HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-08MIINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Crites convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Buford A. Crites
III. INVOCATION - Councilman Richard S. Kelly
IV. ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilman Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Pro Tem Walter H. Snyder
Councilman S. Roy Wilson (arrived at 4:40 p.m.)
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Also Present:
Bruce A. Altman, City Manager
Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/Public Information Officer
Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development
Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works
Carlos L. Ortega, ACM/Director of Redevelopment
Paul Shillcock, ACM//Director of Economic Development
Dave Millheim, Director of Human Resources
Paul Gibson, City Treasurer/Finance Director
Wayne Ramsey, Director of Code Compliance
John Wohlmuth, Assistant to the City Manager
Catherine Sass, Community Arts Manager
Ken Weller, Emergency Services Coordinator
Lisa Constande, Environmental Conservation Manager
Mary P. Frazier, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM. DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
MS. CAROLYN SAAM (declined to give address for the record) addressed Council relative to
violations of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title 24 by City employees and Sheriff
Department employees. She noted an incident where her daughter was stalked for over a year and
the Sheriff's Department kept telling her there was nothing they could do. She said earlier this
year the man tried to take her daughter, and it took about nine hours to get a report taken. She
said she was told by the Sheriff's Department that if she used her service dog to help her daughter
in these situations, she would be charged with using a dangerous weapon. She added that she had
also run out of gas in her car, and a Sheriff's Deputy came by but did not help her. She submitted
a copy of a letter from the Coachella Valley Recreation & Parks District wherein she was advised
she would not be permitted to have her service dog on District property (attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit "A"). She noted that the Parks & Recreation and YMCA buildings were
both in violation of the ADA and Title 24. She said the changing tables in the restrooms had not
been lowered even though they had repeatedly been requested to do so. She also expressed concern
that handicap parking in the City was not being enforced.
Mayor Crites asked that Ms. Saam provide her telephone number so that the City Manager could
call her the next day and set up a meeting to discuss all the issues raised.
MS. FERN JACOBS, 44-750 San Pablo, stated there were ten business owners between Alessandro
and San Gorgonio on San Pablo who were planning a grand opening/block party on December 17th
to bring people back to this business area. She said they already had a temporary use permit and
were in the process of getting an encroachment permit. They were planning to have KLCX come
and do a live remote with give-aways. In addition, they were discussing with the Sheriff's
Department the possibility of having child identification kits to hand out. With respect to KLCX,
she said they wanted permission to use the KLCX cold air balloon as well as banners.
Mayor Crites advised that the applicant should work with Mr. Diaz on these request.
Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Ms. Jacobs responded that they wished to use the
balloon from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday afternoon.
Mr. Diaz noted that the KLCX balloon was the one that he had approved for the Palm Desert
Town Center. Since this would be a one-time special event, he said Council action was not
necessary and staff could handle the request. He said unless there were specific objections by
Council, staff would authorize the use of the balloon for a one-time use only. There were no
Council objections.
Ms. Jacobs stated she also wished to request approval for four businesses to put up banners five
days prior to the event to advertise it.
Mr. Diaz stated that unless Council objected, staff would grant that request also. There were no
Council objections.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of November 10, 1994.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 20A, 21,
and 22.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Prime Time Restaurant, 72-
760 El Paseo, #D7, Palm Desert.
Rec: Receive and file.
D-1. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#269) by Angela Morway in an Amount in Excess of
$100,000.
Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the
Claimant.
D-2. CLAIM AGAINST TIT CITY (#271) by Richard and Dyah Immenhausen in an Amount in
Excess of $200,000.
Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the
Claimant.
D-3. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#272) by Lynne Marie Palmer in an Amount in Excess of
$100,000.
Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the
Claimant.
D-4. CLAIM AGAINST THV, CITY (#273) by John Anthony McDonald in an Unspecified
Amount.
Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the
Claimant.
3
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
E. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of City's Participation in Replacement of the Entrance Wall
at The Living Desert.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the City's participation in the replacement of the
entrance wall at The Living Desert in an amount not to exceed $3,000, said monies
to be paid from the Art -In -Public -Places Program account.
F. PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS as of October 31, 1994.
Rec: Receive and file.
G-1. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for Abatement
Contractor (Contract No. C09260).
Rec: By Minute Motion, direct staff to proceed with the bid process and attempt to
ascertain if there are other interested parties willing to comply with the City's
insurance requirements; if no bids are received from other qualified applicants,
award the bid to "D Squared Enterprises".
G-2. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for Public Nuisance
Abatement Contractor (Contract No. C09270) and Towing Contractor (Contract No. C09280).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize staff to go out to bid for the subject contractors and
allow consideration to local business applicants.
H-1. LEI'i ER OF RESIGNATION from Mr. Don Hedlund from the City's Economic
Development Advisory Committee.
Rec: Receive with sincere regret.
H-2. J.E.I'I'ER OF RESIGNATION from Ms. Mary Ann Beckham from the City's Civic Arts
Committee.
Rec: Receive with sincere regret.
I-1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Business License Refund for Carman Hypnotherapy in the
Amount of $30.00 for Fiscal Year 1993/94.
Rec.: By Minute Motion, approve the refund of $30.00 for Carman Hypnotherapy,
Business License #93-9801, for Fiscal Year 1993/94.
4
rmvirres
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * *
I-2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Business License Refund for Valley Partners Merchandising
in the Amount of $11.25 for Fiscal Year 1993/94.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the refund of $11.25 for Valley Partners
Merchandising, Business License #93-9088, for Fiscal Year 1993/94.
I-3. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Business License Refund for Impressions in the Sand in the
Amount of $18.75 for Fiscal Year 1993/94.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the refund of $18.75 for Impressions in the Sand,
Business License #93-6919, for Fiscal Year 1993/94.
J. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Reimbursement Agreement for the Widening of Fred
Waring Drive at Desert Rose (Contract No. C09290).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to enter into a reimbursement agreement
with CVAG for the subject project (Contract No. C09290).
K-1. REOUEST FOR EXTENSION of Landscape Maintenance Contract No. C08041.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year extension of landscape maintenance contract
for Consolidated Maintenance Area No. 2 with Valley Gardening Service in the
amount of $100,116.00 ($8,343.00 per month).
K-2. REOUEST FOR EXTENSION of Landscape Maintenance Contract No. C07401.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year extension of landscape maintenance contract
for Consolidated Maintenance Area No. 1 with Valley Gardening Service in the
amount of $13,587.00 ($1,132.25 per month).
L-1. REOUEST FOR AWARD OF BID for Park Utility Vehicle.
Rec: By Minute Motion, award the purchase of a park utility vehicle to California Turf
in the amount of $12,981.00.
L-2. REOUEST FOR AWARD OF BID for Turf Sweeper/Vacuum.
Rec: By Minute Motion, award the purchase of a turf sweeper/vacuum to California Turf
in the amount of $23,705.00.
5
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L-3. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID for Purchase of Inspection Fleet Vehicles.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Reject the bids received from Riverside Chevrolet, Rancho
Motors, Fiesta Ford, and Bob Baker Ford as being incomplete in content and not
acceptable; 2) award the purchase of three mid -size pickup trucks to Mac Magruder
Chevrolet in the amount of $39,902.88; 3) award the purchase of one 4-wheel drive
full-size pickup truck to Mac Magruder Chevrolet in the amount of $18,133.94.
M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Design Change Order No. 4 to Cook Street Extension
Contract No. C07420, Project No. 660-94.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Design Change Order No. 4 in the amount of
$15,800.00 for underground utility design for the extension of Cook Street at Frank
Sinatra Drive, said funds available from the Capital Project Reserve Fund, Account
No. 400-4356-433-4001.
N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Negative Declaration for the Monterey Avenue Bridge at
the Whitewater Storm Channel.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-122 approving a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for the Monterey Avenue Bridge at the
Whitewater Storm Channel.
O. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Purchase of Additional Staff Fleet Vehicle.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for
the purchase of a seven -passenger mini -van; 2) authorize the appropriation of
$20,000 from the unobligated general fund reserve for the purchase of the vehicle.
P. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Maps 27570-3 and 27570-4 (Marriott Ownership
Resorts, Inc., Applicant).
Q.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-123 approving Tract Maps
27570-3 and 27570-4.
REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Amendment to Allocated Staff Positions to Include an
Additional Office Assistant Position in the City Clerk's Office.
Rec: By Minute Motion, amend the allocated staff positions to include an additional
Office Assistant I (Range 230) position in the City Clerk's Office and appropriate
$30,000 from the unobligated general fund reserve to the City Clerk's departmental
budget, salaries and benefits.
6
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER S, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
R. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase Various Furnishings and Equipment for
Reorganization Moves.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Authorize the purchase of various furnishings and equipment
for reorganization moves; 2) appropriate $12,600 from the Unobligated General
Fund Reserve Account to Capital Office Equipment, Account No. 110-4159-415-
4040.
S. REQUEST FOR REVISION of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 5.94 - Motion Picture
and TV Production.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-124, approving the amendment
to Chapter 5.94, Motion Picture and Television Production.
T. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Electric Shuttle Battery Replacement Agreement (Contract
No. C09300).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the City
of Canyon Lake, Riverside Transit Agency, Southern California Edison, Specialty
Vehicle Manufacturing, and Konikow Electric for payment of a new battery pack
(Contract No. C09300).
Upon motion by Snyder, second by Kelly, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by a
4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSENT.
VII. RESOLUTIONS
None
VIII. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * *
For Adoption:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 764 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF EL PASEO BETWEEN SAN PABLO AVENUE AND LARKSPUR LANE,
Project Title: Ahmanson Commercial Development Plan Amended and Restated Develooment
Agreement (Continued from the Meetings of November 10 and 16, 1994).
NOTE: CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM WAS HELD UNTIL AFTER PUBLIC
HEARING B RELATIVE TO THE GERALD FORD AND COOK STREET LOCATION.
SEE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MATTER - ATTACHED HERETO AND
MADE A PART HEREOF AS EXHIBIT "B".
B. ORDINANCE NO. 765 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS
AMENDED, FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 1, AS AMENDED, OF THE PALM DESERT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
Mr. Altman noted that this had been introduced at the last meeting and that there were no
changes. He recommended adoption.
Councilmember Benson moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 765. Motion
was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSENT.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 7.66 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
PROJECT AREA NO. 2 OF THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
Mr. Altman noted that this had been introduced at the last meeting and that there were no
changes. He recommended adoption.
Councilman Snyder moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 766. Motion was
seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSENT.
D. ORDINANCE NO. 767 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
PROJECT AREA NO. 3 OF THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
Mr. Altman noted that this had been introduced at the last meeting and that there were no
changes. He recommended adoption.
8
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s *
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 766. Motion was
seconded by Snyder and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSENT.
E. ORDINANCE NO. 768 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
PROJECT AREA NO. 4 OF THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
Mr. Altman noted that this had been introduced at the last meeting and that there were no
changes. He recommended adoption.
Councilman Snyder moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 766. Motion was
seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSENT.
IX. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ORDER TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY
PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT RELATIVE TO "THE GROVE".
Mr. Ramsey reviewed the staff report, noting this was brought to the attention of the City by
a petition signed by residents of "The Grove". He said staff had been trying to work with
the developer to get the situation taken care of.
Mayor Crites stated the developer had called and withdrawn the appeal and was intending to
stabilize the lots and remove the trash.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, deny the appeal and require the applicant to
stabilize, either by chemical or vegetative means, the undeveloped lots until such time as they are built on.
Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSENT.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT APPLICATION BY
MRS. CARMELA McMASTERS.
Mr. Ramsey noted the report in the packets. He said he had inspected the premises and that
this was a very first class skin care operation, not a beauty salon, and that the applicant was
a skin care specialist.
Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the massage establishment permit for
Mrs. McMasters in conjunction with her skin care salon and boutique. Motion was seconded by Kelly and
carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSENT.
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 20TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE.
Mr. Millheim noted the staff report in the packets regarding modifications to the funding for
grants already approved for this year's cycle.
Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the Supplemental Agreement
(Contract No. C09310) with the County of Riverside which will authorize the City to release awards to 20th
Year CDBG subrecipients; 2) approve the Memorandum of Understanding (Contract No. C09320) between
Joslyn Senior Center of the Cove Communities and the City of Palm Desert. Motion was seconded by Kelly
and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSENT.
D. pRESENTAT1ON BY COUNCILMAN ART LYONS REGARDING PALM SPRINGS
PROPOSAL RELATIVE TO UTILITY DEREGULATION.
Palm Springs Mayor Pro Tem Art Lyons briefly reviewed the proposed presentation that the
City of Palm Springs would be making to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
at its hearing in San Bernardino on January 3, 1995. He asked for a letter of support of this
proposal from the City of Palm Desert. He said he and Mayor Crites attended the CVAG
Energy & Environment Committee meeting where that committee took the matter under
advisement and referred it to the subcommittee on utility rates.
MR. BOB STRANGE, Southern California Edison, 1700 Tahquitz, Palm Springs, noted there
would be subsequent hearings in April for further consideration of proposals. He said the
industry was being shaped and that interested parties should take advantage of the windows
of opportunity.
Mayor Crites noted that comments from the CVAG Energy & Environment Committee were
not hostile to this proposal, but the issue was to try to get more competition and give people
a greater number of options if they choose to exercise them. He suggested sending a letter
saying that the concept that allows locals with the will and the ability to go forth and look
into this option is one that the Council is supportive of and we will be looking further to
define this as we go further. He said a number of cities might choose to go together as a way
of cooperation.
Councilmember Benson said she heard Southern California Edison's presentation several
months ago on this matter coming forward. She said that was one of the suggestions brought
up — that cities work together.
Councilman Snyder complimented Mr. Lyons for spearheading this. He recommended giving
him a letter of support.
NOTE: COUNCILMAN WILSON ARRIVED AT 4:40 P.M.
10
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute such a letter of
support. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson
ABSTAINING. Councilman Wilson stated he had abstained because he had just arrived and was not present
during discussion of this issue.
E. INFORMATIONAL. ITEMS:
1. Colony CableVision of California Update.
Mr. Ortega noted the memorandum in the packets relative to complaints received for
the period November 4 - 23, 1994.
2. Cook and Interstate 10 Update.
Mr. Folkers noted the report in the packets and briefly reviewed it.
Mayor Crites asked that this matter be placed on the City Council Agenda for December 22, 1994.
Council concurred.
XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF LOW POWER RADIO
EQUIPMENT (Continued from the Meeting of November 10, 1994).
Mr. Altman noted the report in the packets.
Mayor Crites suggested that this be approved contingent upon formulation of an appropriate
usage plan that this Council finds agreement with.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, appropriate $10,000 from the unobligated general
fund for a low power radio station, with the condition that an appropriate usage plan be formulated that is
agreeable with the City Council. Motion was seconded by Wilson who suggested that Del Sharbut be asked
to do the recording for the voice message. Councilman Kelly agreed with the amendment. Motion carried
by unanimous vote of the Council.
XII. OLD BUSINESS
A. UPDATh ON SIGN TASK FORCE MEETING.
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets. He said concerns had been raised relative to some
of the proposed amendments. He said staff would be proceeding with these at a Planning
Commission hearing in January. He added that the matter would be before the Council in
February or March, 1995, and that no action was necessary by the Council.
11
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilmember Benson suggested that some members of the Sign Task Force be present at the
Planning Commission hearing. Council concurred.
B. FINAL REPORT AND RFCOMMND4TION RELATIVE TO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 94-120 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-3 SECTION
4 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.
Mayor Crites suggested holding this for the 7:00 p.m. portion of the meeting. Council
agreed.
Following Public Hearing B, Mr. Diaz recommended continuing this matter to the meeting
of December 22, 1994.
Councilman Snyder moved to continue this matter to the meeting of December 22, 1994. Motion
was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
None
B. CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Erwin asked that Council add an item to be considered in Closed Session relative to the
case of Chazan v. Palm Desert. He said the case was called to trial this afternoon and a
tentative settlement had been reached that needed to be discussed with Council.
Councilman Wilson moved to add this item to the Agenda as one which came up after the Agenda
was posted and in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Chazan v. City of Palm Desert,
Indio Case No. 59393. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
C. CITY CLERK
1. Mrs. Gilligan reminded everyone that the 5K Run was scheduled for Sunday,
December l lth, beginning at 8:00 a.m. for the first race. She noted the schedule had
been included in the Hauteline newsletter delivered to the Palm Desert Post Office
earlier today to be delivered to residents in Palm Desert.
12
MINUTES
REGULAR PALMDESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2. Mrs. Gilligan stated that Council had previously discussed the possibility of cancelling
its regular meeting of December 22nd; however, due to the number of items that
needed action, it was necessary to schedule the regular December 22nd meeting.
D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
1. Consideration of Letter from City of Indio Requesting the City's Support of
the Placement of an All -Weather Crossing at the Whitewater River Channel
on Miles Avenue (Mayor Buford A. Crites).
Mayor Crites stated he had no problem supporting this request.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, support the placement of an all-weather crossing
at the Whitewater River Channel on Miles Avenue. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by
unanimous vote.
2. Consideration of the Adoption of a Tank at the Gen. George S. Patton
Memorial Museum at Chiriaco Summit (Councilman S. Roy Wilson).
Councilman Wilson noted the memorandum in the packets and recommended
that Council support the commitment of $1,000 to adopt a tank and place the
City's name on a brass plaque.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, support the request and commit $1,000 to adopt
a tank at the General George S. Patton Memorial Museum at Chiriaco Summit. Motion was seconded by
Snyder and carried by unanimous vote.
o City Council Committee Reports;,
1. Councilmember Benson reported that she had attended the Desert Hospitality
Industry's first annual award ceremony last Sunday night. She noted the
plaque that had been presented to the City for its participation in the hospitality
industry. She noted the printed program from the ceremony and said several
Palm Desert nominees for awards in the restaurant field, including Robert
Evans from Doug Arango's, Buzz ,Radoff from The Lakes, and Kaiser Grill.
She suggested that the Mayor send each of them a letter stating how proud the
Council was to have them in the City. Council concurred.
XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
None
13
MINUTES �
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. to Closed Session to
discuss matters as outlined under City Attorney Reports and Remarks. He reconvened the meeting at 7:00
p.m.
XV. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION
None
XVI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C
None
XVII. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. FRESBNTATION OF PIJ,AOUE OF APPRECIATION TO MS. VALERIE MILLER FOR
HER SERVICE ON THE CITY' S ART -IN -PUBLIC -PLACES SUBCOMMi i i r r. FROM
DECEMBER 1989 TO SEPTEMBER 1994.
On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Crites presented a plaque of appreciation to Ms.
Valerie Miller for her service on the City's Art -In -Public -Places Subcommittee from
December 1989 to September 1994.
B. FRESENTATION OF PLAOU5 OF APPRECIATION TO MR. DON HEDLUND FOR HIS
SERVICE ON THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMii
On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Crites presented a plaque of appreciation to Mr.
Don Hedlund for his service on the City's Economic Development Advisory Committee.
C. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO VOLUNTEERS FROM
THE COACHELLA VALLEY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB AND THE BOY SCOUTS OF
AMERICA FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN "OPERATION DESERT CLEAN SWEEP".
Ms. Constande noted that CVAG, in conjunction with the County of Riverside, had
coordinated a Valley -wide program to address illegal dumping. This program was entitled
"Operation Desert Clean Sweep". She said the Cit y of Palm Desert conducted two cleanups
on Saturday, October 22nd, and on Saturday, November 5, 1994. Volunteers from the C.V.
Boys & Girls Club and Boy Scouts of America collected 28.46 tons of illegally dumped
debris at Indian Hill and at the Big Horn Institute.
On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Crites presented Certificates of Appreciation to
the volunteers.
14
1VIINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 21ST YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS.
Ms. Stephanie Smith reviewed the staff report, noting that this year's entitlement was
approximately $180,000. She stated that following the public hearing, staff would prepare
a report and recommendation for the meting of January 12, 1995.
Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the audience.
MR. JOHN PRESTON, Vice President of FIND, noted that in the past, Palm Desert had
given $10,000 per year to help their program. He said this year they were requesting
$25,000 to provide a 20 x 60 cooler unit in their warehouse. He noted several program,
including general distribution at Valley Christian Assembly taking care of approximately 125
families per week. USDA program distribution at Temple Sinai once a month, and a third
program that got under way last year for individuals who cannot get out to do their shopping.
He said he hoped very much that this program would continue to be supported by the Council
through its General Fund.
Councilmember Benson clarified that $25,000 was being requested from CDBG funding and
the rest from Charitable Funds.
MR. TOM HORNBECKER, Vice President of the Foundation for the Retarded, and Mr. Paul
Murphy, President, addressed the Council. Mr. Murphy noted that they were the only center
in the Valley assisting adult mentally and developmentally disabled people. He said they had
taken on Angel View's adult people who basically have been sitting in units and watching
television. He said they were not able to take on all of these individuals and that they had
11 people on the waiting list. He added that they needed to build an addition to the building
and noted that it was anticipated that they would have 150 clients by Year 2000 if a new
building is built.
Mr. Hornbecker added that they were requesting $152,000 to add a training center. He said
they would be expanding the northwest corner and adding a classroom with about 1,800
square feet in the back and about 400 square feet on the corner.
MS. NORMA BRANSON, 81-291 Alberta, Indio, spoke as the representative of the FISH
organization. She said they had been continuously serving the Valley from Palm Desert to
the Salton Sea distributing food and furnishing transportation for essential needs. The three
kinds of transportation were as follows: 1) volunteers driving their own vehicles and
transporting people to doctors, pharmacies, groceries, etc.; 2) those who cannot get medial
care unless they have gas vouchers to go to the Riverside General Hospital or Loma Linda;
3) furnishing tickets for some to use Greyhound Bus Lines. She said demand was up 50%
this year over last year; and costs had also gone up, with an average of 272 trips per month
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and 22,000 meals for 1,600 people per month. She noted they were requesting $12,000 of
the CDBG funds to try to fill some of the gaps.
MR. JOE GOSSETT, Executive Director of Family Services of Coachella Valley, said they
were asking for about half of what they had requested last year. He said they dealt with a
wide variety of violence related issues. Last year they came to Council with a teen violence
intervention program which they were currently implementing at Palm Desert High School.
They proposed to take that program, modify it, and make it age specific and move down to
a 4th grade level. He noted they would even add in a kindergarten program focusing on child
abuse programs. He said they were requesting $10,335 this year.
MS. FRAN FERGUSON, Executive Director of Shelter from the Storm, asked for assistance
in completing construction and installation of ceiling fans at their facility as well as cabinetry
in the bedrooms. She said they had 30 rooms with four beds in each one, and there was
nothing in any of the rooms for the people to place their belongings. She said they were
requesting $29,000 for 41 fans and two cabinetry units in each of 15 bedrooms.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Crites declared the public hearing closed. He thanked
staff for the report. He also thanked the applicants and said it was good for the Council to know
the kinds of needs in the Valley.
Councilman Kelly asked what was done to coordinate with other cities relative to these
programs that were receiving the same funds.
Mr. Millheim responded that this year staff was requesting a coordinated effort. He said
staffs recommendation was to work with the agencies and applicants to make sure we are not
doubling up. He said they would be .contacting other cities to see what other requests were
being made by these agencies.
Councilmember Benson expressed concern relative to the Senior Center. She said they had
used the entire $14,000 in funding for two automatic doors; however, she still felt there was
a need for lights in the parking lots. She said she would like for the Council to explore that
as well as these other requests.
Mayor Crites noted no Council action was necessary on this item and that Council would wait for
staffs recommendation at the next meeting.
16
11
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
AND OPERATE A 25 ± ACRE MULTI -USE, PAY FOR PLAY RECREATION FACILITY
TO BE LOCATED ON 25 ACRES OF CITY OF PALM DESERT OWNED LAND ZONED
PC-2 AND PR-5 AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GERALD FORD (EXTENDED)
AND COOK STREET (EXTENDED), Continued from the Meeting of November 16. 1994.
SEE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MATTER - ATTACHED HERETO AND
MADE A PART HEREOF AS EXHIBIT "C".
XIX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D
None
XX. ADJOURNMENT
With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. on
Thursday, December 22, 1994.
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY LERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, C IFORNIA
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * s
L�NIAS
OMORT
Carolyn Saam
79885 Kingston
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
EXHIBIT "A"
LAW OfE1CLS
Aa.Mr. D. &roW
Conn E. Karim
Roger A. L d.
Wrer1 Man
November 10, 1994
Re: Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
Dear Ms. Saam:
Daunt. C Roan
K"dluin E Tlkarkae
Dann N. Baker
amen { Dan, 1r
This firm represents the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District and is
writing this letter on its behalf. The District has requested that we contact you regarding
your use of a service dog at District facilities.
Please be advised that your dog will not be permitted to enter upon District
property until you provide the District with proof that your dog has graduated from an
appropriately accredited training program for service dogs.
The District is aware of its requirements to make reasonable accommodations
to permit disabled persons to participate in the District's programs. The District is not,
however, prepared to permit to your dog to disrupt the District's delivery of programs to
ethers.
The District will make reasonable accommodation to permit you to participate
in the District's programs without your dog.
Riverside Centre. 3103 Tenth Street. Suite 300. Riverside. California 92501. Telephone 909-788-0100. Facsimile 909-788-5785
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL biu1G DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.r Aii.tD Y "A"
IAW017'KCI
L�sM
Carolyn Saam Page 2
November 10, 1994
If you would like to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
THOMAS, LUEBS & MORT
ADB:lrm
COACHE01.003
cc: Coachella Valley Park and
Recreation District
1,6
Andrew D. Brooks
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *•* * * * * * * * * * *
r.Anui i "A"
Civil Code
§51. Unruh Civil Rights Act; equal rights; business establishments; violation
§51.5 Discrimination, boycott, blacklist, etc.; business establishments; equal rights
§51.7. Freedom from violence or intimidation
§51.8 Discrimination; franchises
§52. Denial of civil rights or discrimination; damages; civil action by people or person
aggrieved; intervention; unlawful practice complaint
§53. Restrictions upon transfer or use of realty because of sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, or disability
§54. Right to streets, highways, and other public places; disability
§54.1. Access to public conveyanoa, places of public accommodation, amusement or resort,
and housing accommodations
§54.2. Guide, signal or service dogs; right to accompany individuals with a
disability and trainers; damages
§54.3. Violations; liability
§54.4. Blind pedestrians; failure to carry white cane
§54.5. White cane safety day; proclamation
§54.6. Definitions
§54.7. Zoos or wild animal parks; facilities for guide, service or signal dogs accompanying
handicapped persons
§54.8. Hearing impaired persons; assistive listening systems in civil or criminal proceedings;
notice of need; availability; use in proceedings
§55. Violations; injunction; action by person actually or potentially aggrieved
§55.1. Violations; injunctions; district or city attorney, attorney general •
§ 1360. Modification of unit by owner; facilitation of access for handicapped; approval by
project association
§51. Unruh Civil Rights Act; equal rights; business establishments; violation
This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability are entitled to the fill and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every
kind whatsoever.
This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person which is
conditioned or limited by law or which is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race,
religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair,
structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever to any new or existing establishment,
facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, or to augment, restrict, or alter in any way the
authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
r Ariini i "A"
2
State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other provisions of the law.
A violation of the rights of any individual under the American's with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) shall also constitute a violation of
this section.
Added by Stats 1905 ch 413 §1. Amended by Stats 1919 ch 210 §1; Stats 1923 ch 235 §1; Stats
1959 ch 1866 §1; Stats 1961 ch 1187 §1; Stats 1974 ch 1193 §1; Stats 1987 ch 159 §1; Stats 1992
ch 913 (A.B. 1077) §3.
§51.5. Discrimination, boycott, blacklist, etc.; business establishments; equal rights
No business establishment of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate against, boycott or
blacklist, refuse to buy from, sell to, or trade with any person in this state because of the race, creed,
religion, color, national origin, sex, or disability of the person or of the person's partners, members,
stockholders, directors, officers, managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates,
suppliers, or customers.
As used in this section "person" includes any person, firm, association,
organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, or company.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair,
structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever to any new or existing establishment,
facility, building improvement, or any other structure, or to augment, restrict, or alter in any way the
authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the
State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other provisions of the law.
Added by Stats 1976 ch 366 §1. Amended by Stats 1987 ch 159 §2; Stats 1992 ch 913 (A.B. 1077)
§3.2.
§51.7. Freedom from violence or intimidation
(a) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from
any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their
persons or property because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national
origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or position in a
labor dispute. The identification in this subdivision of particular bases of
discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive.
This section does not apply to statements concerning positions in a labor dispute which are
made during otherwise lawful labor picketing.
(b) As used in this section, "sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
Added by Stats 1976 ch 1293 §2. Amended by Stats 1984 ch 1437 §1; Stats 1985 ch 497 §1; Stats
21
mmvUrFs
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 8, 1994
* s * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s *
L' Atllnl i "A"
1987 ch 1277 §2.
§51.8. Discrimination; franchises
No franchisor shall discriminate in the granting of franchises solely because of the race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, or disability of the franchisee and the racial, ethnic, religious, national
origin, or disability composition of a neighborhood or geographic area in which the franchise is
located. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit a franchisor from granting a franchise
to prospective franchisees as part of a program or programs to make franchises available to persons
lacking the capital, training, business experience, or other qualifications ordinarily required of
franchisees, or any other affirmative action program adopted by the franchisor.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair,
structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever to any new or existing establishment,
facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, or to augment, restrict, or alter in any way the
authority of the Stat Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the
State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other provisions of the law.
Added by Stats 1980 ch 1303 §1. Amended by Stats 1987 ch 159 §3; Stats 1992 ch 913 (A.B. 1077)
§3.4.
§52. Denial of civil rights or discrimination; damages; civil
action by people or person aggrieved; intervention; unlawful
practice complaint
(a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or
distinction contrary to Section 51 or 51.5, is liable for each and every offense for
the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court
sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual
damage but in no case less than two hundred fifty dollars (S250), and any
attorney's fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered
by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51 or 51.5.
(b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7, or aids, incites, or
conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual
damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the following:
(1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury,
for exemplary damages.
(2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars (S25,000) to be awarded
to the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7.
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
tArunl1 "A"
4
(3) Attorney fees as may be determined by the court.
(c) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of
persons is engaged in conduct of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the
rights hereby secured, and that conduct is off that nature and is intended to deny
the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General, any district
attorney or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the conduct may bring a
civil action in the appropriate court by filing with it a complaint. The complaint
shall contain the following:
(1) The signature of the officer, or, in his or her absence, the individual acting on behalf of
the officer, or the signature of the person aggrieved.
(2) The facts pertaining to the conduct.
(3) A request for preventive relief including an application for a permanent or temporary
injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or persons responsible for the conduct,
as the complainant deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.
(d) Whenever an action has been comn-enced in any court seeking relief from the denial of equal
protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States on
account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability, the Attorney General or any district
attorney or city attorney for or in the name of the people of the State of California may intervene in
the action upon timely application if the Attorney General or any district attorney or city attorney
certifies that the case is of general public importance. In that action the people of the State of
California shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.
(e) Actions under this section shall be independent of any other remedies or
procedures that may be available to an aggrieved party.
(f) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice in violation of Section 51
or 51.7 may also file a verified complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing
pursuant to Section 12948 of the Government Code.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair, structural
or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever to any new or existing establishment, facility,
building, improvement, or any other structure, or to augment, restrict, or alter in any way the
authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the
State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws.
(h) For the purposes of this section, "actual damages" means special and general damages. This
subdivision is declaratory of existing law.
23
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LAn1n►Y I "A"
Added by Stats 1905 ch 413 §2. Amended by Stats 1919 ch 210 §2; Stars 1923 ch 235 §2; Stats •
1959 ch 1866 §2; Stats 1974 ch 1193 §2; Stats 1976 ch 366 §2; Stats 1976 ch 1293 §2.5; Stats 1978
ch 1212 §1; Slats 1981 ch 521 §1, effective September 16, 1981; Stats 1986 ch244 §1; Stats 1987
ch 159 §4; Stats 1989 ch 459 §1; Stats 1991 ch 607 (S.B. 98) §2; Stars 1991 ch 839 (A.B. 1169) §2;
Stats 1992 ch 913 (A.B. 1077) §3.6.
§53. Restrictions upon transfer or use of realty because of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, or disability
(a) Every provision in a written instrument relating to real property which purports to forbid or
restrict the conveyance, encumbrance, leasing, or mortgaging of that real property to any person of
a specified sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability, is void and every
restriction or prohibition as to the use or occupation of real property because of the user's or
occupier's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability is void.
(b) Every restriction or prohibition, whether by way of covenant, condition upon use or occupation,
or upon transfer of title to real property, which restriction or prohibition directly or indirectly limits
the acquisition, use or occupation of that property because of the acquirer's, user's, or occupier's sex,
race, color, religion, ancestry„ national origin, or disability is void.
(c) In any action to declare that a restriction or prohibition specified in subdivision (a) or (b) is void,
the court shall take judicial notice of the recorded instrument or instruments containing the
prohibitions or restrictions in the same manner that it takes judicial notice of the matters listed in
Section 452 of the Evidence Code.
Added by Stats 1961 ch 1877 §1. Amended by Stats 1965 ch 299 §6, operative January 1, 1967;
Stats 1974 ch 1193 §3; Stats 1987 ch 159 §5; Stats 1992 ch 913 (A.B. 1077) §3.8.
§54. Right to streets, highways, and other public places;
disability
(a) Individuals with disabilities shall have the same right as the general public to
the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public
buildings, public facilities, and other public places.
(b) "Disability," as used in this part, means any of the following with respect to
an individual:
(1) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
of the major life activities of the individual.
(2) A record of such an impairment.
(3) Being regarded as having such an impairment.
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Likriun I "A"
Added by Suits 1968 ch 461 § 1. Amended Stars 1992 ch 913 (A.B. 1077) §4.
§54.1. Access to public conveyances, places of public
accommodation, amusement or resort, and housing
accommodations
(a) Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other
members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, and
privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains,
motorbuses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of
transportation (whether private, public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or
otherwise provided), telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools,
hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort, and
other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions
and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable
alike to all persons.
As used in this section, "telephone facilities" means tariff items and other.equipment and
services which have been approved by the Public Utilities Commission to be used by individuals with
disabilities in a manner feasible and compatible with the existing telephone network provided by the
telephone companies.
"Full and equal access," for purposes of this section is its application to transportation, means
access that meets the standards of Title II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-336) and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, except that, if the laws of
this state prescribe higher standards, it shall mean access that meets those higher standards.
(bx1) Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the
general public, to all housing accommodations offered for rent, lease, or compensation in this state,
subject to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and
applicable alike to all persons.
(2) "Housing accommodations" means any real property, or portion thereof, which is used or
occupied, or is intended, arranged, or designed to be used or occupied, as the home, residence, or
sleeping place of one or more human beings, but shall not include any accommodations included
within subdivision (a) or any single-family residence the occupants of which rent, lease, or furnish for
compensation not more than one room therein.
(3) Nothing in this subdivision shall require any person renting, leasing, or providing for
compensation real property to modify his or her property in any way or provide a higher degree of
care for an individual with a disability than for an individual who is not disabled.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (5) of this subdivision, nothing in this part shall require any
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
r Artinix "A"
person renting, leasing, or providing for compensation real property, if that person refuses to accept
tenants who have dogs, to accept as a tenant an individual with a disability who has a dog.
(5) It shall be deemed a denial of equal access to housing accommodations within the meaning of
this subdivision for any person, firm, or corporation to refuse to lease or rent housing
accommodations to an individual who is blind or visually impaired on the basis that the individual uses
the services of a guide dog, an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired on the basis that the
individual uses the services of a signal dog, or to an individual with a physical disability on the basis
that the individual uses the services of a service dog, or to refuse to permit an individual who is blind
or visually impaired to keep a guide dog, an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired to keep a
signal dog, or an individual with a physical disability to keep a service dog on the premises.
Except in the normal performance of duty as a mobility or signal aid, nothing contained
in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent the owner of a housing accommodation from
establishing terms in a lease or rental agreement which reasonably regulate the presence of guide
dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs on the premises of a housing accommodation, nor shall this
paragraph be construed to relieve a tenant from any liability otherwise imposed by law for real and
personal property damages caused by such a dog when proof of same exists.
As used in this subdivision, "guide dog" means any guide dog which was
trained by a person licensed under the provisions of Chapter 9.5 (commencing
with Section 7200) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code or as
defined in the regulations implementing Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336), or trained by a school recognized
in another state to train guide or seeing -eye dogs.
As used in this subdivision, "signal dog" means any dog trained to alert an
individual who is deaf or hearing impaired to intruders or sounds.
As used in this subdivision, "service dog" means any dog individually
trained to the requirements of an individual with physical disabilities, including,
but not limited to, minimal protection work, rescue work, pulling a wheelchair,
or fetching dropped items.
(6) It shall be deemed a denial of equal access to housing accommodations within the meaning of
this subdivision for any person, firm, or corporation to refuse to lease or rent housing
accommodations to an individual who is blind or visually impaired, an individual who is deaf or
hearing impaired, or other individual with a disability on the basis that the individual with a disability
is partially or wholly dependent upon the income of his or her spouse, if the spouse is a party to the
lease or rental agreement. Nothing in this subdivision shall, however, prohibit a lessor or landlord
from considering the aggregate financial status of an individual with disability and his or her spouse.
(c) Persons licensed to train guide dogs for individuals who are visually impaired
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
&Ar1ID11 NAM
8
or blind pursuant to Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 3 of
the Business and Professions Code or guide dogs as defined in the regulations
implementing Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-336), and persons authorized to train signal dogs for individuals who are deaf
or hearing impaired, and persons authorized to train service dogs for individuals
with physical disabilities, may take dogs, for the purpose of training them as guide
dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs in any of the places specified in subdivisions (a)
and (b). These persons shall carry and display identification if issued as an
authorization, upon request.
Added by Stats 1968 ch 461 §1. Amended by Stats 1969 ch 832 §1; Stats 1972 ch 819 §1; Stats
1974 ch 108 §1; Stats 1976 ch 971 §1; Stats 1976 ch 972 §1.5, Stats 1977 ch 700 §1; Stats 1978 ch
380 §12; Stats 1979 ch 293 §1; Stats 1980 773 §1; Stats 1988 ch 1595 §2; Stats 1992 ch 913 (A.B.
1077) §5; Stats 1993 ch 1149 (A.B. 1419) §4; Stats 1993 ch 1214 (A.B. 551) §1.5.
§54.2. Guide, signal or service dogs; right to accompany
individuals with a disability and trainers; damages
(a) Every individual with a disability shall have the right to be accompanied by
a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, especially trained for the purpose, in any
of the places specified in Section 54.1 without being required to pay a extra charge
or security deposit of the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog. However, the
individual shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by his
or her dog.
(b) Persons licensed to train guide dogs for individuals who are blind or
visually impaired pursuant to Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of
Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code or as defined in regulations
implementing Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-336), and persons authorized to train signal dogs for individuals who are deaf
or hearing impaired, and service dogs for the individuals with physical disabilities
may take dogs, for the purpose of training them as guide dogs, signal dogs, or
service dogs in any of the places specified in Section 54.1 without being required
to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog, signal dog, or service
dog. However, the person shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or
facilities by his or her dog.
These persons shall carry and display identification if issued as an
authorization, upon request.
27
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IAnuu i "A"
(C) As used in this section, the terms "guide dog," signal dog," and "service
dog" have the same meanings as specified in Section 54.1.
Added by Stats 1968 ch 461 §1 Amended by Stats 1972 ch 819 §2; Stats 1979 ch 293 §2; Stats
1980 ch 773 §2; Stats 1988 ch 1595 §3; Stats 1992 ch 913 (A.B. 1077) §6.
§54.3. Violations; liability
Any person or persons, firm or corporation who denies or interferes with
admittance to or enjoyment of the public facilities as specified in Sections 54 and
54.1 or otherwise interferes with the rights of an individual with a disability under
Sections 54, 54.1 and 54.2 is liable for each offense for the actual damages and any
amount as may be determined by a jury, or the court sitting without a jury, up
to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damages but in no case less
than two hundred fifty dollars (S250), and such attorney's fees as may be
determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied any
of the rights provided in Sections 54, 54.1, and 54.2.
Added by Stats 1968 ch 461 §1. Amended by Stats 1976 ch 971 §2; Stats 1976 ch 972 §2.5; Stats
1977 ch 881 §1; Stats 1981 ch 395 §1; Stats 1992 ch 913 (A.B. 1077) §7.
§54.4. Blind pedestrian; failure to carry white cane
A totally or partially blind pedestrian shall have all of the rights and privileges conferred by
law upon other persons in any of the places, accommodations, or conveyances specified in Sections
54 and 54.1, notwithstanding the fact that such person is not carrying a predominately white cane
(with or without a red tip), or using a guide dog. The failure of a totally or partially blind person to
carry such a cane or to use such a guide dog shall not constitute negligence per se.
Added by Stats 1968 ch 461 §1.
§54.5. White cane safety day; proclamation
Each year, the Governor shall publicly proclaim October 15 as White Cane Safety Day. He
shall issue a proclamation in which:
(a) Comments shall be made upon the significance of this chapter.
(b) Citizens of the state are called upon to observe the provisions of this chapter and to take
precautions necessary to the safety of disabled persons.
(c) Citizens of the state are reminded of the policies with respect to disable persons declared in this
chapter and he urges the citizens to cooperate in giving effect to them.
28
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* * * *
&Arltin' I "A"
to
(d) Emphasis shall be made on the need of the citizenry to be aware of the presence of disabled
persons in the community and to keep safe and functional for the disabled the streets, highways,
sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, public facilities, other public places, places of public
accommodation, amusement and resort, and other places to which the public is invited, and to offer
assistance to disabled persons upon appropriate occasions.
(e) It is the policy of this state to encourage and enable blind persons, visually handicapped persons,
and other physically disabled persons to participate fully in the social and economic life of the state
and to engage in remunerative employment.
Added by Stats 1968 ch 461 §1.
§54.6. Definitions
As used in this part, "blind," "totally blind," "visually handicapped," and "partially blind" mean
having central visual awity not to exceed 20/200 in the better eye, with corrected lenses, as measured
by the Snellen test, or visual acuity greater than 20/200, but with a limitation in the field of vision
such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle not greater than 20 degrees.
Added by Stats 1968 ch 461 §1.
§54.7. Zoos or wild animal parks; facilities for guide, service or
signal dogs accompanying handicapped persons
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision, If law, the provisions, of this part shall not be construed
to require zoos or wild animal parks to allow guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs to accompany
blind persons, visually handicapped persons, deaf persons, or physically disabled persons in areas of
the zoo or park where zoo or park animals are not separated from members of the public by a
physical barrier. As used in this section, "physical barrier" does not include an automobile or other
conveyance.
(b) Any zoo or wild animal park that does not permit guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs,
to accompany blind persons, visually handicapped persons, deaf persons, or physically disabled
persons therein shall maintain, free of charge, adequate kennel facilities for the use of guide
dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs belonging to blind persons, visually handicapped persons,
deaf persons, or physically disabled persons. These facilities shall be of a character
commensurate with the anticipated daily attendance of blind persons, visually handicapped
persons, deaf persons, or physically disabled persons, shall be in an area not accessible to the
general public, shall be equipped with water and utensils for the consumption thereof, and
shall otherwise be safe, dean, and comfortable.
(c) Any zoo or wild animal park that does not permit guide dogs to accompany blind persons therein
shall provide free transportation to blind persons on any mode of transportation provided for
members of the public.
(d) Any zoo or wild animal park that does not permit guide dogs to accompany blind persons
29
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
r. AIi.usii "A"
therein shall provide sighted escorts for such blind persons if they are unaccompanied by a
sighted person.
(e) As used in this section, "wild animal park" means any entity open to the public on a
regular basis, licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture under the Animal
Welfare Act as an exhibit, and operating for the primary purposes of conserving, propagating,
and exhibiting wild and exotic animals, and any marine, mammal, or aquatic park open to the
general public.
Added by Stats 1979 ch 525 §1. Amended by Stats 1988 ch 1595 §4.
§54.8. Hearing impaired persons; assistive listening systems in civil or criminal proceedings;
notice of need; availability; use in proceedings
(a) In any civil or criminal r.. :...6, including, but not limited to, traffic, small claims court, family
court proceedings and services, and juvenile court proceedings, in any court -ordered or court -
provided alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and arbitration, or in any administrative
hearing of a public agency, when a party, witness, attorney, judicial employee, judge, juror, or other
participant who is hearing impaired, the individual who is hearing impaired, upon his or her request,
shall be provided with a functioning assistive listening system or a computer -aided transcription
system. Any individual requiring this equipment shall give advance notice of his or her need to the
appropriate court or agency at the time the hearing is set or not later than five days before the
hearing.
(b) Assistive listening systems include, but are not limited to, special devices which transmit amplified
speech by means of audio -induction loops, radio frequency systems (AM or FM), or infrared
transmission. Personal receivers, headphones, and neck loops shall be available upon request from
people who are hearing impaired.
(c) If a computer -aided transcription system is requested, sufficient display terminals shall be
provided to allow the individual who is hearing impaired to read the real time transcript of the
proceeding without difficulty.
(d) A sign shall be posted in a prominent place indicating the availability of, and how to request, an
assistive listening system and a computer -aided transcription system. Notice of the availability of the
systems shall be posted with notice of trials.
(e) Each county shall have at least one portable assistive listening system for use by any court within
the county. The system shall be in a location jointly determined by the county board of supervisors
and the judges.
(f) The Judicial Council shall develop and approve official forms for notice of the availability of
assistive listening systems and computer -aided transcription systems for individuals who are hearing
impaired. The judicial Council shall also develop and maintain a system to record utilization by the.
courts of these assistive listening systems and computer -aided transcription system.
30
MINUTES _
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
tAI11D11 MAM
(g) If the individual who is hearing impaired is a juror, the jury deliberation room shall be equipped
with an assistive listening system or a computer -aided transcription system upon the request of the
juror.
(h) A court reporter may be present in the jury deliberating room during a jury deliberation if the
services of a court reporter for the purpose of operating a computer -aided transcription system are
required for a juror who is hearing impaired.
(i) In any of the proceedings referred to in subdivision (a), or in any administrative hearing of a public
agency, in which the individual who is hearing impaired is party, witness, attorney, judicial employee,
judge, juror, or other participant, and has requested use of an assistive listening system or computer -
aided transcription system, the proceedings shall not commence until the system is in place and
functioning.
0) As used in this section, "individual who is hearing impaired" means an individual with a hearing
loss, who, with sufficient amplification or a computer -aided transcription system, is able to fully
participate in the proceeding.
(k) In no case shall this section be construed to prescribe a lesser standard of accessibility or usability
than that provided by Title lI of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336)
and federal regulations adopted pursuant to that act.
Added by Stats 1989 ch 1002 §1. Amended Stats 1992 ch 913 (A.B. 1077) §8; Stats 1993 ch 1214
(A.B. 551) §2.
§55. Violations; injunction; action by person actually or
potentially aggrieved
Any person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a violation of Section 54 or
54.1 of this code, Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the
Government Code, or Part 5.5 (commencing with Section 19955) of Division 13 of the Health
and Safety Code may bring an action to enjoin the violation. The prevailing party in the
action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees.
Added by Stats 1974 ch 1443 §1.
§55.1. Violations; injunctions; district or city attorney, attorney
general
The district attorney, the city attorney, the Department of Rehabilitation acting
through the Attorney General, or the Attorney General may bring an action to enjoin any
violation of Section 54 or 54.1.
Added by Stats 1976 4).869 §1.
2_
31
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lam -ins' 1 "B"
CRITES: We go to page 6 for the one item that is left over and that is Ordinance No. 764, an
Ordinance having to do with commercial development on the south side of El Paseo. Mr.
City Manager.
ALTMAN: Mayor and Councilpeople, Mr. Diaz will give a summary of the meeting that the staff had
with the developer.
DIAZ: First, I would like to introduce Mr. James Bennett from Madison Realty to indicate to the
Council where we are at this point.
BENNETT: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers: We have met with the Ahmanson people. I wish I could say
it was over a fancy dinner, but it was over snacks anyway. We took into account the
discussions of this afternoon. We collectively felt that what we want to demonstrate to you
is that we hear your concerns, we hear the concerns expressed by some merchants on El
Paseo and accordingly, we have come up with a proposal which we have talked through with
staff briefly. In essence, it provides for us to make a major store a condition of the project.
We will have some additional time that we've worked out with Ahmanson to deliver a lease
for such a major store and a few other, I think very minor, conditions we've talked through
with staff which they may want to comment on further. But, that's the guts of it. We need
to ask you, though, to vote affirmatively on this tonight Under the time frames were
discussing, it is imperative that we start these discussions tomorrow and carry them through
as quickly as possible. We ask your support on that. Thank you.
CRITES: Thank you, sir. Are there particular issues that do need deliberation?
DIAZ: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council: There are two issues, one involved the improvements
on San Pablo between Highway 111 and El Paseo. As Council will recall, during the
negotiations with Sunrise President William Bone, he had placed a limit that the project could
take on those improvements regardless of what the design would be and that limited cost was
$75,000 which would be the cost of paving curb -to -curb and sidewalks. The condition on
the San Pablo improvement would be that ultimately the improvement would be what you saw
and what you see the applicant's portion or share of those improvements as generated by this
project would be $75,000. Secondly, the cost of relocation of any signal should be credited
to the applicant's signalization fees. This has been done in the past as I've indicated before,
I think that will take us back to where we were with regard to San Pablo and creates a
situation of equity with regards to the signalization cost. Thirdly, and probably the most
important thing, is that the condition would read as part of this development agreement that
as a condition of approval, a major department store of at least 40,000 square feet, to be
approved by the City of Palm Desert. A lease for that will be required prior to issuance of
a building permit.
32
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CRITES:
DIAZ:
CRITES:
DIAZ:
FOLKERS:
DIAZ:
CRITES:
BENNETT:
BENSON:
BENNETT:
CRITES:
BENSON:
CRITES:
WILSON:
BENSON:
CRITES:
EXHIBIT "B"
Does the signalization fee crediting still have the $25,000 cap?
No, that was an alternative.
The second paragraph of the El Paseo work to be done notes that work outside of existing
right of way is not the responsibility of the project. Do we have a good cost estimate on
whether any will be necessary and if so, how much that's going to cost?
Mr. Folkers can answer that questions.
We did produce some estimates, however, these were preliminary. I think we believe we
presented those last time with the Council. If I recall, I think we were talking about
$175,000 but I'm not sure.
And I think as Council will recall in discussions on this issue in the past, I think there's a
great deal of consensus that we have a problem now and if nothing is done on this particular
piece of land, that improvement would have to be done. So what we're doing is in effect
getting $75,000 contribution from the applicant to get this thing going.
Questions from members of the Council?
One very quick comment. I would think we should say a major specialty store as opposed
to a department store.
What would be the difference there? What store....
I just think it could open...I mean a store of 30,000 square feet or greater. As you know,
we're talking about a 40,000 foot, 2-level store. By some definitions, the type of resort store
that Saks has might by some people's definition not be a department store as such, but rather
a specialty store. Because they don't carry the full lines of furniture, lawn mowers....
Is that acceptable? If there are no....
But the store itself has to be approved by the Council?
Right. If there are no further questions or comments by members of the Council, then a
motion would be in order.
I would move the amended recommendation, so stated by Mr. Diaz.
Is there a time limit on that or is it just no construction until secured?
That's the way it reads right now.
33
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LAI-uni x "B"
BENNETT: We just want it to be clear that it is a store of 30,000 square feet or greater. Even though
currently the agreement right now says the extra 30,000 over the 167. If we go with the
40,000 foot store we have now, we're not asking for additional entitlements. We'll have to
absorb that into the project. But the majorstore has always been envisioned to be 30,000
square feet.
DIAZ: That's correct. Yes, 30,000 square feet.
BENSON: And that would go to the additional 190?
DIAZ: That would go up to the additional 167 to 190. That's the extra 30,000 square feet, right.
I stand corrected.
CRITES: There is a motion. Is there a second?
BENSON: I'll second.
CRITES: There being no further discussion, please vote.
GILLIGAN: Motion carries by a unanimous vote.
34
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L� XriLDh1 "C"
CRITES: That takes us to Item B under Public Hearings - Request for Approval of a Conditional
Use Permit for the Construction of a Pay for Play facility on 25 acres of city -owned land
southeast of Gerald Ford and Cook Street; and I would also note that from page 9 of the
agenda, Item XIIB, Final Report and Recommendation relative to the same facility at a
location on the east side of Portola, south of Frank Sinatra was held because the two
items seemed appropriate for discussion at the same time. Given the fact that both of
these, and the second one of these having to do with Cook Street, is a Public Hearing
item, I would ask the City Manager for the Staff Report on the matter.
ALTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Diaz wants to keep a lock on his microphone tonight so I
think he's in the barrel again.
DIAZ:
Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council: This matter accompanied the hearing on
Portola as you will recall and it was continued along with the final approval of the Portola
site for two reasons: One, to have the Planning Commission hearing on Cook Street,
secondly to provide those interested with the information on alternate sites that were
evaluated by the City which Council had received a report of. That information has been
provided to those individuals who were interested in it.
In looking at the Cook Street site and the matter before us, this matter was heard by the
Planning Commission on Tuesday. It was approved and Resolution 1671, the Resolution
of the Planning Commission, approving the conditional use permit and certifying the
negative declaration of environmental impact therefore was also approved. That
Resolution has been passed out to you. Exactly what the purpose of this hearing is, we
have not had an appeal. Originally it was scheduled when we thought there was going
to be a development with it, but nevertheless, I will go through the Staff Report.
You have received a letter from Mr. Stan Green and Judge Einbinder dated December 7th
and I would like to address that communication as it relates to CEQA and as it relates to
the condition for approval that have been placed on the project by the Planning
Commission and which you may wish to consider at some time. CEQA is the California
Environmental Quality Act passed in 1970 and it of course has been amended many, many
times by the Legislature and by the judiciary. The Section 15153C of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Pause to distribute copies) That particular section of the
guidelines is important and it states that an Environmental Impact Report prepared for an
earlier project may also be used as part of an initial study to document a finding that a
later project will not have a significant effect. In this situation, a negative declaration will
be prepared. In analyzing the negative declaration of Environmental Impact for this
particular site, we did utilize the information provided by the Section 4 Environmental
Impact Report which this Council has certified. Also, the Rancho Portola Environmental
Impact Report and that is the project that is directly North of Section 4 butted by the
future extension of Cook Street, Frank Sinatra Drive to the South and Portola Avenue to
the West. The information provided by those two Environmental Impact Reports were
35
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L� �li111311 "C"
utilized here. The sites are very similar to the site we're talking about on Cook Street
with the exception that the Cook Street site has been utilized in the past, a portion of it
as a vineyard which, if anything, means there is less of an environmental impact in terms
of the impact on flora and fauna.
Now looking at some of the issues that were brought up at Tuesday's hearing and that are
contained in the communication that you have received this evening:
First of all, Flora and Fauna: Both the, well I won't say both, all of these following
documents have led us to the conclusion that in terms of flora and fauna, there is not
going to be a significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this project on
Section 4. First of all the Section 4 Environmental Impact Report, secondly the Rancho
Portola Environmental Impact Report, the Cook Street interchange has gone through
extensive CEQA process both by the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Habitat Conservation Plan and other mitigation measures that
have already been adopted and in place assure that any significant adverse impacts on the
environment as a result of this project being developed on this site will be mitigated. At
this point, I would like to apologize for the Council if I appear to be verbose but I think
we need to establish a record and that's why I'm going the way I'm going.
The issue of archeological impacts was also raised. As far as any archeological impacts
are concerned - again, the issue was examined as part of the Cook Street interchange.
It was also examined as part of the environmental impact reports on both Section 4 and
the Rancho Portola project. I will also state that part of this site as indicated before has
been used as a vineyard so that there are no archeological sites indicated on this particular
site. Now, if during construction, something happens to be found, then by State law, all
construction stops and the appropriate individuals with expertise are called to the site to
give a clearance. This has happened before in other areas so, in fact, the Desert
Crossings as you will recall at one time after everything was said and done, found
something and everything stopped.
With regard to traffic: The Section 4 Environmental Impact Report as the Mayor indicated
at the last hearing, shows that minimal traffic is contributed by this particular project in
Section 4. Now, what this project is doing in essence is having the same vehicles that
would have been generated at Portola, are now going to be generated at the Cook Street
site. So that, in terms of Section 4, that is reduced and the Cook Street site is increased
but the overall impact is the same. But, more importantly in terms of the Section 4
Environmental Impact Report, it indicated that the streets with the conditions of approval
and the long range plans for the Cook Street interchange and the other street plans that
have been approved and are on file, there will not be a significant adverse impact on the
environment that cannot be mitigated as a result of those plans. So, from the standpoint
of traffic, again this does not require further analysis or an additional environmental
impact report.
36
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
r xtEIBii "C"
The issues of lights: Conditions 19, 20 and 23 of Planning Commission Resolution 1671
are the same conditions that were set forth in Council Resolution 94-120. These
conditions have been indicated in the Environmental Impact Report would reduce any
potential significant impact and would mitigate those impacts so there would not be a
significant environmental impact.
Noise - That is the same issue. Also, as the Council will recall and one of the Planning
Commissioners brought up at the meeting we did have the testimony here from a resident
at Monterey Country Club, who indicated they were also concerned where the lights in
our park were placed. Again, as a result of mitigation measures and the studies that we
have done, they have no problem with it. So, there is ample evidence there that we can
mitigate any significant adverse impact due to lighting. And, if you will note on the
conditions of approval, the lighting plan must be approved prior to the issuance of the
building permits. So we will not proceed until we're sure that we're not going to have
a significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of lighting.
The other issues that have been raised in the communication you received have also been
discussed extensively at all of the hearings before the Planning Commission and before
this body. One relating to special events and parking - the condition of approval limits
the special events to Saturday and Sundays - limit those special events to 10AM to 6PM
and limit those special events to charitable sports events. So, concerts have been
eliminated.
The parking situation for the special events is addressed through the special permit
process. And I might indicate that with the facility on Cook Street there is a great deal
of open area where parking can be utilized.
In the communication you received . this evening, again, there are nine suggested
conditions that would be added. Staff does not feel that these conditions should be added
in that they are already addressed.
First of all - Condition One, that no additional expansion be allowed from the original 25
acres: This seems to be in conflict with Condition Seven that on any future project
changes that everyone in Desert Falls be notified. We do not feel that this condition is
necessary and two, it really accomplishes nothing because if someone wants a change they
can come in and request it and we'd have to go through another whole Public Hearing
process again. So to limit ourselves to the 25 acres, it's not going to happen. Placing
that as a condition on the conditional use permit is not going to accomplish what I believe
the writers of the letter wish. Staff would suggest that this particular change in wording
be placed in the DDA and be before the Redevelopment Agency Board because what will
trigger any potential changes, of course, is the financial agreement and the financial
agreement is approved or reviewed by the Redevelopment Agency so that condition should
be placed there.
37
1VIINUTES
REGULAR PALM. DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
t Arillll 1 "C"
Second - that all conditions that were set forth at the Portola site be extended to the Cook
Street site, but not limited to glare elimination: All of the appropriate conditions on the
Portola site have already been applied to the Cook Street site.
That no concerts be allowed on site: That has been covered by Condition 11 of the
Planning Commission Resolution.
That special events be limited to a reasonable number which will not impact the
neighborhood: That's Condition 4.
That parking be restricted on special events: Condition 5 and that those two conditions
are worked out within Condition 11, which requires a special permit for any special event
and the hours of operation are limited. And, as part of those special permits as we
indicated at the last hearing before the Council and we've indicated numerous times at the
hearings before the Planning Commission, parking for those special events and how it is
going to be done and regulated, is part of the permit process. Also, you will note there
is a condition of approval within both of the resolutions related to parking for special
events.
Condition 6 - that all variances required by this project be considered at the time of
approval of this project by the Planning Commission and City Council: First of all, we
cannot do that - we don't know what variances might be required in the future. At this
time, no variances are being required and no variances are being granted. There was
some question about the height of the tensile structure for the basketball court, as you will
recall, a condition of approval within the Portola site which has been carried on to the
Cook Street site, requires that the facility meet all height restrictions set forth in the R1M
zone which was the existing zoning on the Portola site.
Condition 7 requiring that all residents at Desert Falls irrespective of their distance from
the project be notified of any future changes: This particular condition, again, would be
more appropriate in the DDA rather than putting it in the conditional use permit because
1) it could again cause us problems in terms of not only this particular hearing, but
others. We will notify as widely as we can and we have done that on this project and on
the entire Section 4 project. But to replace a requirement that all residents of Desert
Falls, irrespective of their distances from the projects, be notified on this conditional use
permit, we do not believe is appropriate.
Condition 8 - that any light standards to be installed on the project be no higher than 70
feet from plan grade and the top of the standards be below the grade of Frank Sinatra and
Cook Street: We do not feel that this particular condition should be placed because it
could create a situation where we could not develop a lighting plan that would meet the
criteria of minimizing any negative impact. We have a lighting plan required prior to the
issuance of any building permits. As far as the lighting standards are concerned, we are
38
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L` Axiui i i "C"
requiring under Condition 20 that the light standards be shielded from the view by tall
trees and appropriate landscaping as approved by the Architectural Commission. So,
what I'm saying is - let's not limit ourselves to some type of artificial height at this point.
We have a criteria - that plan has to be approved. If, when we receive that plan, the light
standards are considered too high, then we can lower the light standards and make
whatever additional changes which might be necessary to get to light standards. But to
create an artificial height limit at this point we believe is in appropriate.
Number 9 - that landscaping be placed on the North side of Frank Sinatra Drive to screen
the project from the residents of Desert Falls but said landscaping would not block their
view of the mountains: There will be extensive landscaping on the project, it's not clear
to me exactly what we're talking about because obviously the landscaping on this project
will be North of Frank Sinatra Drive. If we're talking about immediately on the North
side of Frank Sinatra Drive, the entire plan and landscaping for the Cal State University,
when that goes in, will have landscaping. One of the things we've assured the residents,
particularly those that are close to the college site, that we are going to make sure that
we have landscaping that will contribute to the site and the beauty of the area and not
negate it by blocking the views of the mountains. So this particular condition is unclear
and I believe that we do have adequate conditions that there will be landscaping and
screening of the site appropriately.
The staff therefore believes that Number one, a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact on this project is indeed consistent with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended and is appropriate at this time. Secondly,
with the conditions for approval that we have placed on this project, we have assured
ourselves that all potential adverse impacts will be mitigated to below the level of
significance; and thirdly, the other issues that do not directly relate to environmental
issues with regards to noise, traffic flows, special events, have been controlled and are
controlled by this particular Resolution of the Planning Commission. Staff believes that
we should proceed with the project on Cook Street as quickly as possible, and that would
conclude the staff report.
CRITES: Questions at this point from members of the Council?
If it is then the pleasure of the Council, I will open the Public Hearing and ask for people
to make comments specifically at this point on Item B which is the Public Hearing Item
which has to do with the CUP on the Cook Street proposed site. Are there people in the
audience who wish to offer comments on that issue?
SWANK: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is William Swank. I am the
developer partner of the project across Cook Street from this site and I guess it is
appropriate for me to make comments at this point. We have no problem with the
location on Cook Street. I guess we're the nearest residential community to the project.
39
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
t.Ari1Dl1 "C"
We had a problem on Portola but we have no problem whatsoever with Cook Street. We
went through an extensive EIR on our own project. We went the long way, it was
complete, it was no real concern on flora and fauna or anything of that nature. We've
been working very closely with the City Engineer on the triparty agreement on the
extension of utilities on Cook. It looks like that's imminent - they're going to start
construction very soon on the extension of Cook. We've agreed to fund our share of
those utilities so it looks like the Cook Street site could be open quite quickly for
development. We would urge you to go ahead and approve this site tonight. If you have
any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
CRITES: Your agreement then, does that signal you're in agreement with the terms of
appropriateness and mitigation measures and data on the area.
SWANK: Without reservation.
CRITES: Thank you sir. Other questions from members of this body? Are there others in the
audience who wish to comment?
EINBINDER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council. I am Judge Arnold Einbinder, retired. I live
at 549 Desert Falls Drive, East, Palm Desert, California. You have a copy of a letter
that Mr. Green and I produced. It was not a lightly taken letter. It was, as far as we
were concerned, the last amicable hope that a resolution of the confrontation as we
described it, could be achieved. We were dismayed at Tuesday's meeting when it was
impressed upon the Planning Commission by staff and the staffs attorney, that it was fine
to utilize an Environmental Impact Report for the same project on Portola because it was
authorized by CEQA. to provide as a basis for their determination a use of an on -going
environmental process for the Cook Street exchange with I-10 and then of course without
understanding the basis for it, the fact that an EIR would also be required for the college
and that would be also encompassing the area in which this particular project is to be
placed.
My comments to the Planning Commission was that I could not understand and could not
believe what was being heard by the audience and myself. Notwithstanding that (break
to change tapes)... we are facing something different. First of all, in regards to traffic
we have an isolated project that will utilize one street to go back and forth. Cook Street
will be extended from Frank Sinatra to at or about the Gerald Ford intersection with Cook
Street for this project, as well as certainly for Mr. Swank's project, and the time frame
on that was supposed to be anywhere from three to six months for it to be accomplished
with the construction of the street. Those who would be participating in any activities at
the sports park would be coming from various streets, but the only exit - one, i.e. Cook.
Now that's quite a bit different than having an exit on Portola and being able to go North
and South readily to Frank Sinatra on the North to Country Club on the South and then
to be traversing various other streets which would accept and diminish the impact.
40
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *•* * * * * * *. * * * *
EXHIBIT "C"
Secondly, I advised that there are animals that are out there that are not those same
animals that had to be dealt with, with respect to Section 4. And, from what I understand,
quite a number of different animals. Now, we were told that the agricultural department
and fish and game departments have all been in the process of doing things and accepting
various reports and I questioned those reports. I questioned as to whether or not they are
encompassing the particular area in which this project was to be going. Now, I know that
part of the land is supposed to have had vines on it for vineyards. Yet and still its
surrounding area, and of course that's been a long time ago - it wasn't yesterday when
those vines were taken away, number one and number two, now there's some area that
has been flattened and leveled and I don't know why but perhaps in this particular vein,
it was to determine where this particular project was going.
I also addressed the fact that if the EIR is going to be required on the college property,
the college property is inclusive of this particular project. It's a 200, plus or minus, acre
parcel and what I understood was that the city and the college had come to some
memorandum of understanding that 40 acres within the next 5 years or so may be utilized
by the college and the additional amount of 160 some odd acres could have over a 25 year
period, provide for the expansion of the college if there's going to be an expansion at all,
inclusive of the 25 acres that is being used, "used" I emphasize, for the project during
that period of the time. Now, if you're going to, and I expressed this one thing too, I
said that the city is not voluntarily providing an environmental impact report or
contemplating having an environmental impact report voluntarily for the State because the
State will demand it for the college, they will require that there's no problem that they
might face if they start going in there from not only their own agencies but Federal
agencies as well. So we have a situation where irrespective of all these conceivable
problems, now I haven't myself been there but I have received information from others,
i.e. people who I rely on, that there are animals living in that area that are foreign to
Section 4 and are different from what would be having any kind of effect on the
environmental impact report that was done on Section 4.
I was out on the project so I know where the vines were, etc., and I just can't conceive
that with these things in mind, there would be a negative declaration provided. Granted,
if the school wasn't there or if it was out in the sticks far away from any kind of
conceivable use, then I wouldn't be here, you wouldn't have a reason to be responding
to myself and others in regards to any decision that you make. Because it would be a
cause that would have no opposition whatever. But that's not the case. The case is that
it is close to a developed area, it's across the street from one that's going to be developed
- you've already approved that development and we wanted it to be as good a location,
and I'm not kidding anybody I'd rather not have a sports park in either of these two
locations, but as you will note by the letter we feel that if we're going to be asked by the
Council to favor one particular site over another, then let us at least have the information
that we would need and that you should very well be able to have in making a decision
on our part as well as yours. Now I don't think we've asked for anything that was
41
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LAnuu 1 "C"
unreasonable notwithstanding what Mr. Diaz implied by going down each one of the
conditions that we asked to be imposed. I also resent the fact that Mr. Diaz publicly at
the meeting said there's really no problem with all these things that we have here and
they've all been addressed so it must be coming from something else. And I had to gain
the implication that he meant that at least myself, and certainly others, were more
concerned about the location of the place than anything else and weren't concerned about
the environment, and that's not true. That environmental impact report is not only for
those who would be directly impacted but for everyone who is in the city and anyone who
would be coming to this area and that's why there's a requirement of the report so it is
known that these particular problems are fairly, and I emphasize fairly, dealt with. I
don't think they have been as yet and I used the term when I said on Tuesday night,
which I will repeat, that the EIR from Portola is different from an EIR from the site on
Cook Street. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes when the college will be there you'll
say OK we'll take a siniilar EIR for not even a smaller one, but a larger one, and it was
piggy -backed in order to provide the basis for the decision for the negative declaration.
I don't know why. There was no real reason. Obviously it's a 75,000 dollar expenditure
and if that was the difference - the 75,000 dollars - then tell us. Say OK, we didn't want
to spend the 75,000 dollars for an Environmental Impact Report on that irrespective of
what the cost might be which might certainly encompass that particular area when they
go for the EIR for the college. And that's what I want to say and I hope that you will
take what we have provided to you with the intention that it was meant. As we say,
we're not trying to play games with the Council. We wish to have a decision that we can
make fairly just like you make a decision fairly. Thank you very much.
KERMODE: My name is Louise Kermode. I live at 38731 Desert Mirage Dr. I understand that your
decision here is one spot or the other. I just wanted to say that I thought Cook Street was
far better. I can give you a lot of reasons but I won't take your time. I just want you
to know that one person feels that way.
SHAPIRO: My name is Pearl Shapiro and I live in Palm Desert full time. Good evening, Honorable
Mayor and Councilmembers. I would like to thank the Planning Commission for
recommending the Cook Street site. I feel this will resolve the need for the petition
signed by 1,026 citizens who were against the Portola site. Thank you.
BYKE: My name is Debbie Byke and I live at 57 Birdie Way at Silver Sands Racquet Club. I,
too, want to add my approval of the Cook Street site. If we have to make a choice
between the two I think I have spoken enough before to the Council and the Planning
Commission to have my feelings known and we if must make a decision, we do feel that
the Cook Street site is the proper site for this particular project. Mrs. Shapiro mentioned
the fact that over a thousand petitions were signed and I would say that there were
probably over two thousand total people who objected to the Portola site. I hope for your
sake and my sake, this is the last time we will be meeting this way and we hope for a
favorable decision for the Cook Street site.
42
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WAX:
FORREST•
PAISAKOPF:
CRITES:
HARGREAVES:
CRITES:
l�i1ii11l311 "C"
My name is Mary Wax. I live in Desert Falls. I believe the people that have just spoken
were very correct perhaps in asking for the Cook Street site. Those people do not live
in Desert Falls. They live closer to Portola so needless to say they don't want the Portola
site. We in Desert Falls would prefer it. And that's what I would like to say.
Good evening Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Gerald Forrest. I was here
before and I'd like to put a new twist to the whole thing. Why don't we scuttle the whole
thing? The reason I'm bringing it up...I know Councilman Wilson is not very happy
about it but he's leaving anyhow and he made the remark last meeting "let's get on with
it". That's very nice, but you're going to leave, leaving the debris behind us. The whole
thing was brought to my real attention by todays' headlines. That is of course, Orange
County...bad investments. But to my mind, I'm looking strictly at numbers, this is a
lousy investment. The banks won't fund the promoters so why should we, the taxpayers?
We lost already I think a million and a half through that fellow Wyman. Our fiscal
background isn't exactly the greatest here either. We lost money on bad investments.
Are we going to lose some more investments? Who's responsible for the first debacle?
I don't know if the guys still here, or has been fired, or wherever he is has been
admonished to be more careful. And so the whole thing is, scuttle the whole thing.
Because let's get our money invested at 7% somewhere and we don't take risks of a
million eight we have to put out. I say we, I mean all taxpayers. Let's just forget the
thing. It's a very divisive issue as you know. I spend my evenings here sometimes, as
you do, and I'm not on the City Council.
Good evening, Councilmembers. Marlene Paisakoff from Desert Falls. I just wanted to
share my concern this evening with what I hear and what I heard from Mr. Diaz. When
there is some give and take in listening and compromising, I feel that then perhaps
compromise is possible but it seemed to me that no point that was raised met with any
even consideration of possibility of worth and it seemed like it was just one big lawn
mower rolling down the issues. I feel that, I hope that, the Council will consider some
of the issues that were raised this evening as genuine concerns and also showing a
compromise from the people at Desert Falls.
Are there others who would like to offer testimony at this point?
I would be happy to respond at the appropriate time to the remarks that were made,
particularly those of Judge Einbinder at whatever level of detail the Council feels is
appropriate. I would like to point out that the matter is before the Council at this time
in rather an odd posture because a decision was made by the Planning Commission two
days ago and there's a fifteen day appeals period. To my knowledge, the decision has
not been appealed yet, so in a sense there's really no formal action at this time needed
by the Council.
It's been called to us.
43
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* * * *
EXHIBIT "C"
HARGREAVES: Oh, it was called up by you?
CRITES: It's here.
HARGREAVES: There again, we have the problem that if we go ahead and try to make a definitive
statement on this this evening, if someone appeals over the next week or two and could
establish that there was some kind of prejudice by the fact that they could not come in
here and argue their appeal, that we may have a problem down the road. Now, we can
discuss the matter as fully as you feel necessary tonight, but my recommendation would
be that it be continued for final resolution or at least consideration two weeks from now
in case there is an appeal. If there is an appeal within the two weeks, it would have to...
WI SON: I'm a little unclear on that. The Council appealed it, brought it up and put it on the
agenda, noticed on the agenda that it would be considered....
CRITES: And it has been noticed for more than two weeks so that anybody that wanted to has the
opportunity, obviously, to be here and make comment.
HARGREAVES: Well, the final decision was made by the Planning Commission two days ago.
CRITES: I understand that.
HARGREAVES: So the appeal period technically is open for another 13 days.
CRITES: But why would you appeal an already appealed issue?
HARGREAVES: Practically speaking, substantively speaking, there is no reason. I am saying that someone
out there at some point could raise an issue that because there is this fifteen day appeal
period and it is my understanding that there were representations made that people would
be given the fifteen day appeal period if this thing did end up back here. That under
those circumstances, there would be a certain amount of risk if some definitive decision
was made here this evening.
CRTTES:
HARGREAVES:
CRITES:
Let me ask a different question. If this Council acts negatively towards this, or positive
towards this, and this technical issue does arise then what the Council would have to do
would be to either reaffirm or change that action at its next meeting.
That is correct.
So the Council may take action as it chooses this evening, and if on this technicality
something does occur, what,would have to happen would be that a review of that action,
or again reapproval or change, right?
44
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L' AIL J:oil "C"
HARGREAVES: The one problem we might have is if we don't continue this particular hearing, we'd have
to re -notice it and we would not be able to act on it at the next Council meeting.
CRITES: We will, if we need to do that, make sure that it is noticed immediately
so that if we need to technically take action, we may. That would
satisfy the attorneys?
HARGREAVES: Right. Back to the original point, if you would like me to respond to
the comments that were made by Judge Einbinder, I would be happy
to do so.
CRITES: In terms of....
HARGREAVES: Whatever concerns the Council might have.
CRITES:
KELLY:
OK, well let's go through the Council's remarks and then we'll go to the need for this,
if need be. Comments? 10 days? OK. We'll do that as we need to at that point.
Comments from members of this body?
Well, I think we've made a great compromise here and I have a problem with what the
city attorney has to say. We've been working with this for a year at least and if anybody
is well versed to make a decision, we're well versed for an appeal or whatever. As far
as the remarks about the compromise, I'd think that listening to the Planning Director's
review, I would think that we would be very cognizant of those 7 items, 9 items, and that
it seems to me there's a couple of those that are going to be covered, I mean most of
those are going to be covered anyway. And the ones that aren't covered, we could make
sure that we recognize the concern and did what we could do to mitigate. I would hope
that we would move ahead so that I would vote yes.
BENSON: I thought some of the conversation we had relative to Judge Einbinder's request for an
EIR because of the college, that it wouldn't be appropriate now to do the EIR for the
college because we don't know when the college is going to be built and the sport
complex is there until the college says they are going to build and then we would have
an EIR, which might necessitate them moving and they know that. So, I don't see the
need for the EIR now for a college when the college doesn't know when they'll be built
so the other encompassing one it seems to me that it would be all right.
CRITES: Other comments from others at this point?
WILSON: I, for once, kind of agree with Mr. Kelly about the conditions that was in the letter. I
think that most of those seemed like reasonable issues and I think, if I heard Mr. Diaz
right that they had either been addressed in some fashion in existing conditions, or could
be put into the development agreement..anything that's missed. I would not want to just
45
rmvvTFs
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L' Arilril l "C"
summarily dismiss these. I would want to make sure that we cover the reasonable
requests as we move forward. I do have a, I guess, concern about what the city attorney
said and that is if we do have to re -notice this because someone appealed. I can't
understand why a reasonable person . would appeal something that's already been
adjudicated but I guess legally that option is out there. So, I guess I'm having some
thoughts that I would like to see us express our feelings, one way or the other, up or
down, but maybe continue the public hearing to the 22nd to make the final decision on
that date.
CRITES: Comments?
SNYDER: I think it would be safe to continue it to the 22nd. I'm in favor of voting for it now as
it is, but I'll go along with continuing the matter to the 22nd and give my same approval
at that time.
CRITES:
I'll address a couple of comments that my colleagues have addressed. I would agree with
the lady about the points in this. I think that most of the points in this letter from Mr.
Green and Judge Einbinder are appropriate points and either are in conditions or not.
Sometimes our Planning Director's college career as a nadir leads one to place everything
as a "we have and you don't", or "you have and we don't", so on and so forth, and that
can make sugar taste awfully sour at times. Be advised that these issues are issues that
are appropriate concerns and are addressable within that. In terms of two other sets of
comments, one concerning the EIR. Is the reason it was sent to us by the Planning
Commission simply $75,000? No, if it was we wouldn't have done the last one and we
wouldn't do a lot of the rest of it. On the issue of animals on this land, I've spent a lot
of time with the conservation of this Valley and especially with endangered species of
plants and animals, and starting over 12 years ago we developed the Coachella Valley
fringe -toed lizard habitat plan area which encompasses the areas in which most people in
this audience live. Initial surveys were done at that time to look for specialized species.
The exact piece of land that is proposed for this facility was examined for biological
concerns when we looked at construction of the Cook Street overpass because Cook Street
has to pass right by this in order to get to the overpass and the interchange area. It was
looked at then. It was looked at directly upwind of that when Mr. Swank's project was
looked at. It was looked at directly adjacent to that when all of Section 4.... From all
biological study in this Valley, what you need to be able to have to find specialized,
biological communities is specialized, different habitat. If we had a palm oasis out there,
the Judge's comments would be dead bang on the money. If we had a rocky outcrop that
.was different from the surrounding area, the potential would exist. What we have is a
continuation of blowsand habitat about which if there's any area in this Valley we have
darn good biological data, we have darn good biological data all the way around it and
I am one person who, as best I can - you can choose to believe it or not - would never
vote for not having an EIR if I believed there was any opportunity to find something out
46
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * *'* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DIAZ:
L' AI I11D11 M C N
there that we need to concerned with in terms of protecting the viability of the ecosystem
of this Valley.
In terms of why Cal State has to do an EIR and this project does not, Cal State is
proposing to build either a 40 acre or 200 acre college. That's not anything like building
two golf courses and a hotel and some assorted commercial ventures. It has nothing to
do with the kinds of things that were looked at in terms of impact on Section 4.
Obviously, when that kind of thing happens, it deserves and will have its own Master
Plan, its own set of hearings and its own input from all the surrounding neighbors and it
deserves to have that have a full airing. This project doesn't change one bit when it
moves from one place to the other. The plot plan stays the same, everything else stays
the same. And, I guess one other comment is when the gentlemen says this may be a bad
investment. I would note that we have separately, aside from this decision, a separate
decision that has to be made concerning whether or not the investment and who gets what
share of profits and all the rest of that is a good decision or not, I sincerely invite you to
look at that agreement and give comments at that time. As you remember from some of
our past hearings, there are lots of people who say if we get no profit at all, it's a great
investment because the facility is there for kids. Others say you better get a profit
because having it available for kids and other adults is not enough. And we may view
and differ over which of those things make for a good profit and which doesn't. The
point is that a decision has to be finalized on that and it's appropriate for you to have the
opportunity to comment on that. This does not approve the financial agreement for the
sport park. That is a separate action that has to be taken, I believe by the Redevelopment
Agency, is that correct? And, you will certainly be notified of that action. Those would
be my comments on this matter.
Aside from, would we legally lose anything by acting on this this evening, and also then
advertising for the 22nd?
Mr. Mayor, what ends up happening if we advertise it on the 22nd, we end up having to
have at least a ten day notice so what you end up losing is ten days. Yes, in other words,
if we receive an appeal..
CRITES: No, go ahead and advertise tomorrow for the 22nd as well if you need to. But the people
who are here
DIAZ: Because we're in the same position advertising tomorrow for the 22nd that we are right
now. By just continuing it to the 22nd, it solves all the problems.
HARGREAVES: Actually, I think, Ray, that if we advertise tomorrow for the 22nd and anyone comes in
in the interim and appeals and we tell them that the hearing is going to be on the 22nd
it will probably be all right.
47
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
• t AriiYll l "C"
CRITES: So be it. A motion then, apparently, to continue is in order. By the way, it could then
be appropriate - several people said they would like to give their sense of this issue before
concluding the matter for the evening.
WILSON: I think the Cook Street site is far more preferable than the Portola site for a number of
reasons and I didn't follow Judge Einbinder's reasoning on traffic too well. He didn't
address the fact that this would be near a major interchange. That interchange, the impact
on Cook Street from that interchange, would far overshadow any impact of this ballfield
on this particular corner. It would be immeasurable compared to the traffic that will
come from the interchange, so on that issue, I think this is better from a traffic
standpoint. People will have easy access from the freeway. I think it's better, even
though I'm convinced we can mitigate the lighting, I think the fact that the elevation of
this site is significantly lower than Portola makes this a much more desirable site. So I
am prepared to vote for it tonight and am in favor of it tonight, but in view of the legal
opinion, I would support continuing until the 22nd and then cast that vote in favor.
SNYDER: I concur completely with what Councilman Roy has set forth and I would second that
motion.
CRITES: That's not a motion.
SNYDER: I concur with the opinion.
KELLY: I'd like to express that I think this is an ideal location for this type of complex and it's
one that I've promoted from the beginning. If we acted on this tonight, I'd even be
prepared to make the motion.
CRITES: I'm not sure my heart's strong enough for that.
BENSON: I would concur with the location of it, as long as that's what we voting on.
CRITES: As would I. Then a motion to continue this matter until the 22nd is appropriate.
WILSON: So move.
CRITES: Is there a second?
SNYDER: I'll second it.
CRITES: There is a motion and a second. Please cast your ballot.
GILLIGAN: Motion carried by a unanimous vote.
48
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1994
* * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • * * * *
LAHIDi1 NCN
CRITES: Now, I still need to remind my colleagues that that leaves on Page 9, Item XIIB, the
Portola/Frank Sinatra Section 4 site still setting there without final adjudication.
ALTMAN: Doesn't that stay until it .is replaced by use permit at the other site? I think that's
what
DIAZ: Yes, what we would recommend that you add a condition to the conditional use permit
that states that that conditional use permit stays until the one on the other site is approved
or we just continue it to the 22nd also and handle it all at the same time.
CRITES: I think that would be more appropriate.
SNYDER: I move we continue that matter until the 22nd.
KELLY• Second
CRITES: Because we may need a time certain on this one, or something or the other versus the
other one. Okay, there's a motion and a second, please vote.
GILLIGAN: Motion carried by unanimous vote.
49