has told me that there
are loopholes in the law where we can be assessed. And I'm only going by that. All I'm
trying to do is protect the homeowners who have nice homes. I don't see where we
should be in that Redevelopment Area. We are not a slum. The other area does.
Wilson: Do you consider Vintage Country?
Barko: I agree. I agree.
Wilson: Could I ask you a question?
50
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT IT COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * s * s s s i s s s s s s•* •as* **,m******IOW ***s*ikIMP
EXHB3I T 'B'
Barko: Yes.
Wilson: Do you consider the Vintage Country Club a slum?
Barko: I beg your pardon?
Wilson: Do you consider the Vintage Country Club a slum? That is in a Redevelopment Area.
Ironwood Country Club, all of these areas are in Redevelopment Areas. They are not
slum housing. They are part of a project area attempting to use the assessments from
their area to improve local areas around them so slums do not develop in their
neighborhoods and around their areas and that where there area run down sections in
the general area, their tax money is being used there rather than to pay for County
services in Riverside.
Barko: Okay, I appreciate your viewpoint, but I also.
Wilson: I understand.
Barko: Want to express the, what I have heard our Council and other people that the loopholes
will allow that to happen, and I want to protect our associations. Thank you. This young.
Wilson: I can give you the assurance that if that were ever to be, and I think you must have
misunderstood Mr. Ortega, but you have heard from Mr. Ortega's attorney that we do
not have the power to assess, but if we did it would have to become, come before this
body, and I think you can stand assured that you would have five votes against any
assessments. We live in Redevelopment Areas, we're against any additional taxation for
any, and if it applied to your Area it would have to apply to our Areas. We live in a
Redevelopment Area.
Barko: Let me ask you one, excuse me for one minute, let me ask you one other question. And
I asked him and could not get an answer from he or his panel. Why the irregularity of
this map?
Wilson: Most of the rest of the City is already in a Redevelopment Area. That's part of it.
Barko: But, Cook Street, which is up here, and this is just a golf course. Our area and the golf
course of The Lakes Country Club, the Lakes homes are up in this area as is the Marriott
Hotel. Why and, Cook Street goes, I mean Country Club goes right along here. Why
was that not the dividing line? Why were they not incorporated, but we were? Look at
the.
Wilson: That's a good question. May I direct that to staff. Mr. Ortega.
Barko: I've asked him, and I've not gotten an answer in all the meetings I've.
Wilson: Where are boundaries of Project Area No. 2?
51
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
s s s s * s * s * s • s s • * * * * ss * s* ss st ss s* sR ss 1001 * ss 4* 4* s* 4* 4* 4* 4*
EXHIBIT 'B'
Ortega: First of all, Mr. Chairman, when I wanted to have a discussion on the assessments, Mr.
Barko's attended every meeting, and we have explained this to him, so its not a matter
of not explaining it to him he just has problems understanding it. We've explained to
him that the Marriott is in a Project Area. We've explained to him every, for the five
times that we met, so we're saying that almost everybody there is in a Project Area. The
EIR, particularly the traffic portion, with regards to the public improvements that the
Plan proposes to build does benefit his area. We've explained to him five times. I think
what we should do, what should be part of the requirement is that we address all these
concerns in writing. I think I wanted to explain this for the purpose of other people that
have not attended our meetings that still under the misconception that we plan to assess
their properties additional taxes and as you heard tonight the areas definitely no. Mr.
Barko, we've discussed this time and time again.
Wilson: Did you get, did you understand that answer? The reason the area you pointed to is in
another Redevelopment Project Area. That's why its not included in No. 3.
Barko: The Lakes Country Club is in an area?
Ortega: Yes.
Barko: I asked him why.
Wilson: The Marriott Country Club.
Barko: The Lakes?
Wilson: Is The Lakes in project?
Ortega: The Lakes.
Barko: They cut The Lakes in half. This part of The Lakes is their golf course.
Wilson: Right. That's their new golf course. The old area is part of the old.
Barko: No. This used to be part of our development. Mountain Falls.
Wilson: Right and they have built a new course.
Barko: That was sold to The Lakes.
Wilson: Right.
Barko: They made a golf course out of this. The Lakes itself, the physical property, the homes
are up here. Why were they not included?
52
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT .'Y COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * s s * * * * * * 0 * * ss 4* * ss ss lir ss 4* 4s 4* sit 4* 4* 4* rs 4* 4*
EXHIBIT 'B'
Wilson: Keep your finger right there. Okay.
Barko: Right there.
Wilson: Is that area, Mr. Ortega, in a Redevelopment Project Area?
Ortega: It is not in a Redevelopment Project Area and when we're, we were looking at a survey
area, the reason we did not recommend that be included is because basically The Lakes
has two other accesses besides those on Cook Street. We felt that we would really be
stretching the law to include them when we felt that the benefits, particularly the traffic
benefits, to that area are not as great as to the one that we recommended.
Wilson: Okay, so you are correct, that is not, The Lakes is not in a Redevelopment Area. Is the
Marriott across the street?
Barko: The golf course is. The golf course is of The Lakes. And this street, which is Hovely
is going to continue on to 42nd Street, which is an access area too. Why not the whole
area? I mean, why just us? And that's what I still can't get out.
Altman: Mr. Mayor, I think I can, I can give an explanation of part of it. Well, before Project
Area No. 2, which is where the Marriott is, it runs from Country Club to just about to
the freeway from Cook Street over to Monterey. It covers 2,200 acres. The area you're
looking at here was in the County of Riverside, much of it at the time before Project
Area 2. We've annexed part of the industrial area, part of the other area down there
in the interim. We're also looking at.
Barko: Why?
Altman: Let me finish once.
Barko: Go ahead.
Altman: We're also looking at Project Area 4, which would be the other stuff you're talking about
going out toward Palm Desert Country Club, etc. If you do those all separately to put
together the districts that come into play. But there's no difference between Project Area
2 or 3, you said you wanted to be in 2. The powers are the same. You know?
Barko: This looks like its being prejudential by, or being prejudiced, including this area without
including the rest of the area and that's my opinion.
Altman: Oh, yeah. But again, it doesn't, it doesn't impact. Let me give you one other example.
The City of Palm Desert residents and businesses pay $36,000,000.00a year in property
tax. You know how much we get of that? $360,000.00. That's what our budget is in
property tax, that's our share. All the rest of it goes somewhere else. With a
redevelopment project, we keep some of the money here to do some of the jobs that are
necessary. Let's look at Cook Street bridge. You know the County built the industrial
53
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
s s * * * s * s * * * * * * * * • • • • * sk * ss s* ss s* ss ss s* s* s* st ss s* ** s*
rAlii 'B'
park. They didn't put any money in to put the bridge over the wash. Who's gonna do
it? We do.
Barko: How come its out of the Redevelopment Area?
Altman: Let me finish a minute. In our budget, which is coming up after this, we have two and
a half million dollars budgeted to build a bridge over Cook Street. Part of the money
will come from this Project Area, part of it will come from CVAG, Proposition A. So
that's where we derive the monies to do that. But it's not going to come out of your
pockets, its money you're already paying in taxes, and we're keeping it here to build Cook
Street bridge rather than having it go over the mountain to build something over there.
A County hospital or a police station, or whatever. So I think that's the realism of the
thing. And nothing is going to happen on streets or anything else without it going
through our staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council.
Barko: You brought up a very good point in the participation end of it. And the Redevelopment
Area, this Redevelopment Area is going to build a on ramp to the freeway. The Lakes,
the Marriott, the shopping center on Cook and Country Club, I mean Cook and 111 are
going to all benefit from it, but they're not participating. That shows discrimination.
Now when we had the last rain and that Whitewater Wash was closed, the merchants at
111 and Cook screamed bloody murder because they were losing $10,000.00 a day, yet
they are not being approached to participate in the bridge. Why? Well I can't figure
that out.
Altman: Its because we're taking out of tax increment. The other people are participating in the
bridge over the freeway, which is a heck of a lot more money. There you're looking at
$13,000,000.00. We're not asking you folks to participate.
Barko: What about the on ramp and the off ramp?
Altman: Pardon me?
Barko: The on ramp and the off ramp?
Altman: Yeah. And the rest.
Barko: Nobody's participating on that except this Redevelopment Area No. 3.
Altman: No. There's an assessment district being formed, that's not true.
Barko: He told me that we, that this was going to be built out of this area.
Altman: Sir. That's a whole different issue. That has nothing to do with what's on the agenda.
I'll be glad to sit down and explain the thing to you sometime too. But believe me, there
is no money coming out of your pocket.
54
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT FY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * air.* * * * a a * 4 * 44 s* s« st ss * as s« * * st ss s* 4* 4* 4*
EXHIBIT "Be
Barko: But.
Kelly: Just let me say one thing. If we don't have the Redevelopment District, then instead
of building the bridge and fixing the streets and everything, that same money that you
pay is going to go to Riverside and they are going to build a bridge in Riverside
somewhere. The Redevelopment District allows us to keep our money here and build
things here. The only thing we accomplish is doing it here instead of them taking the
money to Riverside and using it. You don't pay a nickel more. All of us are in
Redevelopment Districts and all of these things that we've done in the City of Palm
Desert, all of the storm drains, Portola and Palm Valley, and all the streets and all of
the parks that we do. All of those things, if we didn't have Redevelopment Districts, we
wouldn't have one single one of those items. What you have to understand is you're
going to pay exactly the same, not a nickel more, but instead of the money going to
Riverside it stays here.
Barko: To relay the fears.
Kelly: Did you hear that?
Barko: Yes, I heard that. But to relay the fears.
Kelly: But you're not going to accept it though, but you're not going to accept it are you?
Barko: No. I want to know one thing. Would you take and to relay the fears of this, the people
within this Redevelopment Area, give them a letter stating that the taxes would not be
raised at any time or that they would not be assessed. Assessed.
Kelly: They'll be exactly the same, whether they're in the redevelopment or not.
Barko: Yeah, but would you give us a letter stating that they would not be assessed because of
the Redevelopment Area.
Kelly: The County.
Barko: The Council?
Kelly: The County may raise the assessment as they do, but whatever.
Barko: I'm talking about the Redevelopment Area giving us a letter stating that the
Redevelopment Area would not assess this area.
Wilson: Mr. Strauss would you address this?
Strauss: Mr. Barko.
Barko: That would eliminate everything.
55
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* • * s * • * s • s • s • • • • • • • • • • Or ss * ss * * ss 4* 4* 4* 4* ik 4* 4* 4*
EXHIBIT 'B"
Strauss: All you're looking for is something in writing to the effect that a Redevelopment Agency
has no power to levy a tax or assess.
Barko: That they will not.
Strauss: Okay.
Barko: And eliminate their condemnation powers too that they hold over the development.
Kelly: We are all living in Redevelopment Districts. If we didn't all live in Redevelopment
Districts, the City of Palm Desert would look just like it did 20 years ago.
Barko: I know, but I want my place.
Brent: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kelly can I ask you a question? My name is Bob Brent, I live at 294 Tava
Lane, Mountainview Falls. Was it a requirement in the report that they reported that
this is a blighted area? I mean she made an absolute point of stating how blighted the
area was. Was that a requirement to get this redevelopment?
Wilson: There is a requirement that there is blight in the area. Not each specific.
Brent: You can understand how we feel if we're spending a lot of money for a house.
Wilson: We can show you in Appendix C a number of conditions of blighted areas within that
Project Area that is drawn. Yes.
Brent: Yeah, but somebody coming to buy. Now the other side of the coin. Somebody coming
to buy.
Snyder: Let's don't keep this going on forever. Let me.
Brent: I'm not. I just got up.
Snyder: Let me, let me make a statement. As you pointed out, everyone of us, I live in a
Redevelopment Agency area, my house is not depleted either but there are houses in the
area that are and the object of this is to be able to try to improve our City and to use
the taxes that you and I pay to improve our City. My taxes have never been raised, I've
never been assessed, but we have completed one of the finest flood control areas in the
State. In 1976 the golf club I belong to and live on was demolished from floods out of
the mountains. There was no way we could create an assessment district or some way
to tax people to build that flood control system which was $30,000,000.00. We applied
and received the approval of creating a Redevelopment Agency and the taxes that came
out of that Redevelopment Agency, the additional taxes was used to buy bonds and build
the flood control. My taxes didn't go up a penny and now my home is free from that.
In the area, we've put in streets and curbs and sewers with those taxations. The only
56
)tiIINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT rY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1991
* * * * * * * * * s s 0-- * * * * * is. * is. iv sk ss s« * W. sr ss ss 4* ss 4* 4* 4* 4* st 4*
EXHIBIT 'B'
thing that we're doing in a Redevelopment Agency is attempting to be able to use the
taxes that we all pay to be used here and not over there. And I'll guarantee you that if
it goes over there, you look at what we get now, its damn little.
Barko: I agree with you except.
Snyder: And I'm getting tired of this.
Barko: If you could get a letter from this Council stating that the Redevelopment Area will not
raise our taxes, that.
Snyder: We'll give you a letter that the Redevelopment Agency will not raise your taxes because
they couldn't if they wanted to. You'll get the letter.
Wilson: I think that's the assurance Mr. Barko is looking for, and we would ask the Mayor with
the help of the attorney, to prepare a letter that spells exactly out what your concerns
are and address.
Ortega: Mr. Chairman.
Snyder: If there's no further testimony.
Ortega: Then Mr. Mayor as I've indicated, all of the comments that have been submitted in
writing will be addressed in writing per the requirements and we should have all of those
to you for appropriate action at the next meeting, which will be July the 1 1th.
Snyder: Are there any final questions by the Members of the Council or the Agency? If there
are no further testimony on the Redevelopment Plan or the final EIR, the Chair will
entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Wilson: So moved.
Kelly: Second.
Snyder: Please vote.
Gilligan: Motion carries by unanimous vote.
Snyder: The Agency and the City Council will consider and act upon their proposed
Redevelopment Plan and final EIR at the next Agency/City Council meeting scheduled
for 7:00 p.m., Thursday, July the llth.
57