Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-17MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Benson convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Buford A. Crites M. INVOCATION - Councilman Walter H. Snyder IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Buford A. Crites Councilman Richard S. Kelly Councilman Walter H. Snyder Mayor Pro-Tempore S. Roy Wilson Mayor Jean M. Benson Also Present: Bruce A. Altman, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works Carlos L. Ortega, ACM/Director of Redevelopment Agency Paul Shillcock, ACM/Director of Economic Development Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety Paul Gibson, City Treasurer/Director of Finance Dave Millheim, Director of Human Resources Wayne Ramsey, Acting Director of Code Compliance V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meetings of October 28 and November 11, 1993, and the Adjourned City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings of November 2 and November, 1993. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18. Rec: Approve as presented. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Cirko, Inc. for St. George Place, 73-608 Highway 111, Palm Desert. C. D. Rec: Refer to the Department of Community Development for processing of a Conditional Use Permit. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Agreement No. 08-5414 with the State Department of Transportation for Funding of Three Partnership Program Projects (Contract No. C08080). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Agreement No. 08-5414 with the State Department of Transportation for funding of three partnership program projects as listed in the staff report dated November 17, 1993. E. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID for Water Truck. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the bid for a water truck to McLellan Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $48,821.53; 2) appropriate an additional $3,822.00 from the unobligated General Fund reserve for the purchase. F. REQUEST FO t&APPROV of Contract with the County of Riverside for Right -of -Way Acquisition Services Relative to the Interstate 10 and Cook Street Interchange (Contract No. C08090). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the agreement (Contract No. C08090) between the City of Palm Desert as Lead Agency and the County of Riverside as a CalTrans approved agency for right-of-way acquisition services in an amount not to exceed $8,500.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement for the right-of-way certification phase of the I-10 and Cook Street Interchange development. G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Extension of Presidents Plaza Parking Lot Sweeping Contract (Contract No. C06800). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize a one-year extension of Contract No. C06800 with M & M Sweeping in the amount of $3,900.00 ($325.00 per month). H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Parcel Map 25679 (Perry Ashby, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 93-98 approving Parcel Map 25679. 2 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Legal Services Contract with Richards, Watson & Gershon (Contract No. C08100). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement for legal services with Richards, Watson & Gershon. Mr. Altman asked that Item E be held over for separate discussion under Section IX, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Wilson, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Council. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MR. SEAN KEARNEY, 48-520 Northview Drive, Palm Desert, spoke as the representative of the Palm Desert Aquatics Swim Team. He noted that the October Swimfest was a great success, and he thanked the City for its support. He stated that approximately 350 children participated in the event on 25 teams, and the Palm Desert Aquatics Swim Team placed second. He presented a plaque to the City as a token of appreciation. VII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 93-99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND APPROVING SPECIAL COUNSEL AGREEMENT. Mr. Altman noted the memorandum in the packets and stated that Mr. Gibson was available to answer any questions. Councilman Snyder moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 93-99 authorizing and ordering foreclosure actions and approving special counsel agreement with Robert Owen (Contract No. C08110) and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement, Counsel assisting Municipal Financial Service on foreclosure proceedings. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. VIII. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None 3 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For Adoption: A. ORDINANC$ NO. 729 - 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 (Portola Avenue between Grapevine Street and Mesa View Drive). Mr. Altman noted that no changes had been made since introduction of this ordinance, and he recommended its adoption. Councilman Snyder moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 729. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. IX. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER E. REOUEST FOR AWARD OF BID for Water Truck. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the bid for a water truck to McLellan Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $48,821.53; 2) appropriate an additional $3,822.00 from the unobligated General Fund reserve for the purchase. Mr. Folkers stated that the water truck was originally specified and bid with a diesel engine. Since Council had given staff direction to go with compressed natural gas (CNG), staff discussed with the lowest bidder the possibility of converting it to CNG. He stated that McLellan Equipment indicated that the City could receive a rebate of $932.00 from the diesel engine if it went with a gasoline engine. In addition, Sunline had arranged to convert it to CNG at no cost to the City. Staffs recommendation was to proceed this way. Councilman Kelly moved, to by Minute Motion: 1) Award the bid for a water truck to McLellan Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $48,821.53 less the rebate of $932.00 for a gasoline engine instead of a diesel engine and that it be converted through Sunline to operate on CNG; 2) appropriate an additional $3, 822.00 from the unobligated General Fund reserve for the purchase. Councilman Wilson questioned whether the intent was to have a gasoline engine instead of a diesel engine so that it can then be converted to natural gas. Mr. Folkers responded that this was correct. He said the diesel engines as they come now cannot be converted directly to natural gas without replacing a lot of the parts. Councilman Wilson stated he was concerned with the quality of the conversion and asked whether Sunline had assured staff that it would be a good conversion with no problems. Mr. 4 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a * * * * Folkers responded that Sunline had indicated that it would be an acceptable conversion and that there should be no problems. Councilman Snyder seconded the motion, and the motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. R. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF FINANCIAL ISSUES WITH REGARD TO BUILDING THE SOFTBALL PARK. With Council concurrence, this item was held for discussion later in the meeting. NOTE: The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting. KU BAA Bruce A. Altman, City Manager SRW Councilman S. Roy Wilson JMB Mayor Jean M. Benson CLO Carlos L. Ortega, ACM/RDA Executive Director BAC Councilman Buford A. Crites RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly WHS Councilman Walter H. Snyder JW John Wohlmuth, Environmental Conservation Manager PS Paul Shillcock, ACM/Director of Economic Development RO Ron Odekirk, Developer DJ Dan Johnson RAD Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development DP Doug Phillips, Deputy City Attorney SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/P.I.O. BAA I think this is a continuation of what we started at the Study Session. We went through the proposed proformas on how the different scenarios would work, so it's up to the Council now to give us direction on what you want to do or ask more questions. SRW I wonder if Dennis or the City Manager could briefly bring Mr. Crites up to speed on what the three tables are and how they plug into A & B of this 3-page list is basically a financial plan for Number 1 on our Staff Report List. Number 3, the third alternative on this page, plugs into 2 and 3 and 4, I guess. And Dennis can answer specifics. JMB You want Dennis to go through for Buford's edification what we went through before? SRW Real briefly, just to bring him up to speed so he knows what we know. 5 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BAA What we did is ran through the various scenarios - basically six things. One is a City -owned facility with a management contract meaning we would build a facility, get the Odekirks to operate it for some kind of a determined sum which we .would negotiate if you directed that. One of the negative sides of that is you can only do that for a five-year period and then you'd have to renegotiate. Another one is where we build and finance the Sports Complex with 5 % non-taxable proceeds. In Section 4, for example, only 5 % of the money can be used for non-taxable things. If we choose to use it for this, you could not use it for something different. Well, some of the other aspects are the golf course, and so forth, which we don't have. I opened the comments before saying this one is a little ahead of the pack of all the other projects. You know, the other ones we're not really in a position to come forward with a recommendation yet like we are on this because you all asked for a recommendation. So that's the difficult part. Staff feels that it wouldn't be wise to use the 5% non-taxable for this purpose. Again, we don't think it's a wise move. Okay, another one is the City donates the land, we hold the title as a lien. The negative part of that is that then you've got to try to recoup the cost of the land in the proforma and the land's pretty expensive out there. And then if something goes wrong with it, you've got to have a way to get the land back and so forth. The next one is to place it on Cal State land or land trades. You know, if we could trade with somebody twenty acres for twenty acres you'd get around the non-taxable implications because it becomes clear land. That would depend on us being able to trade with somebody else to place it up where it's to be situated. That might take a little bit of time but it's a possibility. The next one is to place it on Cal State land. The Cal State land would not be encumbered by some of the situations in Section 4. You still have the other considerations which are not financial- -what's the impact on the neighborhood. JMB Bruce, could I just ask one thing and maybe Buford before we go farther on that land trade? You said trade twenty acres -- what twenty acres would we trade? BAA Well, we haven't acquired all the land out there yet. So in acquiring some of the other land in Section 4, we could trade one that we acquired to free the land on this piece where it wouldn't be encumbered. Carlos, can you explain it better than that or is that pretty much the essence of it? CLO It's very simple because this land has some IRS encumbrances. We need to find land that has no IRS encumbrances and then be able to say that we're going to then transfer those encumbrances on that new piece of the goal being that we wind up with the same amount of land that is restricted for public use. And this can be accomplished through a land trade. The only catch to that is that it cannot be us that acquired that other land to trade within ourselves. BAA Then the other one Councilman Kelly brought up a while back is that Del Webb and the Park and Rec District are attempting to put together some kind of a project for a sports facility. So we did have Mr. Wohlmuth and Mr. Shillcock go meet with both parties to see what they ' were doing. 6 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * What they're doing doesn't appear to be something that's eminent in relationship to what we're trying to do here. In the long range, they're trying to develop some kind of a sporting facility on land to be determined and with money to be determined later on. So it wasn't something that we could weave right into with the Odekirks within the foreseeable future. BAC Let me ask a .question about that. I was told by people who said they knew that the settlement between Parks & Rec and Sun City not Palm Springs only obliges Mr. Pancratz to chair a committee that will attempt to raise funds to find a location and so on and so forth. It doesn't put any money out for that facility, it doesn't give it any land. It gives one person to chair a committee, is that correct? RSK That's not the way I understand it. BAC Well, that's what I mean. I've heard your understanding, I've heard this understanding, and I'm nosy. BAA Well, John gave a report because he was out there a couple of days ago. John, do you want to give us a report on what took place there? JW Madam Mayor and members of the City Council...our understanding of the agreement is that Del Webb has agreed to, and Mr. Pancratz will head this group, to find land and find money to build a facility. We asked specifically the question, is Del Webb putting anything into that over and above looking at that and they said "not at this time", with the exception of the staff. So, I haven't seen the settlement agreement, but that specific question was asked to Mr. Pancratz and there is no money from the settlement going into the project. JMB I might add that that's what Mr. Pancratz told me, too, before he talked to you. I don't know what your conversation was, but when he told me about the settlement, he told me that's what he was going to do. RSK Well, Parks & Recreation has some money that I know they are going to spend for something like this. I faintly remember a figure of $850,000. And then also, there's the $1 million that was going to be spent in Thousand Palms that the County is going to spend somewhere for Parks & Recreation. Then the third thing is that I can't believe that there was a suit between the Parks & Recreation Department and the Del Webb Corporation and that there was no money in the settlement and the only settlement was that they chair a committee to try to work something out. I need to check that out for myself. BAC I didn't mean to imply that, Dick. There was a monetary settlement but that monetary settlement is not tied to being spent anywhere for any particular facility or anything else. It could go anywhere for any kind of thing they want. It could have something to do with a facility of this nature, it could have something to do with a swimming pool in Mecca. 7 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RSK Somewhere there they agreed to start paying some Park fees plus Mr. Pancratz is going to chair a committee to work out something so that this money is all well spent. BAC Well, that's separate. SRW One thing we didn't talk about today, that was in .our report, and we talked about basically the revenue stream. If you take Option 3 in our list that was discussed today, basically the City of Palm Desert at the end of a thirty year period gets the facility, gets the land back that it has banked for thirty years and gets $15 million. What wasn't discussed is this report in here that I need some interpretation on. I wish there was some simpler description because there's a lot of figures, but that's the one that was prepared by the College of the Desert, Bureau of Applied Research, that analyzes some of the additional revenue benefits to the City. Is there someone who could report on that? BAA I think Mr. Shillcock could walk through that one. Paul? PS Madam Mayor and members of Council...in Economic Development, we look at a bunch of things. Obviously, it's very important to consider return on investment and that is reflected in the tables that Dennis walked us through and the internal rate of return. Unfortunately, from our standpoint, we're almost working in a vacuum because the internal rate of return is to be used to compare one project to another. What we've done with three alternatives is that you can compare one alternative to the others but you really can't compare it to a shopping center project or anything else because we haven't done the same analysis on it. So what we look to is another analysis which is often what we have to do in Economic Development because the nature of the business is that you try to do things that aren't necessarily going to happen by themselves in the private sector without any kind of assistance or encouragement. What you have in 'the report are some of the things that are normally looked at in terms of impacts on the economy. Again, we do look at a return and it has to be a good business deal but we also look at, if you will, social benefits -- jobs created, money injected into the economy, the impact of that money into the economy, and certainly a revenue stream, in this case, to the City. What is shown in this is a number of things. The first table, for example, shows the impact using a fairly basic tool called the multiplier effect which in layman terms is when you go and spend a dollar at Von's, part of that goes to pay the salaries of the people who work there who take that out and spend some money at getting their hair cut and the beautician in turn takes some of that money as salary and spends it and what is the impact of that money by the time it disappears completely. As indicated in this study, the normal multiplier is 2.5 — we used a 2. What it's saying is that for every dollar spent in this particular activity by the time it finishes circulating, it has the same effect as $2 being spent one time. What this shows on a three-year analysis with a multiplier on construction, which is substantial, and a multiplier on the operation — payroll and the cost of purchases for seed, fertilizers, and supplies, what have you — that the impact over a three-year period is about fifteen or sixteen million dollars, the same as if there was a one-time expenditure of fifteen or sixteen million dollars. The second table that is included in this looks at the impact of money on the economy. With a lot of activities, probably the best example is that if we move forward and another shopping center is 8 MINU'TES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * built in Palm Desert, there will be some new revenues generated by that but more than likely what's going to happen is the existing pie is going to be redivided and we'll get a bigger piece of the pie that's in the valley. One of the things we always looked at with this project is this was new pie coming into the area. Softball players are not people who necessarily come out here now so this in turn has a major impact on us and we can look real hard at what the effect of those new dollars being spent will have. In this table we . looked at the income and the impact on the Coachella Valley economy both from the construction and the multiplier effect which was shown in Table 1, the complex operations and the multiplier effect, and then the hotel revenues from these new visitors, and we tried to be real conservative on that and use the $50 per night hotel rate, and then we also built in the other spending. And we used, again, conservatively we used $100 a day, the CVB uses $135 a day, the State uses approximately $135 a day. We calculated visitor days based on the numbers of people that are going to be attracted to a minimum number of events and came up with expenditures of $100 a day. You can see by year three which is when you've lost the multiplier effect of construction and that's just operations and you've stabilized your operation, you're talking about $22-23 million of new money coming into the Coachella Valley economy each year. The third thing we looked at, and this is Table 3, is the direct impact on the City of Palm Desert itself. This is obviously very important. We've talked all along about trying to create an income stream, a revenue stream for the City that is protected, that whatever actions they take in Sacramento cannot affect it. What is shown in this Table is the ground lease income which comes off the tables that Dennis walked us through, the interest income, local sales from the complex (and that was with the assumption that only 50% of the sales within the complex, and that's the snack bar, the pro shop, or whatever, only 50% of the sales would actually be taxable sales). We used a multiplier effect on those sales because again this is new money coming into the area. We used a bed tax from visitor overnight stays in Palm Desert alone. The basis for this is that most of the events that take place in the complex will be hosted by a local hotel. When teams come in to play a softball tournament, a local hotel is a host hotel, provides a lower than'normal rate for all of the players who are coming in, can do other things for them (free breakfasts or whatever), but the developer has committed to using only Palm Desert hotels. So we took, again using a $50 per night fee, we calculated what the revenues would be in hotel sales and then converted that into the bed tax that the City realizes. Then the last thing was we assumed that 75% of the other expenditures they made other than hotel rooms were taxable sales and this is going to be meals and anything they might buy in the stores, we said 75% of those other sales are taxable and 50% of those other taxable sales will be in the City of Palm Desert. Some will obviously be in Palm Springs or other surrounding cities, and we came up with the sales tax that gets generated by that. Again, we tried to be real conservative in all of our numbers that we did here. You'll see that in Year 1, it totals $605,000. By Year 5 when you're stabilizing your activities, we're up to $736,000 of revenue directly to the City of Palm Desert. If perchance the legislature in its wisdom decides that it's going to redistribute sales tax on some other basis other than situs, take out $64,000 and you still have $660,000 a year of revenue directly to the City. That's what we're trying to determine in this analysis done by the College of the Desert — is the impact above and beyond just interest paid on the loan or the revenues paid in terms of lease amounts. This doesn't talk about jobs created or anything like that. It converts it all to dollars so that we can try to 9 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * • * • * * • * • • * * * * • * • * * * • • • • * * • • • • * • * • * compare dollars to dollars and project to project. Obviously, we don't have the same analysis for and other project so this is the impact of this one project, as outlined, on the Coachella Valley economy and the City of Palm Desert. BAC Might I ask a question? The construction impact is not particularly related to the construction of this facility. That's the relation if we spent that amount of dollars and built anything, we'd have that impact, right? PS Correct. BAC So, in reality, that doesn't have diddle to do with advantages or disadvantages of this project. It has to do with advantages or disadvantages of spending X number of dollars to build something. PS Correct. BAC Okay. The monies that come to us from sales tax and so on and so forth all make assumptions about numbers of people here, numbers of tournaments, numbers of all the rest of this...that's the base upon which all of this is built. Is that correct? BAA We don't do our budget estimates that way. I think this is a way that you look at a project. BAC I'm talking about this specific project. It's all based on that as the starting block of data, right? PS Correct. BAC Where do that data come from -- where are they? PS That data is derived from a model that has been created based on at least seven years experience in similar facilities and in the operations of other facilities like this around the country. BAC Okay. Does that then come from the proposed developer of the project? Is that where it has its origins? PS It actually was developed by a consulting firm that does this kind of analysis for organizations like that. BAC Maybe I'm the only person, but that makes me very curious. I suspect the City of Palm Springs when they did their convention center, I suspect, and I could go down a long list of things, all had a proforma. I would bet money that no city in the world has ever put money into a project in which the proforma didn't make it look like it was going to be good. I think that's a reasonable hypothesis. Yet, whole piles of them end up not being there. As a matter of fact, we could take a several day tour of proformas that didn't "proform". To the tune of $3 million, why do I need to believe that this proformas does not have the kinds of issues in it that other proformas have that end up not being what they say they're going to be? 10 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PS Madam Mayor and members of Council...since this is still a projection of what will happen in the future, we certainly can't guarantee that these are the numbers. It would be much easier for me five years from now to be able to tell you this is the way it worked. The only thing I can say is that whereas most proformas are based on assumptions and best guesses, I have a whole lot more confidence in this one because they did use a model which had been reviewed by two of the top eight accounting firms in the country as far as its assumptions are concerned. Our finance department a year ago went through the assumptions with the gentlemen who ran it, so we feel comfortable with the assumptions. It is based on a model as opposed to being based on a best guess, but it is still a projection of what could happen given a continuation at least of a current economy. I think we tried, again, to be very conservative on this, but you have to assume that we're not going to have a depression starting next year and you have to assume that there won't be a major disaster which completely turns things sideways on us. But, barring those, this is, I think, a better best guess than most proformas. SRW I think I understand where Mr. Crites is coming from and it's...we're being asked to do something a little different than we normally do. We normally spend money to build things and we're not in the business to try to create a revenue source. So this is a new venture — the public/private partnership. It's part of the philosophy of attempting to cover our bases for the future if our revenue sources are continually taken from us by the State, and we need to hear those options. And we're being asked to, and this is where you're uncomfortable and I'm also uncomfortable from that standpoint, is we're being asked to do what business people are asked to do every single day when they make an investment in property, buildings, whatever. They have to take some risk and we have to take some risk. I think the data behind this and the eighteen months of study that have gone into this gives me a comfort zone that I would like to see us bite the bullet and move forward. RSK Well, in that multiplier, all the multiplication in there, that benefit goes to the whole Coachella Valley. Palm Desert is the one making the investment but everybody's going to participate in the multiplier and even if I believed in the multiplier, it would be a problem. • BAA I believe Mr. Odekirk has something to say, Madam Mayor. JMB Mr. Odekirk? BAC Just one comment, if I may. It's not just that we're being asked to go into a public/private partnership which is different from what cities traditionally do, we're looking at a non-traditional public/private partnership. We did one right over here and I think most of us, even as lay people, have some idea of office buildings and what they're like and what we'll do with them and if nobody shows up to ever rent them, eventually the staff will fill them and all the rest and so on and so forth. We might go in potentially on a shopping center and we have some ideas about how shopping centers, etc., etc. This one is not that one. It may be a better one, or it may not be but it isn't even that and to me that ought to cause caution. It's one that's a, long way away from anything that's ever been done in this valley, or so on and so on and so forth... 11 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SRW I think there you have to look at the escape clause and that is that we're not being asked to spend any more money than we're spending right outside here on four ballfields to provide for a need of the community. If this fails, we have our land, we have our ballfields, we have additional facilities for the community, so we go back to square one as providing facilities. JMB Okay, Mr. Odekirk. RO I'd just like to address Mr. Crites concerns. These figures were taken from actual public/private parks around the United States. You won't find any government -run parks departments making a profit but you will find a number of private parks in conjunction with cities and a number of private parks, solely -owned, that are making these kinds of profits. These were taken from actual figures, we didn't create those. We're also willing to gamble a million dollars on our knowledge and our research. As to the depression -proof situation, I'm going to tell you there isn't much recreation less expensive. There's an awful lot of people in the United States and in our valley that can't afford to pay $50 to $100 to play golf but they can afford to pay $2 or $3 a game to play softball. If there's anything that's depression -proof, it's this kind of a sports project. So I feel comfortable in answering that question. We're willing to put a million dollars on the line for that. BAC I had a phone call this week from a person who said one of these had just gone kaput in Bakersfield. Is that true? Chapter 13 or Chapter 11 or whichever the various... RO I don't know that one. BAC I don't, either, that's why I'm asking. RO I can name you four or five that are very successful but the elements have to be there. The population has to be there, the tourist possibilities have to be there, I don't know that Bakersfield is a very good tourist location. I don't know how many leagues are existing. I do know... BAC I'm not comparing them. I just asked a question. RO I can point to a lot of government -run softball facilities that are running, most of them, in negative. It all depends on who's doing it, how they're doing it, and where they're located. But you didn't see me propose to build six or ten fields here like are built in Sunnyvale. They've got a population base that supports that. We can make three fields work and as the population grows, maybe more. Right now we can make the three softball fields plus the rest -- this is a sports park now, there's basketball, there's volleyball, there's soccer. We are comfortable with our figures to the point, again, we're willing to put in a million dollars. I'd like to save the City Council some time and I hope I say this in the right way. These alternatives, some of those, are not going to work for us. If you take the items number 4 through 7, and unless they can be accomplished immediately, we as developers can't wait any longer. We've been working on this project for 18 months, we have appeared in front of you four times. We've appeared in front of the Planning Commission four times. We've had approvals at each step of the way. It's a little disturbing and disappointing to come this far and now have some questions raised about whether we should be doing the project. 12 11IIvvrFs ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL Mr....r.dliiiG NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I'm not going to necessarily compare our project to the golf courses. I love the golf course concept, but I'm going to tell you I tried to make our deal work with Alternate #1 under a management contract. In researching that, I went to the City of Indian Wells which has two golf courses under management contracts with American Golf. Mr. Charles Francis, the Assistant City Manager at the City of Indian Wells, tells me that they had to convert their lease with American Golf to a management contract when the Internal Revenue rules changed. When they did that, they had to buy out American Golf any investment they had into it and they now received last year, Indian Wells received, $750,000 on a 20 million dollar investment. The management company, with no investment in it, received $500,000 fee. Now, they're experienced and have a track record so I guess then can command it. We don't believe the management contract is in our best interests nor do we believe it's in the City's best interest, but we'll do it if that's what you tell us. Now the proformas we worked with your staff to prepare as a management contract, only one of those am I comfortable with and that's the one where we're not putting any investment in because we're only going to get a five-year, possibly as little as a three-year contract. Under the laws as I understand them, the five-year contract can be cancelled if the City wishes, at the end of the third year. So if we're going to put $500,000 or $1,000,000 into a project, during our building years we're not going to get a return. We don't like the management contract and I don't think it's a good deal for the City because they're taking all of the risk. As Mr. Wilson just said, if we build a park, we put a million dollars into it, if we don't do what we say we can do, you've got the park -- you own it. We lose the million dollars before you lose anything. We'd like to see, to cut short this, we'd like to see you, now we don't object to you exploring some ideas about the land trade; we're cooperative with you on that. The Coachella Valley Recreation and Park thing is pie in the sky, it doesn't exist. We don't know...they're talking about creating a committee to try and find a piece of land and try and find some money and maybe build some fields. Now, the valley needs more youth fields and if they ever put that deal together, it will be welcome in the valley. They're not proposing to do what we're planning to do for a young adults sports park. So, I ask you to concentrate on one of the first three things and see if we can get this deal done. SRW I think for purposes of discussion, we have seven options here and I think we keep debating whether we should or not and I'm sure that debate will continue. Maybe we could narrow it down to what we can live with of those seven options and then debate whether or not we move forward. For example, I am not at all comfortable with #1, I don't like the management contract idea because it takes the developer off the hook as far as investing in the project. I liked #2 when I first read this; I thought that was the only option I felt was as close to the original proposal that we bought in concept way back months ago. However, in the study session I guess Bruce kind of convinced me that maybe #3 has a possibility of donate land if we can write it in such a way that we retain retrieval rights of that land, etc., etc. #4, 5, 6 and 7 to me are absolutely unacceptable. It's like starting over on 5, 6 and 7, and 4 I don't understand where we'd get the land to trade, etc. JMB So... yes, sir? DJ Madam Mayor, it might be appropriate for me to make comments at this point. Earlier in the meeting, under... 13 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JMB Could you identify yourself? DJ My name is Dan Johnson with the firm of Schlecht, Shevlin & Shoenberger in Palm Springs. I'm here this evening representing the Sun Corporation of America and William Swank. Earlier in this afternoon's session under Item 6 for Oral Communications, I'm not sure that you afforded individuals an opportunity to speak to those items that were on the agenda and if I. might have an opportunity right now. JMB On what item are you talking about? DJ This present item. JMB All right. DJ In terms of the economic analysis looking at the financial benefits report, I believe it has to be noted that that analysis is based upon certain premises. Those premises are that the numbers provided by the developer are accurate. By way of example, it assumes that participants in tournaments will spend two days and will pay a certain amount for hotels, that they will spend... SRW That study was done by an independent. We hired the firm to do that study and do that analysis. We did not get that from the developer. Number two, the developer's original model information came from several consultant firms, analyzed by several accounting firms and gone over by our staff thoroughly in the past year or so and so why don't you direct more specifically rather than tell us what isn't true. DJ I certainly will...the point being that some of those premises need to be questioned. I'm a softball player myself. I've played in leagues in this valley for roughly thirteen years or so. I've played in a number of tournaments. If you have people attending these tournaments and you lose the first two games, you're gone that day, you're not going to stick around. People that do play both days don't necessarily spend two nights. But forgetting about the economic analysis, going back to the proformas that were reviewed at the study session earlier today, that was a revised draft that I have not had an opportunity to review. But if I'm not mistaken, those numbers again are premised on figures provided by the proponent. The analysis assumes there are to be gross revenues starting in Year 1 at roughly $1.3 million, both revenues and expenses are projected to increase more or less on a straight line basis over thirty years. We're not sure of what the basis for those assumptions are. We're not sure how the cost estimates have been calculated, whether those have been analyzed. I suspect the City in analyzing whether it wants to proceed with prudent investments, would want to check all of those premises. In terms, Councilmember Wilson, the comments you made in the study session about the internal rate of return being very favorable for the City was premised on the fact the property with a residual value of roughly $7.1 million would go back to the City in roughly thirty years. That is going to occur whether you proceed with the development of this park or not and I would submit you might want to recalculate the internal rate of return, deleting that figure. That's simply a 14 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * number of the premises you might want to look at. Further, you're looking at a park with three softball fields; to accommodate some of your larger tournaments you would need more than three softball fields. The economic viability is based on the park being intensively used. You need to consider that. Also, as we're aware, the very basic premise is that softball thirty years from now will be as popular as softball is right now. Thirty years ago when I was playing Little League, it was tremendously popular. There was no thought of soccer, at least where I was playing. Things have changed over that period of time. My children now play AYSO soccer and not Little League. That's something that you might want to consider as you proceed with your analysis. Thank you. BAC If I might, sir, as long as we're on premises, let me check one other one. I think there are some issues about the analysis and all that. Fair enough. One other premise...I assume you are not here out of general good will and concern about the community of Palm Desert and the interest in softball fields. Is that a fair assumption? DJ That is correct. BAC So as part of the assumptions about what you have to say, we should have a premise that you're hired by someone who has at least in the past opposed this whole issue. Is that a fair assumption? DJ Yes, I believe that I made that statement initially. Thank you. JMB All right. Thank you. So, what are we going to do? I think our main issue is the financing package that we asked to be brought to us on this ballfield. The seven alternatives were all new thrown at us as to whether there were going to be other priorities thrown in or whether its a new ball game, so to speak, when they bring in this when we asked for the funding package to be brought to us on the ballpark, whether that was going to go, or whether it wasn't. Now we have all the other issues in the kettle as well. SRW Could I suggest a possible motion, and of course it would be contingent on what happens at our Public Hearing later this evening. But I would like to suggest that we direct staff to look at Items 2 and 3 and bring a contract back to us at our December 9th meeting that basically implements one of those two options. Would anybody support that? BAC Where was the discussion ended? I wasn't here for that part about how this particular project sets in relation to a number of other projects. As an example, we do have a request for about $3 million for infrastructure costs on Highway 111, a potential commercial project. We have Councilman Kelly's comment about swimming pools and there's still a possibility of building a golf course out there although I think that needs to have the same kind of analysis we put in on this in terms of is it a good idea, bad idea, and so on. We have other things all the way down the line. You're asking to do this without that happening. Is that a fair comment? SRW Basically, I'm operating from the assumption that we should look at the two projects before us tonight as projects in and of themselves...are they financially feasible, are they viable options to move forward on. I think we can get in, in fact we have a letter here from an attorney, that may 15 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * just basically be, I think the intention here is, to declare war and shut down the whole development of the north sphere is the intent I see in this thing. So we may not be going anywhere. JMB What letter are you referring to? SRW This letter from... BAA Before you see if there's a second, there may be something along the idea of what all of you are saying. Maybe if you come up with a date, the first meeting in January, between now and then we can get some other numbers for you on some of these other issues, which I think would make...I think everybody would feel probably more comfortable. We're getting pretty close on it. SRW I think we've not wasted but I think we've strung this thing out far too long. I'm surprised we have a developer still talking to us after eighteen months. I would have no objection to making the motion for December 9th and asking staff to bring forward their entire package including the rest of the things on Section 4. I think we're going to see a lot of objections. Let's face it, if certain developers and certain residents in that area complain about three baseball fields, what are they going to say about a muni golf course closer to their property? So there are a lot of things we've got to explore here and maybe that should come to us at the December 9th meeting. We have to look at all of them. We may have to eliminate some. BAA Well, I'm not sure we can get that all by December 9th. I was trying to get it to you before the first meeting in January. There is a lot of stuff to do on this thing. The key thing...I was the one that proposed the whole concept. I proposed it based on Hovely Park. I think it will be a long time before there is money to develop other parks. We were sitting with 20 acres of land, people wanted to develop it. We said let's go out and find something to go in there to give us money to develop the thing. So we tried bowling alleys,etc. This idea came forward...it seemed to fit. That we strongly recommended. All of a sudden now we've got Section 4 with some very paramount opportunities that are right on the brink of solving financial problems for the next three decades for Palm Desert if we can put them together. When one thing is out front a little bit of the others, the one thing might mess the whole pie up. That's the only thing I'm worried about. I want to be able to come in to you and say that Marriott's is going to give us X amount of money and here's what we're going to get out of it. I want to say here are the terms and conditions of the Bishop Trust. I want to be able to say here's the golf course, how much we spend, how much we're going to get back, what some of the byproducts are, as well as the sports park. I think part of your comparison, too, has to be you take the fields we're building here, we're just spending money. You take this one, you're spending money but you're going to get money back. If the thing fizzles, what you need is some protection that you're not out holding the bag because you've always got your land. So we're ready to do that, but unfortunately we're not ready to play all those cards on the table. That's what's very awkward. This is the most divisive issue I think we've had in my eleven years here, potentially. I don't want to see that because all of us are trying to move the City forward. I talked with the Odekirks. They know some of my frustrations. Even if we solve the financial piece tonight, you've got a Public Hearing where not only members 16 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 s s * * * * * * * s* s* * s* * * * * * s s * s*** * s s s s * s s s s of the Council called this thing up but the developer sitting right behind it has called it up and he's gone out and stirred up people in other neighborhoods. If I were the Odekirks I would almost say step back two steps, withdraw your application for this hearing tonight, come into us and say we want a full environmental impact analysis which we're going to do on Section 4 for all the things that go in there so that when developers that are around it and other people in the neighborhood can come down and have their say and then we'll mitigate whatever it is. I think then we've got a clean shot. Otherwise we're going to be monkeying around with this thing for perpetuity and just get totally frustrated. So that's my soapbox for tonight and that would be my recommendation. CLO Madam Mayor, this is not the appropriate time for the Redevelopment Agency to speak, but I think what you're talking about is that this would be located on Agency land and would be Agency - financed. We have, in fact, for all other projects done a lot of what College of the Desert has done for this project. Not as sophisticated, but we've done it...analyzed internal rates of return, etc., etc. The bottom line is we don't have money to finance all of these projects and so I do agree with the City Manager that we should provide you with a report that analyzes the same issues within all competing projects and then you can look at them and say there are the ones that we're going to fund. The presumption being made here, one, is that if you were to tell us to go proceed tonight, that we agree on where the money is going to come from. This right here is not a budgeted project. We could budget it, but I think it needs to be done in terms of doing the analysis on all those projects that are on the table. I think that with the time frame that Bruce has set, we would come back and would have no problem putting together the report because we have done it already. It just needs a little cleanup. BAA Again, that would be dependent on the Odekirks indicating their willingness to delay this thing until you can really make a sound decision. BAC May I just make one comment. I think Bruce and I share one characteristic that when we feel vehemently about something, we speak our minds. Certainly Mr. Swank has every right to take whatever means and certainly I'm sure we didn't mean by "stirring things up" that it was something that was improper and we may or may not agree with what someone chooses to do but it's well within the rights of any citizen to go out and cast their net for support on a point of view. JMB Well, what do we want to do? See how the Odekirks want to proceed with this? WHS What was the date you felt we could have this package put together for them to look at? BAA Well, there are two possibilities. One is to get the package Carlos and I talked about just to deal with this singularly, move it forward, with the package of things. The other would be the full EIR • of Section 4 which would be...Ray? RAD What could be done is that this project would be folded into the entire Section 4 plan and then that plan, with this as part of it along with the golf courses and the other proposals, would be evaluated in one entire Environmental Impact Report and would be before you for hearing. So you could 17 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL Mr.r..uLTG NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * proceed...you could do it either way. But in order for that to happen, the applicant would have to withdraw their application and fold it in. SRW Could we do both? Could we direct staff to bring us the entire analysis of all of the Section 4 projects including a proposed contract for this project with a contingency clause that would give us an equitable escape somehow if indeed an EIR shows that it's not environmentally sound to do this. In other words, go ahead with the EIR and that will take longer but try to come up and lock up a contract that we're comfortable with contingent upon the environmental assessment being completed and acceptable. JMB Do you wish to speak now? BAC Okay. I think we do have agreement that with the exception of Items 2 and 3, the rest of those mechanisms for either our purposes or the potential developer's purposes are not appropriate. I haven't heard anyone object to Roy's initial comment about 2 and 3 being the only two things that potentially are worth pursuing as financing options. JMB Well, I did hear Mr. Odekirk say, though, that he was still willing to look at Alternate 3...when you said delete them, I was going to ask you about... you said, I mean 4 on the land trade, you mentioned. RO Sure, if it can be done we will cooperate. BAC Is the issue of the need for an EIR here something that is appropriate for discussion in Closed Session as we now potentially have a threat of litigation? DP Yes. BAC Then I think part of this discussion about where this project does or doesn't fit is now subject to Council's consultation as a matter potentially before the courts, which we can't talk about here. Right, wrong, better, worse, someone's played that card. RO I'm going to say something... we've worked on it for eighteen months. I'm putting some money into Rick's project...Rick's got partners. Because of the delays, nobody's fault, I'm not blaming anything, but the different directions we've gone back and forth we've lost one of our investors. Any further delays is going to be a problem for us. I'm going to ask if it would be appropriate, we had public hearings on the Hovely Lane location, a Planning Commission hearing, a City Council hearing, there was no action at the last City Council meeting. If you want us to stay in Section 4 and fight this battle with you, we'll do it. We'll do whatever you tell us to do. We want to build the project and we don't want to wait six more months. Now, is an alternative, could you, and I'll ask the City Attorney, could we be moved back to Hovely Lane and could you approve that tonight? DP I don't think you could do that without another Public Hearing. 18 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RO But you've had a public hearing. DP But we've noticed the wrong people for the Hovely project. RO No. We had two Public Hearings on the Hovely project. DP No, tonight. You would need to give notice to the folks at Hovely. RO I didn't know if we already had it. We listened to all the arguments. DP Let me put it this way, we'd lose on that argument, we would lose. RO So are you recommending to us that you would like us to step back and withdraw this application and get into the EIR and wait until the EIR is done. Is that what you're recommending? BAA Well, I think that will come up at the next hearing. I think what Councilman Wilson has suggested, I think, is that staff come back at the next meeting with a contract along those two scenarios and saying that depending on what happens at the next hearing and what happens with any challenges, that it would proceed unless there's a problem with the environmental impact or the thing gets dislodged because of the total project. Is that what you're saying? But I'm saying that if you don't want to go through the anguish of a hearing at seven and you want to go with the full EIR like we talked about, maybe then you would withdraw your application, resubmit it to get you involved in the whole project. RO I understand that. SRW I'd like to see us move forward on the contract, get those deal points agreed to or disagreed to, settled one way or the other and then whatever happens on the next hearing, we'll have to play it by ear. JMB Can we continue this discussion until we see the next hearing and then let him make up his mind whether...? SRW I would move that we direct staff to work with the developer to come up with a contract for either 2 or 3 on the option list and that we ask staff also to bring, and we ask them to do that at our December meeting and we ask them to also bring to us the information for the analysis of all of Section 4 so we can look at the big picture financially when we look at this one. JMB And where does the EIR on the big picture come in, then? SRW That we'll address at the next hearing. The implied is that in the contract they bring us, they provide for the escape clauses necessary if indeed we go to an EIR challenge, etc. so we're not in a binding contract that we can't get out of if other factors change the ballfield. 19 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JMB Any other discussion? RSK I have a question. In Item 2 or 3, is the assumption that the land would be in the same situation as land and buildings in private/public partnership we have with the Brothers? That the land would revert to us in thirty years? That's what you're saying? SRW Correct. JMB That's the private partnership...Do I have a second? No further discussion? WHS I'll second. JMB We have a motion and second to direct staff to come back with a contract on either Alternate 2 or 3 with an escape clause in there that in the overall picture it is not binding... to bring it to a head now, right. Please vote. SRG Motion carries by a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Kelly and Crites voting no. MOTION: Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Direct staff to work with the developer to come up with a contract for either Option 2 or 3, said contract to include escape clauses for the City of Palm Desert if, indeed, Council takes action to initiate an EIR for Section 4; 2) ask staff to also bring back to the Council information for the analysis of all of Section 4 so it can look at the big picture financially. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmen Crites and Kelly voting NO. B. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF PALM DESERT SUPPORT FOR "WALK FOR U.S.A.". Councilman Wilson stated that he had asked that this be placed on the Agenda for discussion. He said that in view of the racial riots at Palm Springs High School recently, there was a group of civic leaders from a variety of ethnic backgrounds who were attempting to put together a walk for humanity to show solidarity and support for diversity and everyone living together. They asked whether the City Council would be willing to consider lending its name in support of the walk. He added that the City would not have to contribute any money but just indicate its support of the concept of a march for equality. Mayor Benson added that the Human Community Resources Committee of CVAG had that morning endorsed the walk. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, take a position of support for the "Walk for U.S.A.". Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. 20 Items ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION TO ART -IN -PUBLIC -PLACES COMIvu i i r.r, TO RECOMMEND A NEW DISPLAY TO REPLACE THE ARTIFICIAL PLANTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING LOBBY. Mr. Altman noted the report in the packets and recommended approval. Upon question by Councilman Wilson, Mayor Benson responded that staff would bring back a plan for the lobby area to replace those artificial plants. Councilman Wilson suggested that staff also look at the possibility of bringing, on a smaller scale, some of the rock landscaping of the park indoors for the lobby area. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, direct the Art -in -Public -Places Committee to recommend a new display to replace the artificial plants in the Administrative Building lobby. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. D. REO!JEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A WAIVER TO ORDINANCE NO. 642 WHICH REGULATES LIGHT POLLUTION - PARKING LOT AT DESERT SPRINGS MARKET PLACE. Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report, noting that staff recommended approval of the request. Councilman Crites expressed concern that the Council had granted several exceptions to the dark skies ordinance due to issues such as color rendition. Because the very next item on the Agenda also deals with this issue and recommends contracting with a firm to find the best technology to develop a cohesive outdoor lighting program, he felt it might be better to address Item E before Item D. Mr. Diaz responded that if it wished to do so, Council could hold this item until after the ordinance is revised relative to lighting; however, it would cause long-term problems in terms of opening the center. He said another alternative might be to have the proposal approved by Palomar Observatory since the additional light from this project might impact that facility. He said staff would also recommend conditioning that the lights be shut down by one-half at 11:00 p.m. in order to lower the lighting level. Mr. Wohlmuth stated that he had discussed this with Professor Ashley McDermott of College of the Desert as well as CalTech, owner of Mt. Palomar Observatory, who has a government relations person working with the cities on ordinances. He said both had indicated a preference to high pressure sodium versus metal halide. Their first preference was low pressure sodium, which had caused some problems in the past because of the yellow light. With regard to this specific project, they felt the amount of light is what the City should look for in an ordinance modification, and high pressure sodium currently can be mitigated with filters. He added that this project would be within what the City would be working toward as far as modification of the current dark skies ordinance. 21 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, determine the parking lot at Desert Springs Market Place to be a Class 1 category where color rendition is an important subject to the applicant using maximum 250 watt high pressure sodium units with the overall average not exceeding 2.5 footcandles on the parking lot -surface. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. E. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO RECOMMENDING, DEVELOPING, AND SUPPORTING A COHESIVE OUTDOOR LIGHTING PROGRAM. Mr. Wohlmuth reviewed the report, noting that staff had asked CalTech and local lighting experts to furnish some names of consultants that the City of Palm Desert could retain to review our dark skies ordinance, our current lighting standards, and the City's street lighting policy. Two names were consistently recommended, and staff requested proposals from both. Staff recommended retaining Design Engineering Consultants, Inc. to do the work in an amount not to exceed $4,800.00. He offered to answer any questions. Mayor Benson asked whether this program would be for all outdoor lighting or just for parking lots. Mr. Wohlmuth responded that it would be all outdoor lighting, including looking at issues the City has dealt with in the past such as landscaping and lighting the hillsides and perhaps looking at the mercury vapor lights on garages. Upon question by Councilman Snyder, Mr. Wohlmuth responded that staff would be looking at modifying the ordinance to encompass all three aspects of the City's outdoor lighting policies and to adapt the ordinance to the best available technology. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with Design Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Contract No. C08120) in an amount not to exceed $4,800.00 for professional design and engineering services related to recommending, developing, and supporting a cohesive outdoor lighting program. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. F. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Colony CableVision of California Update. Mr. Ortega noted the memorandum relative to cable complaints received October 20 through November 4, 1993. He noted that an item raised at the last meeting dealt with how rates under contract (i.e., homeowners' associations) compared with cable rates for single-family houses on a typical City street. He said staff had discussed this with representatives of Colony Cablevision and had advised them that the City is now authorized to regulate rates. He stated that the Council had adopted a resolution some time ago relative to service standards and the City's ability to regulate rates; the FCC had 30 days to deny the request or it was automatically approved. He said the 30 days had now passed and that the City had not received any denial of the request. He added that Colony was now required to submit to the City an extensive accounting of 22 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * how they calculate rates and how they calculate charges for the use of equipment; this information will be submitted to Council as soon as it is received. 2. Status of Multi -Agency Library. .Mr. Diaz stated that a presentation had been made earlier that day by the architect to the Art -In -Public -Places Committee and a booklet had been distributed. He said he would see that copies of the booklet were made and distributed to the Council. He noted that there were several significant conclusions from the meeting: 1) Extensive artwork in the carpeting not be done because of the amount of use of the carpeting and possible discoloration; 2) with regard to utilizing glass to bring in different colors to the building, the Committee felt this should be looked at very carefully. He said the architect would report back at the next meeting on issues he was directed to look at such as an overall art plan for the library. He said concentration would be given to the entryway and to the large wall that will be behind the circulation desk. Councilman Crites stated that when he and Councilman Kelly met with the architect and looked at the plans, they had made the comment that if there are things the architect feels would significantly enhance the art component of the library, and if it runs over the budgeted amount, this should be brought to the Council to consider. He added that one of the Committee members had asked him a question about the amount budgeted for the art, and it was his understanding that the public art budgeted amount of $87,000 was separate from the construction budget and that Council had agreed to this several months ago. Upon question by Mr. Altman, Mr. Diaz responded that the $87,000 had not been appropriated. Councilman Crites moved to add this item to the Agenda for consideration. Motion was seconded by Kelly. Mr. Ortega stated that this was an Agency -funded item and suggested that consideration of the $87,000 appropriation be held and discussed as part of the Redevelopment Agency Agenda. Councilman Crites withdrew his motion, and Councilman Kelly withdrew his second. 23 MINTUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * s * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TORO PEAK STORM DRAIN, CONTRACT NO. C07920. (CONTINUED FROM THE MEETINGS OF br r i =ABER 23 AND OCTOBER 14, 1993). Mr. Altman reported that he had received a letter from the City of Indian Wells indicating it would pay back the City of Palm Desert for the sports complex. Based on that, staff recommended approval of this contract. Councilman Snyder complimented staff for being good negotiators, and he moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the agreement attached to the staff report dated November 17, 1993. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR D OF SUBDIVISION FEES - TRACT 26412, HOUSLEY ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT (CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1993). Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that this was a moot point inasmuch as the Governor had signed a bill that has given all tracts a two-year extension; however, he said staffs recommendation was to deny the request. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, deny the subject request. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. XII. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, AND MR. IRWIN GOLDENBERG AS THE PRIMARY HEARING EXAMINER PERTAINING TO PARKING CITATIONS (Contract No. C08130). Mr. Ramsey reviewed the staff report, noting that the City of La Quinta had requested to be included in this agreement and that the contracts had been changed to reflect that. He stated that Assembly Bill 408, which would become effective January 1, 1994, requires cities to collect their own parking citation fees for those people who contest parking citations. Staff went out to bid and received approximately 45 bids from individuals interested in acting as a hearing officer for the City. They were asked to bid on a "per ticket" basis as their charge for handling each ticket; costs ranged from $1 to $150. Staff selected approximately eight that were considered to be acceptable and then interviewed three of those that were felt to be the most qualified. Staff recommended Mr. Irwin Goldenberg, a current active attorney, as the primary hearing officer, with Mr. Dale Equitz as the alternate. The fee to be charged by Mr. Goldenberg was $15.00 per ticket, and this had been agreed to by Mr. Equitz. Staff felt 24 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the City should recover some costs for the clerical work required; therefore, it was recommended on the Resolution that an administrative fee of $25.00 be charged for each case ($15.00 hearing fee; $10.00 clerical fee). He added that two other cities, Indian Wells and Desert Hot Springs, and College of the Desert, had expressed interest in joining this, and staff might in the near future come back to Council and ask that those entities be added. Mayor Benson noted that the contract states it is between the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and La Quinta, "and other cities which file a letter of intent to contract..." She asked whether each one of those would have to come back for approval or if this sentence covers it. Mr. Ramsey responded that the City Attorney had indicated that wording the contract in this way would allow other cities to come in; however, any additions would be placed on the City Council Agenda for approval. Councilman Snyder moved to: 1) By Minute Motion, approve the agreement (No. C08130) between the City of Palm Desert, the City of Rancho Mirage, and Mr. Irwin Goldenberg as the Primary Hearing Examiner and approve Mr. Dale Equitz as the Alternate Hearing Examiner (Contract No. C0813A); 2) waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 93-100 establishing an administrative fee of $25.00 per case. Motion was seconded by Wilson and carried by unanimous vote. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF REGULAR AND URGENCY ORDINANCES AMENDING SUBSECTION (C) OF SECTION 9.50.075 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO MOBILEHOME RENT CONTROL. Mr. Altman stated that there was a minor clerical error in the ordinance previously adopted by the City Council, and the City Attorney recommended approval of these ordinances. Councilman Crites moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 73Q amending Subsection (c) of Section 9.50.075 of the Municipal Code regarding rescission of certain mobilehome rental agreements; 2) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 231 to second reading amending Subsection (c) of Section 9.50.075 of the Municipal Code regarding rescission of certain mobilehome rental agreements. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. C. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR CHANGE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATE TO ODD -NUMBERED YEARS. Mayor Benson welcomed Riverside County Registrar of Voters Frank Johnson to the City Council meeting. Mr. Johnson addressed the Council relative to the realignment of non -partisan elections in the County of Riverside to enable the Registrar's Office to provide this very basic function of County government more efficiently and cost-effectively. He stated that this particular area of the County was a prime example of the reason behind his office seeking this realignment. He said it was one of the County's largest elective jurisdictions in the form of College of the Desert, with many tens of thousands of registered voters. He said the College was mandated 25 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * to conduct elections every two years for its governing board; in addition, there were over 100 non -partisan elective jurisdictions in the County (24 municipalities, school districts, 4 Community College Districts, and different types of special districts) that were also required to hold elections every two years. He said the Registrar's Office reached a point several years ago where the saturation of the general election ballot made it impossible to accept any further elections; at that time, they were instructed by the Board of Supervisors to seek, if possible, some arrangement to get the differing types of elections on some kind of more manageable and sensible track. He said that of the 100 jurisdictions, 65 or two-thirds were currently consolidated with the general election, which causes a tremendous logistics problem for the conduct and preparation of the elections. In addition, it causes quite a bit of consternation among the voters who are asked to deal with very unwieldy ballots. He said he believed this was a good, sound, sensible, logical, and common-sense proposal which was in the best interests of everyone involved. He felt it would increase voter participation in local government because matters of local and regional importance would not be commingled with issues and debates which are essentially State or Federally centered. He said higher turnout that occurs for elections of President, Vice President, Governor, etc. does not necessarily provide additional votes that are informed of local government matters. He added that ballots for both the partisan and non -partisan general elections would be less congested, easier for voters to deal with, and less expensive to produce and tally. Mr. Johnson said he believed the proposal would be beneficial to the jurisdictions that participate for the following reasons: 1) Elections for local governing bodies could be grouped logically by region; 2) election costs can be shared with resultant savings to the districts; 3) costs to districts realigned to the odd-yeared date will not exceed and could even be less than the cost of consolidating with the general elections in even years; 4) constituents will feel closer to their local governing boards and will participate more effectively. He said he felt this proposal was beneficial to the Registrar of Voters department and its employees for the following reasons: 1) The present situation of misaligned elections and resulting disproportionate workloads will be corrected; 2) increased efficiency and better management of austere County resources will be realized. He offered to answer any questions. Mayor Benson asked if Mr. Johnson needed a certain percentage of the cities to agree to change in order to go to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Johnson responded that his office had met and presented this proposal to City Clerks, secretaries and managers of special districts, superintendents of school districts, etc. He said he had visited many jurisdictions and City Councils to discuss this. He had indicated that 100% participation was necessary in order to make it cost-effective; if he had said only 80% or 85% or 90% was needed, he felt that all of the jurisdictions would want to be among the 20%, 15% or 10% which waits on everyone else to act. He added that they would have to wait to receive responses from all of the jurisdictions to see who is in favor and who is 26 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * opposed, weigh them by regional setup, and see if they can still put this together in order to realize the cost savings. He said he believed it would take approximately 75 % of the jurisdictions to accomplish this. Councilman Wilson asked whether the Registrar's Office or the Board of Supervisors would guarantee the City of Palm Desert that its costs would not be greater than what it is currently paying if it switched to odd -numbered years. Mr. Johnson responded that if there were adequate participants and the realignment occurred, he would be prepared to guarantee the City's costs would not exceed 55 % of the stand-alone election costs (costs of the City having a stand-alone election for some reason, such insufficient nominees). He said projected actual costs to jurisdictions would probably be somewhere between 30% and 35% of the stand-alone costs, which is basically the charge to consolidate with general elections now. He added that sample resolutions provided to officials who attended the meetings contained a clause that if a resolution is passed indicating the City's willingness to participate and there are not enough other jurisdictions participating, the resolution would not be binding. If there were a sufficient number of participants, the City would be asked to adopt an ordinance changing its election date. Mr. Johnson noted that the Cities of Palm Springs, Lake Elsinore, Blythe, and Rancho Mirage had never been consolidated with the general elections; however, three of those cities (Palm Springs, Lake Elsinore, and Blythe) had opted to move their election dates from April on a one-time basis to June of 1994, consolidate it with the primary, obtain those costs savings, and then have subsequent elections in the odd -numbered years. Councilman Wilson stated that currently the City of Coachella, City of Indio, and College of the Desert conducting off-year elections in the Coachella Valley. If the City of Palm Springs then goes with the odd -numbered year and the City of Palm Desert also does so, that would mean there would be five jurisdictions in the Valley. He asked if it would be looked at regionally or County -wide. Mr. Johnson responded that it would be looked at in differing ways. They would try to get the most out of what comes back to them as possible. Councilman Snyder moved to waive further reading and adopt a resolution. Mrs. Gilligan noted that this was placed on the Agenda only for Mr. Johnson to make a presentation and answer questions. She added that the City's newsletter included an article announcing that the County is seeking a change in the election date; the item will actually appear on the City Council Agenda for December 9, 1993, for action. 27 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * D. UPDATE RELATIVE TO AMENDMENT TO AHMANSON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DISPOSITION, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR DESERT CROSSING PROJECT. Mr. Ortega stated that the current agreement with Ahmanson executed approximately three years ago did not include provisions for the current request. He said approximately a year and a half ago, an ad hoc committee was formed and directed to look at this specific request. This was merely a status report of where we are now, and it will come back to Council as an official amendment later. He said it was one of many projects being considered, and if Council wished, it could be considered with the other projects that are requesting City funds. Mayor Benson stated she felt there was a difference between using Redevelopment funds to fund the sports complex and funding a commercial project. Councilman Crites agreed. Mr. Altman noted that a committee, which included Councilmembers Benson and Kelly, had been working on this item for some time, and .$2.5 million was budgeted; the sports park was not budgeted. He added that he was looking for concurrence with the committee's recommendation that this is going in the right direction. Councilman Crites stated that if the issue discussed in the earlier Study Session was about prioritizing the way in which City funds are spent through various projects, this project should be subject to that same scrutiny, whether it is in the budget or not. With Council concurrence, Mayor Benson continued this item until such time in the meeting that the sports complex is considered. Mr. Altman stated that in light of the Council action on New Business Item A, it was his understanding that not just Section 4 will be considered but projects competing for redevelopment money. He recommended that Council hold this matter until the meeting of December 9th and include it with those other projects. MR. TED LENNON, a partner with Lowe Enterprises, representing Ahmanson Commercial Development Corporation, stated that it was his understanding that this meeting was just an opportunity for the ad hoc committee to address Council relative to where it is at this time and that the project would be voted on at the December 9th meeting. He offered to answer any questions. Mr. Altman recommended continuance so that staff can come back with the financial information. Councilman Kelly moved to continue this matter to the meeting of December 9, 1993. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. 28 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * E. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF MANDATORY SEWER CONNECTION ORDINANCE UPON SALE OF PROPERTY. Councilman Wilson moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 13, 1994. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. F. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF FRED WARING DRIVE SHORT-TERM TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that a meeting had been held with area residents on November 4 at which time an alternative was presented and several suggestions made. He stated that staff would like to proceed with scheduling a public hearing to gather necessary information relative to a commercial truck route. He stated that during the November 4 meeting, he had indicated that San Pablo was not on the truck route; however, San Pablo between Fred Waring and Highway 111 is part of the truck route. Upon question by Councilman Kelly relative to notifying people of the public hearing, Mr. Folkers responded that in the past staff had gone out in the neighborhood with flyers indicating that a public hearing would be held on such and such a date. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Review the staff report and concur with its findings; 2) authorize staff to arrange for and hold a public hearing according to the guidelines of the California Vehicle Code as an initial procedure for commercial truck movement restriction; 3) authorize staff to continue exploring suggestions made by the area residents for further discussion at future City Council meetings; 4) direct staff to proceed with additional code enforcement to improve the overall area appearance and safety considerations; 5) select Portola Avenue as the bypass truck route in conjunction with the overall commercial vehicle plan; 6) direct staff to coordinate the bypass plan with other affected jurisdictions. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. G. PROGRESS REPORT RELATIVE TO SPRING FEST '94. Ms. Christine Kutt-Zolt addressed Council and stated that although substantial progress had been made in many areas, a contract had not yet been executed between the City and her firm. As a result, she had not been able to pursue sponsorship dollars in the manner proposed. She said they had spent a great deal of time and effort as well as their own funds in an effort to get the project off the ground; however, because of the late date and the fact that the contract is still not in place, she said they did not feel they would be able to proceed for 1994. She asked that the Council reconsider the situation and allow them a year and a half to do the project. Upon question by Councilman Kelly relative to the contract not being signed, Mr. Shillcock stated that there had been several problems with the contract. He noted that a contract was sent out for signature in September, that it had just been returned, and that there were still a few points of disagreement. He said he felt the event could be a real success for the City; 29 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * however, he asked that Council consider having the event in April of 1995 to allow staff and Ms. Kutt's firm work out the language of the agreement. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, grant the request to postpone the second Palm Desert Music Showcase until April, 1995, with the understanding that a contract would be completed for Council approval as well as an overall plan for the 1995 event. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. RBI. REPORTS AND REMARKS NOTE: THESE ITEMS WERE CONSIDERED FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING. A. CITY MANAGER 1. Update on Funding of Cove Commission Sports Facilities. Mr. Altman noted that this would be going back to the Cove Commission for modification of the agreement pursuant to the Indian Wells letter. Action: B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Erwin requested a Closed Session at the appropriate time pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b), potential litigation. C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: 1. Consideration of Request for Funding of "Living for Your 90's" in the Amount of $435.00. Councilmember Benson stated that she was on the Committee for this award. She said the City of Palm Desert had participated for the last two years, with Frederick Thon and Del Sharbutt being the past recipients. She asked that Council approve the purchase of two tables at a cost of $400.00 plus $35.00 for the plaque. She added that Council would be asked to suggest names of individuals they felt should be considered for the honor this year. Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request for funding of "Living for Your 90's" in the amount of $435.00. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. 30 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * o City Council Committee Reports: 1. Consideration of Council Meeting Schedule for December, 1993 (Councilman Buford A. Crites). Councilman Crites noted that the second regular meeting in December was scheduled to be held on December 23, two days prior to Christmas, and he asked whether Council would have a problem cancelling that meeting. He added that should agenda items from the December 9th meeting so warrant, that meeting could be adjourned to another date. Councilmember Benson thanked the staff for all the help she had received during her year as Mayor. She said everyone was very cooperative and helped her through some difficult times, and she expressed her heartfelt thanks. 2. Report from Ad Hoc Committee Relative to Planning Commission Residency_ Requirement. Councilman Crites moved to add this item to the Agenda for discussion. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Wilson stated that at the last meeting, Council directed him, Councilman Snyder, and the City Attorney as an Ad Hoc Committee to get together and decide what to do about the Planning Commission residency requirement. He said they had met last Friday, examined the ordinance, and decided not to propose any changes. He noted that the way the ordinance is currently written, an individual must be a registered voter in the City of Palm Desert in order to serve on the Planning Commission; it does not say a member must be a resident of Palm Desert. Because Planning Commission Cox is registered to vote in the City at this time, the Committee recommended no action. Councilman Kelly stated that he felt this was wrong. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mrs. Gilligan responded that the Suncrest Country Club annexation had not yet been scheduled for hearing before LAFCO. She noted that the City would be notified when that hearing is scheduled. She added that the last day to register to vote for the June Primary Election was May 9th. Councilman Crites agreed with Councilman Kelly and said that although the ordinance states a Commissioner must be a registered voter, he really felt it was supposed to mean that Commissioners live in the City. 31 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL. MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Kelly stated he knew what the intent of the ordinance was. He said if Council wished to leave Ms. Cox's seat vacant until such time as that area is annexed to the City, he would not be opposed; however, he felt the intent of the ordinance was that Planning Commissioners reside in the City of Palm Desert. Councilmember Benson noted that there was an incident in the past where a Planning Commissioner kept his registration in Palm Desert in order to vote on a specific project and didn't tell anyone that he had purchased a home and moved. He was removed prior to the hearing on that project. She suggested that the ordinance not be changed but that the position be left open until the right person is found to fill it. Upon question by Councilman Kelly relative to Diane Cox's letter, Mrs. Gilligan responded that the letter indicated that Ms. Cox had moved to Suncrest Mobile Home Park which was currently being annexed into the City but was not currently within the City limits. Councilman Snyder stated that the strict reading of the ordinance, according to a legal opinion, was that Ms. Cox could continue to serve as a Planning Commission as long as she is a registered voter. He agreed that this might not be the intent of the ordinance. Mayor Wilson stated that he would have no problem with changing the ordinance to make it clear that the provision would be okay. Councilman Crites stated that this would also entitle someone who lived in an area that was in the process of annexation to apply for the position, and he was not sure this was something the Council wished to do. Councilman Kelly stated he felt it was dangerous to change an ordinance to fit a particular person or situation. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, direct the City Clerk to prepare a letter to Planning Commissioner Diane Cox noting that: a) the Council has chosen not to modify the existing ordinance concerning requirements for holding of office, and b) by past precedent as explained by Councilmember Benson, Commission members who have moved their residence from the City but who have remained as voters in the City have been asked not to participate in voting on decisions. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None 32 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XV. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION SEE REPORTS AND REMARKS XVI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C None XVII. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUES OF APPRECIATION TO MRS. PAT WILSON AND MR. NANING SAN PEDRO RELATIVE TO THE PALM DESERT GOLF CART PARADE. B. Mayor Benson presented a plaque of appreciation to Mrs. Pat Wilson. She thanked Mrs. Wilson for the years she had dedicated to perfecting the Palm Desert Golf Cart Parade. She said that without Mrs. Wilson's efforts and leadership, Parade Charities, Inc. would never have been formed, and this event's future would not have been secure. Mayor Benson also presented a plaque of appreciation to Mr. Naning San Pedro. She said that once again, Mr. San Pedro had come through with a prize-winning design for the annual Golf Cart Parade. She added that the steam ship met this year's theme so well that it won the Mayor's Trophy, and she was very proud to have been asked to ride in it. APPOINTMENT OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE JOSLYN COVE COMMUNITIES SENIOR CENTER BOARD TO REPLACE MR. CLAUDE BROWNING. Councilman Crites stated that while one person's name had been submitted to the Council, that person had not yet had the opportunity to officially respond and accept the nomination. He asked that this matter be continued to the next meeting. Councilman Crites moved to continue this item to the meeting of December 9, 1993. Motion was seconded by Wilson and carried by unanimous vote. C. A POINTMEII TO ART -IN -PUBLIC -PLACES COMMITTEE. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, add this item to the Agenda for discussion. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. Councilman Crites stated that a question had been raised at the last meeting relative to Ms. Vigon's residence. He noted that she was now a resident of Palm Desert; in addition, he said he felt her expertise in the field of public art would be a valuable addition to that Committee. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Ms. Celeste Vigon to the Art -In -Public - Places Committee. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. 33 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * D. REORGANIZATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 1. SELECTION OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE. Mrs. Gilligan declared the Office of Mayor vacant and asked for nominations for the position of Mayor. Councilman Snyder nominated Councilman S. Roy Wilson and asked that nominations be closed and that a unanimous ballot be cast. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSTAINING. Mrs. Gilligan declared the Office of Mayor Pro-Tempore vacant and asked for nominations for that position. Councilman Kelly nominated Councilman Buford A. Crites. Councilman Snyder asked that nominations for the Office of Mayor Pro-Tempore be closed and that a unanimous ballot be cast. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSTAINING. 2. COMMENTS BY NEWLY SELECTED MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE. Councilmember Benson .stated that it had been a real privilege for her to serve as Mayor for the past year, especially in view of the City's 20th Birthday and the fact that she was a member of the very first City Council in 1973. She said it was a pleasure to be able to go out into the community and be able to represent the fine people we have who make up Palm Desert. Mayor Wilson thanked his colleagues for the opportunity to serve his fourth and last term as Mayor. He pledged to the community that he would give it his all and try his best to represent the City as well as possible. He said he realized he had big shoes to fill. He noted that outside of the Mayor, the person who knows what kind of job the Mayor is doing is the Mayor Pro-Tempore. He said if you have a good year where you do not have to go to a lot of occasions and you do not have to chair a lot of meetings, you know you have a really good Mayor working and doing the duties the office requires. He said he had had a great year as Mayor Pro-Tempore and had to cut very few ribbons because Mrs. Benson was always there. With regard to meetings, he said he had only had to chair one short meeting because Mrs. Benson was representing us at LAFCO in Riverside and the meeting was so short she could not get back in time to attend. He added that it had been a wonderful year, and he asked that everyone join him in a standing ovation for outgoing Mayor Benson. Mayor Wilson stated that the City recently received a gift that was a portrait of Jean Benson by "Rafael", and he presented that portrait to outgoing Mayor Jean Benson. 34 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Pro-Tempore Crites stated he had moved to Palm Desert from Montana 18 years ago and felt it had been a good decision, and he was proud to be a member of the Palm Desert community. He said the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tempore positions were rotated around with the assumption that each of the Councilmembers was capable of performing those jobs as representatives of the citizens and also their colleagues on the Council. He said it was a pleasure for him to represent the people and that it was equally a pleasure for him to represent his colleagues and City staff. XVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 4.10.060 AND 4.10.040 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ART -IN -PUBLIC - PLACES. Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open and asked for staffs report. Mr. Phillips reviewed the staff report, noting that the proposed ordinance would do two things: 1) remove the $50,000 cap that currently exists which had been found on occasion to be inequitable either on one side of the coin or the other; 2) state that the Art -In -Public - Places program would apply equally to all public facilities built by governmental entities within the City's jurisdiction, not just to those facilities built by the City of Palm Desert and its Redevelopment Agency as it currently reads. He said that with regard to the cap, it was found to be unfair in situations where you have a large development with one phase only paying $50,000 and a smaller development with a number of phases, each of which pays $50,000, paying more. He offered to answer any questions. Mayor Wilson invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 732 to second reading. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. NOTE: WITH COUNCIL CONCURRENCE, MAYOR WILSON SUSPENDED THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA AT THIS POINT IN ORDER TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING "D". B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PRECISE PLAN REMOVING A CITY COUNCIL CONDITION THAT THE BUILDING FACADE FOR TOWN CENTER PLAZA USE DIFFERENT SHADES OF COLOR FOR DIFFERENT • INDENTATIONS (Enjoy Development, Applicant - Case No. PP 90-23 Amendment No. 1). Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report, noting that a condition of approval of this project was that different colors be used to give different hues and shades to the project. He said the owner was concerned about painting the colors in different areas because there is really no logical place to cut them off. He noted that the Architectural Review Commission had denied the 35 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * *•* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * is, * * * * request to eliminate the condition in order for the applicant to appeal to the Council. Staff felt that the design as it is provides natural shadings and recommended that the appeal be granted and the condition deleted. Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the applicant. MR. BOB WHITNEY, Enjoy Development, 725 South Coast Boulevard, La Jolla, California, stated he felt the center complimented the City. He said they had worked with the architect for three weeks on different shades to try and find an area which could be painted a different color; however, because of the structure and the stucco finish, it was difficult to cut it at any one point. He said there was no real logical place to end it unless it was done on only a small portion at the entrances to the major tenants. Upon question by Councilman Crites, Mr. Whitney responded that it was his understanding that the Architectural Review Commission could not grant the appeal because it was relative to a City Council condition. Councilman Crites stated that in reading the minutes of the Architectural Review Commission, he noted that there were issues where one commissioner felt more contrast was appropriate and another felt Mr. Whitney should focus on the entrances, etc. He said he did not see anything in the minutes indicating the Commission felt the condition should be deleted but would need to deny the appeal in order for the Council to consider it. He said he understood that the Commission did not agree with Mr. Whitney's analysis of the situation. Upon question by Councilman Kelly, Crites stated that he had spoken with a couple of the Commissioners who indicated they felt accents were needed on the buildings. He added that he was reluctant to override a 5-0 decision of the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Whitney stated that at the last meeting the Commission, he was under the impression that the only way he could get this resolved since it was a condition of approval of the project, was to have it come in front of the Council. The Commission had to deny the request in order for it to come before Council as an appeal. Councilman Snyder stated that he felt the project looked finished, he liked it, and he would vote to leave it as it is. Mayor Wilson invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. None was received, and he declared the public hearing closed. 36 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilmember Benson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 93-101, approving PP90-23 Amendment No. 1, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Crites voting NO. NOTE: At the end of the meeting, Councilman Crites stated that he had reconsidered his vote on this project and wished to change his vote to an AYE. C. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 19TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) REPROGRAMMING, Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report and recommendation to approve the reprogramming of $19,275 in 19th Year CDBG funds from the City's Barrier -Free Program to the installation of a wheelchair -accessible restroom in the Palm Desert Library. Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing ocri and invited testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSED > No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. D. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 20-ACRE MULTI- USE, PAY FOR PLAY RECREATION FACILITY ON THE EAST SIDE OF PORTOLA AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE (Ms. Barbara Hasson, Mr. and Mrs. Ed Byk, and Mr. William E. Swank, Sr., Appellants - Case, No. CUP 93-3 Ssction 41. NOTE: The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting. Key SRW Mayor S. Roy Wilson RAD Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development RkO Rick Odekirk, Developer GF Gerald Forrest CP Charles Perrone DJ Dan Johnson RW Richard Wolf MP Marlene Peisakoff SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/P.I.O. SRW I will hereby declare the public hearing open and ask Mr. Altman for a staff report. 37 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a* BAA Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Diaz will make the presentation tonight. RAD Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, this matter was discussed in Closed Session and in looking at the project and some of the testimony that we've received in writing, we find that in terms of the entire Section 4, an complete Environmental Impact Report is being done on the entire project and that entire plan, and the Environmental Impact Report will be before the Planning Commission and ultimately this Council for Public Hearing. We would recommend that this matter be continued with the applicant's concurrence and that this particular project since it is part of Section 4 be evaluated as part of that overall plan and as part of that overall Environmental Impact Report. And rather than go into a long description of the project and that, I think... SRW May I call on the applicant to see if the applicant is willing to accept that direction. RkO Mayor Wilson and City Council, we are requesting that our project be merged into the Section 4 plan insofar as the CEQA requirements, and we are requesting that no action be taken on our project tonight. SRW For the audience, this is an advertised public hearing. I'll make sure everyone is clear we are basically not going to approve or disapprove this project tonight. We are going to put it on hold and conduct an Environmental Impact Report assessing all of the traffic, noise, light, all of the environmental considerations. Once that is done and that report is done, it will be scheduled for Public Hearings, Planning Commission and the Council, and in my opinion it would be better to address your concerns at that time with that data in hand than at this time. But you are welcome to address the Council at this time if you wish. BAC Mr. Mayor, it might be worth pointing out that Section 4* means something to us. You're speaking of the piece of land that is bound by Portola on one side, Cook Street on the east side, Country Club on the south and Frank Sinatra on the North and proposed within that project are potential golf course, potential housing, potential conference center, and other types of public facilities including potentially a museum. Is that a fair listing of things that are...as well as this project. And the proposal that has been made is that this project would be part of the Environmental Impact Report on that entire mix of proposed uses for that section of land within our City. The boundaries are Portola on the west, Cook on the east, Country Club on the south, and Sinatra on the north. SRW Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to address the Council? Please step forward, state your name and address for the record. GF My name is Gerald Forrest. I live in Silver Sands Racquet Club, 10 Las Cruces. The only question I have is a financial question. Why should the Council support with our money a program where the developer only puts about 1/5 of the money into it? SRW That isn't a part of this hearing. This hearing is on the use and if that's an appropriate location for this type of facility. I would be happy to meet with you to explain the details and there are some very good reasons for that. I don't want to take everyone's time, but if you would call my 38 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * office, I'd be happy to sit down with you and explain to you the financial reasons why the City is interested in that. GF Thank you. SRW You're welcome. BAC Roy, I think it should be noted that this project, whether it is approved or not, and there is certainly disagreement between us about whether or not it is a good financial investment, but one of the things that the City is looking at in terms of the future is that the State may take away our sales tax. The City of Palm Desert does not receive any property tax, we are a no-p..1,e..ty tax city, and we receive next to nothing from the State of California, so we live on right now sales tax and hotel bed tax. And one of the things we're looking for are ways to use our money in long- term investments to share profits with public/private partnerships such as the office buildings right across the street here. SRW Thank you. Yes, sir, name and address, please. CP My name is Charles Perrone. I live at Desert Falls. I think that's a great idea about the Environmental Impact. I think it would be a good idea if you have another location or maybe two locations besides this for an Environmental Impact. You want this project, it's a good project, there's a lot of people opposed to it as well as people for it. But I think if you find by going at the end of Portola and Gerald Ford, a rural area where you have no opposition at all, I think this would pass with flying colors. But I think like I said you should have two areas for an Environmental Impact. SRW Thank you for that suggestion. Staff will look into that, but...(applause). DJ Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Dan Johnson. Good evening. I will try to keep my comments brief this evening. I am with the firm of Schlect, Shevlin and Schoenberger in Palm Springs, so there's no question about that. I represent William Swank and Sun Corporation of America. Sun Corporation is the owner of a parcel of roughly 420 acres generally located at the northeast corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Present this evening are a number of the parties who constitute the developing entity. Mr. William Swank, Jr., Mr. John Musial, Mr. Tad Shimomoto of Sun Corporation, and Mr. William Swank, Sr. Earlier today, a letter from our office was delivered to the City; thus, my comments can be brief. It is requested that this letter together with all documents in the City's files be made a part of the public record. Without regard to any economic considerations or analysis of the project, it is submitted the conditional use permit should not be approved for this project at this site. Thank you. SRW Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to...(applause) If we could hold down the applause, we could all go home earlier. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Council at this time, keeping in mind you will have other opportunities when the Environmental Impact Report is completed. Yes, sir, please come forward and state your name and address. 39 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BAC Mr. Mayor, you might also ask staff to let people know how the public will be informed of completion of the Environmental Impact and the hearings and such matters as that at some point. SRW Thank you. I'll do that. RW Yes, I am Dr. Richard Wolf. I live at 379 Red River Road at the Lakes. I'm happy to hear that an Environmental Impact report is going to be produced for this project. The only question I have...it surprises me that this Environmental Impact Report was not already in existence and fully studied by the Planning Commission at the time of the last meeting. I wonder, Mr. Wilson, if you can advise me as to why this might not have been the case. SRW First of all, a negative declaration on the Environmental Impact was made on this project because it was small. We have decided because of the vastness of that entire section undergoing a development plan that we should look at the cumulative affect of all of those aspects. We feel that the negative declaration on this one project, and we analyze the various things inhouse with staff and will now be going out and getting a full-blown Environmental Impact on the project as it fits into the entire section. RW Well, I'm certainly happy to hear that this is being done because I really feel that our concerns were treated with rather a cavalier attitude at the meeting of the Planning Commission. I think a full Environmental Impact Report is a necessity for a project of this nature. Thank you. SRW Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the Council. If not, I will ask staff, though, to follow up on Mayor Pro Tem Crites' suggestion that they discuss the notification procedures for when the Public Hearings will be held, but we will hear from this lady first. MP Good evening again, my name is Marlene Peisakoff. I live in Villas Desert Falls. First of all I want to congratulate the new incoming committee as well as congratulations on the job well done by Mayor Benson. I know that it is a vast responsibility to take care of Palm Desert and we, as residents, take our responsibility seriously in caring for Palm Desert, but we need the cooperation of all of you. We don't expect that we all come from the same 1,;...q,:,..tive. But perhaps the prime issue should be the well-being and future of Palm Desert and although we do have financial concerns, and sometimes we have to do things, I think we have to weigh our priorities carefully. I can only hope and pray and urge that all of us do that. In attending the last meeting I did feel some concern as to how the undercommittee or what would be the people who were sitting up here came across. I found some of the remarks to a man who was here representing the Marriott's interests for him to be told "If you don't like our decision, you can go elsewhere". I found that rather arrogant as an outsider, realizing the contributions of his corporation to the City of Palm Desert. Residents, well I think you see a large amount of us here who feel that the location for this pay and play is not appropriate for our area and I just needed to share my feelings with you at this time in hopes that until we meet again, you will consider what I've said. Thank you. SRW Thank you. Mr. Diaz, can you give us an idea of the notification procedures and the timeline that we're looking at? 40 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAD Yes, but prior to doing that, as Secretary to the Planning Commission and as its administrative staff, I would have to disagree with some of the comments that were made in terms of the conduct of that Commission. The Council has appointed that Commission and I think we may have had some disagreements, but we were not disagreeable. As far as the way notification will be given... notification will be given to all property owners who live within 300 feet on the latest equalized assessment rolls of the County Recorder. We will also send out notices to the property management organizations and the homeowners associations of all the surrounding properties, that's Palm Desert Greens, Silver Sands, Desert Falls, the Lakes, as well as the Marriott and the Marriott Timeshares. All of those folks who have sent letters and have given us their addresses will be notified formally, and anyone who calls and wants to be notified formally, in case you think that you may not be in one of those, if you would call the Community Development Department here at 346-0611, extension 483 or 484, that'll get one of the secretaries, and give them your name and address, we will make sure that you are notified. It is our intent to make sure that we send one notification too many, rather than one too few. SRW Is there anyone else who would like to address us before we...Mr. Phillips, should we close the Public Hearing, I guess keep it open? If there are no other comments, what is the pleasure of the Council? BAC I move to continue this Public Hearing. WHS Second the motion. SRW Motion to continue this Public Hearing until after the Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. Please vote. SRG The motion carries by unanimous vote. XIX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D None 41 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * *- * * * * * * * XX. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Crites moved to adjourn to Closed Session at 8:45 p.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b), potential litigation. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Wilson reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. and immediately adjourned with no action announced from Closed Session. ATTEST: (2, SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, ORNIA 42