Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-10MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Snyder convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Walter H. Snyder III. INVOCATION - Mayor Pro-Tempore Richard S. Kelly IV. ROLL CALL Present Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilman Buford A. Crites Mayor Pro-Tem Richard S. Kelly Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Walter H. Snyder Also Present: Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager Doug Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, Director of Community Affairs/City Clerk John Wohlmuth, ACM/Director of Administrative Services Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works Carlos L. Ortega, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety Steve Smith, Acting Director of Community Development Paul Gibson, City Treasurer/Finance Director V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MRS. BARBARA BOWIE, Principle Librarian, updated the Council on the progress of the Palm Desert Library. She noted the following information for the month of September: - 512 new borrowers registered - 20,109 items checked out (84 % more than the same month in 1995) - 20 volunteers put in 325 hours of volunteer service MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - New art display by Anne Wolfe in the adult section of the Library - 3,748 books donated to the Library which could either be added to the collection or be sold by the Friends of the Library in the used book sale room She said one problem currently being addressed was the parking situation, especially Mondays and Wednesdays prior to the Library opening but after classes at the College have begun. She said a meeting had been held this morning to see what could be worked out in that area. She added that she would keep the Council posted on this situation. MS. ROSEMARY GONZALES, Imperial Irrigation District, addressed Council regarding the attempted takeover of the District's service area. She read a prepared statement (attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A") and offered to answer any questions. Councilman Crites asked whether he was correct is his understanding that Imperial Irrigation was not by choice going to sell and leave the Valley in terms of its status as a utility. Ms. Gonzales responded that there was no intention of selling Imperial Irrigation District. She said the District enjoyed working in the Coachella Valley and had plans to continue working and serving the customers of the Valley. She added that they were a hard company to beat as far as rates and reliability are concerned. Councilman Kelly asked if Imperial Irrigation District would have an interest in expanding and serving the rest of the Valley. Ms. Gonzales responded that the District had a boundary agreement with Southern California Edison which would expire in approximately 23 years. She said that Assembly Bill 1890 was very clear with regard to cherry picking, which means if one utility goes into a second utility service territory and takes customers, the second company would be allowed to take some of the first utility's customers, and this was called reciprocity. She added that the District respected that agreement with Edison. Councilman Kelly asked what would happen if the cities in the rest of the Valley formed some type of JPA and if it would then take care of the District's obligation since it would be the JPA to transgress. Ms. Gonzales responded that this was one of the questions that would be addressed at the citizen forums. She added that every option would be looked at and the appropriate information would be presented that the cities need to know in order to determine the type of service desired once deregulation takes place. Councilman Crites added that right now, should that barrier disappear, Edison is at a disadvantage, but in certain categories, the Imperial Irrigation District would be at a disadvantage. 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Adjourned Palm Desert City Council/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Meetings of June 7 and 13, 1996, and the Regular City Council Meeting of September 26, 1996. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AQAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 23, 24, and 25. Rec: Approve as presented. C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#316) by Katrina McDougall in an Unspecified Amount. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. D. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAQE LICENSE by All Pro Pizza, Inc. for 74- 990 Country Club Drive, #330, Palm Desert. Rec: Refer to Department of Community Development for processing of a Conditional Use Permit. E. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for Local Street Paving Project (PM10 Mitigation) - Delaware Place, Mountain View Drive, and Laticia Lane (Project No. 627/96, Contract No. C12000). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the Local Street and Paving Program (PM10 Mitigation). F. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONTRACT for Civic Center Park Lagoon Water Quality Management (Contract No. C05134). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize an extension of the lagoon maintenance contract with Southwest Aquatics in the amount of $8,730.00 ($970.00 per month). G. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Vendor to Provide Professional Services on Geographic Information Services (G.I.S.) Project. This item was removed from the Agenda for separate discussion under Section IX, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. Please see that section for Council discussion and action. 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 28258 (Kaufman & Broad of Southern California, Inc., Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 96-64 approving Tract Map 28258. I. MINUTES of Sister City Committee Meeting of June 17, 1996. Rec: Receive and file. J. CONSIDERATION OF LETTER, from City of Carson Requesting City of Palm Desert's Support of League of California Cities Resolution No. 1 to Permit the President of the League of California Cities to Appoint Fourteen (14) Persons Per Policy Committee. K. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 96-65 in support of the League of California Cities Resolution No. 1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 4 to Contract No. C09700 - Monterey Avenue Bridge at the Whitewater Channel (Project No. 696-95). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $33,345.30; 2) authorize the transfer of $33,345.30 from contingency to the project account. Councilmember Benson asked that Item G be removed for separate discussion under Section IX, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Spiegel, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Council. VII. RESOLUTIONS None VIII. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption; None 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IX. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Vendor to Provide Professional Services on Geographic Information Services (G.I.S.) Project. Councilmember Benson questioned the large map included with the staff report and asked what it had to do with this item. Information Systems Manager Doug Van Gelder responded that it was to help the Council to see the difference between the information we had when we originally started the project versus the data staff is trying to bring in. He noted that there was a lot of information that was missing, and this new system would add it in. Councilman Spiegel asked whether staff went out to bid on this project. Mr. Van Gelder stated he had contacted different vendors who provide this service, and this company is in line with what everyone else would charge. The reason he selected this company was because of its expertise on the software and hardware. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve $80,000 to be used from Data Processing Account No. 110-4190-415-3091 for hiring A.C.T. GIS consultants to assist in bringing the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) computer up to a level where it is usable and maintainable. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. X. NEW BUSINESS A.UFST FOR CONSIDERATIOIsI OF AMENDMENT TO THE EL PASEO PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL OVERLAY ZONE, case No. ZOA 96-3. Mr. Philips noted that this was actually a public hearing matter and should be on the 7:00 p.m. Agenda. He stated that if anyone was in the audience because of this matter, he would recommend that the Council open the hearing, take any testimony, and adjourn the matter to 7:00 p.m. at which time Council could hear any further testimony and continue the matter to the meeting of October 24, 1996. Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing zwi and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. No testimony was received. Councilman Crites moved to continue this matter to the 7:00 p.m. portion of the meeting. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote. 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM FOR LUCKY'S AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DEEP CANYON ROAD AND HIGHWAY 111, Case Nos. 4709SA and PP95-4 (Heath and Co., Applicant). Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report, noting that the proposed sign program had been recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Commission. He said that due to the architecture of the buildings, the most logical place to put the signs was above the 20-foot height limit on the walls. Councilman Spiegel asked whether the size of the signs was within code, and Mr. Smith responded that both the west and south signs complied with the code. Councilmember Benson asked whether the word "seafood" had been deleted, and Mr. Smith responded that it had. She further questioned the sign for Bank of America and said she thought a similar sign had not been allowed at the Ralph's store. Mr. Smith responded that since that time, the Council had adopted the accessory sign provisions which limits them to two "menu" items. This program would comply because the "Bakery/Deli" would be considered as one accessory sign, while the Bank of America would be the second. Upon question by Councilman Crites, Mr. Smith responded that the Architectural Review Commission voted unanimously to approve this sign program. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, affirm the sign program as recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORP. TO DECISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REQUIRING SOLAR PROTECTION FOR HOME DESIGNS IN PHASE TWO AT THE GROVE, Case No. TT24984-2 (Foxx Development Corp., Applicant). Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report, noting that Foxx Development had been before Architectural Review Commission several times in order to obtain approval of the new models for the next phase at The Grove, which will be the final 44 lots in that development. Each time they were before the Architectural Review Commission, the Commission commented on the lack of solar protection. On September 24th, both Jim and Dan Foxx appeared before the Commission and asked for deletion of the solar protection condition and wished to offer purchasers a series of options to accomplish a similar level of protection. They would be offering both inside and outside solar screens and/or backyard trellises. The Architectural Review Commission took the position that there should be at least a basic minimum that everyone would be afforded, and if someone wanted to take a higher level of solar protection, they should be able to purchase that as an option. The Commission rejected the proposal presented by the developer by a 4-0 vote, and this appeal was subsequently filed. 6 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Staffs recommendation was that the Council deny the appeal and refer the matter back to the Architectural Review Commission with some direction. MR. JIM FOXX addressed the Council and stated that the basis of the appeal was that State of California Title 24 mandates certain minimum performance standards for energy conservation. This project was originally approved in 1991 with some additional solar protection required. The condition allowed for solar protection to be furnished by landscaping and trees as well. Since the project was approved, Title 24 requirements had been upgraded twice through revisions, with significant enhancements to the requirements for energy conservation. He said Title 24 had a performance standard that had to be met; however, it did not say how that standard should be met. He said these houses exceeded the Title 24 standards in place today. He added that he had spoken with representatives of the City's Building Department, and they confirmed that the homes did exceed the standards. He noted that as far as the two models were concerned, they were building a trellis on one and solar shades on the other to show them as options to people who will be purchasing the homes. He said he felt an additional requirement for solar shading beyond what would be needed to comply with Title 24 was excessive. He added that he believed there were provisions in Title 24 that if a city wants to go beyond Title 24, there were certain findings that must be made and other things that must be done by the city in order to do that. In addition, he said his energy consultant advised him that in the documentation she supplied from the codes that the City had copies of, the State said that solar protection in and of itself is not necessarily one of the best methods to achieve better energy efficiency and that solar trellises would provide protection from direct sun for a period of time until the sun gets lower on the horizon but did nothing to stop reflective heat from patios, concrete, etc. There are other things that are much more effective from an energy standpoint than simply a patio cover or a trellis that goes to a certain distance. He said this was such a complex issue, and if the City really wants to study what to do with it, we need to study it, get some experts involved, find out what needs to be done, and legislate it. Councilman Spiegel stated that the minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting showed that one of the Commissioners indicated "his concerns with the lack of architectural detail, especially around the windows. Mr. Foxx indicated that the bay windows have 6" deep pop -outs around the building and that they are trying to match the elevations that are there now. Commission Gregory indicated that more architectural details should be shown on the elevations for the models. Mr. Foxx indicated that the color schemes and roof tiles will match what is there now." He said it sounded to him like the Commission was just asking for a little more information. Mr. Foxx stated that at that time the plans were not as complete detail -wise. He said he was there to get a reading to find out if they were going in the right direction. He said that with some of the controversies the Council had seen from builders coming in to communities part way through and raising a fire storm of concern from existing homeowners, what he was doing in completing The Grove had been free of all that. He said they were conforming to the elevation styles, same color programs, etc. and were trying to duplicate the details of the 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * various elevations. The Architectural Review Commission attached a condition to its approval that additional solar shading be provided because that was a condition of the original Grove project approval in 1991. Councilman Crites asked whether the arguments presented by the applicant at this meeting were the same as those presented to the Architectural Review Commission, and Mr. Foxx responded that they were not presented in the same concise fashion. Councilman Crites suggested that perhaps then this should go back to the Commission. Mr. Foxx said he would accept that if he felt there was a reason to do so. He said he felt the condition at all was excessive. The developer is required to meet Title 24, and this is an energy conservation issue, not an architectural issue. If the developer meets Title 24, that should be sufficient at this point in time. Councilman Kelly stated he knew there were buildings that had been approved in the City without an overhang, and his experience was that an overhang was not what made the difference in having an energy efficient building. He said his main concern was that if the City wants something different, there should be an ordinance and guidelines so that a builder can see what the requirements are. He said the builder should not have to come to the City and not know what is required. Councilman Crites said the Council only had Mr. Foxx's assertion that this was true. He said he did not have anything from the Architectural Review Commission that either backed it up or did not back it up. He suggested that this be taken back to the Commission to have it spelled out very specifically why they want this condition and how it fits within the existing guidelines. Councilmember Benson stated that if this is finishing out a project that has already been approved, the rules should not be changed part way down the road. Title 24 solar protection was in the first approval. Mr. Foxx stated that his belief was that the additional solar relief required as a condition of approval had nothing to do with Title 24 at that time. He said his contention was that Title 24 gets more stringent every time it is revised, and this is the second revision since Title 24 was enacted. He said his energy consultant was not able to tell him today whether the improvement was 5 % or 15 % each time it was revised, but there was some substantial improvement in reducing energy consumption every time a new code is implemented. He said he was spending a lot more money today to meet the current Title 24 than was spent in 1991, and the houses are much more efficient. He felt the requirement for additional solar protection today was even more excessive and added more undue cost today than it may have in 1991. Upon question by Councilman Kelly, Mr. Conlon responded that the houses exceed the current Title 24 regulations from the Building Department standpoint. 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Foxx noted that while they were already exceeding what is mandated by the State, as part of the sale options they would be offering people a variety of solar protection schemes. Councilman Crites asked whether the solar requirements were ones mandated on Phase I of the development. Mr. Foxx responded that there was a provision for some sort of additional solar protection that was not defined. However, neither the minutes nor the notices of action can be found. He said there was confusion as far as what the requirement would or would not do. He said what was not in the minutes of the September 24th meeting was the discussion that this would only apply to protect full-length glass and would not be needed for windows on the west facing elevation, just for the sliding glass doors. He said he was not sure what the requirement was in the first place, but regardless of what it was, he felt it was excessive given today's Title 24 requirements. Councilman Spiegel stated that there were other concerns about the existing homes, including the fact that the palm trees had died. He asked if he was reading it correctly that the new homes being built would not have the same overhang, etc. as the old buildings. Mr. Foxx responded that this was not true and that the elevations were done to match what is already there. He said the existing houses have two -foot overhangs, and the new ones were also designed with two -foot overhangs. With regard to the palm trees that died, he said that happened long before he became involved in this project. He added that he was working with City staff to get those trees removed and to come up with a new landscape plan, and staff did not want new palm trees put in to replace the dead trees. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Smith stated that the original Grove units had a condition placed on them that they plant trees in strategic locations to provide a certain amount of shading in lieu of normal trellises and awnings. He said the Architectural Review Commission for many years had had as part of the design policy that the east and west elevations of homes have some sort of shading to keep the direct sunlight off the glazed area. He said over those years there had been many discussions relative to Title 24, and the typical response from the Architectural Review Commission was that it was not designed with the desert in mind, and if we can keep the sun off the glazed areas, we would be doing the homeowner a favor. Whether the more recent Title 24 upgrades had changed that, he said he did not know. Councilman Crites asked whether the issues brought up by Mr. Foxx were discussed by the Architectural Review Commission, and Mr. Smith responded that they had not been in a specific sense but that it was part of the overall discussion. He added that they did not distinguish between the 1991 Title 24 provisions and the current Title 24 provisions. Councilman Crites asked if there were significantly different, and Mr. Conlon responded that they were. Councilmember Benson noted that Mr. Conlon had indicated the new plans meet the Title 24 regulations. 9 11HNUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Crites said he felt this should go back to Architectural Review Commission with direction to specifically look at this, and if they do not agree with Mr. Foxx's plan they would need to give the Council specific reasons why it should go beyond the code. Mayor Snyder said he felt this was an opportune time to go back to the Architectural Review Commission and give them the information brought to this meeting that was not brought up at the Commission meeting. Upon question by Councilmember Benson relative to whether the new plans comply with the 1994 Title 24 regulations, Mr. Conlon stated that Title 24 since 1991 had been revised twice, and his current plans exceed 1996 standards. He added that there was a time when people would not want to shade the windows, and that would be in the winter when credit can be taken for passive solar glazing or passive solar heating on the windows. Shading on the windows in the summer was great, but putting a shade structure over the windows in the winter time meant a deficit. Councilmember Benson stated she did not think it was up to the Architectural Review Commission to go beyond and make a developer do more than what is already there until the City has an ordinance that shows what everyone has to do. Until then, let the buyers decide what they want. Councilman Kelly agreed. Councilman Spiegel asked whether the reason the Architectural Review Commission turned the project down was because there were no trees. Mr. Smith responded that Mr. Foxx's position was that he did not wish to put trees in because it would impact on the ability to place pools in some of the yards. The Commission did approve the plans subject to placement of adequate solar protection. Councilman Spiegel asked if that meant trees, and Mr. Smith responded that it was left to staffs discretion. He added that Mr. Foxx went back to the Commission on September 24th and sought the removal of that condition. Councilman Kelly asked what the exact condition was that was being appealed. Mr. Smith responded that on June 1 lth there was approval of the plans submitted, subject to the applicant incorporating adequate solar protection on the east and west elevations, and that motion carried by a 6-0 vote. Time went by, and the applicant worked with Planning Staff (Phil Drell and Steve Smith) to try and come to an agreeable level of protection. When that did not pan out, Mr. Foxx asked to go back to Architectural Review Commission, which he did on September 24, and he sought the removal of that condition. When working with staff, Mr. Foxx made the argument that the interior and exterior solar screening as options should be an acceptable level, but staff did not feel that met with the usual level of solar protection. Councilman Kelly asked what staff was asking for. Mr. Smith responded that we typically get trellises and/or awnings. Councilman Kelly stated he felt the interpretation could be made 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * by the developer that he was meeting the requirements for the east and west elevations by abiding by Title 24, and he said he felt staff was being picky. Councilmember Benson stated she did not feel the Architectural Review Commission was the mechanism to deal with energy, and that is what this issue is. Mr. Diaz stated that he felt the issue was whether what is being proposed is adequate. If Council disagrees with staffs conclusion and feels this is adequate, then we can proceed with reversing staffs recommendation. If Council feels exceeding Title 24 means it is adequate protection, then it should reverse staffs decision. Councilmember Benson stated that if it exceeds the 1996 Title 24, she would say he should be allowed to build the homes, and then we can go back to study the issue. Mr. Diaz stated that if the vote affirms that, what staff is now given are directions 1) that if someone comes in for a house permit, if they exceed Title 24 requirements, that is adequate, and 2) if we wish to look at the whole energy issue, we should come back with a code amendment. Councilmembers Benson and Spiegel agreed. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, grant the appeal. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-2 vote, with Councilman Crites and Mayor Snyder voting NO. Councilman Kelly stated that with regard to discussions about having an ordinance, this is a specialized area and doing that means we may have to hire consultants to go through and study that entire issue. He said he felt the City had priorities that were higher, and he felt the State of California, when it comes to energy savings and the environment, had probably some of the most stringent laws in the country. Mayor Snyder stated that he did not like to override a 6-0 decision of the Architectural Review Commission and felt it would have been better to send the matter back to the Commission for additional consideration. He said he had great confidence in the Commission and did not want the members to think the Council disregards information from them. Councilmember Benson suggested that staff take the matter back to Architectural Review Commission and explain why the Council overrode the Commission's decision and indicating that it was not arbitrary. She said she felt the Council had justification to do so but would like to have the issue studied further and a set of guidelines established. 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * D. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS;. 1. Update on Interchanges: a. I-10/Washington Street b. I-10/Cook Street c. I-10/Monterey Avenue Mr. Folkers updated the Council on the status of these three interchanges. Councilman Crites stated that with regard to the Monterey Country Club side of Monterey Avenue, it appeared that there were some large sprinkler systems working along that area. About two weeks ago these sprinklers were overspraying all over Monterey Avenue, and he asked if there were plans to have turf sprinklers right out to the curb on Monterey. Mr. Folkers responded that the intention was to have sprinklers for turf, but they would be pulled back from the curb and would not spraying out into the street. 2. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies Mr. Diaz stated that there had been discussions with Mr. Rick Muro with regard to locating in the old Circuit City building, but that appeared to be out of the picture at this point. He said the 111 Town Center had obtained a signed lease with World Gyms, and there would be a World Gym and a children's gym at this location. He added that staff was working with Best Buy in the Architectural Review Commission to establish the signage program. With regard to the Palm Desert Town Center, he said a meeting had been held with the current manager, the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, Community Development Director, Economic Development Manager, Councilmembers Spiegel and Benson, and the City Manager. As a result of that meeting, it was discovered that information was not being relayed within, and he said he would like to have a new committee established to be called the Retail -Tourism Revitalization Committee, which would concentrate on the central business district are and tourism. He asked that Councilmembers Spiegel and Benson sit on this committee, Councilman Spiegel because of his experience in the retail area and Councilmember Benson because of her activity in the tourism area as well as her position as Chair of the CVB. 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * s s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * With regard to Palms to Pines East, he said there had been two groups that presented proposals for that center. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, establish the Retail -Tourism Revitalization Committee as outlined by Mr. Diaz and appoint Councilmembers Spiegel and Benson to serve on same. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION MERGER WITH U.S. WEST, INC. (Continued from the Meeting of September 26, 1996). Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 96-61. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. XII. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REGULATE COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS, Ca$e No. ZOA 96-2. Mr. Diaz stated that this was actually a public hearing and should be continued to the 7:00 p.m. portion of the meeting. Councilman Crites moved to continue this matter to 7:00 p.m. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. R&auest for Formation of Retail -Tourism Revitalization Committee. See Information Item 2 above for Council discussion and action. 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Philips noted the items listed on the Agenda for Closed Session. Councilman Crites noted the presence of the Manager of the Sunline Services Group and the fact that he will be giving a presentation in Closed Session. 1) Report and Action on Items from Closed Session Made at This Meeting. None 2) Reouest for Closed Session Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Section 54956.9(a): City of Palm Desert v. Western Waste, Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. 090744 Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b): Number of potential cases: 3_ Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: Southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane East Assessor's Parcel Number: 624-040-024 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Richard J. Folkers, Director of Public Works Property Owner: F.X. McDonald Under negotiation: _ Price x Terms of Payment C. CITY CLERK None D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: None 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * o City Council Committee Reports: 1. Councilman Spiegel stated that he had been asked to bring up the Golf Cart Parade to consider what Council should be doing in that event. Councilman Kelly stated that he had planned to drive a golf cart. The other members of the Council stated they had plans to just watch the parade from the sidelines. 2. Councilman Crites stated that staff had been asked at one point to comment when the City of Rancho Mirage was looking at the issue of potential rezoning of the west side of the Monterey Country Club intersection. He suggested that either one or two members of the Council or staff approach the City of Rancho Mirage and see whether or not we can master plan zone all of the intersections between Country Club and the Interstate so that developers know in advance what the zoning is. Councilman Spiegel stated this had been discussed and he felt the Council was in agreement that there would be two people from Planning Commission plus the heads of the Planning Department to meet and come up with ideas to bring back to the Council. Mr. Diaz stated that he would contact Mr. Pat Pratt and would have the information for the Council at the next meeting. Councilmember Benson stated that there were already plans to put a Jack In The Box on the Rancho Mirage side of Monterey Avenue right below the International House of Pancakes. 3. Councilmember Benson reported that she had attended the previous day the designation of the Palm Springs Regional Airport as a "User Fee Airport". She said it was the only one in the State of California and would be bringing in corporate aircraft that does not have to stop at Las Vegas and Los Angeles for custom fees. She said she felt this was a step in the right direction to make the airport more usable for the Valley. Councilmember Benson stated that with regard to the total airport expansion, it was to be looked at when the passenger load had exceeded 500,000, which it did last year. She said that was triggering looking to see if the airlines wanted to participate in the expansion of the second phase of the airport. He said they had decided to postpone it for a year because the 500 figure was reached by two carriers that we had last year (Air 21 and Reno), and they wanted to see what they do in the future before expansion goes on. 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4. Councilman Kelly reported on the CVAG, RCOG, and RCTC meeting to discuss the problem that western Riverside County sees with the makeup of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. He said there was a proposal that was considered that possible legislation would be looked at that would designate the eastern part of the County as a separate transportation commission. He said he felt this would be big step forward and would be an advantage to eastern Riverside County. He added that additional information would be brought to Council in the future. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None Councilman Spiegel moved to adjourn the meeting to Closed Session at 5:27 p.m., said Closed Session to immediately follow the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Snyder 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 CAPTAIN STEVE BLOOMQUIST, Palm Desert Police Department, stated he wished to bring the Council up to date on the program at the Palm Desert Town Center. He said he had reported several weeks ago that he was negotiating to obtain some lease space at the Town Center, and the Department would be taking possession no later than November 1. He said it was a short-term, approximately three-month, lease at this time, and he was negotiating with corporate headquarters to establish a long-term office located at the Town Center to provide a better response to some of the problems that happen in the commercial area and to get the Department out into the community. He offered to answer any questions. Councilman Spiegel said he felt this was an excellent plan and said his thinking was that one of the City's major obligations is to make Palm Desert a safe place to shop. He felt the Police Department's presence at the Town Center would only ensure that. He commended Captain Bloomquist for the plan. Councilman Crites added that there is now a School Resources Officer at the Middle School, and the Principal of that school approached him about a week ago not just singing the praises of the Police Department but noting how their needs were responded to without them having to beat on 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the door about it. The Principal also noted that it was a pleasure to do business with the folks from the Palm Desert Police. He expressed his personal thanks to Captain Bloomquist and the officers. XVII. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None RVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS ABOVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE ZONES IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED, Case Nos. 420C, 422C, and 425C, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, Applicant (Continued from the Meetings of May 23, June 27, July 11, and August 22, 1996). Mr. Smith stated that this related to the earlier cases before the Council. He noted a letter had been received from Mr. Darrell Daugherty on behalf of Pacific Bell Mobile Services withdrawing consideration of this request. He added that the new applications by this applicant would be covered under the second public hearing, which was continued from the 4:00 p.m. portion of this meeting. Upon question by Councilman Crites relative to Public Hearing B and advertising for same as a public hearing, Mr. Phillips responded that it was only the Agenda that had the item in the incorrect place and that all of the public hearing notices had been sent out as required. No Council action was required or taken on this item. B. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REGULATE COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS, Case No. ZOA 96-2 (This item was listed on the Agenda under Old Business). Mr. Smith stated that this was a noticed public hearing for 7:00 p.m. He reviewed the staff report, noting that a moratorium was imposed by the City Council at its meeting of July 11, 1996, and subsequently extended at the August 22, 1996, meeting, to continue until July 7, 1997, or until the new ordinance is in force. He said staff had prepared a draft ordinance which was reviewed and revised at the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. The draft ordinance was then presented to Planning Commission which by its Resolution No. 1765 recommending approval of the draft ordinance to the City Council. He noted that the Planning Commission did not alter any sections of the ordinance, although it did prescribe and direct staff to broaden the public hearing noticing area for any communication towers. He said the normal procedure was to do a notice to everyone within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property, and the Planning Commission wanted staff to go either 500 feet from the tower itself or 300 feet from the edge of the property it sits on, whichever is greater. 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Smith stated that the ordinance before Council at this time essentially defined what the towers and antennas are, prohibited these facilities in residential zones except under an exceptions process, permitted them in commercial and C-1, PC, SI, Public, Open Space, and Planned Industrial zoning districts, required that they all be approved by the Architectural Review Commission, required that all new towers be approved through a public hearing process at the Planning Commission, established a minimum separation requirement from residential zones, established a minimum separation requirement between towers, established a maximum overall height of 85 feet, and encouraged the shared use or co -location on existing and new communication towers as the primary option rather than construction of additional single -use towers. He noted that during the ordinance drafting period, staff had processed three new applications from Pacific Bell Mobile Services, and the Planning Commission considered the applications during public hearings on October 1, 1996, at which time they were approved. He said the locations were on the Gold's Gym site in the industrial park at Washington and Country Club, the site just off Cook Street at Eclectic immediately south of Continental Cable, and on the roof at the Palm Desert Town Center. All three were conditional use permits, with public hearings held and notices sent to the greater of either 300 feet or 500 feet from the tower. He said there was a condition in each of the conditional use permits that they are not effective until and unless this ordinance is enacted by the City Council, and any approval must be consistent with the ultimately adopted ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that Pacific Bell requested that the ordinance be adopted as an urgency ordinance to become effective immediately upon adoption so that its towers can be constructed for initiation of its Valley -wide service on January 1, 1997. He noted that this was provided for in Section 12 of the ordinance on page 13. He noted that the City Attorney had advised that if this is to be handled as an urgency, the Council would need to make findings that the ordinance is necessary to preserve the public peace, health, or safety. In addition, it would require a 4/5ths vote of the Council. He said that Mr. Daugherty of Pacific Bell would explain the need for the urgency aspect of the ordinance. He added that if the Council were to enact the ordinance as an urgency ordinance, following that action it could repeal the moratorium previously placed on August 22nd on these facilities. Councilman Crites noted the section regarding the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission and asked whether staff would have a problem with additional wording that "approval of which will be specifically noticed to members of the Council." He said that while most of these may never be controversial, there are some possible places where these can be placed that would be very much so and may not even have people living nearby but would have visibility from all over the Valley, etc. Councilmember Benson agreed and said perhaps staff could include wording that the Conditional Use Permit be noticed to the Council. 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Upon question by Mayor Snyder, Mr. Phillips responded that this would not be considered a substantial change to the ordinance. He added that with regard to the urgency item is concerned, Council could adopt it as an urgency ordinance at this time if it finds that "it is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety." He said the ordinance itself would need to contain a declaration of the facts that constitute the urgency, and it would need to be adopted by a 4/5ths vote. Councilman Kelly questioned the separation distance in residential areas and the ordinance wording indicating "three (3) times height of tower, with a minimum of 100 feet". Mr. Smith responded that it would have to be at least 100 feet, and in the case of the Gold's Gym site as an example, which is 60 feet, it would need to be 180 feet from the residential area. Councilman Spiegel asked if staff had any idea how many other companies will be coming in and requesting towers. Mr. Smith responded that there had not yet been discussions with any other companies; however, it was his understanding that there would be more coming. He said with the locations these towers have been restricted to, there will be a great incentive to collocate on this tower if it is approved. Councilman Spiegel stated he felt there should be something included in the ordinance that before approval is given, the applicant requesting approval for a tower must agree to let any other company collocate on their tower. Mr. Smith responded that there was such a condition in the Planning Commission conditions on the approvals that says "That where collocation may effectively be accomplished without violation of the provisions of proposed Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 and without reasonable interference with the applicant's existing use, applicant shall allow third party collocation onto the tower erected under this permit. Applicant may charge a reasonable rental fee for such collocated use to the extent allowed by law." Councilman Crites asked if there was a way to make that statement stronger, and Mr. Phillips responded that this could be done. Councilman Spiegel suggested changing "shall allow" to "must allow". Mr. Diaz added that if there ends up being a problem where they cannot, then the applicant can come to the Council and ask for a modification of that condition on a case by case basis. He suggested that the condition be placed in the ordinance because the Conditional Use Permit must meet every condition of the ordinance. He added that this would be considered a minor change to the ordinance, and Mr. Phillips agreed that it was not a substantial change. Councilman Kelly asked whether raising the separation from residential property would be considered a minor change, and Mr. Diaz agreed. Councilman Kelly suggested that it be changed to 500 feet. Mr. Smith stated that this would be a substantial change for the one application if the Council required a 500 foot minimum because it had been approved at approximately 300 feet from residential. He said the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee discussed at length whether 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the people closest to the towers were impacted more than people who were a greater distance away and came up with the three times the height condition. Councilman Spiegel asked what would happen if the towers affect the neighbors' reception on their televisions, etc. Mr. Smith responded that Mr. Daugherty would address the technical aspects but that staffs understanding was that it would not affect this. Councilmember Benson suggested that the condition for separation from residential be changed to a minimum of 300-500 to accommodate the tower that has been approved. Councilman Crites stated that under this ordinance, with the condition as it is, a person would be able to put up a 33 foot tower 100 feet from another person's home. He asked how tall a house someone would be allowed to build in an R-1 zone. Mr. Smith responded that the maximum house in an R-1 zone would be 18 feet. He added that the only instance where staff would even consider a tower in a residential zone would be if there were a necessity in order to serve the south end of the City. He said someone might want to make an agreement with Ironwood, for instance, to put a tower up in one of the canyons where it would serve the south end of the City. Upon question by Councilman Crites, Mr. Smith responded that staff had looked at the ordinance for the City of Rancho Mirage as well as others from areas all over the United States. Upon question by Mayor Snyder, Mr. Diaz stated that the change in separation distance to 500 feet would be a minor change as far as the ordinance is concerned, but it would be a major change as far as the applicant is concerned because they would not be able to do it at the location for which they have applied. Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of this request. MR. DARRELL DAUGHERTY, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, stated that most cities they deal with allow this use in residential zones with a Conditional Use Permit. With regard to the setback from residential, he said they had tucked it into the corner of the property up against the Coachella Valley Water District drainage easement and the railroad tracks and felt it was a good location. However, then the setback came into play, and the location was switched to Mr. French's easterly part of the property and as far back as possible. He said their intent was to comply with that setback as much as possible. He said he felt a residential setback was a good thing and that the setbacks were typically for the towers falling down and to give residents a feeling of safety in knowing the tower would never fall into a residentially zoned property. With regard to their site in Indian Wells, it was not at the Esmeralda, it was at the Indian Wells Golf Course at the maintenance facility. He said it was tucked away in some trees and was very well done. He noted that another tower had been approved to be located on Dinah Shore in Rancho Mirage. In addition, towers had been approved for Palm 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Springs, and the City of Indio had recently approved an 80-foot multi-user tower so that all the carriers when they come can use the same pole. With regard to other carriers using the towers, he said there were several that he knew of: L.A. Cellular and Airtouch Cellular, Nextel, and two pcs carriers, including Pacific Bell and Fox Communications. He noted that Pacific Bells' 100% commitment was that if someone comes to locate another facility in town, his company will work with that other carrier for collocation. He said this was not optional in Palm Desert and that he would put in writing a memorandum to the file as far as what the expectations are for Palm Desert. He said he would encourage the City to write what that expectation is. He said if his company has to take their pole down and move three blocks away in the future because that is where that other pole will be, that is fine and they would do it because that is their commitment. He said that if the staff or the Council feels the company is not cooperating in good faith, the permits should be called back into question. Councilman Spiegel asked how many other users can use this same tower. Mr. Daugherty responded that this was a tricky thing. He said his company could build a 16-inch diameter concrete light standard right now and maybe a year from now someone else might come in, and they could take that standard down and go on a larger mast that would accommodate two users. However, right now, not knowing what other carriers's are, they don't have engineered designs to show, and he did not know if they could use his firm's sites. He said his approach would be to build a minimal facility now and tear it down later if they need to. Mr. Daugherty stated that last week the City of Indio approved a site in that city, bringing Pacific Bell's total to 15 sites in the Valley. He said this system would be launched December 1st. San Diego County is the first network to be integrated into the master Pacific Bell network, and that would start November lst. The system will migrate, and the switch would be flipped for Southern California on January lst. He said Palm Desert was the nucleus of the desert, and it is critical to have Palm Desert up in order to launch this network and have it be effective. Councilman Spiegel asked if the system would have any effect on other radio, television, etc. Mr. Daugherty responded that it would not, and in fact they operate in a part of radio spectrum well above television and cordless phones, which are in the 900MH and 400MH range. He added that the FCC regulates the frequency, and if his company's system interferes with someone else, the FCC will take care of things. He said he felt the City of Palm Desert had done an excellent job in putting together a good ordinance and in deciding what is best for Palm Desert. In addition, this has been done in a very timely manner. He stated that it had been a pleasure working with City staff. Mayor Snyder invited testimony in OPPOSITION to this request, and none was offered. He declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Kelly asked whether the ordinance included HAM radio towers in residential districts. Mr. Smith responded that it covers commercial communication towers and antennas only, and towers for HAM radios are covered under a different regulation. Councilman 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Kelly asked whether Palm Desert had any ordinances regulating HAM radio towers, and Mr. Smith stated it was his understanding that they are covered under the FCC. He said the City of Palm Desert did have restrictions on television and radio antennas, but the City has also been precluded through certain Federal laws. Councilman Kelly expressed concern with residents of Sandpiper who had previously come in and objected to a tower at the Palms to Pines Center and who usually leave the Valley for the summer. Mr. Smith stated that the tower had been moved approximately 1000 feet to the north from where it was previously located, and now it would be located on the roof of the Palm Desert Town Center, approximately at Hamburger Hamlet. Councilman Kelly stated that with regard to the comment that his change to 500 feet from a residential district would not be a major change to the ordinance but would be a major change to the applicant, he asked where the tower was located that would be affected by this change. Mr. Smith responded that it was the one that would be on the Gold's Gym site on Enfield Lane, Country Club and Washington area. He said the tower had been approved on that site approximately 300 feet west of the vacant residential property to the west. Upon further question by Councilman Kelly, Mr. Smith confirmed that there are no houses in that particular residential area at this time and that it was a vacant 118 acre piece. Councilman Kelly asked whether the tower would comply if the separation was 300 feet, and Mr. Smith responded that it could comply with that. Councilman Crites stated that his understanding was that there were three changes to be made to the ordinance: 1) 300 foot minimum separation from residential; 2) mandatory co -use requirement by changing "shall" to "must" in that section of the ordinance; 3) specific notification to members of the Council after any Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission. Councilman Kelly questioned the joint use requirement and how it would work if there were an existing tower and a new applicant came in and requested a new tower. Mr. Smith responded that, for example, if there were the 60-foot tower on the Gold's Gym site, if the next company comes along, they would come through the Conditional Use Permit process and would ask for a 65-foot tower in the same location with two levels of antennas, one at 65 feet and one at 60 feet. The 60-foot tower would be removed, and the 65-foot tower would be installed. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt No. 817 as amended. Mr. Phillips stated that his understanding was that Council intended by this ordinance to rescind the ordinance which adopted the moratorium. Council agreed, and Mr. Phillips stated that language to that effect needed to be added into the ordinance. 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Council. Councilman Crites stated that the amendments would be as he stated previously and that the ordinance would be a matter of urgency because of the potential for improving citizen communication in natural disasters. Councilman Crites seconded the motion by Spiegel, and it carried by unanimous vote of the Councilman Crites thanked Councilmember Benson and Mr. Steve Smith for their work on this ordinance. He suggested that, given the comments heard during this hearing from the applicant, the Mayor be willing to send a note to Mr. Daugherty's superiors indicating that it was a pleasure to have someone come before the Council who is willing to accept responsibility and to live up to the things the Council wants to see done. Council concurred. A. BEOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE EL PASEO PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL OVERLAY ZONE, Case No. ZOA 96-3 (This item was listed on the Agenda under New Business). Mr. Diaz stated that staff was requesting that the hearing be opened and then continued to the meeting of October after taking testimony. Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. No testimony was offered. Councilman Crites moved to continue this matter to the meeting of October 24, 1996. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote. Councilmember Benson stated that a lot of people had sent letters to the Council relative to this matter, and she asked that all of them be notified of this continuance. Mrs. Gilligan responded that staff was required to post a notice of the continued public hearing and would mail a copy of that notice to each of those individuals who had sent letters. XIX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D None 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XX. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Crites moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. to Closed Session. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Snyder reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. and immediately adjourned with no action announced from Closed Session. ATTEST: 2 ' SHEILA R GAN DIRECTOR OF CONIIvIIINqY AFFAIRS/CITY CLERK WALTER H. SNYDER, MAY 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EXHIBIT "A" MPJAL HI1HCATION DISTRICT NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 10,1996 Contact: Rosemary Gonzales (619) 398-5800 or (619) 398-5835 IID TO ESTABLISH "COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY COLLABORATIVE" Effort will focus on how customers can benefit from deregulation The Imperial Irrigation District will help its commercial, industrial and residential customers prepare for power industry deregulation with a unique program of education and dialog over the next several months, according to Kenneth S. Noller, Assistant General Manager, Power Department. "We see deregulation, which will start in 1998, as a change that will benefit our customers in both the Coachella and Imperial valleys," Noller said. "But the new structure and the transition process is complicated. We are inviting city and county officials in our service area and the general public to participate in a collaborative effort to educate ourselves about what the changes will mean -- and how to take advantage of them." IID, a consumer -owned, non-profit electric utility since 1934, now has significantly lower electric rates than investor -owned utilities (IOUs). Noller expects that to continue even with deregulation, as IOUs struggle to catch up. - more - EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT • COACHELLA VALLEY DIVISION 81-800 AVENUE 58 • P. O. BOX 1080 • LA QUINTA, CA 92253-1080 • (819) 398-5800 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . EXHIBIT "A" IID TO ESTABLISH "COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY COLLABORATIVE" - 2 "We plan a phased transition to lower commercial and industrial rates and freeze residential rates, which are already lower than the actual cost of service," he added. "We will do this by making the current system even more efficient and thus further reducing costs." An integral part of IID's effort will be to interact with its customers to insure that IID is meeting their electricity needs not only as the company sees them but from the customer point of view. The Competitive Electricity Collaborative, beginning in the fall, will foster dialog to identify new competitive opportunities for electric customers in the service area. Part of this will be an effort to educate all participants about the realities of California's restructured electric utility industry, including direct customer access, new power "aggregators" who will be able to assemble, or aggregate, large customers together to obtain favorable rates, and other new delivery approaches. Up to three customer forums will be held to explore the following topics: 1. Direct access by customer to different power providers and retail transportation (or "wheeling") of power, including opportunities created by recent deregulation legislation. 2. Formation of new utility entities, such as aggregators, and by-pass of local retail suppliers. - more - 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAtllni i "A" IID TO ESTABLISH "COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY COLLABORATIVE"- 3 3. Self -generation, cogeneration and other "hard wired" options available to large users. The opportunities explored in these three forums would be revisited in a fourth, where IID, its customers and their government officials could assess their respective positions, identify individual objectives and address such issues as utility governance and greater customer involvement in IID decision -making. Ultimately, participants would arrive at recommendations for future action. "IID sees deregulation as an opportunity for self -assessment and further improvement of systems and operations that are already very efficient," Noller concluded. "We think that our customers should be excited as well." "Over the next few months, we'll be working very closely together with all interested parties to determine what the future looks like for all of us." ### 27