Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1994-06-23
MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDA.Y, JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilson convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayoi Pro-Tem Buford A. Crites III. INVOCATION - Councilmember Jean M. Benson IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Mayor Pro-Tem Buford A. Crites Councilman Walter H. Snyder Mayor S. Roy Wilson Excused Absence: Councilman Richard S. Kelly Also Present Bruce A. Altman, City Manager Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/Public Inbrrr►ation Officer David J. Erwin, City Attorney Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of ''ommunity Development Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Direct:,i of Public Works Carlos Ortega, ACM/Exec'itiw; Director Paul Gibson, Director cf lance Dave Millheim, Director of Human Resources Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety Wayne Ramsey, Acting Director of Code Compliance John Wohlmuth, Environmental Conservation Manager Catherine Sass, Community Arts Manager V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Adjourned City Council Meeting of May 24, 1994, and the Regular Meeting of June 9, 1994. Rec: Approve as presented. REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL M r. L u4G JUNE 23, 1994 * $ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s s * * * * * * * s * * * * s * * B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 53, 54, and 55. Rec: Approve as presented. C-1. CLAIMAGAINST THE CITY (#257) by Suzuki Motor Corporation for Indemnity Relative to Wildhagen v. National Steel. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. C-2. CLAIM AGAINST THE CTTY (#258) by American Suzuki Motor Corporation, Inc. for Indemnity Relative to Wildhagen v. National Steel. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. C-3. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#259) by Suzuki Motor Corporation for Indemnity Relative to May v. National Steel. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. C-4. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#264) by American Suzuki Motor Corporation, Inc. for Indemnity Relative to May v. National Steel. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. D. RESOLUTION NO. 94-60 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, Setting Forth its Findings -and Authorizing the Destruction of Files from the Department of Building and Safety that have been Microfilmed (May, 1994). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. E. PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS as of May 31, 1994. Rec: Receive and file. F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Parcel Map 27925 (Lowe Enterprises, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt . Resolution No. 94-61 approving Parcel Map 27925. 2 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESERt CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s * * s s s s** s** s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s G. REQUEST FOR TERMINATION of Easement - Desert Springs Market Place (Wailoa Development, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to record a Termination of Easement document associated with the Desert Springs Market Place project. H. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Declaration of Surplus Property and Disposal Authorization. Rec: By Minute Motion, declare the items in Attachment A of the staff report as surplus property and authorize disposal of same. I. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for the Widening of Haystack Road West of Portola Avenue (Contract No. C08800). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the widening of Haystack Road, south side, west of Portola Avenue. J. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Curb and Gutter and Cross Gutter Repair Program (Contract No. C08670). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with Contreras Construction Company in the amount of $208,979.00, and authorize a ten percent contingency in the amount of $20,897.90. K. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Construction of Street Modifications and Installation and Traffic Signal Installation for the Cook Street Extension, Frank Sinatra Drive to Interstate 10 (Contract No. C08710). Rec: By Minute Motion, award the subject contract to Granite Construction Company in the amount of $932,239.00 plus a contingency of $93,224.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. L. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL from Muni Financial Services, Inc. to Establish and Administer a Roads and Bridges Fee District for the Cook Street and I-10 Interchange (Contract No. C08750). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the proposal and enter into an agreement with Muni Financial Services, Inc. to establish and administer a Roads and Bridges Fees District for the Cook Street and I-10 Interchange for an amount not to exceed $20,000. 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COMMrING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M. REOUEST FOR AWARD OF BID PROPOSAL for Hydroseeding Ironwood Park and a Portion of the Civic Center Park, Phase III (Contract No. C08860). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the bid proposal from Southern California Hydroseed and Hydromulch, Inc. to hydroseed Bermuda "328 Stolons at City parks in the amount of $8,815.00 (Contract No. C08860). N. REOUEST FOR EXPANSION of Contract Street Sweeping for the Newly Annexed Area of Palm Desert Country Club (Contract No. C05200). Rec: By Minute Motion, expand the contract street sweeping service with Quality Street Services to include an additional 14.9 (main, weekly) curb miles and 25.5 (residential, bi-weekly) curb miles at a rate of $17.80 per curb mile, effective July 1, 1994. O. REOUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for 1994 Slurry Seal Program (Contract No. C08680). Rec: By Minute Motion, award the contract for the 1994 Slurry Seal Program to California Pavement Maintenance Co., Inc. in the amount of $231,233.35 and authorize a ten percent contingency in the amount of $23,123.34. P. REOUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CONTRACT with Carl Warren & Co. for Liability Claims Administration (Contract No. C00864). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve a one-year extension of Contract No. C00864 with Carl Warren & Co. for Liability Claims Administration; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute the "Letter Agreement" dated June 6, 1994, extending the contract to June 30, 1995. Q. REOUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract for Sage Lane and Highway 111 Street Improvements (Contract No. C07480). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion on Contract No. C07480 for the Sage Lane and Highway 111 street improvements project. R. REOUEST FOR RENEWAL of Contract for Project Management Services (Contract No. C04404). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize a one-year extension of the subject contract for services by the current contract project manager. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL -MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s S. REOUEST FOR RENEWAL of Contract for Landscape Specialist (Contract No. C03825). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize a one-year extension of the subject contract for services provided by the current landscape specialist. T. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of Pending Change Order for Toro Peak Storm Drain Phase I (Contract No. C07540). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize an additional $55,600.00 to cover the costs of realignment of storm drain pipe to a depth of fourteen feet deep to avoid a conflict with six-inch (6") high pressure gas main. U. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of City of Palm Desert/CVAG Agreement for Measure "A"/TUMF Funded Project for the Preparation of the Environmental Document, Plans, Specifications & Estimates, and Construction of the Monterey Avenue Bridge Over the Whitewater Storm Channel (Contract No. C08810). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Contract No. C08810, the "City of Palm Desert/CVAG Agreement for Measure 'A'/TUMF Funded Project for The Preparation of the Environmental Document, Plans, Specifications & Estimates, and Construction of the Monterey Avenue Bridge Over the Whitewater Storm Channel"; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. V. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Maps 27570-1 and 27570-2 (Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-62 approving Tract Maps 27570-1 and 27570-2. W. REQUEST FOR _RENEWAL of Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Contract (Contract No. C05371). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the renewal of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Contract with no changes at this time. X. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of Police Advisory Committee Recommendation on Publishing Juveniles' Names in the Local Newspapers. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve and forward to the State Legislators a recommendation to publish names of juveniles arrested for crimes of physical violence or destruction of property. 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL lbar.t.i u+G JUNE 23, 1994 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Y. BEOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of Police Advisory Committee Recommendation to Support the City of Modesto Resolution Relative to the City of Palm Desert's Support for a Change in the State Law to Allow Cities and Other Public Agencies to Adopt Ordinances Imposing Financial Responsibility on both the Perpetrator and Parents of Minor Children Who Commit Acts of Graffiti Vandalism. Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the recommendation of the Police Advisory Committee to support the City of Modesto resolution. Councilman Crites asked that Items K and R be removed for separate discussion under Section IX, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. Upon motion by Crites, second by Benson, and unanimous vote of the Council, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MR. CLAUDE BROWNING, 73.750 Catalina Way, Palm Desert, introduced Ms. Mary Kucala, the new Executive Director of the Joslyn Cove Communities Senior Center. MR. GORDON JENSEN addressed Council relative to the new baseball fields behind the Palm Desert Civic Center. He noted that tournaments had been scheduled to be held from July 18 through August 1, and he asked the Council grant permission for the use of the lights and that the use of the fields be extended to 10:00 p.m. during this time. He added that if they were not allowed to play at night, the games would have to be started at approximately 4:00 p.m., and it is too hot to play at this time. Mr. Altman noted that one of the conditions to be met prior to turning on the lights at the Civic Center ballfields was that the lighting at the College of the Desert be mitigated. He said staff could bring a report back to the Council at its next meeting regarding this mitigation. Mayor Wilson advised Mr. Jensen that the Council could not take action on this item at this time but that it would be added to the City Council Agenda for the meeting of July 14, 1994, and staff would bring a report to the Council relative to the mitigation measures for the lights at College of the Desert. 6 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL lbir r. -A ton JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 94-63 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A POLICY SUPPORTING THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY/ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY. Mr. Altman noted the report in the packets and recommended adoption of this resolution. Councilman Snyder moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-63. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. VIII. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None IX. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER K. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Construction of Street Modifications and Installation and Traffic Signal Installation for the Cook Street Extension, Frank Sinatra Drive to Interstate 10 (Contract No. C08710). Mr. Crites stated that the staff report indicated there would be one lane in each direction, and he asked staff to address that issue. Mr. Folkers responded that this was a typographical error in the staff report and that there would be two lanes in each direction. With that correction, Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, award the subject contract to Granite Construction Company in the amount of $932,239.00 plus a contingency of $93,224.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. 7 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * R. BEOUFST FOR RENEWAL of Contract for Project Management Services (Contract No. C04404). Councilman Crites stated that in view of the fact that the proposed 1994/95 budget includes letting several temporary employees go, he had asked that this item be removed for separate discussion so that he could vote against renewal of the contract. Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize a one-year extension of the subject contract for services by the current contract project manager. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by a 3-1 vote, with Councilman Crites voting NO. R. NEW BUSINESS A. $FOUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF PENALTY AND PARKING FEES RELATIVE TO HANDICAP PARKING VIOLATIONS. Mr. Ramsey noted that the staff report should be corrected to reflect two assessments of $2.50 each pursuant to Government Code Section 76000(b), for a total of $330.00 in penalties. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the changes as outlined by the City Attorney for Handicap Parking violations and revision to the bail schedule to reflect this change, as corrected by Mr. Ramsey. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. B. CONSIDBRATION OF RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF INDIO OPPOSING THE PROPOSED SALARY INCREASE OF THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT FOR STATE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. Mr. Altman stated that this item had been placed on the Agenda for Council direction. Councilman Snyder stated he felt such an increase was ludicrous, and he felt other cities should be encouraged to oppose the proposed salary increase. Councilman Crites stated there was nothing in the resolution that explained how the process worked and how such an increase was arrived at. He said it was his recollection that the citizens, through an initiative process several years ago, took the salary issue out of the hands of the legislators, and a separate body was created to handle this issue. He said he would abstain from voting on this matter but asked for clarification of the entire process. Councilman Snyderagreed that there was a separate body that determined the salary increase and that it was legal and proper; however, he said the intent of the Indio resolution was to protest the legislators' acceptance of the increase when they could easily turn it down and just not accept it. 8 MINUTFS _ REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s* s s s s* s s s s s s****•*** a*•*•* s s s s s s s t s s s Mayor Wilson questioned what other cities had done besides the City of Indio. He said he felt protesting the increase was politically a nice thing to do; however, he expressed concern with local government "putting its nose" into the business of the legislators in Sacramento. He said he would rather they let us do more in our local government and let them deal with the political issue of how much salary they are going to accept. Councilmember Benson stated that the newspaper indicated there was nothing we could do about the raise itself but that individual legislators could choose not to accept the raise, and citizens could let their legislators know how they felt about this matter. Councilman Snyder moved to continue this matter until such time as a more thorough investigation can be conducted with regard to what other cities are doing and ask that staff bring back a report regarding this issue. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. Mayor Wilson stated that Cal State had expected to take this MOU to the Board in July and, therefore, needed Council action at this time; however, Dr. Peter Wilson had indicated that because of other factors, they were now planning to wait until September to take this to the Board and that Council could actually wait to take action at its July 14, 1994, meeting. Mr. Diaz stated that one change would be to Section 3.2.1 to reflect that the City of Palm Desert would be the co -lead agency for the EIR instead of the lead agency. Dr. Peter Wilson explained that this was because an attorney in their chancellor's office had previously had a bad experience with a lead agency and felt more comfortable with the City sharing that position. Mayor Wilson stated he had met last week with representatives of the Chancellor's office, Dr. Wilson, Ray Diaz, and Paul Gibson to review the draft proposal, and he felt this draft MOU conveyed the spirit of what had been agreed upon at that meeting. Since the Councilmembers had not yet had a chance to review the MOU in detail, he suggested that the matter be continued to the Adjourned City Council meeting of Monday, June 27, 1994, so that everyone has the opportunity to review the document carefully. Councilman Crites stated his concern was with the City having a problem in the future (i.e., traffic patterns, etc.) with something that is being planned by the university and not having the ability to do something about it. Dr. Wilson noted the wording of the draft MOU beginning with Section 3.3.5 relative to development of a master plan for the campus. He said the intent was that the university would not do anything the City does not want it to do. 9 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL M Y ii i G JUNE 23, 1994 s * * s s s * * * * s s* * * * * * s s$ * * * * * s * * * 's * * * s s s s Councilman Crites stated he would like for the City Attorney to look at this issue. He reiterated his concern that down the road someone may say "we are done with consulting with the City and now we will do what we want on our land". Mayor Wilson stated that Chancellor's office staff and City staff were comfortable with the draft MOU; with one exception, addition of "co -lead agency", legal staff was also comfortable. He said the City Attorney could be asked to look at this and bring a report back at Monday's adjourned meeting. He added that he had faith that the City had enough flexibility in the MOU as worded. Mr. Erwin stated that he could a report for Monday's meeting. He added that Mr. Ortega had advised that the r..,r ... ly is owned by the Redevelopment Agency and, therefore, the Redevelopment Agency meeting would also need to be adjourned to Monday, June 27, 1994, to consider this item. Councilman Crites moved to continue this matter to the meeting of June 27, 1994, and direct the City Attorney, Ray Diaz, and Carlos Ortega to work with Dr. Peter Wilson of California State University on the final wording of the MOU. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. D. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Colony CableVision of California Update. Mr. Ortega noted the report in the packets relative to cable complaints received for the period June 1 - 16, 1994. Councilmember Benson questioned the complaint from a resident on Michigan and said she understood that this area of the City was serviced by the other cable company. Mr. Ortega responded that Total TV services part of this area but not all of it. He added that staff was working with Total TV relative to a franchise agreement. XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS None 10 MINUTES - REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XII. OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF LETTER FROM THE DESERT CHAPTER OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION RELATIVE TO RECENT ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO WAIVING SOME OF ITS BUILDING FFFS AND REQUESTING THAT THE CITY OF PALM DESERT ADOPT A SIMILAR ORDINANCE. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file this item. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. B. CONSIDERATION OF LETTER FROM MR. AND MRS. EDWARD J. LOCKER REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE WORDING OF PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.24.070 RELATIVE TO CONSTRUCTION HOURS. Mr. Altman noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. Councilmember Benson moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 152 to second reading, amending Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 9.24.070 to include the following wording "no person shall perform" so that the ordinance will apply to owners as well as contractors. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.28.020 OF CHAPTER 3.28 REDEFINING THE TERM "RENT" PERTAINING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES. Mr. Altman noted the memorandum from Code Compliance and recommended approval. Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 2 to second reading, amending Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 3.28.020 to clarify the definition of the term "rent". Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. D. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL FROM WASHINGTON SCHOOL RELATIVE TO THE CITY INVESTING IN A PORTABLE CLASSROOM TO BE USED AS A SCIENCE LAB. Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and recommendation that this be referred to the Desert Sands Unified School District to be considered as part of its request to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency for pass -through funds. Councilman Crites asked if these were the pass -through monies that were already passed through to the schools, and Mr. Ortega responded that they were. Councilman Crites stated he felt this was not a bad first step. He said the City had indicated it would look to see what can be done to help Washington School because of its charter school status, and he suggested 11 MIlVUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * that staff look to see what other options might be available if staffs recommendation is not received positively by the District. Mayor Wilson stated he had the same concerns. He said one of the concepts of a charter school is to give them autonomy, and this seems to throw them back to having to go to the District. He agreed with Councilman Crites that staff should check with the District to see if these funds are available; if not, let's come back and work something out where the City can be a participant in this charter school program. Councilmember Benson stated that although she was in favor of charter schools, she was concerned that they would come to the City any time they cannot finance something. Although the City said it would be supportive of the charter school, it did not say it would finance it. She expressed concern that if the Council approves this request, Washington School will come to the City every time they need something that the District will not give them. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve staffs recommendation to refer the matter to the Redevelopment Agency to utilize funds presently generated through Redevelopment pass - through agreements, with a request that staff also look for other options that would be brought back before the Council. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. E. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION OF STAFF PROCEEDING WITH GOING OUT TO BID AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TORO PEAK STORM DRAIN PROJECT, PHASES II AND III (CONTRACT NO. C0792©. Mr. Folkers noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Ratify staffs action of going out to bid and receiving bids for the Toro Peak Storm Drain (Phases II and III); 2) award the contract for Bid Alternate A - CIPP for the Toro Peak Storm Drain (Phases II and III) to Commercial Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $977,171.75 and authorize a fifteen percent contingency in the amount of $146,575.76, for a total of $1,123,747.51; ' 3) authorize an additional $41,000.00 to cover the costs of qualified cast in place pipe inspection services, soils engineer testing services, construction survey services, and permit fee costs from other agencies. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. 12 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETT NG JUNE 23, 1994 « * « « * * * * * * * * * * « * * « * * * « « * * * * * * * * * « « « « « « XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. Roma on Student Art Project for the Cook Street Interchange. Mr. Folkers reported that students from UCLA had done a semester -long program and had come up with some great ideas for the interchange. He noted that many people had indicated the freeway interchanges in Phoenix were impressive to see; the students looked at them, and he had subsequently been advised that what the students came up with was better than Phoenix. Mr. Folkers stated that staff was asking that an item be included on the next Agenda for a grant so that all interchanges in the Valley will have a common theme. Caltrans and the County of Riverside were in favor of this. B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Erwin requested a Closed Session at the appropriate time for the following reasons: Conference with labor negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: Name of Agency negotiator: William Floyd Name of employee organization: Palm Desert Employees Organization Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation pursuant to Section 54956.9: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b): Number of potential cases: 1 Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Section 54956.8 1) Property Street Address: 74-833 Joni Drive, Palm Desert Negotiating parties: Agency: City of Palm Desert Property Owner: City of Palm Desert Under Negotiation: x Price Terms of Payment 13 MINUTES --- REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 « « « « « * « « * « * « * « * * * * * * « « « * * * « * * « « * « * « « « s 2) Property Street Address: 73-555 El Paseo, Palm Desert Negotiating parties: Agency: City of Palm Desert Property Owner. Ahmanson Commercial Development (ACD21 Under Negotiation: x Price Terms of Payment 3) Property Assessor's Parcel Number: A Portion of APN 620-190-011 Negotiating parties: Agency: Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Under Negotiation: �_ Price _.E_ Terms of Payment C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: None o City Council Committee Reports: None XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None Councilman Crites moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:57 p.m. to Closed Session to discuss matters as indicated by the City Attorney. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Wilson 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 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL i i ttIG JUNE 23, 1994 s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XVII. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None XVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING "LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE" PERMITS AND SETTING A PERMIT FEE (Continued from the Meetings of March 10, April 14, April 28, and May 12, 1994). NOTE: A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A". B. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 ASSESSMENTS FOR PALM DESERT LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, ZONES 1 THROUGH 11. Mr. Tom Bassler reviewed the staff report, noting that following the public hearing, staff would determine the number of protests based on written protests received to date as well as other protests received during the meeting. He added that as a result of some comments and budget changes that will result in a savings for some property owners, staff recommended that the City Council include the budget changes presented for Zone 5 (Medians), Zone 7 (Waring Court), and Zone 11 (Portola Place). He noted that a representative from Muni Financial Services was available to answer any questions. Mr. Diaz reviewed the report relative to the Sonata Landscaping and Lighting District composed of 16 homes on a cul-de-sac at the southwest corner of Hovley Lane and Portola Avenue. He said that per Council direction a meeting had been held with homeowners of the Sonata subdivision concerning this maintenance district to discuss the possible creation of a homeowners association to maintain the exterior landscaping. It was made clear by the homeowners that they did not wish to create such a homeowners association; in addition, they indicated they did not wish to pay anything for maintenance of the exterior landscaping. He noted the district had been in place for three years, and the assessment for 1994/95 had been reduced to $309.88 from $315.76 last year. He stated there were several alternatives: 1) permit the landscaping to deteriorate; 2) continue the present program; 3) do not require landscaping along public streets and thoroughfares in all subdivisions from this point on. However, staffs recommendation was to continue what is currently being done. Staff felt an agreement was reached in 1991, and all obligations of that agreement had been met by the City. He said the landscaping on the Sonata tract was completely redone to water efficient landscaping at the City's expense; assessments are lower this year, and since the Sonata homeowners do not desire to establish a homeowners association to maintain the landscaping, the other options of allowing it to deteriorate or eliminating it altogether are unacceptable to staff. He offered to answer any questions. 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL:11u 1 LL G JUNE 23, 1994 a* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Crites noted that he wanted to ask the City Attorney to clarify an issue that came up at the last meeting where a gentleman had accused the Public Works Director of soliciting a bribe from him for testifying in a trial with the developer. He said at that meeting, he was not aware of the State law that pertains to this, and he asked that it be on the record as to why the Public Works Director brought up the issue of monetary payment. Mr. Erwin responded that he had a copy of Government Code Section 68096.1 relating to witness fees for City and County employees which requires that an employee of a city, if required to appear to testify as a witness with regard to anything done within the scope of their employment do so. It also requires that the party who requests them deposit with the City a deposit of $150.00, which is stated in the Code Section, to reimburse the City for the full cost incurred by the City per day of that individual being gone from their City position. He said that Code Section is in effect and was in effect at the time the hearing occurred that Mr. Folkers attended. He noted his recollection was that he had sent the Code Section to the City Clerk and had asked that she pass it on to the Department Heads so they would all be aware of it and comply with it. That was the reason for any request that Mr. Folkers might have made. Councilman Crites added that he wanted there to be absolutely no doubt that what Mr. Folkers did was exactly what the Government Code requires and what the City Attorney had told him to do and that anything to the contrary is a flat lie. He said he was proud of Mr. Folkers and the City employees. Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. He noted he would request the testimony by project as follows: Zone #1 - Presidents Plaza Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #2 - Canyon Cove Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #3 - Vineva Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s* s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s Zone #4 - Parkview Estates Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #5 - Cook and Country Club - Median Mrs. Gilligan noted that six written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #5 - Cook and Country Club -_Mirage Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #5 - Cook and Country Club - Sandcastle Mrs. Gilligan noted that one written protest had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone i6 - Hovlev Lane - Meadows Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #6 - Hovley Lane - The Olen Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #6 - Hovley Lane - The Estates Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #6 - Hovley Lane - Sonata 1 Mrs. Gilligan noted that 13 written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience. MR. ROGER HUGHES, 40-896 Sonata Court, stated that he had left the Tuesday meeting with the feeling that problems are still unresolved. He asked that Council delay imposing the assessment until some sort of agreement is reached. 17 MEN 1r.� _ - - REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL Mrr.iuiG JUNE 23, 1994 * s s s s s * s*•*•••****** s s s s* s * * * s s * s s* * s s Councilman Crites asked for clarification of "agreement". He said he had read that the homeowners do not want to undertake this themselves and would also prefer that the City not do it either. Mr. Hughes stated that there were a number of people very definitely opposed to the assessment. They were not able to attend this meeting because they would be going to court the next day with their case against Barcon, the developer of Sonata 1. He said they expected enactment of this assessment would be delayed until after the court case when they could have additional discussion with the City. He said several of the homeowners felt the assessment was higher than it should be; others felt there should not be any assessment at all. He questioned The Glen paying almost $100 less than they were being assessed. At the request of Mr. Erwin, Mr. Hughes explained that the court case was between individual owners and Barcon and that the City was not part of the case. Upon question by Councilman Crites, Mr. Hughes stated that he personally did not want a homeowners association and would prefer that the City continue to maintain the landscaping. He said he was concerned about the cost, but then everyone is concerned about that. Mr. Bassler stated that at the close of the public hearing he would address the issue brought up by Mr. Hughes relative to The Glen. Zone #6 - Hovley Lane - Sonata 2 Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #6 - Hovley Lane - Collection Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #7 - Waring Court Mrs. Gilligan noted that one written protest had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #8 - Palm Gate Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. 18 ME5 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * *ssss * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Zone #9 - The Grove Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #10 - Dinah Shore Medians Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. Zone #11 - Portola Place Mrs. Gilligan noted that no written protests had been received. Mayor Wilson invited testimony from the audience, and no testimony was offered. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Bassler stated that the letter from Sonata 1 compared the project to The Glen, which is the same size project basically in maintenance frontage. He said The Glen was originally designed with water efficient landscaping at the onset. Although the size of the projects was similar, they were not exact. He reviewed the differences between the two projects, including the following: 1) Sonata 1 has a street light where The Glen does not; 2) water costs for Sonata 1 are calculated at $600 for the year where The Glen is calculated at $500 due to the retrofit at Sonata 1; 3) The Glen presently has a full reserve balance in its account, where Sonata 1 does not, and a reserve must be included in the assessment so that the City has operating funds for the six months of the year prior to receiving any money from collection of taxes. He said there was a comment in the letter from Mr. Eldred indicating the City had stated it would not raise the Sonata assessment more than 4% a year. He said the City normally tries to keep the increase for all assessment districts to a cost of living adjustment. He noted that if the City had arbitrarily done a 4% annual increase as suggested, we would have collected a total of $1301 over the 4-year period, which would be $97 more than what has been collected so far. Therefore, the City had kept the assessments for Sonata 1 over a 4-year period to under 4% per year. Mayor Wilson reopened the public hearing and asked whether the gentleman from Sonata 1 had any comments relative to what staff had just reported. No comments were offered, and he declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Wilson stated that basically there were minimal protests except for Sonata 1 which had 13 protests out of 16 parcels. 19 MINVTTS -- REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 *.*,: s s s****• s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s w s« s s s s s Mr. Bassler stated that the decision at this point was up to the Council because there was no increase in the assessment this year. The only thing Council would have to be concerned with legally was if there was an increase in the assessment and a majority protest, the assessment would have to be rolled back to the prior year's accecsment. He noted that there was a limited time to get these assessments on the tax roll, and if no amc-menu are collected for this year, the City will not have funds to operate the district; staff would then have to ask Council for funds until the situation can be corrected. He said staff recommended that the assecsments be levied as proposed. Mayor Wilson stated that the request from Sonata 1 was for additional time because of litigation. He asked how much time the City had to meet the deadline for getting the assessments on the tax roll. MR. JIM McGUIRE of Muni Financial Services responded that in this case the best thing would be to levy the assessments as proposed and if at some point in time during the fiscal year negotiations continue with property owners and they create a homeowners association or come up with another feasible method of paying for the landscaping, the Council can handle this through the appeals process and refund the money to the owners. Councilman Crites complimented Mr. Bassler for his explanations. Councilman Crites moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-64 approving the final levy report as amended by staff; 2) waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-65 ordering the levy and collection of aCSecsments as approved. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Councilman Crites commended staff and said the Council three years ago said it would do its best to make sure assessment costs do not go way up, and it was evident from the reports that costs are being kept down. He expressed a "well done" to staff. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION- OF VARIOUS ACTIONS . WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 94-1 (BIGHORN). Mr. Ortega noted the report in the packets from Mr. David Yrigoyen and offered to answer any questions. Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing gin and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this matter. MR. EDWARD BURGER, 47-270 Heliotrope, Palm Desert, said he owned a home under construction at Bighorn and was opposed to this assessment district. He said although this would not apply to his lot, it would ultimately negatively impact him as far as property values. He added that he felt he should have been given notice of this hearing. He said he had contacted nine lot owners that day, and no none had received notice of the hearing. 20 MS REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL 1ET'ING JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s Mr. Yrigoyen stated that it was the contention of the assessment district counsel that the persons requiring notification were those actually impacted by the district. At this point in time, the assessment district only impacts Westinghouse Desert Communities, and that will be the only owner actually assessed. He explained how the process would take place, noting that the cost of the overall improvements was taken into consideration, and those lots currently under construction were considered as having paid for those improvements through the original sale. Mr. Burger stated that when he purchased his lot, Westinghouse assured him that it as a big corporation that had no financial problems and would see this project to completion. He said he did not feel it was morally or ethically right to do an assessment district, and he said he expressed concern that -Westinghouse would be taking money out of this project and leaving town. He said they had no concern for the City of Palm Desert, and he strongly encouraged denial of the assessment district. If the City would not do so, he asked that it at least postpone taking action until the other lot owners in Bighorn are notified. He added that he was speaking at this time on behalf of the other nine lot owners he had contacted. Mayor Wilson suggested that Council respond to the request for a continuance and direct staff to notify all parcel owners who have not been notified about the continued public hearing. Mr. Yrigoyen noted that this was a case where the new law which took affect helps the process move along because this is a public meeting for the purpose of receiving input regarding formation of the district. He said the actual public hearing for the project was scheduled for July 14, 1994, at which time Council would be asked to take action. Staff could notify other property owners and let them know the official public hearing would take place on July 14th at which time they would have the opportunity to speak. Upon question by Mayor Wilson, Mr. Yrigoyen responded that the resolution could be continued to that July 14th meeting. Mr. Ortega asked the City Attorney what would be the purpose of notifying everyone, since they are not going to be affected by the district. Mr. Erwin responded that the Council is entitled to do so; however, from the standpoint of the assessment district, those protests to be considered in a legal context would be those affected directly by the assessment district. MR. TIM ENSIGN, Westinghouse Desert Communities, 255 Palowet, Palm Desert, stated they had initially brought this petition forward to the City to create an assessment district at Bighorn. He said he felt it would be inappropriate for him to debate things brought up by Mr. Burger; however, he said he did take exception to him saying that Westinghouse was only out for itself and was not interested in the City of Palm Desert. He said they had shown over the last four years that they are very community minded, and they felt strongly that the assessment district would be an enhancement to Bighorn. He said the proceeds of the bond issue would be used to improve Highway 74 and make sure water infrastructure improvements were in place. He said he also felt the homeowners were the biggest sales 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL 11-rr tr i zeiG JUNE 23,1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * asset at Bighorn, and he wanted to canvass the concerns they have and sit down to discuss those concerns with them. Councilman Crites echoed Mr. Ensign's comments and said he did not think the City had had a better citizen in Palm Desert than Westinghouse. Mr. Burger stated that he was not necessarily referring to Westinghouse Desert Communities locally but said the Westinghouse billion dollar conglomeration was what he was referring to. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, declare that a public meeting has been held as required by Government Code Section 54954.6 regarding the Bighorn Assessment District No. 94-1 to receive testimony. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. Councilman Snyder moved to continue Resolution No. 94-66 to the meeting of July 14, 1994, and direct staff to notify all r.,,r.tJ owners that a public hearing will be held on July 14, 1994. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. D. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 (Joint Public Hearing with the Palm rt Redevelopment Agency). Mayor/Chairman Wilson noted that the Council/Agency had met with staff and had thoroughly reviewed the proposed budget. He declared the public hearingn and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this matter. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember/Member Benson stated that she would like to see included in the budget the $5,000 for the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy per the memorandum from Councilman Crites. Snyder agreed. Mr. Gibson noted that this request had been discussed by the Charitable Contributions Committee at its last meeting. Mayor/Chairman Wilson commended the City Manager and department heads for again doing a thorough job of scrutinizing the budgets, taking requests and paring them down to realistic amounts so that the City of Palm Desert can continue its long tradition of having a balanced, healthy budget. 22 IV1INUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman/Member Crites moved to: 1) Approve the factors used in calculating the Gann Limit per discussion and waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-67, adopting the 1994/95 Appropriation Limit at $26,864,877 as per calculation; 2) waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-68, adopting a program and financial plan for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995, including the $5,000 request for the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy as noted the Councilmember Benson; 3) waive further reading and adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 295, adopting a program and financial plan for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. XIX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D None XX. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Crites, second by Snyder, and unanimous vote of the City Council, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Monday, June 27, 1994. ATTEST: / SHEILA R. GILLTOAN, CITY CL CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALH ORNIA Y WILSON, MAYOR 23 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL bir c.1.6 v JUNE 23, 1994 s s s* s s * s * * s s * * * s****•***** * * s s* s$ s * * L' A[ILDll "A" A. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING "LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE" PERMITS AND SETTING A PERMIT FEE (Continued from the Meetings of March 10, April 14, April 28, and May 12, 1994). NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING. KEY (in the order in which they spoke): SRW S. Roy Wilson, Mayor BAA Bruce A. Altman, City Manager RAD Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development/Planning BAC Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro-Tempore JMB Jean M. Benson, Councilmember DM Doris Mechanick CRP Carrie Rose Parduhn DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney PC Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety YS Yolanda Sanchez RW Renee Wolfrom KN Katherine Neiburger SF Susan Fogel WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman PVV Paul Van Veen ASY Anne Simmon Young BP Buck Pruett TT Terri Taylor LE Lavonne Edmanson MH Mary Ann Hernandez SR Susan Reed JS Janice Sunday LY Lyle Young RD Rick Derazin SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/Public Information Officer SRW First, I hereby declare the public hearing open, and I'll ask for Mr. Altman to give us that stab report. BAA Mr. Diaz will give the staff report. RAD Yes, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. Basically what we have before us this evening, if you will, are for all practical purposes two ordinances for your consideration: one ordinance as recommended to you by the Planning Commission and staff, and that ordinance revised and amended as a result of meetings held with some day care providers and Councilmember Benson and some members of the staff. The staff report dated May 5, 1994, from the Deputy City 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT- CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * s s s s$ s* s* s s s$ s s s s s s s* s* s s s* s s$** s$$ s s LAnlBii "A" Attorney, has a cross-out/insert version of the ordinance. At this time, I'd like to kind of focus on what I believe are probably the major issues or differences between the two ordinances. Before doing that, though, I'd like to clarify a fee amount that's been mentioned in the community, I've received calls, that large family day care providers would be required under this ordinance to pay a fee ranging from $16 to $2300 a year. I don't know where that information emanated from - it is not in the ordinance. I've contacted our Code Enforcement people; there are no such provisions in our business licenses. If it is there somewhere, we would recommend repealing it and taking it out, but I don't believe that it is there. The major differences, I believe, between the two ordinances, and I'm not going to argue here whether or not under the State laws we can do what we are recommending under this ordinance or we can't. Council has received a copy of a report from the State Legislative Analyst and staffs response to that report as well as the response from the Deputy City Attorney also identifying three communities that have large family day care ordinances that are even more stringent than the one you have before you this evening. The first area of difference or what I consider probably one of the most significate areas of differences revolves around the number of children that a large family day care may have. Under our ordinance we limit it to 12 children per day, defining "per day" as one calendar day. It is proposed that the number be limited to 12 children at any one time, thus a family could drop off the child, pick the child up, and another family could drop off another child, and so on, as long as there are only 12 at any one time. The reason that staff limited it to 12 per day is the feeling that the entire ordinance, the purpose of the ordinance, is to make the large family day care facility compatible with residential areas. In terms of traffic generated by single family residential homes, the normal number is 10 vehicle trips per day. Obviously as you increase the number of children that are picked up and left, those trips would increase. Now this does not mean that there is no possible way for a day care facility to be established in a neighborhood and not have more than 12 children per day or even at any one time, but if that were to occur, then a different permit, a Conditional Use Permit, would be applied for, a different set of findings would have to be approved, but the permit could be granted. At the time that this ordinance was being heard by the Planning Commission, that same evening a Conditional Use Permit for a 35-child day care facility in a single family residential neighborhood, the permit was heard and approved. So what we're saying here is not that you can't do it, but if you want to come in under the large day care facility, we want you to be limited to 12 per day. The next area of concern is the hours of operation. We have limited or suggested that the hours of operation be limited to between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, with no outdoor play before 9 a.m. or after 5:30 p.m. Again, the reason for that has to do with the noise provision in this case of the Code and, again, attempting to have the large family day care center be as compatible as possible with single family residential neighborhoods. Again, if someone wished to operate 24 hours a day and have any hours of outdoor play, again a different permit could be applied for, and if the folks in that neighborhood did not object, it could be granted. What we're doing here is saying let's give the people in single family residential areas 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s * s s * s s s s s s s s s s * * s s * s s s s r.Anuna1 "A" some voice in terms of what happens, and if they don't have a problem and no one has a problem, we will approve it. The other major area of concern had to do with the grandparenting of existing large family day care centers. Initially, staff wished to have these brought about under the permit procedure, and there is a distance requirement between large family day care facilities. Staff would recommend that we grandparent the existing large family day care facilities but have them come in, apply for the permit, but we waive the distance requirement and grandparent that particular requirement in so at such time as that particular facility ceased to operate, then that would be it. The other differences, the one other difference that I think we had between the two ordinances revolved around the identification of a plot plan being given to the City identifying the play areas and play equipment. Again, the reason for that deals with noise and perhaps visual impacts on adjoining properties. I think Council will recall one case that we had where a tree house was built that we virtually could do nothing about. We have since revised the ordinance in that area. Again, that is not going to be a major expenditure. It's not the staffs intent to eliminate these uses; in fact, we are encouraging these uses. But again, our sole purpose here is to make sure that the large family day care center is not only child friendly but also neighborhood friendly, and that's why the ordinance that you have before you. We have obviously many alternatives. We could amend any provision in this ordinance. The other alternative that the City can adopt is to merely allow the large family day care center as a matter of right. That would mean that instead of the current number of six children which we have no permit or no control over the operation, we would increase that number from six to twelve, and that could be done. The State gives us the option. Staff would recommend to the Council that you affirm the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopt the ordinance that you have before you as recommended by staff. And I'm prepared to answer any questions. SRW Any questions of Mr. Diaz from the Council? BAC Just a couple. The ordinance that I have in front of me that's at the top of my packet, the revised ordinance, has been changed to say "12 children at any one time"; is that correct? RAD Yes. BAC Okay. So this issue of 12 per day and 12 at any one time is not an issue in the revised ordinance? RAD In the revised ordinance. BAC Okay. The revised ordinance says also the 9 a.m./5:30 play time provision is also stricken, is that correct? 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s.* s s s s s s s s*** s**** s s s*** s s s s s s* s s s s s s LArt, L :A i "A" RAD That's correct. BAC The request or requirement of an applicant to present a plot plan showing permanent structures and so on is, however, still part of the revised ordinance? JMB Yes. BAC I'm just mating sure the audience knows which issues they may want to visit about and which they don't need to in this particular case. So that remains a part of it? RAD Yes. BAC And one other thing. In the opening comments on the staff report, it says that revisions in State law relating to day care facilities necessitates the establishment of this procedure. Later on, it seems as though what State law does is allow the procedure. Which is the correct term? RAD If we wish to control, then the ordinance is necessitated. We do not have to adopt it. If we don't adopt it then there's... BAC The proper thing is, then, in reality the law allows us to do this. RAD We do not have to adopt this ordinance and adopt these controls. BAC Thank you. SRW Any other questions of Mr. Diaz from Council? If not, I'd like to ask Councilmember Benson if she has any comments regarding the process that transpired from the original staff developed ordinance to the revised ordinance. JMB We did have two meetings; we had one and went over the areas of disagreement from the one that came forward from the Planning Commission, and we had a second meeting which we fine-tuned the corrections that we had made or the suggested corrections we had made the first time, and again changed some things in it. I guess I feel that some of the things that came from the Planning Commission, if you're a mother and you know that, or a day care operator, having the main one was the 12 children per day, not at any one time, was not consistent because different people work at different times, if they can have 12, that's fine. They don't have to have six in the morning and then lose them in the afternoon when they could be making them up. The hours was another area that I felt was not right. The things that are still left unresolved in it I'm sure you'll hear about tonight, and I'll reserve comment from what the Committee thought until the people get through speaking. SRW Okay, thank you. Question? 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL 11i L i ii1G JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r.Aaui i "A" BAC Just a question to Jean. In reading this, I perceive that the biggest single thing that is in this is the ability to set distance requirements between large family day care centers and that if you're a resident in a single family residential zone that you won't be impacted by having more than one of them adjacent to your r..,r:..t . Is that a fair... JMB That is still in the... BAC And that's a key issue... JMB That's a key issue that is still in here. We have 300 feet notification still left in the ordinance. The other thing left in there was the grandfathering, and there was a very specific reason for leaving that in is that this case a neighborhood complainant did bring this to us. We don't know if there are other neighbors out there that have not had a chance to speak and have been living with clay care centers near them and would like to object to it. So we need to know that because it's my opinion that we're here to protect the residential neighborhood as well as the day care center, and certainly no one is more concerned about child care or has worked harder in this Valley to regulate it, to get more of it, and to see that it is done right, but we also have the obligation to our constituents as well as to the people opening a business. SRW Thank you. Any other questions of Jean or staff? If not, this is a public hearing. I have a number of cards, and I'll go through the cards first and then if there's additional testimony we'll welcome that. First card I have is from Doris Mechanick. When I call your name, would you come forward and, for the tape recorder, state your name and address for the record. DM My name is Doris Mechanick, I'm the Coachella Valley Child Care Coordinator. I live at 45-385 Pawnee Road, Indian Wells. I work at Riverside County Office of Education in Indio, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the Council, the Mayor, and particularly Jean Benson for the continuances that we were allowed so that we could have had the dialogue with the committee and had the opportunity to share our concerns. I think that we reached some consensus and, personally, there are two that I would like to see changed, one in particular. I'd like to see you adopt the revised ordinance. I think that the providers who have been providing care, some for more than ten years, should be grandfathered in. They've been doing a wonderful job, and nobody has complained about the existing care that has been delivered, and I think we need to make the differentiation between a day care center and a day care home. Home care is 12 or less; a child care center is 12 or more. So we're talking about home care. I think if there are a few homes doing child care in an area, 300 feet is excessive, 100 feet is acceptable. But if we could choose but one, I would prefer to see the grandparenting in with this application. Thank you. SRW Thank you. So if I understand you correctly, you support the revisions that have been made in the revised ordinance with the exception of the grandparenting and the 300 vs. 100, you'd be willing to compromise in favor of grandfathering if you had to give one up. Thank you. Next person is Carrie Rose Parduhn...my apologies if I mispronounce that name, if you would restate it and your address please. 28 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s 1LAnIDII "A" CRP That's okay. It's Carrie Rose Parduhn. My address is 52-080 Avenida Alvarado, La Quinta, and I'm a day care provider for six. I'm also the Vice President of the Coachella Valley Family Child Care Association. We decided instead of having everyone come up like last time to speak, that I would be their speaker. So if you don't mind, I could read what we came up with. SRW We appreciate that. Thank you. CRP We, 25 members of the Coachella Valley Family Child Care Association, would like to voice our disapproval of the Palm Desert's proposed and revised City ordinance towards family day care homes that are licensed for 12 children. Starting with the proposed ordinance 25.72A.040, Notice to Property Owners - we oppose the 300 foot radius of exterior boundaries to other property owners. We feel we are protected under the California Health and Safety Code Division 2 Chapter 3.6 under provision 1597.46 that states we are legally allowed 100 foot radius. We feel that this proposal would be an inconvenience to Palm Desert City, to the providers, and also limiting family child care to our community. We are also against proposed Ordinance 25.72A.050, Decision by the Zoning Administration. We oppose this type of control and your use of discretion. According to State law, local municipals must treat a large family day care in one of three ways, which they were stated earlier. The permitted use, which is the same for license for 6, grant us a non -discretionary permit using only the four issues (which are space and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control). This permit would be granted by the administrator in the Planning Department without notice to neighbors, without the requirement of a public hearing. We realize a fee may be involved for the review and process, and this fee should not exceed the cost of that review and process. Any regulation of family day care homes beyond the four areas would be in conflict with California State law. The third option would be the Conditional Use Permits that you mentioned. Again, the four issues (space, traffic, parking and noise). Any notice to neighbors concerning the pending application is to be sent to those within a 100 foot radius of the family day care home. Usual CUP process allows notice to property owners within a 300 foot radius. This exempts us from that law. Fees charged to providers cannot exceed the cost of the review and permit process. We oppose the additional building inspection under the same proposed ordinance because we have complied with building inspections at State level. We know a fire and life safety inspection is done by the State Fire Marshal and this paperwork is approved by Community Care Licensing. They are an agency regulated by the State of California. Since Community Care Licensing regulates the physical requirements of our child care homes, City planners should leave these issues to the State. It states in the Health and Safety Code 1597.46 Section D3 that "no city, county, city and county, or district shall adopt or enforce any building ordinance or local rule of regulation relating to the subject of fire and life safety in large family day care homes which is inconsistent with those standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal, except to the extent the building ordinance or local rule or regulation applies to single family residence in which day care is not provided." Two inspections are not needed under this section of the California State law. 29 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .t Aruni I "A" It's a well established principle of constitutional law that local enactments which conflict with State legislation of a State-wide concern must yield to State law. There are direct conflicts with State regulation of a large family clay care home in your revised i.....,..w.l. We would like to comment on a quote from a memo dated May 24, 1994, Assistant City Manager's question to the City Manager: "Why would anyone desire to reside on a street with a child care center with no real limitation on hours of operation or number of children taken care of in any 24 hour period?" Again, we are not child care centers; we are family day care homes providing children the home environment which is conducive to a healthy and safe development. It is the public policy of the State of California to provide children in a family day care home the same environment as provided in a traditional home setting as stated in 1597.40A of the Health and Safety Code. Your concerned limitations on traffic due to the State permitting 12 children in our care at any one time is not making part-time working parents able to utilize our programs. Why do you feel that you need to control the Palm Desert working parents? We are a much needed community service to this city, and all working parents to have young children. To this date, family day care is the only option for working parents with infants and young children. Most centers require the baby to be 18 months and/or potty trained. Research has proved that babies do not thrive in institutions anyway, and communities should be pleased with family day care homes in their neighborhoods. The three desert hospitals have a proposed estimate of 3,000 babies being born every year. Please let us do our jobs as economically and hassle -free as we possibly can. Consider in your vote tonight that we are willing to comply to reasonable rules and regulations. The excess fees that are imposed on us will have to be absorbed by our clients, the parents, who are paying child care costs and basically living from paycheck to paycheck as it is. We would like to comment...that's all we'd like to comment on. SRW Okay. CRP I have a list of all our names and some signatures, if you'd like them. SRW Give those to the City Clerk right over there, and thank you. If you could stand by for a second for a couple of questions. For my clarification, you made reference to excess fees. Mr. Diaz, could you spell out for me what kind of excess fees we're talking about? RAD I'm not aware of any. The section relating to the application fee, 25.72A.030, the last sentence specifically states "Said fee shall not exceed the City's cost of administering the review and permit process" which I think is similar to what was said by the speaker earlier. One, we legally can't charge more, but two, it's spelled out. An exact amount I can't give you because... SRW What are we talking about...status quo, what exists today, what adoption of this ordinance would bring about as far as additional fees. RAD The application fee we'd be talking about would not exceed $50.00 (that's a one-time fee) and then, if Council wished, it could have a renewal fee similar to the home business licenses of $15.00 per year or that could be waived, but that would be it. 30 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL I4ir r, i u iG JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * s * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * s * * r. nin1 i "A" SRW Would the setting of those fees come back to the Council? RAD Yes, the setting of the fees would come back to the Council. SRW Your presentation was very clear. I just wanted to get in my own mind a Little clarification. You basically feel we should not adopt any ordinance. If we were to adopt an ordinance; i.e., the revised ordinance which is before us, what parts of that do you find most objectionable, or do you want to get into that kind of detail? CRP The main part was the radius... SRW The 300 vs. 100? CRP Right. The other one was the double inspection. I'm sure there are fees if you had your building inspector come to our family day care homes. Would we have to pay for that? BAC Let me ask about that. I read in this revised proposal that "a copy of the applicable State licensing evaluation report covering these issues can be found by City staff to be sufficient" so that there is no requirement for a separate. CRP It seemed a gray area because you did mention a building inspection along with the State Fire Marshal. BAC Right, and then the end of that paragraph says we can accept the State's... CRP Okay, that's... BAC However, if... CRP It's stated that it's not... BAC No, it says we can. And what your comment earlier was is that we can't do anything that is in contravention of State law, which is true in everything, but as an example if a City chose to have more stringent fire requirements or more stringent x, y, or z requirements, which we on some cases do, then we enforce those. But we can't do anything that goes against what the State sets forth, and we can have the option if that never happens to simply have no inspection whatsoever. So, it's there, and I think fairly clearly. CRP It didn't feel clear to us. We thought that you could require a building inspection on someone if you wanted to do that. BAC If there was a reason for it, not just to do it. 31 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAr1D11 MAN CRP But if we're already approved through the State licensing and through the State Fire Marshal, I don't see why you would need further inspections. SRW Mr. Erwin... DJE Mr. Mayor, in the last meeting, there was some discussion regarding particularly the fire inspections. I think in the process, Mr. Van Veen, the facts that I got from him would indicate to me that the inspector that is used in the State licensing process is the same City inspector, so that there's no reason to have two. I mean, it is the same department, it's the same individual. CRP Okay. But you could see my concern if there were several inspections... DJE Yes, we did not know that at the time we were talking about it before, but I think we have now verified that it is the same one. That certainly would be the one used by the City. SRW So assuming that it's one and the same, State rather than another additional inspector, that wouldn't be a problem, but the distance is a problem, or are there other issues that... CRP The time of day, that too. Everything that we follow through our licensing department doesn't really coincide with what you're trying to propose. SRW I believe in the revised, the time of day has been eliminated, so that is not in the revised. CRP Okay. SRW Does that pretty much address your secondary concerns? CRP Yes. SRW Grandparenting...is that an issue? CRP That's...we are in agreement. SRW Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate you all coming together and solidifying that comment. That helps very much. CRP Thank you very much. SRW Mr. Conlon, I saw you standing up. Did you have any additional comment on the inspection? Mr. Conlon is our Director of Building and Safety. PC That is true. The speaker is correct that our local.fire inspector is delegated by the State to do the inspection on the house. There are sometimes in the past that a fire inspector has noticed a health problem with the house - maybe a restroom might not be working - or there would be some sort 32 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s EXHIBIT "A" of structural building problem which he has turned over to our department in the past to help get corrected before the deputy inspector would approve the license. So... SRW But that's built into the current process, is that right? PC That is correct. That's true. Currently what we do now with the State of California. The speaker is correct, though, that the State Fire Marshal has the inspection requirements over the day care. However, we do have, sometimes when it's turned over to our department, we do have some other areas that we look at. SRW Thank you very much. Okay, our next speaker is Yolanda Sanchez, I believe. YS Hi, my name is Yolanda Sanchez, 41-260 Dixon Drive, Hemet, California, and I'm the President of the Mid -County Child Care Association, and I am representing our group. The one issue that I would like to address tonight is the noise control issue. We oppose the noise control issue, which includes the solid fencing and which also includes the locations of play equipment and the placement of permanent outdoor play equipment. State licensing does not require us to have fencing or solid fencing around our property or otherwise as long as the children are supervised at all times. Also, the noise, if you regulate our noise for children, then I feel it's only right that you regulate the other small businesses in your city. Thank you. SRW Thank you very much. Next is Renee Wolfrom. RW Hi, I'm Renee Wolfrom, 15101 Paige Avenue, Moreno Valley. I'm here as the representative for the Moreno Valley Child Care Association, and we are in opposition to your notice to property owners. It is within my understanding that a 300 yard radius is usually applied to a Conditional Use Permit, and the State ordinance already allows a 100 yard radius. This area is in great need of child care, and this type of ordinance would serve as a deterrent to any women who decided they wanted to be a child care provider with more ordinances and laws put on them. Thank you. SRW Thank you very much. Katherine Neiburger... KN Hello, my name is Katherine Dawn Neiburger, my address is 37530 Los Alamos Road in Murrieta. There's a couple different things that I'd like to discuss tonight, and one has already been mentioned several times is the ordinance of everyone within 300 feet being notified. Again, the State says 100 feet is appropriate, and living in the city that I do, we went through the same process and they agreed on 100 feet. I think 300 feet is excessive. And the other thing is the solid fence. And then, if it was also considering the hours of operation, which that has been dropped. Solid fencing, I know in my day care, when we go outside in the morning or at any time where we might be noisy, we use our "nice neighbor voices", and that's what we call them, and that's what the kids know them as. So we don't go out and we don't scream and we don't holler to make our neighbors possible get upset. So we try and use our nice neighbor voices and to be able to be nice to our neighbors; otherwise, they're not going to want us there either. And I think it's a blanket thing that everyone tries to be respectful to their neighbors. That's all. 33 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL hint'✓ i u1G NNE 23, 1994 * * * * « « * « * * * * * * * * * * * * « * * * « * « « « * * * * * * * * * r.MlI111711 "A" SRW Thank you very much. BAC May I ask a question? The ordinance as it's proposed doesn't require solid fences or anything of that nature. It says that such things may be. Would your concern to that issue be alleviated if a phrase would be inserted in that that additional conditions for noise control, such as fencing, etc. etc. "may be instituted upon the proven existence of an ongoing noise problem". KN Yes. BAC Okay. I don't think it was anybody's intent to make this happen automatically, which is why the word "may" is in there, but, you know, if there's a problem, here are options that can be pursued. KN The way that you stated it would be a whole lot better... BAC Jean... IMB That was the intent. BAC Okay, then as one issue then under 25.72A.050 Section D, line 3, "Additional conditions may be placed on use permits to reduce noise if proven ongoing problems exist..." KN Thank you. SRW Thank you. Susan Fogel. SF My name is Susan Fogel. I'm a staff attorney with the California Women's Law Center. Our address is 6024 Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles. We are a non-profit agency that provides policy and support to legal services agencies and community -based organizations on many issues related to women and girls. Child care is one of the most important issues that we deal with. We have reviewed and revised and worked with many cities throughout California as they move forward to adopt ordinances to regulate family chird care. I, too, would endorse the speaker's recommendation that this ordinance not be adopted. I'm a little confused, and pardon me if I ask a question before I speak, as to whether you have both the revised and the original ordinance before you. Therefore, I would like to address some of my comments to both. But first of all, I'd like to point out two areas that were not addressed as differences between the two ordinances that are very important. One of them in the original ordinance required the written permission of the owner of the if it was a rental That requirement is directly contrary to State law. SRW That's been changed... BAC We have a copy of the original, but the document that we are looking at this evening is the revised ordinance, so... 34 MINUTES — _ -- REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s$ s s s s s s s s s s s s * * * * s s * * * * * * *** s r,Anini i "A" SF Okay. DJE Technically, the document you are looking at is the original with the changes lined out with additions highlighted. SF Right, and I believe I have that copy. But I was concerned as to whether some of the original language was still on the table or not, and if it is I feel I need to address it, so that is one of the issues I do want to point out. A second...first of all, I think it's very important that you want to move forward and you want to recognize the importance of child care in your community. Not all parents have the same child care needs, however, and not all types of child care work for all families or for all children. That is why the State Legislature preempted local regulation in most area of child care in order to make sure that there were viable child care options available in all the communities of California so that working parents can go to work. And we all depend on other people being at work to provide all the services that we need, and they need child care for their children. Family day care offers one of the most important vehicles for delivering child care in our community, and especially for younger children who are not eligible for preschool, are not in school yet, our parents need some place for them to go. The purpose of family day care, as recognized by the Legislature, was to provide child care for children in their own neighborhood in a traditional residential setting, and, therefore, that is the task of your ordinance, to make sure that that is protected. The Legislature has outlined only four areas that can be regulated. One is noise, traffic, parking, and what's called space and concentration which is how far apart different day cares can be. As far as your question about noise was concerned, the statute very clearly says (tape unclear) have a regulation. I know you were very well intended, and I really appreciate that. But you cannot have additional requirements. You may regulate children's noise, you may regulate leaf blowers, you may regulate trucks going down your streets in terms of noise, but you cannot have special conditions for children. And the legislation even says that you must take into consideration the noise that is generated by children, so the Legislature has already said that noise ordinances must be consistent with the kinds of noises that children make. So the element of the ordinance that gives you the right to impose additional conditions is not legal. Yes? BAC Let me ask a question, then. Assuming that you take into special consideration all of that, in a normal business setting, a business that consistently violates those standards is simply closed. SF And you have the right to do that, you have that right in your ordinance. BAC Well, would it not be a better world to give people an opportunity to attenuate that as versus what you're saying, to treat them like any other commercial business? SF That's why you have a review process. You've already dealt with that. In other words, your ordinance provides for that. 35 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL 111zzairomy JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * guttrilnl NAM BAC I'm happy to live with that. I'm just saying that what you've just given those folks out there is a worse thing than they had five minutes ago. If that's the State law, so be it. SF Well, I'm not sure that it is. I think the point is that noise controls need to be consistent throughout the community, and whatever noise controls there are should apply to everyone in that community. BAC Okay. SF And you've already adopted noise controls in your municipal ordinance. BAC Okay. SF Another concern that has already been mentioned is the notice to property owners. The State law specifically says that notice should be sent to property owners within a hundred feet, so the 300 feet is not necessary and really contradicts what's already in the law. BAC The State law says that it must be sent for a hundred feet, right? SF Right. BAC It doesn't say anything about beyond that. SF Well, one could say that... BAC But the law doesn't say anything. SF ...the law has already contemplated an appropriate distance. BAC The law says nothing about beyond 100 feet. SF Can I ask you... WHS I think we should tell you that we have a very competent City Attorney... SF Oh, I don't doubt that for a moment. WHS ...and a competent City Attorney staff that has directed us what we can and can't do and what the law says, and we are fully aware of what the law says and what we can do and what we can't do, and unless the City Attorney tells us that we can't do it, we'll listen to him. SF I appreciate that. I am hoping that this ordinance...it has begun to evolve. There were many burdensome requirements in it before... 36 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL ITEETTMG JUNE 23, 1994 * * s s s * * s s * * s s s * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * s s L' Anun a "A" WHS That's why we held two meetings... SF Right...and that there may, as you've heard from other speakers, may still be room for improvement to both address the concerns you have about the neighborhood and also address the needs of working parents. And that's my only intention in coming here today is to do that. And I hope that that...and that's why I suggested that perhaps this ordinance not be adopted tonight but that it's possible that there are further areas for discussion. Another area for discussion is the review process. It's very important that you have a review process, that if somebody is violating, as you just pointed out, any of the articles in this ordinance, that obviously they should be at risk for losing their permit, they should have to shape up and comply. However, there is a statement in this that gives additional discretion to the Planning Administrator to impose additional conditions on the operator of the family day care if there is a problem with a particular operator, and I would like to suggest that that be removed. It's Section 25.72A.080 in the second paragraph. It says if the Planning Commission reasonably determines that the standards and requirements of this chapter have proved to be insufficient regulation as applied to a particular holder, then the Planning Commission may suspend or revoke the permit, that's certainly appropriate, but then it says impose additional standards on that individual. And I would suggest that what would be more appropriate would simply be to bring that person into compliance as opposed to putting more conditions on an individual. SRW Am I correct...you're reading 25.72A.08? SF Yes, second paragraph. SRW That's been stricken? DJE I believe that...Mr. Mayor, at the last meeting, a major part of that paragraph I think was the part that was stricken...it came from some place but I think we all agreed that it should be taken out. SF And I absolutely...then, yes, I appreciate the fact that you've done that. There's one other thing that I believe needs some clarification, and that is the question of 25.72A.050(k) which says that it must be a single...that the lot must be zoned for single family dwellings. I was unfortunately unable to make the last meeting, I had hoped to be here, but I understand that in conversation the child care providers and Mr. Van Veen from State licensing was told that your intent was to include multi -family dwellings. Was that correct? SRW Can Jean or Ray answer that? JMB No... (unclear) DJE I think we were talking about what the regulations apply to, and I think ultimately we found out it as just single-family, in my recollection. Mr. Van Veen... 37 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL -MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r_ ZIL 1I NA" PVV I do remember the discussion, and my recollection is that it was a little broader interpretation. We talked about the fact that multi -family as well as single family residences can be built on single family zones. DJE Right, and I think Mr. Winklepleck was going to go check something on that in the code section. I don't remember the result. SF Well, I have the code section here if you wanted to look at it. I think that this could be interpreted to limit family day cares on lots that are zoned only for a single family residence, and I understood from your conversations that that was not your intent. So I'm asking you to clarify this because I think that would be... RAD Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, let me just add in there "zoned or used as single family residence". I just did not want, with the heavy traffic that apartments have, a person in a two - bedroom apartment operating a large day care. SRW Would that wording be satisfactory to clarify your... SF Well, I think there is some concern about that. There is nothing in the statute that limits family day care to even single family residences. Throughout California there are family day cares in multi -family residences, and I would think that especially in areas like Palm Desert where there are very large apartments, that one does not necessarily follow the other. SRW Don't you get into...distinguish, then, between your home care centers versus a regular day care center. SF No, no, actually it's not. SRW We have day care centers in our apartment complexes. DJE Wait. My recollection and then I believe reading this says that there must be the primary resident in the home that applies for the application. SF Well, I'm not talking about...that's a different provision, and I'm not questioning that. DJE Well, I'm sorry, I'm lost. RAD Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. There are a lot of things in this ordinance that I feel strongly about that I'm right, but in this particular case, staff would like to have at least greater control and hearing on the process when a large family day care center or day care facility is going to be opened or operating in an apartment building because of the traffic at all times of the day. We would like to have that control so at least maybe make some special conditions and that that may be applicable to that case. 38 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 **..**.******************************* EXHIBIT "A" SF And I would just like to urge you not to limit it. Family day care is very important to all working families and especially in areas where working people do live in apartments. I think there are other...you have put other kinds of conditions, you have parking controls, you have other conditions on here and I would urge you not to limit it and to allow family day care in any residential facility which, I believe, is the intent of the child care act. DJE Mr. Mayor, might I clarify perhaps...from my perspective reading 1597.46 which is the State legislation that enables us to do this. It basically says in this particular section that we can only do 1, 2, or 3 of these things that we have been talking about on lots zoned for single family dwellings. It does not provide (unclear) otherwise.... SF No, you're absolutely correct; however, what... DJE ...so that they are not providing any restrictions, at least in these sections, on any other zoned Property. SF And I'm merely suggesting that your ordinance should reflect that because this reads as if you are not allowing child care. Are you saying that if a person, maybe, let me ask the question, I'm sorry. Are you saying, therefore, that if a person opens a large family day care in an apartment building, it will not have to go through any of this licensing requirement? DJE I'm not saying anything of the kind. I don't know what the regulation would be. This applies only to lots zoned for single family, and I note on page 9 it's clear, it says lots zoned for single family dwellings, and that's where Mr. Diaz wants to say "lots zoned or used for single family dwellings". I think R-2, any other zoning has to comply with the rest of our zoning regulations. BAC Perhaps to clarify that, it might, Number K might read, then, that "permits issued under this section shall apply only to..." SF That would be wonderful. BAC ...and then we can add yet another round of discussions about what to do... SF That would be wonderful. I mean, all we're trying to move towards is making sure that there's adequate child care so that people can work in their community, which is the goal of all of us I think. BAC So Item K then would be "permits issued under this section", the rest of it remains the same. Is that (unclear) SF Thank you. SRW Thank you very much. Next speaker is Anne Simmon Young. 39 l REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL 141re.1wIG JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * LAMM' "A" ASY My name is Anne Simmon Young. I live at 1907 Green Vista Lane, Fallbrook, California. I see that you have made a lot of changes. I am thankful for that. But let's take a look at a couple of other things. I was reading the Kiplinger newsletter this very week. Vacancies at preschools and day care are low, both mom and dad at work. One example, the centers in one city are so full parents have to use facilities in the neighboring town or towns. New providers are opening up all the time, and we have the regulations in our state already what is required. Butyouhave added many things, and I'm glad to see you have changed some. But I am wondering if I stood at a football field at one end if you could hear me at the other end if I didn't have a microphone. Could you? I doubt it, but yet you're putting a 300 foot radius on each side. My goodness sake, my neighbors had seven children a year apart. The mother started at 39 and lost the first child; she had seven after that, and she lived next door to me and I never complained because those kids played with me morning, noon, and night with my children. We lived in a cul-de-sac, which meant the teenage boys across the street loved to drive very quickly and very fast. That's why we have day care homes to take care of children for many reasons: to feed them properly, to protect them because if it's not reasonable fees, and some of you are not listening, if it's not reasonable fees, we are going to have children in the streets, and I hope you don't have to live with the results of that. Because I remember the neighborhood boy that ran his car as fast as he could, and my son grabbed the little girl that started to run in the street, who happened to be a policeman's daughter. But see, we have controls because we put fences around our homes. Maybe we should let them run wild instead. But day care homes do something that is not done someplace else many times, I want to qualify that. They are learning manners, social acceptance skills. SRW If I could interrupt you a moment. I don't think there's a person on this Council that doesn't appreciate and support day care centers. In fact, we require them in our commercial developments, we require them in our new subdivisions, we require them in our apartment complexes. So you could help us more if you would address the issues in the ordinance. ASY Okay, let's address the issues. Number one I did, the noise control, 300 feet. My goodness, that's a football field. I couldn't yell across that, nor could six kids nor could 12 kids. And if you're going to ask every parent 600 feet radius, I think that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. BAC Ma'am. ASY I do. I disagree. BAC I understand that. May I ask a question on that issue. You seem to assume that the notification process of 300 feet is solely for noise. I mean, that's what I've heard you say. ASY And also traffic, I gather. But, you know, parents don't all come at one time. BAC I hear all of that. It is for noise, it is for traffic, it is for circulation, and it also provides one other thing that I think this city's very proud of, and that is that when something happens, everybody that we think might be remotely impacted hears about it so they have a chance to know so that later on they don't come and say "I didn't know this was happening in my neighborhood" and so on and 40 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « r, 11.D1 Y "A" so forth. And one of the nice things is over the years by letting people know, and most times people don't have objections, there is a sense of inclusion rather than a sense of exclusion, and that has a lot of value in it. ASY You had a hundred feet before. Why the additional? BAC Ma'am. We haven't adopted a local ordinance before. I'm just pointing out that your perception of why we're doing it is...you're welcome to it, but it may not be all of what we're doing. ASY You also...the double inspection, I gather, is no longer in the ordinance. I believe there is some other... the permit fee, is that clear that that is not going conditional use permit going to be imposed, is that clear? Definitely out? Or is that a gray area that we don't know about? SRW Mr. City Attorney, could you respond to that. DJE I think the permit fee is one that cannot exceed the cost. I think Mr. Diaz indicated what he thought the maximum of that would be at the start of this hearing. ASY And is it going to be stated clearly so that we don't have a question about it? DJE I think it will ultimately take the form of a formal resolution adopted by this Council. ASY You think... DJE It's what it always does. ASY Okay. The other areas...what about the equipment. What do you mean by where the equipment can be and what are you describing as equipment and how are you describing it? JMB I might answer that. The case in point that brought this to us, the neighborhood was a disgrace. There were toys all over the place. I wouldn't want to live in the neighborhood myself. There's nothing wrong as you're teaching children to teach them to pick up after themselves either. ASY And then what do you do if they don't? Can't you tell them that this is one of the rules but are you limiting the play area? JMB The ordinance that we have now states where they can play. If they have a swimming pool in the back yard, naturally we don't want them playing back there. We are concerned about children, as Mr. Crites had told you. I don't think you'll find a city in the Valley any more concerned about child care issues than the City of Palm Desert, and that applies to our citizens that live here. This is an ordinance that's being written and being questioned by the people that live in Palm Desert. This is not an ordinance that's going to go into effect for every other city in the County. This is something that is being handled by the City of Palm Desert, and I resent very, very much other areas, you can go to your own councils and you can get whatever ordinance you want in your city 41 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 « « « « * « * « « « « * « * * « * * * * * * « « « s * * * * * * * * « * * * L nL i "A" regulating child care, but you don't come into the City of Palm Desert and tell us what to do when you don't even have it in your own city. ASY My dear, I'm not in a city. SRW Right, you're from Fallbrook. ASY Yes, I am, but I am involved with child care. JMB So are all of us. ASY Yes. WHS Every one of us. ASY But I also think that I wanted to know what the restrictions are on the equipment. It seems to be a gray area. If they have a swimming pool in the back, what do you do with the children? JMB The equipment can be in the front, they can have some permanent large ones in the front yard, the small ones have to be picked up when they are not in use. ASY I agree with that. But I want to know what you mean by large and small, I think that should be clarified. JMB Well, I think anybody knows the difference between large and small. If you don't, you didn't go to school. ASY My dear, I have a Master's Degree. I did go to school. JMB Well, I don't have a Master's Degree, but I know the difference between large and small. ASY No, because people decide what is large and what is small. 300 feet to me is large; to you that is small. BAC Then we will leave a fruitful arena, then, for a lot of litigation. SRW Thank you very much, Ms. Young. Next speaker is Paul Van Veen. PVV Honorable Mayor, members of the Palm Desert City Council, my name is Paul Van Veen, and I work at 59621.2 Place Court in Carlsbad, Suite 185, 92008. I'm the Child Care Ombudsman for the Southern Region of the State of California, which does include Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, Mono, Orange, San Diego, and Imperial, so as you can see, that's a large region for being identified as the Southern Region. My job, in short, is an intermediary between child care licensing and the broader child care community; parents, providers, and local governments. It's 42 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s * s s s s s s s s s s s s s s **$ s s s* * s s * * * s$ s s Ld .X11 h i "A" a unique position within the State licensing system, and I've held it since 1989. First of all, I want to thank Councilperson Jean Benson and the other City officials involved with the proposed subject large family day care ordinance for inviting me and others to participate in an advisory capacity to the Council in malting recommendations to modify the original proposed ordinances. I feel there our efforts thus far have gone a good distance in bringing the revised ordinance into compliance with State laws. Even so, some inconsistencies do remain, and I think that's been the subject of some of the discussion here and I'm not going to go over very much of that again. But I do wish to point out to the City Council that as an Ombudsman for the past five years, my experience is that increasingly local governments are reducing their level of regulation as it relates to large family day care. Just in the past couple months, the Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga are allowing large family day care homes in residential areas by right. Other local jurisdictions are doing it by administerial permit where there's a fee and a plan check. Local governments are becoming increasingly aware of how important accessible, affordable, quality child care is, not only as a service to the communities where they exist but as an important element to a prevention strategy which mitigates the negative consequences of behavioral and social problems associated with latch key children, and I'm sure you all are familiar with that and have heard that terminology. Community care licensing does provide a strong level of assurance that reasonable health and safety considerations are met by large family day care providers, including not only supervision of the children but compliance with fingerprinting, health, T.B., fire clearances, weapon safety, pool safety, and a system designed to respond to complaints in a timely manner. Beginning January 1, 1995, training in pediatric first aid, CPR, and preventive health practices will be required of all large family day care providers. My experience has been that local communities, providers, and State licensing working together as partners for the benefit of children and their families has resulted in a high degree of compliance with both State and local requirements and also has resulted in a higher level of quality in child care. Conversely, however, when either the licensing staff is viewed as punitive and/or local ordinances are onerous, the result has been that underground, unlicensed care provided by unfingerprinted people in homes not checked for health and safety who are not under any regulatory compliance body, that type of care does increase, and this of course obviously puts children at increased risk for abuse or injury and undermines all our wishes, not only for the sanctity of our neighborhoods but the well-being of our children. So, again, I want to thank you for this process, allowing me to be a part of it, and if you have any questions I'd be glad to answer them. SRW Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you very much for your testimony. Buck Pruett, please. BP Good evening, Council, my name's Buck Pruett, I live at 76-800 Lancelot in Palm Desert. I have two small kids in day care, and I just wanted to make a couple of comments. I was up here at the last meeting and made some comments about noise and traffic and so forth. We love our day care provider. She happens to be located, and we also had one before that that we loved also, we've had two different ones. We have a daughter who's five, so we've been doing this for about five years. And we have a son that's almost two. It gets back to what they said before, with the very young infant, you can't take them to a center. Both my wife and I work, you've got to take them someplace, you know. It's only going to get worse in the future as this Valley's growing, so it's 43 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL Mre, i uNG JUNE 23, 1994 • * • • • • * • • • * * * • * * * • • * * * * * • * • • * * * * * * • • • • ZAELID11 "A" good that we're addressing it now, but it's just going to get worse in terms of the number of small kids, where they're going to go, and so forth and so on. What the gentleman before mentioned is very true about if you don't embrace the license providers, then you get the unlicensed providers. I'm not saying anything bad about the unlicensed providers, but we all want to try and keep everything above board, and so forth and so on. And it's sort of a Catch 22. Our provider...she's licensed, she's trained, she's educated. She's everything that we would like...our kids play...she happens to have a swimming pool in the back, so the kids play in the front. I don't know if that's offensive to other people, if they've complained about it or not. That's one reason why we like to take our son there, is that we wanted him to play in the morning, we wanted him to play in the afternoon. We wanted him to be outside in the morning, to be in a home environment, not at a center, I'm saying nothing bad about centers, but in a home environment. Our provider, her name is Susan Reed, and she takes care of her house with 12 kids better than we take care of our house with two, and I hope my wife won't hit me for that, but it's true. She just does a tremendous job. I don't know if you've gone to any of these places and looked or not, but judging from Josie who we had and Susan who we have now, they just do a tremendous job of keeping their house clean and keeping it safe and so forth and so on. A couple of things real quick and then I'm out of here. The traffic and the noise where we are now, there's the High School on one side, Sacred Heart on another side and the elementary school on the other side, so I don't know how you differentiate between the noise of 12 kids versus the noise of the High School and so forth and so on. I don't know if you take traffic counts or how you do that, but it's sort of all encompassing there. There's kids that walk to school, to these elementary schools and to these high schools, so there's the noise pollution that comes from them and so forth. You know, it's all sort of intertwined, it's the definition of a neighborhood. I don't know how...I don't want to offend anybody, but I grew up in a neighborhood. We played "kick the can" in the street, we did all that kind of stuff, we played tag, we did all that kind of stuff. Then we moved into a place that, I don't know if you want to call it an adult community, but there weren't a lot of kids, so there was sort of a different set of rules that we lived by because that's what the community had decided. But, and they were both fine, but if you're in a neighborhood, the definition of a neighborhood, at least in my concept, is that there are kids, there are activities, and it's more than just between 9 to 5. There's kids walking to and from school, there's kids after school, especially in the summer time, they're playing until 8 o'clock at night. The only other thing is just that I know you're doing the best you can, and I appreciate all the work that ydU've done on it and all the work you're going to continue to do, but I just hope that you will just keep the broadest scope in trying to decide hours for the kids and things like that because it's just, like I said before, it's more than from 9 to 5, you drop kids off at 7 in the morning, you pick kids up at 6 o'clock at night. Some people work later than that. That's about it. The only thing I wanted to add was that, and I believe that Councilwoman Benson addressed it, our provider, she has a pool in the back yard, so the kids play in the front yard. I just wanted...I don't know if that seemed to be alright, if that was something you didn't like and were trying to keep the kids in the back yard or... JMB Absolutely not. We're not out to do anything like that. Our interest is in the best interest of the children and the community. That has been addressed. If the swimming pool is in the back yard, the toys or whatever they're playing with in the play area will be in the front. We're only asking 44 MIINUTFS REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT "A" if they are in the front that the large ones be held to a minimum and the small ones picked up when not in use so that it is not a blight to the rest of the neighborhood. BP And I don't know how you'd work the whole thing out, but our next door neighbor plays basketball in the evening, and he turns on the light and plays basketball. We live with that because our kids are out there in the swimming pool other times late at night. There is give and take to it, and it is Monday through Friday. On the weekends when everyone's home from work and, you know, the next door neighbor you try and be a little bit more considerate and so forth. But basically, it's Monday through Friday, 8 to 5, 8 to 6, so most people aren't home, and those that are I think they do a pretty good job of trying to keep the noise down from what I could tell from the two people that I've taken my kids to, and I'm just looking for that home atmosphere as opposed to a center. And you get the home atmosphere in a neighborhood and it just happens to be surrounded by other people; that's just part of the deal. So, anyway, that's it, and good luck with it. SRW Thank you, Mr. Pruett. That exhausts the cards that I have for people who have indicated they want to speak, and we haven't heard any in favor of the ordinance specifically. Is there anyone else out there who wishes to address Council on this issue? Yes, please come forward. TT Hi, my name is Terri Taylor, and my address is 330 Augusta Drive, Palm Desert. And after some of the misunderstanding here, I was reluctant to whether I wanted to get up and speak or not. And I'd like to know if all Council meetings are this exciting. SRW Not all of them, no. WHS We're the only show in town, and when it's hot, it's the air conditioning here. TT Anyway, I think I can bring something here tonight. I sit on boards here in the desert and so I respect and understand your position up here and I can see where each one of you are coming from. And at the same time, I'm very fortunate, I have four children, and I'm financially very blessed where I can have a provider come to my home and take care of my children, I mean that's the way I think we would all like it. Unfortunately, we can't all do that. Five years ago when I just had my two smallest children, I did not have that comfort, and I had to look for day care. It was a very tough thing, I was not pleased with what I found out there. So I decided, well, I need to supplement our income to help my husband with the bills and so forth, and I had always worked, and I needed to be with my children and provide for them as a mother, and so that was when I decided to go into day care myself. I thought, well gosh, I'll stay home and it just started taking care of other friends' kids, and I started a day care in my home. I did that for about three years, and then my kids went on to preschool and I was done with it and glad that I was on to different things. But I did take care of eight children in my home. I was very respectful of my neighbors, I had the back yard, I had a fence around our pool which was high, the kids can't get over it, and to me that would be the best ideal situation as opposed to having the things in the front yard. However, I think it's great that you guys are even allowing things in the front yard because for a lot of people that is an eyesore, and to a lot of people that does bring down values in homes. And I can see it from that but, you know, I respect the fact that you guys have allowed that, 45 MINUTES - -- REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL 1Vir.r...iirtiur JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *•* * * * * * * * Doll "A" and I think that's, you know, something good. One thing that got me involved in this is I remember where I came from of having a day care in my home, and even though I'm up at a different level now, I can still feel for where I was and what was going on then, and I looked over this ordinance, the revised ordinance, and fees and taxes and noise level, I mean, regulations, that's just the way that businesses are. And we all have to live with that. I mean, I'm in business, I have a business with my husband here in the desert, and we have to live with all this stuff. I mean, Cal OSHA came in, and we're just like "no", and I think this is what the day care providers, and maybe you guys can relate to this, maybe where they're coming from, is this is like this big mountain coming on top of them that they're just like "wait a second, this was never here before", and changes are not always accepted gradually or at all. And we all have to live with changes, and I feel that the day care providers here today, I hope that they hear what I'm saying because I do have respect for them, I have admiration for what they're doing, I encourage mothers to stay home and take care of their kids. To get to one issue that I'd like to point out in this that I feel would really be detrimental and really hurt home day care for families here is the 300 feet ordinance, and I'd just like to explain to you why I feel this. I think it's great that we can send a letter out. From what I understand the City would be sending a letter out notifying everybody within that radius that there is going to be a day care center in that neighborhood, do they have any complaints or vice versa, and then you guys would handle those complaints orderly. My concern is not allowing day care centers within 300 feet of each other, and the reason being is that it limits us to quality day care work. The lady next door might be a better day care than the lady that sits 300 feet down the way, and it's going to limit a lot of day care. When I did day care, it was in Palm Springs, and the lady next door to me had six kids, the lady directly behind me had 12; if that would have happened when I was doing this at that time, it would have knocked two of us out, and they were excellent providers, and there are very few out there. I have gone to Susan Reed's home, and I was impressed. And I wish I could have been that dedicated as she was; her living room is a play room for the kids, and I was not even that dedicated. So, anyway, this is just what I would like to bring to the Board and any consideration if this is a factor of, that it is going to go to 300 feet as far as not having them that close, I feel that the letter that would go out would control the fact of not getting it too carried away of too many day care providers in one neighborhood, because if the letters went out and if complaints started coming in, then you could say "okay, wait, we've got to do something in this neighborhood", but not altogether in the whole Palm Desert area. So, I mean, if this makes sense to you, this is what I'm trying to bring across. And I thank you. SRW Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to...yes, ma'am. LE Hello, my name is Lavonne Edmanson, and I am a Palm Desert day care provider. I live at 74- 672 Gary Avenue. And I just kind of wanted to let you know what my week was like this week. Today, I had to bring one of my children with me whose mother works at Ralph's shopping center because she gets off at 9 o'clock. My hours personally are 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but I try to be as flexible as possible because those people need me out there. Now, later on this week, tomorrow, I have to take care of another child over night because his mom works at Robinson - May, and she needs me because they're having inventory. So I have to be there for her, I have 46 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESER1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r,A 1IDh 1 "A" to be here for all of these people, and this is just in Palm Desert. Now, if you put all of these stops against us or, you know, everything else that you're putting...the noise control, as a matter of fact I even did a little thing myself. I walked down exactly five houses down from my house and listened to my kids, which I can tell you right now they all have voices, and I didn't hear them, sixth house, seventh house, so you know, 300 feet is a lot, I think. And I just want you to know, I'm from Palm Desert, and the people from Robinson -May, and you have my letter, and the people from Ralph's and what have you, they all need me there, and I try my best to be there for them. Thank you. SRW Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to give testimony. Yes, ma'am, please come forward. MH Mary Ann Hernandez, 73-810 Masson, Palm Desert. I have two children in day care, and my day care provider happens to live directly behind me, and my eldest son was in preschool, and I returned him to the family day care situation because it was a more loving situation and he was happier there. When I'm home and my children are at day care and I sneak home, the child I hear the most is my child making the noise. But it's a happy noise of kids having fun. Another one of my neighbors, I'm sure that you know very well, I won't mention her name, complains about every little bird that flies by. She complains about my children making noise, the park's noise, the lights from the park, everything that happens she complains about. If you send out a letter, you're opening the biggest can of worms. BAC The sun just has to come up in that case. MH Right. Also, I think that day care providers that are in business now should be grandfathered in. They're doing an excellent job. People that take the time to get licensed, have the inspections, are doing their jobs. There are a lot of people out there that are not licensed, and I do think we need to address that problem of unlicensed day care. Thank you. SRW Thank you very much. Is there anyone else. Please come forward. One in the back and then this lady here. SR My name is Susan Reed. I'm sure you all know me by now. It would be hard for me not to talk tonight. I've sat back and listened to everybody, and I'm sure you all know how I feel so strongly about this, and I do appreciate Ms. Benson's help and, Mr. Wilson, you being here tonight. You have to understand that this is an issue that hits home. It's a big, big thing with us, and we have to let you know that more control and more regulations and more fees and more, more, more, are going to discourage people from doing family child care. We only have eight licensed family child cares for 12. I believe the City's new population as of the annexing is 40,000+. I have people who live within 300 feet of me that are doing day care for six, and they are waiting for their one- year licensing so they can go to 12. They've been watching what I go through, what I've been through for two years with the complaining neighbor, with my reputation, and now I'm being called neurotic, ludicrous, that I'm not all there. I'm here to fight for the same thing you are — our community and the right for children to be taken care of by me. Do I really have to fight for 47 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * L' Ai11D11 "A" the right to take care of children? Not my own child, other people's children. I have put myself, my home, my life has been threatened so that I can take care of other people's children, and you're telling me that now I have to say it's okay that you regulate everybody who's doing child care because I have a problem with one neighbor, one neighbor, in a city of 40,000. Yes, my front yard is being used for children to play in, and yes, on the day that Ms. Benson went by, we had a problem in the front yard. Sometimes we have cuts, sometimes we have bruises, sometimes we have children who are sick. We have to run in the house, sometimes it's time to eat and all you can do is get 12 children in that home and fix lunch for 12 children and meet the requirements of the State. I have to feed them certain food, I have to write down what they're eating, I have to write down who they are. They all have their beds, they all have their problems, I have parents who are calling, and I left the yard a mess. Yes, I left the yard a mess. We walked in the house, we've done it more than once, but we come back out later and we clean. The children are the priority, not picking up the toys. I've been told that I'm a disgrac e...I just have to do this. You understand, you have to understand where I'm coming from, two years of attack here, so it's my turn to say to you, why aren't the children being considered in this case, why? If I close Monday morning, you're going to have a lot of people up here at your doorstep bringing their children to your office because I can no longer be harassed, I can no longer be told that I'm crazy or that I'm fighting for a cause that doesn't exist. I'm fighting for eight people. And you know why they're not all here tonight? Because they're scared of what the City might do to them. And that scares me, because I'm the one who has taken the threats, the phone calls. I'm the one who has taken the brunt of this whole thing, and the reason this ordinance is in effect is because of me, and people are saying that. So I'm being tough, a single mom, I'm standing out in my front yard, and I could be shot or killed or anything because I've been threatened. And I'm here telling you that this ordinance is dangerous, it's bad, and it gives you control, and it's going to stop people like me who are fighting so hard. What reason do I have? Money? Do you think I'm making money? I'm not making money doing this. I'm in debt up to my butt, and you know that. I paid for a lawyer, and now I have to pay that lawyer, and I lost. I thought I won, but now you're telling me I lost. And I'm not up here crying. My voice is this way because I'm very nervous. I have been through a lot. I have sacrificed everything, my marriage, my home is mortgaged so that I can pay to fight for you guys to understand that this is wrong and that you're turning people off to day care. People will not open their homes to children if they're under attack, if they have to be inspected. If I have to have a business license, then I have to have a home occupation permit, then I have to have a CUP, now you have a special permit, it's called a "special permit", I don't see the difference. Now you're saying, okay, one more fire inspection, one more building permit. First it was no part-timers, you tried to get me to sign a deal saying that I wouldn't take part- timers, I said no, and so now we're here fighting for that. Okay, it's in the original ordinance, but today we were threatened on television that you were going to go with the original ordinance, that you might pass the original ordinance, this is on public television. Don't you think I'm going to come out of my home and come here and say "why is this happening". This is ridiculous. We are not out of control. We are not people who are bad. I had a problem in my front yard. I have 12 children in my front yard for two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. Parents pull up and they see their children playing, having a good time, swimming in a wading pool, going down a slide, playing basketball. The toys are picked up by 5:30 every single night, at 6 at the latest. If I want to open up my doors at night to an Eisenhower nurse or to a waitress, or if I want 48 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s L' lltilrill NAB to be open on a weekend for one of my parents to go away and have their children stay with me because their beds are there and their dressers are there and their clothing is in my home and they know only me, why can't I do that, why can't I offer that security to my parents? We don't have very many people that will do what I'm doing, and I'm ready to quit doing what I'm doing, and I'm one of the best. .And you can say I'm a disgrace, you can say all these things, but I don't believe it. I believe that my children in my day care are getting the best, the very best, in child care. SRW May I make a comment? Yesterday we got a letter from a neighbor of yours. I drove down to your day care center. Before I got there I saw some very young children, unsupervised, playing in a front yard plastic pool. 1 got to your front yard; you were out front with the children, I could barely see you because you had done a beautiful job of fencing and putting landscaping around the fence. I saw an orderly and very, I thought, professional day care operation going on in your front yard, and I commend you for it. I was very impressed with what I saw. SR Thank you. You can understand why I have all these people here tonight. You understand our point. We're not here to make you out to be bad guys. Okay? We appreciate the fact that you've worked with us. Ms. Benson has been very, very helpful in helping us feel like we're a part of this process, but there are still some problems with the revised ordinance. That 300 feet will discourage people, lots of people, from opening up their day care, or their homes, for day care for 12. SRW The 300 feet, the grandfathering, would that make you feel more comfortable? SR A lot of that will, yes. But the whole entire ordinance, I mean, really, do we really have to have an ordinance that controls us because we are so irresponsible and so out of control? SRW It wouldn't be under that premise. It would be under... SR But you have that right, tonight, to vote that we can be child care providers by right and not to have to deal with it. You have that choice. We want you to consider that choice at this time, with only eight of us, and a year ago there were 12 of us, and three months ago there were ten of us. Do you see what's happening? More of us are closing than opening. Palm Desert needs us, and we need you. That's why I live here. I was raised in Palm Springs, and I chose in my adult life to live in Palm Desert because I'm proud of the City, the parks, the pond, everything. Everything here is so wonderful, it's clean, it's wonderful, but I had a roofer wake me up at 6 o'clock in the morning on Tuesday morning, and I want to know why he's allowed to hammer on someone's roof behind me at 6 a.m. and, you know, there's a question as to whether the children should be out playing before 9 or 5:30. I realize that's in the original ordinance, but you also have that right to vote for that ordinance tonight, I'm told by Mr. Diaz. If this noise ordinance, in our first meeting you said it was just before 7 and after 10 at night, that was basically all it was. Since then, there's been a park ordinance effected because there was some music or lights or something...okay. Now, that park ordinance is separate from the City ordinance or is it a part of it, that's my question. Are 49 MINUTES - _- REGULAR PALM DESERT' CITY COUNCIL JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s LAriLsll "A" we going to come under that park ordinance? Okay, because you said it's worse. You said it's worse than the one that we had. BAC No, I just made a comment that the noise regulations that the attorney pointed out you should be governed by, which is general commercial noise, etc. etc. ordinance, is probably more stringent than that which was proposed this evening in the revised ordinance. But if that's what the State mandates, then so be it. SR Well, I think her point was that she didn't want you to make special noise regulations. BAC I know, we were trying to make something that was easier rather than... SR But we've never had a clarification on the noise ordinance of Palm Desert, have we? Do we really know what it is, has it been made clear? BAC Sure, you can go over and... SR But we were told that basically it's a time thing, that it's before certain hours in the winter and before certain hours in the summer, and if it's during the week it's 10 o'clock at night if you have a pool party or something it's before 10 o'clock at night and on weekends it's 11 and in the morning the construction guys during the winter can't work before a 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock time and then in the summer I hope it's not 6 o'clock, please don't tell me that you really approve of roofers at 6 o'clock in the morning. I mean, we have people doing lawns at 6 o'clock in the morning, is that okay? No, I don't think so. Would you...anymore than children, that's what I'm saying. And you know the high school, I live between the high school and the junior high, and the night of the Relay, that wonderful 24-hour Relay, they talked on the microphone all night long. But you know what, we knew it was a good cause, and we knew there were children involved, and we knew they were keeping kids off the streets, and there were no drugs involved. And so we said "you know what, it's okay". And the night of graduation we heard everybody's name in the whole entire graduating class announced. And I live about 3/4 of a mile, so, but it didn't bother me because these guys were graduating, see? And that's why nobody in my neighborhood, when you went to 25 doors and said "come on, you can tell us, does she bother you, is she making you crazy?" and no one but one person said "yes". So, I'm not complaining about the high school, I'm not complaining, I'm saying that we all live with the community events. The fireworks were great. Maybe there's someone out there that didn't like the fireworks. You know, a woman called in thinking that things were being shot. She heard the banging; there was no advance notice, she heard the banging and called the police and said "somebody is murdering and killing people out there —run" because the fireworks were scary at 9 o'clock at night. She thought we were under attack. See, it's all a matter of perception, and I'm saying that children screaming, yelling, yes, in a front yard, they're never allowed in the front yard without me out there, so I was either behind a beam when you were driving up or behind the fence... SRW Somebody was sitting there watching them. 50 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r.Aainh I "A" SR Yes, we put up plants. Because you know why we put those plants up? We were told to hide the children behind the plants. We were told to put up a vine that would discreetly not let people see the children playing in the front yard from the street. So I went out and I got the vines, and I planted the, and they're growing quite nicely, and, yes, you can't see a lot of things that are going on behind there. And you know what, that saddens me because I was so proud of what was going on in that front yard. I was so proud of the fact that people could drive by, anyone could drive by and say 'look at how much fun those children are having in that front yard and, gosh, how does that woman handle 12 children', you know. I have a helper. Sometimes she's inside taking care of a baby or changing a diaper. You don't always see, but we're always there. And I know I'm going off here because I have to, you understand. This is my battle, my fight, but Indio has just adopted a resolution, an ordinance, and it's scary, too. So we are watching, everyone is watching what Palm Desert does. And Mr. Wilson, personally, everyone is watching what you do in the County, and I'm not trying to say anything here except that we would like to know who you are, what you are, and how you stand. It's not just what you do for the City of Palm Desert any more; you're involved with the whole entire County, which is why I have County people here because you know what the implication is there. SRW Tonight I'm here representing the citizens of Palm Desert. SR Right, but this is a very important issue, and it can become a cancer and it can grow. And we do know that other cities are waiting to see what you do. So we are scared for that, you can understand my concern. SRW I appreciate your comments. Thank you very much. SR Okay, thank you. JS Thank you, Susan. • My name is Janice Sunday, and I'm from Hemet, California. My address is 27407 Stanford in Hemet, and I'm also a day care provider, and I just wanted to clarify to the Council why we have girls from other communities. It is we are being bombarded from all different sides, okay, and the City is another attack that we're being attacked at. So these girls are coming to see what's in store for them because this will set a precedent for the next city, for the next city, for the next city. So we are here trying to see what we can do to stop it here so that we don't get attacked, so that the other girls don't get attacked in the next community. So please take a look at this ordinance and we would really just like to not even have it because any implications here will set a precedent for every other community. Thank you. SRW We appreciate your comments. Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to address us on this issue? Please come forward, sir. LY My name is Lyle Young. I'm from 1907 Green Vista Lane in Fallbrook. We didn't come down here to throw rocks at the City Council or the City. There are some things that kind of bother me. One, when you talk about the use of toys in front yards. This ordinance, I think you would have to look at the fact that all other yards in the City of Palm Desert would have to comply; otherwise, 51 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COVNCU fEET'lNG JUNE 23, 1994 : s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s r.Arnusi i "A" there would be charges of discrimination. When you talk about noise from these children, are you going to regulate the size of Boy Scout troops, Girl Scouts, Little League? I know Little League is something that -Hived next to a Little League diamond for 13 years, and I appreciated the fact that the kids played ball, but I had to go to war with the school board over the use of the field because it was seven days a week, and in the summer time they had summer leagues, and they played until 12 o'clock at night. I did get that stopped.. But I think the thing that you have to recognize is when you put in an ordinance for regulating one group, that you have to look at who else you're going to regulate also. When you regulate the use of toys or playground equipment in the front yard, it's not just day care providers. You're going to have to do it to every other yard in the City or else you're going to be in violation of rights. The same with noise. When you have programs some place, are you going to regulate the youth groups meeting at somebody's home for a barbecue? Are you going to regulate the traffic for people of other groups the same as you would day care providers and only have 12 children? A baseball team may have two kids in each position and have 18 kids; you may have 18 different families drive up there. So all I'm saying is to consider all the other aspects of this before you take action on it. SRW Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue? Yes, sir, come forward. RD Good evening, my name is Rick Derazin, I'm a friend of Susan, Reed. And I have a couple of questions. If Susan's next door neighbor wanted to open a preschool for 30 children in the morning and 30 children in the afternoon, with the okay from all the residents in that neighborhood, could they do so? SRW Mr. City Attorney. DJE I don't have our ordinances to know whether we regulate preschools or not, nor do I know, though I understand there to be State licensing provisions for those schools. I did not look at that; nobody's asked the question before. I'd be happy to look it up. BAC I do think those are regulated by Conditional Use Permits. DJE That would be my guess. RD The reason I ask is I'd say 500 yards from Susan's home on the corner of Desert Star and Portola, half a block from the corner of Rutledge and Portola, there is going to be a preschool opening in a residential district in a home that's not even going to be occupied, called Morning Stars Preschool. If it's a center or whatever it is, it's in the center of a residential district, and they're advertising now for children from three to six years old, and I have nothing against the people that are opening the preschool, but there it is. 30 kids in the morning, 30 kids in the afternoon. SRW I appreciate your comments, and I think we'll ask staff to give us a report on that. But right now, let's not clutter that with the issue of whether or not we should adopt the revised ordinance or modify the revised ordinance or adopt no ordinance. 52 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COINCILIVizziwIG JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* * s L.nl I» Y "A" RD Do you have an ordinance for one and not the other yet, is that what you're telling me? SRW No, I'm saying tonight's public hearing is dealing with this home care ordinance. That one we'll find out about. RD The school's already there and it's been approved? SRW Well, we'll find out. We don't know anything about it. We'll ask staff to... RD Well, they're going to open in September. They're already advertising. Somebody should check it out. SRW We will do that. Thank you. Ray, maybe you could shed some light on this. RAD Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. We'll check it and if a Conditional Use Permit has not been applied for, we'll be talking to them. If a Conditional Use Permit has been applied for, we will conduct a hearing. If a Conditional Use Permit has been applied for and the hearing held and the school approved, then they can go on, but right now I cannot tell you we'll be back, and I'll report to the City Manager. SRW Thank you. RD May I say one more thing? SRW Sure. RD My only concern is here's a house on a corner, half a block from the school, 30 kids in the morning, 30 kids in the afternoon, that's 120 trips in the car, and you're talking about 12 kids or 6 kids... SRW What you're talking about is maybe preventing that...what we're talking about is not preventing what's going in Mrs. Reed's. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us? If not, I'll declare the public hearing closed and ask Council for comments and discussion. And I think for purposes of narrowing down, is there anyone on the Council who even wants to discuss Mr. Diaz's ordinance, or should we focus on the revised ordinance? JMB I would recommend we focus on the revised one because it's in conformance with what the City of Palm Desert has done to bring the people in who are concerned. In the discussions as we've done in other discussions, we've tried to come to a mutual agreement. These are not ordinances that are all one-sided. There are issues on both sides to be decided, and we've given a lot from when it came from the Planning Commission. There are other areas that are still in dispute, and they are open for discussion. But we did go through the Palm Desert process. If you think other cities are watching to see what we do, we only do the best in Palm Desert. 53 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r,AI1 DI Y "A" SRW Okay, we're now, I think the consensus that we are looking at only the revised ordinance, and now I would like for us to discuss issues of grandfathering, the 300 feet versus the 100 feet, and I think there was a consensus pretty much on the suggested wording of Mr. Crites on fencing and so forth. Who would like to be the first to react or discuss this issue? Let's call on Ms. Benson who is closest to this and who has been involved in the process of meeting with the people and attempting to find a happy medium. JMB Well, I think in trying to work through this, there was a lot more deleted out of this than whatever's even been brought up tonight. There's been a lot of the language cleaned up to the benefit of the providers and rightly so. There's a lot of things in there that the Planning Commission wanted that I don't agree with. The philosophy that I used in the two that we're still in disagreement about, I don't see any problem with the grandfathering as if they say nobody objects to any of them, there's not going to be anything but a routine matter for them to come in and apply. If there's no incidents on them, I don't know what they're worried about. So, at least it gives the City a clean bill that we didn't try to put through an ordinance that nobody knew about and somebody's been living with the fact that there are these day centers/home centers in their neighborhood and they didn't have any say about it. So I don't see any big to-do about asking them to come in. On the 100 versus the 300, my contention is that we don't want a concentration of these, we don't want every other house in the neighborhood to be a day care center. I don't think that's good for property values, I don't think it's good for the rest of the neighbors. ASY Can we get away from day care "centers"? WHS We listened to you, now you listen to her. JMB I apologize. SRW Okay. The public hearing has been closed, and we've patiently listened to you, now we hope that you will listen to our discussion. Thank you. Ms. Benson, please continue. JMB I just feel that the 300 needs to be done. I'm not closed -minded on 100-300, but I do feel that 300 is more benefitting the community. SRW Mr. Snyder. WHS Well, some of us have been here on this Council for a long time. We've endeavored to make this the most beautiful and best city in the world to live in. I think we're doing a damn good job. I think we have a beautiful city, we're financially stable. The reason we've done this is because we listen to people; you ask if there are people here who have this all the time. People come in, talk to us, we try to work out the solutions. If there is indeed a problem such as this one, we have special meetings. Ms. Benson has sat in on these meetings; we've all been, as Roy has pointed out, every one of us have gone around the City, looked at these facilities. Everything we do in this city, we try to protect it, care for it, and let the City grow in as nice a manner as we know how. Our job as City Councilmen is protecting all the cities. A new industry wants to move in, 54 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL kr. i. dG JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r.Anint i "A" we talk to that. We try to put restrictions on it, we try to make it live within the things we feel that the City wants. We talk about the City, we're talking about the people. We feel that we have the obligation to see that anything that is done in this city is done in accordance with the rules and regulations that have been created by the people, not by us, by the people who come to us and tell us their problems, and we try to work out a solution for it. I think we've done a fine job of trying to do that. We've modified this thing. We've listened to people. We've made changes. We've asked you to come back and talk to us some more. I think we really have tried to do what we can. As far as children, we've built parks, we've built ballparks, we've built playgrounds, we've built a YMCA, we've built a recreational building. We are trying to take care of the young folks. We're also trying to take care of the people who live here, the people who have retired out here, bought their homes, want to retire, we try to take care of them, too. So we have to look at every problem to the best of out ability on both sides of the problem. That's what we endeavor to do, and we endeavor if necessary to write ordinances that see both sides of the problem, its concerns, is workable and fair. And that's what we've done with this. I think we've done a marvelous job. I think there are always some questions of this and that, and we're talking to you tonight to listen to those. I think what we're doing is right, and that's why we are a leader in this valley, and that's what we intend to keep on being — a leader in this valley. SRW Thank you, Mr. Snyder. Mr. Crites. BAC I think the issues are ones in which we are trying to balance two important traditional American concerns — one of them is the best quality of concern for children, and I've used family clay care, not large family day care, but I have had my stepdaughter in family day care, and I have high regard for those processes. I also know the people who live in Palm Desert have high regard for their property rights as residential property owners and so on and so forth, and while it has nothing to do with this, we get complaints about people whose shrubbery is the wrong color and so on and so forth in this community, whether we choose it or not, that's just part of that life here. So how do you balance it? I think some of the issues are bogus issues. The gentleman who said "well, are you going to control baseball teams" and all this, I would hope that we don't have many baseball teams playing in R-1 areas and residential areas. I would hope that Girl Scout meetings are not daily affairs in someone's home in an R-1 area but are shared around, and I think some of the other issues, like trying to figure out and let's call a ball six inches long a small ball and a seven inch ball a large toy and all that are exercises in foolishness. The key issues are to make sure that the fees are not excessive — they aren't; to make sure that children are not unduly restricted from play time, especially in the summer when you don't want kids out in the middle of the day, and seven in the evening and six in the morning, seven in the morning may be the best times — they aren't; that noise control is no more an issue for these folks than it is for any other business enterprise — it's not. And so we're left with grandfathering in the 300 feet. I think we can grandfather things in if indeed we haven't been deluged with issues. This is a way to make sure we can do it reasonably. And I have a suggestion on the 300 feet. The way I read the ordinance, and staff will correct me if I am wrong, is that if you are, as it reads now, if you are over 300 feet away and you meet all the other conditions, you're in. You will be granted the license. Is that... 55 1VLi1\VaW _ - REGULAR PALM DESERTNCCITY COU- II. MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * « * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LA 1Lsll "A" RAD That is correct, it's an automatic. BAC Allright. I understand why some neighborhoods might or might not object to having day care every other home, every other home, and other neighborhoods might not. My suggestion, to just throw it out, is that the wording remain that it be 300 feet in all directions and that we add a clause in there that says "A person may apply for an exemption or an exception to that." And that would have to be a public hearing process in which the neighbors have to say "we don't give a darn if Fred and Alice open another day care center a hundred feet away", that's the minimum. If they do, then the discretion is to not allow it within that. I mean, I don't have an opposition to giving someone the chance to do that, but I think the point's well taken is that on the other hand, it shouldn't be a right between 100 and 300 feet. This, to me, potentially allows folks to have both. If it's 300 feet and it meets everything else, it's fine. If it's under that, from 1 - 3, then come in, make the application, if you can drum up your neighbors' support and so on and so forth, then go ahead, and if you can't, then you can't. And that's at least something for my colleagues to consider. And I think that tends to the issues that are left and makes what I perceive to be a friendly ordinance that will not discourage people, that still allows us, because one of the reasons to have any ordinance is that if we do have a noise problem, we need to have the ability to walk in here, to yank out an ordinance and say "okay, local City of Palm Desert ordinance XY specifically deals with this, and here's, folks, what you've got to do if you want to keep your license to stay in the City" or with traffic or parking. We need an ordinance, we need an ordinance that's friendly to the people who are doing a public service and compatible with the neighborhood, and I think that would do it. SRW Thank you. My comments are, for one, I have a bias. I have two grandchildren in day care centers in the local area. Two, I kind of empathize with Mrs. Reed and I'm marveled by her. I moved into a Palm Desert residence neighborhood in 1967 with five children, and believe me, they weren't as orderly as the 12 I saw at your place yesterday, and I know what it's like getting complaints from the neighborhood. We were the only family on the street, or we had the only children on the street, and we got a lot of complaints. So I know what you're up against with that kind of condition in a neighborhood. I have, listening to the testimony and reading through the ordinance, my first preference is it seems that the State has pretty well regulated this, and I am always reluctant to go for over regulation or re -regulating what's already regulated. I probably, my preference, probably we wouldn't have this if we didn't have one complaint, we wouldn't be here today. Is this overkill? I'm still weighing that in my mind. If we do adopt it, though, I think I'm leaning toward the testimony that we heard that seemed to be prevalent coming from many people that the grandfathering, since we don't have a problem, and I think the one problem we did have I think has been corrected, the fencing and policing and so forth. I think grandfathering we ought to consider that and I think 100 feet is reasonable if we do this, and what I would like to see if we do move forward and adopt this revised ordinance, I would like to see it with the proviso that we monitor it, study it, for six months, bring it back for Council review to see if there are any bugs in it, to see if there are any hardships. Gather testimony from the providers to see if it is burdensome or if it's working, and if we did adopt the 100 feet and we had a rash of every other house wanting to put in home care facilities, then we could revisit that in the six-month review. 56 MINUTES _ REGULAR PALM DESEI(T CITY COUNCIL 111rz l w1G JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ****s* s s s* s s s * * * s s **$ s s s* l'.Atlilli l "A" So I think my bias would be, if we're going to adopt something, that we modify it to 100 feet and grandfather in those that are currently... (applause) JMB I would be inclined to agree with Councilman Crites. I'd rather see the 300 left in with the proviso that they could come in and ask if it isn't because I think that's more protection for the neighborhoods. But if it isn't a problem, because it's the neighbors that are going to cause the problems, and if they come in and agree, that's fine. But if we don't I think we're just leaving ourselvds open again, and I would rather see it amended the way that Councilman Crites suggested. BAC One other issue that does is that means if someone sells the home after that fact anybody who moves there if' they wish to inquire can find that there are following businesses within so many feet, etc. etc. and if they don't like it, they don't need to, and that becomes the business of the property owner and a prospective buyer and I don't care about that. That's their business. But everybody knows what's going on then. SRW Okay, I think we're ready for a motion of some form, some shape, and I think I heard some support for Mr. Crites' motion. Would he like to take the first stab at a motion? BAC I don't like the word "stab" at, no. I like "first attempt". Given the changes that have already been made about noise control only takes impact if problems do exist, that this ordinance only applies, is designed to only apply to single family zoning or places where single family homes do exist, and the other changes that we have made, then I would suggest that we, then, leave in the 300 feet but add a proviso that allows people to apply for an exemption with public hearing with neighbors so informed that would take it down to 100 feet, and that still leaves intact that the other part of that that says you can't be bound and touched by, etc. etc. that's in there that no one seemed to have any objection to, that that be done, and that we grandfather the existing ones. Mr. Diaz? RAD Is that the grandparenting of the existing... BAC Excuse me, grandparenting, not grandfathering, my apologies. RAD It's in 25.72A.090. They would apply for a permit but they would...it would be granted. WHS You say it's already in there. RAD Yes. JMB They apply for a permit but they would be grandfathered in. BAC They will be grandfathered in. Given that I would so move the ordinance as revised this evening, which is a revision of the original ordinance, which has been revised and given to us. SRW Is there a second to that motion? 57 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL IMirr. i u1G NNE 23, 1994 * s s s s s * s s s s s s * s s * * * * * s s s s s s s s * * s s * s s s s L' Anusi i "A" JMB I'll second it. SRW I need a clarification. You say the grandfathering is in there. Don't all these people have permits already? RAD Not City permits. SRW So we're not grandfathering...if they have a State permit, we're not grandfathering that in? We're requiring an additional permit? RAD Yes. This permit is so...we waive the distance requirements and that unless you don't want to have a permit hearing on...this is... SRW I'm not comfortable with that. BAC Okay. Have at it. SRW I would be comfortable taking those that are in existence, that have existing licenses, whatever they are, be allowed to continue to operate, that we then bring in new providers with the City licenses under the new provision. DJE Then you would be requesting that they only, perhaps, file with the City a copy of their existing license and location and that's it? SRW Yes. Is that okay with the maker of the motion? Instead of having them go through the process like they're starting over, they basically just provide the City "here's my license, I'm in operation"; they continue on. New people that come in apply for the new City license. JMB But that does not give the neighbors any of those any right to say anything about it. SRW No. We're grandfathering them in. We're assuming that they are operating with the satisfaction of the neighborhood. JMB But if they're operating to the satisfaction of the neighbors, there is no problem with them coming in and applying. SRW Except it's an extra government hassle. They've already done it, they're already licensed, let them... JMB They haven't done it. They've only applied to the State. They have not applied to the City. SRW Right. But what we're saying is let them provide us with a copy of that license and not go through the hassle of redoing it. 58 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s s s s s s s s** s s* s s* s*** s* s s* s* s* s s s s s s s s s EXHIBIT "A" JMB But there might be neighbors living out there that don't like them. SRW Well, they should have been at this hearing tonight. So I guess I'm asking the maker of the motion if he would be agreeable to that interpretation of grandfathering. BAC When we, as an example, annex an area or when we make other requirements that didn't exist in the past and we go through the grandfathering process, grandparenting, grandmothering, heck with it, we'll do it the other way for a while, and the use was legal when we annexed an area in, what do we normally do? RAD Normally, the use remains what we call a legal nonconforming use and would be allowed to continue on the property. BAC And everybody is in agreement on that end of that's sitting up here. Now, what do we ask someone to do in terms of letting us know what's going on? You have two options up here. Which of the two options do we normally pursue? RAD Well, normally, with legal nonconforming uses, when it is usually brought to our attention is when there is a complaint, and then we investigate the legal nonconforming use and have to tell the complainant that, no, there is nothing we can do about it because it's a legal nonconforming use. BAC But we don't bring someone in. I mean, part of Roy's comment is well taken. People come down here and raise the devil with us over dust on their street. I suspect that probably fairly few people in town would intimidated about complaining about noise if they were truly grumbling about it. Whether we could do anything or nothing about it, I mean, we're expected to solve the Post Office from this position. So the fact that we can't do anything about it doesn't typically stop people from coming to visit with us. Is there a way that we can get the information on file that is not onerous to the existing providers and yet does what Jean was initially looking for? RAD Yes, what we can do, but I don't know if it's onerous or not, we can require as Mayor Wilson suggested, that those with existing licenses file with the City, and that's it, and then, City staff, can make a quick canvass of the area to see if there's a concern or a problem, and that would do it. The permit process as you have it really does not allow for any controls or in effect denials of permits in any event unless there is a problem, but this way we could find out if someone is saying "well I didn't think I could do anything about it" and chances are we're not going to have that much, but we've made the effort. BAC Now that sounds like a way to tend to this business. If they bring in a State permit, we establish a procedure to find out if there are any issues, and then all of a sudden there is an ordinance there that talks about excessive noise or this or that and if that's there then that's an issue whether they're brand new or ancient or whatever kind of business it is, and if they're not, we're not going to go find problems that do not exist. 59 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL Ni L1114G JUNE 23, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1'./U11D1l "A" WITS What you're saying is they bring in their State permit, and we'll have the opportunity to look at it... BAC Yup. SRW We'll have it on file. They bring in the State permit, it's on file, if there are problems, we have the record of... BAC And then we'll go tend to it. SRW So is that part of your motion to grandfather in that way? BAC Then I would be pleasured to have that as part of the motion. SRW Would you do one other thing? BAC Of course. SRW Would you add to your motion that we bring back a staff report on how this is working in six months so we can review it. BAC I would ask this, that in six months that we have a report that reflects the perceptions of staff, members of the child care community, and members of various governmental organizations, Ms. Mechanick, who were in the process of working with child care. So providers, staff, obviously Councilmember Benson, and folks who were involved and that in six months they come back and say "well, here's how this is going". SRW Maybe we could ask Councilmember Benson to reconvene the committee that she worked with in refining this and bring back a collective report. That's a part of your motion? BAC That is. SRW Second agrees? JMB And then we will know those that are out there and their licenses. • SRW Okay, is the motion clear to everybody? SR (speaking from the audience) I want to make sure (unclear) verify that we are grandparented in (unclear) just the eight of us (unclear) present our license from the State to you. SRW And continue on with your business. SR (unclear) what about me? 60 MINUTES REGULAR PALM ilESElif CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23, 1994 s* s** s s s s s* s s s s s***** s** s* s s s s s* s* s* s s ..AruD11 "A" SRW What about you? SR Well, I've had one complaint. Am I going to have to have a hearing again? SRW Mr. Diaz, I'll defer that answer to an expert. Mr. Diaz? • SR (unclear) SRW Mr. Diaz will answer. RAD I think...we have one complainant...we're not going to have one complainant control... BAC If there is new evidence and new issues, then it's a new issue. RAD Right. BAC If it ain't, it isn't, and we won't measure how large the difference or small it is. SRW Just present your license and go on about you business. SR (from the audience - unclear) RAD Yes. SRW That's what the ordinance says. SR (unclear) SRW Is that clear? Thank you. Allright, we're ready for a vote. BAC I would ask if the City Clerk needs any clarification on the meanderings that we've done. SRG You're acting on the ordinance and not the resolution. SRW We are adopting the revised ordinance with the amendments presented by Mr. Crites in his motion. BAC And we can't do the resolution this evening because we don't have an exact figure. I would then, to finalize it, so move with all of the appropriate amendments that have been discussed this evening at the table. SRW We have a second from Mrs. Benson. Please vote. SRG Motion carries by unanimous vote. 61