HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-10MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kelly convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Richard S. Kelly
III. INVOCATION - Councilman Robert A. Spiegel
IV. ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Pro Tempore Jean M. Benson
Councilman Buford A. Crites
Councilman Walter H. Snyder
Councilman Robert A. Spiegel
Mayor Richard S. Kelly
Also Present:
Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
Sheila R. Gilligan, Director of Community Affairs/City Clerk
Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works
John Wohlmuth, ACM/Director of Administrative Services
Carlos L. Ortega, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director
Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
Mary P. Gates, Deputy City Clerk
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
MR. DAVID FIRESTONE addressed Council relative to Old Business Item A and stated that Neil's
Apparel, Silverio's Flowers, and J. Russell Salon all were very much in favor of this project relative
to Presidents Plaza west.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of June 26, 1997.
Rec: Approve as presented.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant No. 67.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#335) by Sam Ross in the Amount of $1,010.88.
Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the
Claimant.
D. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#337) by April Winkle in an Amount in Excess of
$10,000.00.
Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the
Claimant.
E. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Amit Shalom Katz for Learsi,
41-801 Corporate Way, Suite 5, Palm Desert.
Rec: Refer to Department of Community Development for processing of a Conditional
Use Permit.
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Charitable Contributions Applications for Fiscal Year
1997/98.
Removed for separate consideration under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over, of the
Agenda. See that section of the Minutes for Council discussion and action.
G. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for Capital Outlay
Equipment.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the
following equipment: 1) Air Compressor; 2) flat bed truck; 3) paint shaker; 4) 30'
vibrastat asphalt roller; 5) crack sealing machine; 6) riding rotary mower.
H. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Ca11 for Bids for Retrofitting of El
Paseo Median Island Artwork Lighting (Contract No. C13170)
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for retrofit
of median island artwork lighting.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Installation of Two (2) Poligon SQ-20 Picnic
Pavilions for the Civic Center Park (Contract No. C12760, Project No. 680-97).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the contract to James E. Simon Company (Indio) in
the amount of $22,140.00 for installation of two (2) Poligon SQ-20 picnic pavilions
for the Civic Center Park (Project No. 680-97) and authorize a fifteen percent
contingency of $3,321.00 (funds available in Account No. 430-4664-433-4040); 2)
authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with James E. Simon Company.
J. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Parking Lot Improvements at Highway 111
and San Pablo Avenue (Contract No. C12990, Project No. 634A-97).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the contract to Dateland Construction (Coachella) in
the amount of $15,138.05 for the parking lot improvements (Project No. 634A-97)
and authorize a ten percent contingency of $1,513.80 (funds available in Account
No. 213-4342-433-4001); 2) authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with
Dateland Construction.
K. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Street Improvements on Hovley Lane East
between Water Way and Eldorado Drive (Contract No. C12710, Project No. 628-97).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the contract to Granite Construction (Indio) in the
amount of $54,646.65 for the street improvements (Project No. 628-97) and
authorize a ten percent contingency of $5,464.66 (funds available in the project
account); 2) authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Granite
Construction.
. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Local Street Paving Project -- Magnesia Falls
Drive from Monterey Avenue to San Pablo Avenue (Contract No. C12980, Project No. 670-
97).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award Contract No. C12980 to the lowest responsible bidder
for the construction of street paving on Magnesia Falls Drive and authorize the
Mayor to execute the agreement; 2) appropriate construction funding in the amount
of the lowest responsible bid plus 10% contingency from the Unobligated Measure
"A" Funds for Account No. 213-4675-433-4001; 3) approve Estimated Revenue in
the amount of the lowest responsible bid plus 10% contingency to the Unobligated
Measure "A" Fund.
3
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
M. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. C12000 - Local Street Paving
(Project No. 627-97).
Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file
a Notice of Completion for the subject project.
N. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Consider a
Street Name Change from Desert Springs Drive to Desert Willow Drive between Country Club
Drive and Market Place.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No 97-55 setting a public hearing to
consider a street name change from Desert Springs Drive to Desert Willow Drive
between Country Club Drive and Market Place.
O. INVESTMENT REPORT for Month Ending May 31, 1997.
Rec: Receive and file.
P. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Fifth Amendment to the Cove Communities Services
Commission (Contract No. C03165)
Q.
Removed for separate consideration under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over, of the
Agenda. See that section of the Minutes for Council discussion and action.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CVAG and
the City of Palm Desert for Video -Outreach (Contract No C13180).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the MOU for Video -Outreach between CVAG and the
City of Palm Desert.
R. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for the 1998 Slurry Seal
Resurfacing Program (Contract No. C13190, Project No. 751-98).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the
1998 Slurry Seal Resurfacing Program.
S. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Ca11 for Bids for the Purchase of a
Regenerative Air Sweeper (Contract No. C13200).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the
purchase of a regenerative air street sweeper.
4
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
T. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for the 1997/98
Resurfacing Program (Contract No. C1321Q, Project No. 752-97).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the
1997/98 Resurfacing Program. -
U. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for the Traffic Signal at Highway 74 and Haystack
Road (Contract No. C12950, Project No. 570-97).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award Contract No. C12950 to Sierra Pacific Contracting
(Riverside) in the amount of $111, 821.00 for the traffic signal at Highway 74 and
Haystack Road (Project No. 570-97) and authorize a ten percent contingency of
$11,182.10 (funds available in Account No. 234-4265-422-4001); 2) authorize the
Mayor to enter into an agreement with Sierra Pacific Contracting.
V. REQUEST'FOR RATIFICATION of Risk Manager's Procurement of Property, Vehicle, Fine
Art, and Hydrogen Fuel Vehicles Insurance.
Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify the Risk Manager's Procurement of property, vehicle, fine
art, and hydrogen fuel vehicles insurance.
W. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Agreement with Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson for Coachella
Valley Employment Relations Consortium in the Amount of $2,500.00.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Liebert,
Cassidy and Frierson for the Coachella Valley Employment Relations Consortium in
the amount of $2,500.00.
Councilman Spiegel asked that Items F and P be removed for separate discussion under Section VII,
Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. See that section of the Minutes for discussion and action.
Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Snyder, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved
as presented by unanimous vote of the City Council.
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Charitable Contributions Applications for Fiscal Year
1997/98.
Councilman Spiegel questioned the following contributions as reflected in the staff report: 1)
Palm Desert Information Center ($95,000 last year; $122,000 this year); 2) FIND ($10,000
last year; $1,600 this year); 3) Historical Society ($0 last year; $15,150 this year).
5
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Gibson responded as follows:
With regard to FIND, organizations that receive CDBG funding forego Charitable
Contributions from the City. This organization will receive $1,600 in funding from
the City, with the remainder to come from CDBG funds.
Palm Desert Information Center figure is incorrect as far as what the City ended up
contributing. The City contributed funds for the computer system and Historical
Society staffing. The Center actually received approximately $120,000 last year
versus $100,000 this year.
Historical Society received funding last year, but it was after the budget was
approved and, therefore, is reflected as a zero on the staff report as far as last year's
contribution. The funding contributed was for improvements in the building such as
electrical, lighting, and parking structure.
Councilman Crites suggested that staff, in next year's report, include both the amount
originally budgeted plus the accumulated sum from the entire year.
Councilmember Benson stated that the Palm Desert Information Center amount also includes
$10,000 for the BLM Center.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the expenditures to various agencies as
outlined in the staff report dated July 1, 1997, and as recommended by the Charitable Contributions/Outside
Agency Committee. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
P. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Fifth Amendment to the Cove Communities Services
Commission (Contract No. C03165).
Councilman Spiegel questioned the last paragraph of the staff report which indicated that "The
new Subsection D, Electric Power, is very broad in its scope and would permit the
Commission to engage in a number of options, ranging from exploring deregulation,
alternatives to actually acquiring and operating public facilities to furnish electric power, just
as a municipal corporation is now able to do." He questioned whether this was a decision that
the Council would make.
Mayor Kelly responded that it would be a decision to be made by the Cove Commission.
Councilman Spiegel asked if the recommendation from the Cove Commission would come back
to the Council, and Mayor Kelly agreed.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the fifth amendment to the Cove
Communities Services Commission. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote.
6
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VIII. RESOLUTIONS
None
With Council concurrence, Mayor Kelly suspended the remainder of the Agenda at this point in order
to consider Item A of New Business. See that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
IX. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
For Adoption:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 844 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.36.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHING NEW SPEED ZONES (Fred Waring Drive from
Cook Street to Elkhorn Trail).
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 844. Motion was
seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 845 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.36.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHING NEW SPEED ZONES (Fred Waring Drive from
Elkhorn Trail to Washington Street).
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 845. Motion was
seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote.
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. ORDINANCE NO. 847 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM
DESERT ZONING MAP, BY APPROVING PRE -ANNEXATION ZONING OF HILLSIDE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL FOR 57 ACRES IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF APN 771-
020-001 AS SHOWN ON TT 28575, AND PR-5 FOR FIVE ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE
OF HIGHWAY 74 SOUTH OF THE CITY LIMITS, Case No. C/Z 96-7 - Winmar Palm
Desert L.L.C., Applicant.
The following is a verbatim transcript of this item:
RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor
BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman
JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman
KT Kathryn Thompson
SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
RAD Once again, this is the second reading of the ordinance, and we'd recommend we
adopt the ordinance.
RSK Why does that say five acres there?
BAC There's a five -acre piece that's adjacent to Highway 74 that is not currently within
the City limits.
RSK Oh, right.
BAC
If I might, I'd like to speak to this one issue if I might, and not to the five acres
because I think that obviously fits the project. I do have concerns, and I apologize
for not being able to in a written form articulate those before I was gone at the last
meeting. However, material necessary simply was not available before I was out of
town. The project, which is already approved, not this piece, I think is an excellent
project. The golf course is good, the zoning in terms of density and everything else.
Unless, certainly, convinced otherwise, I would choose to vote against the issue.
The 57 acres do not contain the golf course, do not contain to my perception
anything that is necessary for the project. It obviously adds to the financial reward
of the project, and if I were the developer I don't have any problem with wanting to
8
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
do that. But it does take mountainous land that is now zoned either one unit per 20
acres or one unit per ten acres and mountainous land that would not probably
otherwise ever be developed as it's zoned as natural assets and instead turns it into
homesites. Mr. Drell's report notes that it does not go enormously far up the hills,
yet you'll note in the report that the highest sites are 170 feet above the toe of slope,
and 170 feet is higher off the toe of slope than most of the homes that we see near
ridge lines in the Cahuilla Hills area of the County of Riverside at the present time.
This certainly sets further back from the Highway, so I'm not trying to make a direct
comparison to that. But I would make the comment, very simply, this project does
not need this. This is an extra, and there is no reason, in this one member of the
Council's opinion, to take land that is already in essence protected from development
and turn it into lands that now will be developed, albeit I did walk the land and I
appreciated the development opportunity to do that. It will be high -quality, it will
be well-done, there's going to be a road across it anyhow, but there's an enormous
difference between having a road and water tanks that are buried and 13 homesites.
And, having stood on a number of them, they are visible from Highway 74, they are
visible from a number of other parts of the community, and there is no doubt of it,
I stood on some of the sites and looked at them. So, I see no reason that it's in the
City's interests, personally, to take lands that are in essence already protected, rezone
them to triple their density, and build houses on them. As a colleague says, one
person's opinion.
RSK Any other comments?
JMB I don't have any other comments, but I certainly agree with Buford's comments on
it that no one has denied that this is not a good project and will not benefit the City
economically, but I, too, don't feel 13 houses is going to make or break the project.
And last time it was mentioned that they would sink the water tanks up there and, to
me, to sink the water tanks and put houses up on there is just...it doesn't make sense.
And living right across the street from the project, I haven't seen the earth movers
that were supposed to be out of there by July 5th, but that's what the developer
promised. Anyway, I don't see any need to use that land, either. It's just a windfall
for them and a loss to the City.
RAS
Well, I was out there, and I walked the 1,.1,;,. ty myself, and I saw the homesites and
I do not feel that they are going to infringe on the mountains as the Crest will that
is coming up later on this evening. They have sunken the water tanks, they are not
disturbing any of the hills, and some of the homes are behind the hills that we're
talking about, and the highest home, as I understand it, is lower than the highest
home in Bighorn which is on the other side of the street and was approved by the
Council. So I would, therefore, move to approve Ordinance No. 847.
RSK Is there a second? I'll second it. Any other discussion?
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCLL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WHS
This brings our attention to a question that maybe hadn't been thoroughly discussed
at the time we looked at this...should there be some discussion relative to this item
so that we can feel assured that we're not harming the project or we are harming the
project?
BAC I personally have no doubt that...
WHS I'm just trying to keep peace in the family.
BAC I have no doubt that financially the project is better off with these. I just happen to
disagree with my colleagues, having walked there, it is square into the mountainous
hillsides. 170 feet is a twelve -story building, something close to that. It's not down
on the flat, and it's visible, and the reason it's "lower than across the street" is
because the land where it sits is enormously lower than the land across the street. I
mean, you could put one of them 500 feet up in the air, and it would be lower than
some other spots because you are not starting at the same elevation. The key issue
is it's not zoned for that, and we're changing a zone to make it possible to do this.
WHS
RSK
WHS
RSK
WHS
RSK
KT
JMB
KT
Mr. Mayor, do we have representatives of the program who would like to talk to us?
I guess you could make a request.
Yes. If there is people from the development that would like to discuss this matter,
I think it would be timely because this was a public hearing last time.
Well, it's not a public hearing, but...
I know it isn't now, but...
Well, whatever the Council's desire is. If a representative for the developer would
like to speak, that's...you may.
I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I would like to point out that we are giving
over 50 acres to the 400 yard buffer. In exchange, we are asking for the zoning of
the 57 acres. There are over a hundred units that we're losing in giving up this
buffer. In addition, for the mitigation for the Big Horn Sheep, we're giving
$750,000, and we are acquiring the land from CVWD. So it is a very large financial
commitment, and while it certainly won't break the project, it certainly makes it less
attractive. But I'd be glad to answer any questions.
But is the project not feasible without those?
As I said, it probably is feasible, it's just not as attractive.
10
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BAC I have, I guess, a separate question. You mentioned the 50 acres that you're giving
as part of the buffer. Was that a requirement imposed by the City?
KT It was a requirement technically imposed by the Fish and Game through the City.
The City is...
BAC So it's the Fish and Game's requirement.
KT Yes, which...the City asked what the Fish and Game would like to have in this
instance for mitigation.
BAC So you're asking, then, the City to shift the zoning to make up for a Fish and Game
requirement, then, in essence.
KT Seems fair.
JMB But the project could go forward without that.
KT I'd like to ask my (unclear). Mr. Olson, who is the Vice President of Safeco
Properties in Seattle, is here, and I just spoke with him. He said the loss of these
lots is probably about a $20 million loss, and the loss of these lots would make the
project very marginal, quote.
RAD
Mr. Mayor, in terms of the buffer area that we're speaking about, the settlement
agreement, and Phil correct me if I'm wrong, City Attorney correct me if I'm
wrong, the settlement agreement that was reached as a result of the litigation which
we had previously in effect ended that buffer area and eliminated it. And certain
things were to be done which now, which could not be, which now for a reason or
another cannot be done, and as part of that settlement agreement as indicated in the
staff report and in the additional reports and information you received from staff,
some $850,000 was also exchanged to make that possible. So, when we're speaking
of the 50 acre buffer, that 400 yard buffer, yes, it is imposed in the environmental
impact report by the Department of Fish and Game. But like any other condition in
that environmental impact report, it is the City staff and the City Council that
imposes it. We can tell the Department of Fish and Game thank you very much but
we're. not going to implement that particular mitigation measure. So let's not make
a mistake. Any mitigation measure that's imposed on anyone, suggested by anyone,
is imposed indeed by the City. And the reason that we're trying to get back the 50
acres or that 400 yard buffer is because that settlement agreement can't be
implemented, and right now we have no buffer.
11
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK Any other discussion? If there's no other discussion, would you please vote.
SRG The motion carries by a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Crites and Benson voting no.
X. NEW BUSINESS.
A. PRESENTATION OF FINAL DRAFT OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN BERNARDINO, PERMANENT COACHELLA VALLEY OFF -
CAMPUS CENTER.
Dr. Peter Wilson addressed the Council, noting that if things continue to go as well as they
have for the last six months, it should be possible to break ground on the first building in a
year. He distributed packets of information to the Councilmembers (on file in the City Clerk's
Office).
Councilman Crites asked if there was a specific point at which time the name will be changed
from Coachella Valley Center to one that more specifically identifies the location in Palm
Desert.
Dr. Wilson responded that per the Memorandum of Understanding, "Palm Desert" would be
included in the title unless the City and the CSU negotiate a mutually agreeable alternative.
He said the question about changing the name earlier, instead of calling it the Coachella Valley
Campus of Cal State San Bernardino to call it the Palm Desert Campus, had been raised
informally to him several times, and this matter had begun to be explored. He said he did not
see any problem with doing it earlier and that it would certainly be appropriate to be done by
the time they move over to the site. He added that in order to make something happen, he
would need something from the Council that raises the issue and makes a request.
Dr. Wilson noted that other cities in the Coachella Valley would be formally contacted and
their assistance solicited. He stated he would not be back before the City of Palm Desert for
any additional help unless he comes with College of the Desert because there may be things
that the College of the Desert and Cal State University would do jointly and might need
assistance with.
Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Dr. Wilson stated that he would like to have the
Council approve the plans and the process to this point. If the Council would like to pursue
the change in name, he said he would need something from the Mayor saying that the City
would like to see the University do this when appropriate; i.e., when moving to the new site,
and he would carry this request forward. He said they also needed to have the EIR done. He
added that as progress is made and time goes along, they will continue to make reports to the
Council.
12
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel asked the status of the EIR. Mr. Diaz responded that he would be
contacting Dr. Wilson and that the first thing necessary for an EIR was the project description,
which staff now had. He said he anticipated staff would be able to do a great deal of the EIR
in-house because that area is probably one of the most EIR'd areas in the City in terms of
various endangered species. He added that staff would come back to the Council with the final
program to do the Environmental Impact Report.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, grant conceptual approval of the plans and process,
direct staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature to make sure that the name "Palm Desert" will appear
when the campus opens and go ahead and add it to the sign at this time, and authorize the City Manager to
expend those funds to put "at Palm Desert" on the sign at this time. Motion was seconded by Benson and
carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN/ESTIMATE AND APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE
AND SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE NEW CIVIC CENTER DOG PARK (Contract No. C13220).
Associate Planner Jeff Winklepleck reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any
questions.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the design/estimate of the new Civic
— Center Dog Park; 2) authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids for the construction of the new Civic Center
Dog Park (Contract No. C13220). Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with
Councilmember Benson ABSENT.
C. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND CALL FOR BIDS FOR
VARIOUS PHASES OF GERALD FORD DRIVE BETWEEN COOK STREET AND
PORTOLA AVENUE (PROJECT NO. 677).
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for
bids for the following three phases of the subject project: 1) Street work and water and sewer line installations
(Contract No. C13230); 2) traffic signal installation (Contract No. C13240); 3) undergrounding of power lines
(Contract No. C13250). Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilmember
Benson ABSENT.
13
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Update on Interchanges:
a. I-10/Washington Street
b. I-10/Monterey Avenue
Mr. Diaz reviewed the status of these two interchanges, noting the ribbon cutting of
the Monterey Interchange scheduled for August 20, 1997, at 8:00 a.m.
2. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies
Mr. Drell noted that the Saks project is moving along. He added that staff had
received a proposal for the complete redevelopment of the Lucky center and would
bring a report to the Council in the future.
Councilman Spiegel stated that the City would have a stadium -type theater in the
Palm Desert Town Center, and the screens will be increased to 18 screens compared
with what is currently there. He said this will be a tremendous addition to the Palm
Desert Town Center. He added that this was something that had happened earlier in
the day. Mr. Diaz added that there will be a press release regarding this and that
negotiations were beginning to process the plans and discussing with the
Redevelopment Agency the development and disposition agreements. He noted that
these projects had already been funded.
XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None
XII. OLD BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, OF FINAL DESIGN AND AUTHORIZATION TO
ADVERTISE AND CALL FOR BIDS FOR PRESIDENT'S PLAZA REALIGNMENT.
Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report, noting that staffs recommendation was for authorization
to advertise and call for bids for President's Plaza west at this time. He stated that staff would
continue to work with merchants in President's Plaza east to make sure they all understand the
trade-offs of the design versus the additional parking. He said if the decision was that they did
not want the additional parking, the City would just relandscape the parking lot under the
existing system. If they decide they are willing to put up with the inconvenience of loading
during the construction time, staff would try to accomplish this next summer.
Councilman Spiegel asked how the problem of loading would be solved. Mr. Drell responded
that staff could try to look at increasing the angle, in essence widening out that one-way aisle
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
enough that a car could snake around it. He added that the problem was that once we start
compromising the plan, the more we start losing more spaces and the more it doesn't pay to
tear up the whole lot. He said staff, during the winter months, would go out and examine the
delivery schedules, the frequency of deliveries, the types and widths of trucks, where they park
right now during deliveries, etc. He added that this was just a problem with President's Plaza
east because the west side had two-way circulation which meant there was always the other lane
that people could get around.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the final design and authorize staff to
advertise and call for bids for President's Plaza west realignment (Contract No. C13260).
Upon question by Mayor Kelly relative to merchants in President's Plaza west, Mr. Drell
responded that staff had received no negative comments, and all the comments received have
been positive.
Councilman Snyder seconded the motion, and the motion carried by unanimous vote.
Upon question by Mayor Kelly, Mr. Drell responded that staff would be coming back to the
Council with something on President's Plaza east.
—` B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
COMPLIANCE AT BIGHORN GOLF CLUB.
The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting:
Ku:
RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor
BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
CC Carl Cardinalli
WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman
SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
RAD Mr. Drell.
PD Mayor and Councilmembers. This involves a...what normally would be considered
a minor modification of an approved tentative map. But under the terms of the
implementation agreement involves some lots which they have a specific...the
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Council had specific interest in reviewing. This occurs up in Bighorn Country Club
and I guess what is called the hillside estate lots. The applicant is requesting that two
lots in the existing tract be abandoned in that topography and soils are such that they
don't want to use that much dynamite to create pads, and the relocation of those two
lots into an area currently platted for three lots, creating a total of five. Again, the
net effect of the tract would be the same number of total lots. I've been out at the
site. The lots that are being abandoned are fairly visible and open to view. The area
that they are being relocated to is kind of a top of a ravine which is generally
shielded from the rest of the Valley by a rocky ridge. Also, in looking at those lots
given they're now platted for three...in the area platted for three...there will be now
four. In looking at the existing grades at that location, it appears that they are more
appropriate for four pads and that the elevations...you see four little hollows which
in essence would be...would fit better in that topography than the existing three.
Fourth is in essence at the end of that cul de sac. It is a new area but it is still within
the area which was, under the implementation agreement, was eligible for
development and that they just did not choose when they initially did this map to do
it. But, and staff agrees that these areas are suitable for development and...given the
fact that they're abandoning lots that are considerably less desirable both to them and
to us. It is consistent with the implementation agreement and is, in essence,
generally consistent with approval of the regional tentative map. I'd recommend
approval or just, by Minute Motion, concurrence with staffs position.
RSK Council questions?
BAC I just have a comment. Mr. Cardinalli was kind, as he always is, to take folks up
and look at various things. And I did go up and look at these lots. The shaded lots
that you see on your map, the one infill lot on the right hand side of the road, I agree
with Mr. Drell is certainly appropriate and is at the same elevation in essence. And
I would certainly personally see no problem with that. I did have considerable
concern with the one lot to be created on what would be the left hand side of the cul
de sac. It's significantly higher.
RSK That's that one right there?
BAC That's the one, yes, on the lower left, whichever...south, I guess, side of that...it's
significantly higher, would involve the removal of a considerable chunk of a hilltop
ridge line by my perceptions. And I would at least, my preference would be to
approve the one lot on the right hand side and ask staff and the applicant to revisit
issues on the siting of the other one.
PD Would you possibly like to see a...in essence, grading plan for that pad?
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BAC Well, saw their proposal for what they wanted to do with that, and as I say I think
the elevation and everything is...
RSK Councilman Crites, what your suggestion is that they see if they can't find a more
appropriate place...
BAC For the one on the left and that we grant approval this evening to the one on the
right..
RAS I'll second.
RSK Okay, we have a motion. I guess...I have a feeling the developer's representative
would like to say something.
CC (Unclear)
RSK Please, I think we'd like to hear what you have to say.
CC I'm Carl Cardinalli, I'm Vice President of Bighorn Development LP, and I haven't
been before you for a while now, but it's nice to see all of you. And what I'd like
to do is be able to come forward to the Council dais and show you this aerial, which
I think more clearly depicts what we're trying to accomplish by having this
relocation of one of the estate hillside lots. If you don't me approaching the
Council?
RSK
Yes, you may do that, but you do understand that the proposal is that you...that you
don't have to give up a lot but that you search for something that we feel would be
more appropriate.
CC I understand. And that's why...
RSK Financially, you're not going to make any change...I mean, you're...
CC I understand. (Unclear while showing and explaining the aerial map).
RSK Councilmember Crites, since you did take a look at the site, do you have any
comments?
BAC I guess my perceptions of when Carl and I were there was that rather than peekaboo
most of the front of a hill was coming off in order to flatten it out as (unclear). I've
made some suggestions about, instead, tucking it back down behind the hill, and that
was at least at that time not the intent of the developer...it was instead to bring it up
to the front through some excavation and stuff. My remembrance was that it is
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
visible and so on and so forth and up above any of the other lots on that cul de sac.
That's my recollection of it. On a warm day, it may or not be correct, but it's my
best recall of it, whereas the other one on the other side was certainly one that I
thought was appropriate to the fit of the topography.
WHS Mr. Mayor, I volunteer to go with Mr. Buford and take another look at the subject
if that will help and report back to the Council.
RSK This doesn't seem like something that is an emergency has to happen, and I haven't
physically looked at the site myself, and I feel a little bit unqualified to make a
decision myself. So, is there any problem if we continued this and give a couple of
the rest of us a chance to take a look at it?
CC No. What we'd like to try and do in the interim...
RSK Is what?
CC Would it be possible, if you're comfortable with this action, would it be possible to
accept the four and then to be able to go back and see this fifth one in order to satisfy
yourselves that...
RSK I think that was the motion.
JMB That was the motion.
RAS That was the motion.
CC But we're not precluded from going back and revisiting this same site?
RSK No, that...the motion as I understood it...that's exactly what we would do.
CC Okay.
BAC And it may very well be if there are some changes to how it's put on that site, that
that site becomes acceptable and my perception is that the original display of it did
not appear to be.
CC Okay.
RSK Any other comments?
JMB No, I had the same concern on that corner. The other three are all right, but that
one's out there...
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WHS I would move approval of the four lots.
RSK I guess we did that. We have a motion...
RAS We have a motion and a second:
RSK ...motion and a second that we approve those four and knew exactly what was
proposed.
WHS And we're not closing on the fifth one. We'll go look at it and make a determination
of that at our next Council meeting.
RSK Right.
WHS Is that in the...
RAD I believe the City Clerk is shaking her head.
WHS I didn't think it was in the motion, and I'd like to put it in if that's what we agree.
SRG We need clarification on the motion.
RSK The motion is that we approve the four lots on the...what we're calling the right
side, which...it's the north side, actually the four lots on the north side. And the one
on the south side that sits by itself, then we would continue to the next Council
meeting, the 28th of August.
SRG Okay.
RSK Does that...
RAS That's it. I second it.
BAC That's fine. And if there was an urgency thing, I could very easily live with the
Mayor and somebody else...
RSK I don't see any reason why it shouldn't hold until the 28th. Any other discussion?
Please vote.
WHS There was...
CC Mr. Mayor, the urgency factor is this. We're in the process. We've submitted or
are submitting a revised tentative tract map that would incorporate these homesites,
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAS
but we wanted to be in compliance with the implementation agreement. And at
direction of the City Manager and Planning Director, we wanted to go through this
process with you so that you would give your blessing on these homesites and then
we would go through the tentative tract process. What we're trying to accomplish
is to do the subdivision work and grading work prior to heading into the season
which would be November. Again, if it's consistent with your wishes, and if you're
comfortable doing this, if we could include this lot sooner than August 28th, it
certainly makes our processing of the tentative map and the grading plan a lot
simpler. But if it's your wishes to wait until the 28th, we will, but we would request
and appreciate your consideration to do it sooner than that.
Mr. Mayor, could maybe, for Mr. Cardinalli, could we ask two Councilpeople,
Councilman Crites and maybe Councilwoman Benson to take a look at the site and
if they agree that everything is copacetic, then from my standpoint everything's
copacetic.
RSK Okay, you want to amend that motion to include that?
RAS Yes, to include that.
RSK And did Councilman Crites and Mayor Pro Tem Benson have any problems with
that?
JMB I don't if we can find a time. I'll be gone till the next...almost two weeks...but
maybe we can find a time.
WHS I can replace you.
BAC And if Jean can't find a time, then Walter said he would.
WHS If Jean can't handle it, I'll be the alternate.
BAC Alright.
RAS Alright.
RSK Okay. Do you understand the amendment?
SRG I do.
RSK Please vote.
SRG The motion carries by unanimous vote.
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
1. Mr. Diaz stated that last year's amended budget included two appropriations totalling
$45,000: 1) Coachella Valley Economic Partnership for $20,000 to assist in seeking
appropriation from the Federal government relative to alternative fuel; 2) $25,000
appropriation for Blu Rock Consulting Firm to build a hydrogen fuel station at
College of the Desert. He said the vouchers for these appropriations had never been
processed and now staff was requesting that Council appropriate these funds again.
Councilman Snyder moved to add these two items to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Crites
and carried by unanimous vote.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request as discussed by the City
Manager. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote.
2. Mr. Diaz stated that this matter was regarding The Living Desert.
Councilman Crites moved to add this item to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Benson and
carried by unanimous vote.
Mr. Diaz stated that he had received a request from The Living Desert for waiver of
fees on a new building. He said it would be expanding its facilities, with the building
to be partly in the City of Indian Wells and partly in Palm Desert. The City of Palm
Desert will control the building and permits, and staff was requesting that the permit
fees be waived on this facility.
Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, waive the fees on the African Village and
instruct the City Manager to notify the City of Indian Wells that the construction will be under the control of
the City of Palm Desert. Motion was seconded by Snyder.
Councilman Crites asked whether he should abstain from voting inasmuch as he is
a member of the Board of Trustees of The Living Desert. Mr. Erwin responded that
there was no requirement for him to abstain on this vote.
Mayor Kelly called for the vote. The motion carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Crites
ABSTAINING.
21
NIINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3. Mr. Diaz asked that an item be added to the Agenda relative to the City's
representative to the Riverside County Free Library Advisory Committee.
Councilman Snyder moved to add this item to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Crites and
carried by unanimous vote.
Mr. Diaz stated that Ms. Ella Manor was the City's current representative, and he
recommended that she be reappointed to another two-year term. He noted that this
appointment needed to be made at this time because the next meeting will occur
before the Council's next meeting.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, reappoint Ms. Ella Manor to the Riverside County
Free Library Advisory Committee. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote.
4. Mr. Diaz stated that Finance Director Paul Gibson had a request regarding the
resolution for the Palm Desert Fire Tax.
Councilman Crites moved to add this item to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and
carried by unanimous vote.
Mr. Gibson stated that this was a resolution to allow staff to levy the Fire Tax for the
next Fiscal Year. He stated that the City had not in the past had to do this; however,
the County is now being very stringent on its rules of how items can be put on the
property tax roll due to Proposition 218.
Councilman Spiegel asked if this would be at the same rate it has always been, and
Mr. Gibson responded that this was correct.
Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-64. Motion was
seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
B. CITY ATTORNEY
1) Report and Action on Items from Closed Session Made at This Meeting.
2) Request for Closed Session
Mr. Erwin noted the items on the Agenda for Closed Session, including the following items
listed on the Agenda Addendum posted 72 hours prior to the meeting:
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a):
City of Palm Desert v. REFCO Capital Corporation, et al, United States District
Court, Central District, Case No. CV92-7632
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Section 54956.8:
Property: 44-876 San Benito Circle
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Cynthia and Donovan Taylor
Under negotiation: .... Price Terms of Payment
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:
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a):
City of Orange, et al. V. Alabama Treasury Advisory Program, et al., Los Angeles
Superior Court Case No. BC106461
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Section 54956.8:
Property: APN Nos. 771-050-003, 004, and 771-060-002
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: C.C. Meyers
Under negotiation: x Price Terms of Payment
C. CITY CLERK
1. Request for Approval of El Paseo Arts Committee Travel to Loveland. Colorado
Mrs. Gilligan asked that this be added to the Agenda for consideration.
Councilman Spiegel moved to add this item to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Snyder and
carried by unanimous vote.
23
NIINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mrs. Gilligan reviewed her memorandum dated July 10, 1997, relative to a scheduled
trip of the El Paseo Arts Committee to visit Loveland, Colorado, to select artworks for
the upcoming exhibition. She said although the money had been budgeted, the out of
State travel had not yet been approved by the Council. She noted the trip was planned
for August 8-10, 1997.
Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the out of State travel by the El Paseo
Arts Committee to Loveland, Colorado. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
o City Council Committee Reports:
1. Councilman Crites reported that he had received a call from Washington, D.C.,
and that the Coachella Valley was in the budget this year through Congressman
Bono's office for land and water funds in the amount of approximately $1
million. He said there had been a supplemental budget request made, and the
Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area requested an extra $1 million,
which would bring this amount up to $2 million. He said although this now had
to go to Congress, the administration had made its recommendation for the
supplemental budget, and we were not recommended for the $1 million because
of the kinds of things that have happened in this Valley and the kind of support
received but instead we were recommended for $5.3 million, which is the
largest single amount anywhere in California and places us at the top of the
President's Administration budget request in terms of priorities. He said he felt
this spoke highly of individuals like Mr. Cardinalli and Bighorn who have
supported these issues, the Marriott Company, individuals on the City Council,
CVAG, and a variety of different organizations who have come together to
provide valuable support for open space conservation.
Councilman Spiegel asked if any of that money would go to the Salton Sea.
Councilman Crites responded that the Salton Sea was a separate supplemental
request. Councilman Spiegel stated that as he understood it, Congress had been
requested to advance a million dollars, and the State had already signed up for
a million dollars to revisit the Salton Sea and come up with a solution to clean
it up. He said there were supposedly two alternatives. One was to pump fresh
water in and pump the old water out. The other alternative was to create a dike
in the center of the Salton Sea and take the bad water over the dike; salt then
settles to the bottom, and the good water rises to the top which would go back
into the Sea. He added that this would be examined, and it would cost probably
from half a billion to a billion dollars to do either one of these processes. He
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
said- they had part of the money to go ahead with it and that there were two
engineers from Los Alamitos currently at the Salton Sea addressing this issue.
XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
None
Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Crites, and unanimous vote of the City Council, Mayor Kelly
adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. to Closed Session. He reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
XV. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION
None
XVI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C
None
XVII. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
None
XVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF PRE -ANNEXATION ZONING OF PCD/HPR (PLANNED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL - 228.5 ACRES)
O.S. (OPEN SPACE - 411.5 ACRES) AND ZONE CHANGE FROM HPR TO PCD/HPR
FOR 54 ACRES; WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT KNOWN AS
"THE CREST" CONSISTING OF 151 HOMESITES ON 640 ACRES NORTH OF
"CAHUILLA HILLS AREA" AND 54 ACRES OPPOSITE PALM VALLEY CHANNEL
FROM "SOMMERSET" CONDOMINIUMS, (Crest Partners, Applicant), Case No. C/Z90-12
Amendment #1 and Development Agreement, Continued from Meeting of June 26, 1997.
The following is a verbatim transcript of this public hearing:
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor
RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore
BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WHS Walter H. Snyder, Councilman
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
JM Dr. Jerry Meintz
SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
RSK Next item is consideration of pre -annexation zoning of PCD/HPR (planned
community development, hillside planned residential - 228.5 acres) O.S. (Open space
- 411.5) and zone change from HPR to PCD/HPR for 54 acres with development
agreement for project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 640 acres
north of "Cahuilla Hills Area and 54 acres opposite Palm Valley Channel from
Sommerset Condominiums.
RAD Mr. Drell of the staff will give this report, or an update.
PD My understanding was the last meeting...issue of considerable controversy involved
the provisions for the dedication of the open space is my understanding that there has
been discussions between the applicant and our City Attorney, and there is some
alternative language concerning that open space which gives the City greater
protection relative to the preservation of that area regardless of what happens with
the project.
DJE Yes, Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council, each of you have in front of you a
re -done draft of the development agreement. The distinctions between this latest
draft and the previous agreement particularly start on page 11 of that agreement.
That is the agreement, I believe Councilman Crites, starts on page 11, talks about the
dedication of open space and makes provision for the initial one hundred acres to be
dedicated within thirty days from the effective date of this agreement once approved.
Also within that thirty -day period, the developer will deliver the non -disturbance
agreement which generally relates to all of the balance of the open space. In
addition, within that thirty -day period, the developer will deliver to the City Clerk
15 grant deeds identified as subsequent dedication deeds with the legal descriptions
blank, signed and notarized by the developer to be held by the City Clerk in trust,
the idea being when all of the permits are obtained for any phase, at that point the
applicant will come to the City for the City permits. At that point, the legal
description will be determined and an appropriate deed that has been executed will
be recorded. The idea with this is that the City does have, in hand, deeds, even
though they do not have the specific descriptions on them. If the property transfers,
it is at the City's option to require the new owner to place with our City Clerk
similar types of deeds to replace those from the prior owner. This is, I think, done
in anticipation and in an attempt to allay the concerns expressed at the last meeting
about the dedication of the open space. I'd be happy to answer any questions
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
regarding that. That is the change in the agreement from the previous one that you
had before you at your last public hearing.
JMB What is the purpose of leaving them blank?
DJE Until the particular tract map is filed with the City and an engineering survey is
done, the exact line would not be known so that the description will not be exact.
JMB So, the number of acres could vary?
DJE The number of acres could vary; the line could vary. I think we do have a minimum
number of acreage that it must be.
BAC So that, at the end of the process, the 400 and x acres at a minimum will be
conveyed.
DJE Yes, that is specific. That minimum number of acreage has to be conveyed.
JMB Where does it say that? I see the hundred acres but I don't see the balance of 350.
DJE It may well not be in the agreement. I know that the recitals state it will be over 400
acres. It may be specifically called out in the development plan and I do not have
a copy of that with me tonight. Let me continue through this and see if I can locate
it. We obviously can add that in as a minimum acreage in the agreement if Council
would be more comfortable with that.
BAC Is item 17 on page 13 the same as in previous drafts?
DJE I would...to be honest, I got the agreement at quarter to four this afternoon and the
representation was that was what I stated to you was the only change. I have not had
an opportunity to compare it.
BAC Because in the previous one...
DJE It appears to be the same from the staff report in the file.
BAC Does that in any way affect the City's ability to enforce the development agreement?
DJE In some way it might, depending upon what law would be passed that would preempt
us. Whether it be a Federal law that would in some manner affect our ability to
either obtain the open space, or allow the development to occur. I don't know what
our Congress or legislature might do. I think it attempts to anticipate if something
does occur that would supersede it, then it is superseded.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WHS (unclear) still have the right to make our own changes.
RSK Any other questions?
WHS In your opinion, do you feel that we're well protected and that that property will
indeed become ours if this program does...?
DJE Assuming all of the other permits are obtained...
WHS Are obtained.
DJE ...and the project should move forward --yes, we'll get the open space.
WHS And all of that's in the development agreement?
DJE I believe so, yes.
WHS I believe that if we have satisfied that matter, I would move that this is a project that
is badly needed. The El Paseo merchants have let me know how badly they feel they
think this project should be done. I think it's a project that balances out our City.
We have low income, high income, and medium income, and this is a project that
is well -designed and well -handled. The people that are doing it are responsible
people. They have a reputation for this kind of work. I think we have now satisfied
that we will indeed wind up with a property that I hope we give to the desert
mountain conservancy.
RSK .Well, I guess we still need...
WHS And I would like to move that...
RSK We have a continued public hearing, so...
WHS I thought the public hearing was open.
RSK It is open, but maybe we ought to see if anybody wants to speak from the audience.
Anyone like to speak at this time to the Council on this item on the agenda?
TM I would, as the owner of the property. We have worked very diligently with all of
the City staff, the City Manager when we started. We have worked very hard over
the last seven years, and we feel we've really dealt in good faith with everybody, the
City Attomey—we appreciate all of the cooperation. We have made diligent efforts
to address every concern. We've been through the Planning Commission three
times. They've been very thorough --we made changes. The dedicated open space
28
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
has grown significantly over the certified EIR. Originally, it was 397 acres. It's
now 410 acres which I can promise you...it is in the document itself --it's 410 acres.
The exhibit to the Development Agreement states specifically that it's 410 acres.
There's no question about that —that is the acreage. If I can take just one moment,
I guess, some of you don't know our organization. We've owned this property since
1922. Our organization has developed over a billion dollars worth of real estate
throughout California. Of that, we own about four hundred million dollars still, own
and manage. We have worked with numerous cities throughout the State --City of
San Diego, the Council people there know us. The City of Oceanside, we have a
twenty-year agreement similar to this. We are still under that agreement. They
have...it's been very successful, we have four -lane roads. There's a hundred acres
that they ended up with over various negotiations, worked very successfully with the
City of Oceanside. In Danville, we probably have the best projects in Danville.
And all I'd like to say is that we have really worked in good faith, and if there are
any concerns, I would be happy to address them. This is a very high -quality, low -
density project —the City in fact designed this project. They said the big issues were
open space --we don't want ridge -top development. We want this to work, and we
designed it around with the City staff , City Council people. We've have been out
on the site, various Councilmembers picking specific lots where they could go,
erasing lots, whole hillsides; . we have really done our best to cover all of your
concerns. It's a great project, it's a great deal for Palm Desert because you are able
to control 410 acres forever for free, instead of acquiring the property. The property
that we are dedicating is worth millions and millions of dollars when you consider
the views, etc. that's in the County, so it's a very good deal for the City. To control
its destiny through a Development Agreement which takes all of the risk out if it is
dedicated open space, manage the County property which I think there has been some
concern over the years that the County doesn't manage its properties in the same way
that the City of Palm Desert does. So, you have controlled it all the way from the
beginning, you'll control it for the next 20 years with the Development Agreement
that we can't deviate from. It's a very even keel and I believe that Mr. Erwin would
concur that we've tried to be a...I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth, but
we've tried to take all of the risk out of it from the City's standpoint from the
dedication not happening, and we believe that we have done that in our meetings.
So if there are any other questions, I would be happy to address any of you all.
Thank you.
RSK Just a moment. You say that your organization is going to be the developer.
Actually you're not planning on selling it and somebody else developing it?
TM Well, what we did in Oceanside was this: we actually don't build houses. In
Oceanside, for example, we did the land planning and we sold off the phases to
individual home builders. So we did the infrastructure and we sold off individual
lots. I don't know exactly how we're going to finance this project. The first thing
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
is to get the approval, and then we're going to decide the best possible way how to
finance the infrastructure, there's major infrastructure involved with this particular
project. Unzoned, there isn't financing for that arrangement. We have put in
personally over a million dollars addressing all of the EIR concerns. There was
concern about all the different biological issues, cultural issues, engineering --we
spent a million dollars just on processing alone, so we are well -funded and capable
of providing all of the studies that are necessary. Nevertheless, the loans involved
with the infrastructure will be ten million dollars plus —so we will obtain those loans.
As to exactly how the project will be built out, like in Oceanside, we still own
properties there that we are selling off over time to individual home builders. We
put in fifty million dollars in infrastructure up front and sold it off. So
that's...exactly how it works over twenty years, I wish I could tell you exactly. But,
primarily we don't build the sticks, but we set it all up so it can be done. In
Oceanside, we have been in it about fifteen years now.
RSK Any Councilman have any other questions?
RAS I assume that the plan is basically the same plan that I saw four or five years ago
where there is like one or one and a half houses that you can see from Highway 74?
TM Well, actually we have modified with certain Councilpeople, we had relocated eight
lots which was over ten acres, an area of probably about 12 acres. I can verify that
specifically —it is at least ten acres, possibly 12 acres of the most visible parts of the
property that we agreed to relocate up into the County area the property which is
Section 25 which created additional open space. When I said last time that the
project is basically the same, what I meant was it's not the amount of dedicated open
space, but basically the concept where we are only developing on a building envelope
and not the entire lot.
RAS I understand that —I remember seeing that and something that I still don't understand,
and maybe I'm just too dense to get it, is why you have come to the City to develop
the project rather than going through the County.
TM It is a good question. Well, first of all, it's in the sphere of influence of Palm
Desert. Part of the pi..pi i ty, the lower Section 35, the lower 50 acres, is in the City.
It was through conversations with City staff and with...that they wanted to be
involved in the JI ,.. ty, and if we designed it according to your hillside ordinances,
with your density, with your open space taken care of, that the issues would be
managed by the City. It was felt that if the open space was dedicated, given to the
City, as opposed to a County organization or some other organization, that it was
managed and controlled through a Development Agreement, basically holding an
equal playing field so that you are assured of the development, that the City could
assure what goes on on that property, was a better deal than being in the County
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
where basically the control is...you have advisory, but ultimately the County has
made choices which certainly has been very clear to people, the Councilmembers that
we've talked with, that the County has made some very poor choices, or allows lots
of development that the City doesn't like. Basically you are much more vigilant.
RAS Are you suggesting that it is an advantage to the City? Why is it an advantage to the
developer?
TM Well, it is an advantage to us because we feel that if we address all of your concerns,
and you manage all the first of all, half of the lower property that is in the
City, if it all works, then we would have a project that you would agree with. The
advantage to the developer is that we have to process it somewhere. We can't go just
to the County, or just to the City. It makes sense to process it in one place, and so
we're on the fence and we're doing our best to try to have you manage it. It's a real
advantage to having...to us, what the advantage is, we get a Palm Desert City
address. We get seven years of processing and management of you all because the
scrutiny is much more intense. You know, maybe it was a bad decision.
BAC Actually Rancho Mirage is interested in annexing you.
RAS I thought it was Indian Wells.
TM I am the past chairman of the Kearney Mesa Planning Group which I sit on on a
volunteer basis. I have always mentioned that people in your position as well as
where I sit in San Diego should be paid by the hour. We didn't anticipate at the
beginning of this that this would take seven years. We tried to address the concerns.
We went and really asked, and Ray started out with Phil and Phil Drell, what are the
concerns? These were the major concerns --we want to get all that open space.
WHS I don't think we will charge you for the additional training that you have received
over the seven years.
TM We have gotten a lot. I would say this...I think that, perhaps, our agreements have
worked in other cities. They are working now. You have very tight control, I
believe, with this Development Agreement that ensures your management and if you
don't like it, we don't have the latitude.
RSK Any other questions from the Council? Anyone else like to speak? Then you are
going to tell us something different than you told us last week.
JM No, I'm going to repeat the same thing but in a very abbreviated fashion because Mr.
Crites was not here..
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BAC I have read the transcript.
JM Is that enough?
BAC That was sufficient.
RSK Any one else that would like to speak? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.
BAC I think for the record I should note that the City Clerk's office was kind enough to
prepare a verbatim transcript consisting of, I think, four pages of comments, and I
think seven pages of Dr. Meintz's comments. They were all included, so I have
been in receipt and have read those.
WHS If there's no further discussion, Mr. Mayor, I would like to once again make my
motion.
BAC I'd like to note a couple of things from a meeting today with Mr. Miller that would
be placed in the record as clarification issues on some issues. These were concerns
that came from various places and people. Before I do that, I have one quick
question for Dave. Dave, at the very back, to be added to Exhibit C, is a, quote,
"proposed omnibus condition dealing with the unique nature, etc., etc." Are you
fatniliar with that?
DJE Yes, I am.
BAC Is that in the ....
DJE When this came through the Planning Commission prior to coming to the City
Council because the terms of the Agreement indicate that unless we include the
conditions in the Agreement, we cannot impose additional conditions when tentative
maps come through. So, we have added an Exhibit C which we have at least
partially worked through to provide a set of standard conditions that will be attached
to the Agreement. The developer's attorney asked that that condition be added to
Exhibit C. What I had requested of the Planning Commission and would also
request of the Council, if your action is to approve this Agreement, is to allow me
to reserve the right to rewrite, if I may, Exhibit C as it deals with the conditions that
you see in the various staff reports, some of which are duplicative, as well as to
address that issue with the developer's attorney. I believe the hillside ordinance has
already been included in this process. I think we have already recognized the fact
that it is unique, and I think would continue, and I don't believe that adds anything
to the process. I do need, and would ask leave of the Council, to work out Exhibit
C with the developer's counsel and Mr. Drell's assistance.
32
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BAC It seemed in reading it that at a minimum, an Exhibit like that that talks about unique
conditions and so on and so forth should also in it recognize that nothing in this
particular paragraph should in any way impair the ability of the City to enforce its
hillside standards or conditions.
DJE Correct.
BAC And that is your understanding?
DJE Yes, I think that is where we are.
BAC Okay, because I think that's important. A couple of other items that were discussed-
-there was a question about tennis courts. Remember, we have had several bashings
in this room over lighted tennis courts, and Mr. Miller indicated that the tennis
courts would not be lighted. That is an issue. He also noted that any lighting of
landscape features --we have a problem up at Ironwood with people who have put out
big spotlights and so on --that any lighting of landscape features would go before the
Architectural Review Commission for approval or denial. That the developer would
have no objection should CVWD wish to have the same type of water tank
configuration that they have proposed up at the Canyons at Bighorn which is the
simple sinking of those. They may not ask to do that and that's fine, it is not a
requirement. That the park open space which is 50 some acres would be listed as
natural open space because remember our definition of open space includes a variety
of things which may or may not really be open space, and that the permitted uses
which are hiking trail and I think benches and a shade structure are the only
permitted uses.
RSK Golf course doesn't count.
BAC Golf course would not count in this one minor case. That sewers be placed below
ground unless there is a specific exemption granted through the Architectural Review
Commission process for that phase, and I believe that those are among the latter
phases.
TM Well, there are four.
BAC Right, and they are in the back and they can go to Architectural Review if you wish
to have an exemption to do that. And that the emergency gates could be located at
the property line of the development itself which is what the original proposal was
I believe.
TM That is correct.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BAC Those were issues that were discussed at least a day with Mr. Selzer who, I think,
is spending the one night of the year that he has with his family. Is that a fair
summary of the issues discussed?
TM That is a fair summary of the issues which I believe we resolved.
JMB Dave, can I just ask you one question, on page 5--on 1.3, on the change in 5--what
is minor? How many acres...how much...
DJE What page?
JMB Page 5.
DJE Page 5, 1.3 says, "should the size of the side, or any portion thereof, be changed in
minor respects by lot align adjustments or the lawful means, agreement shall not be
deemed to have been affected or invalidated." The determination of a minor respect
basically is left with Mr. Drell at the present time, and I think he has been very
cautious about anything, and it has to really be minor in almost everybody's mind
or he'll bring it to the Council. So, I think minor in this instance really means
minor, so it's really lacking in any significance.
JMB But in the discussion with the developer there was (unclear) the new wording.
DJE That's correct.
BAC Let me just...my personal thought was that all of it should come to us if something
is approved immediately. The applicant said we have a number of permits to go
through, Corps of Engineers, Section 404, which also has an endangered species
consultation and so on and so on and so forth. The way the wording is now that the
second that they have all of their approvals done for the project, the land all comes
to us.
WHS Period.
BAC Period. And if they choose to go get permits in an incremental fashion, then we get
the open space in an incremental fashion. If they choose to go get all their permits
done at once, which I would think would be...
RSK I think that would be advantageous.
BAC I would think would be advantageous, then the second they have those permits, all
of the 400+ acres reverts to us at that point. I can understand why someone would
not want to give us the land and then have the Corps of Engineers ask them for other
34
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
land, or some such thing as that, which would have been part of the lands that they
no longer have. That seems to me reasonable, but the second that those are done,
there is to me no excuse for not having all of that property come to the City. And
I know that's not the same thing as getting it all right now, I understand that. My
wife says her mother has had a variety of nearly perfect days in life, but never a
perfect one. This is not perfect, but it's closer than where we were in terms of
things and, I think, represents a pretty good faith.
RSK Any other comments or questions?
RAS Well, I would like to make my comment again. It's basically the same comment,
Councilman Crites wasn't here. I am totally opposed to the project. I have been for
the last five years because this is the development of our mountains, and although
you cannot see most of the homes, there will be a halo effect that you will see as you
drive up Highway 74. Also, it will include a road that will then give the ability for
landowners, if they own land off this road, to develop in the mountains, and all of
those homes will be visible from Highway 74. All you have to do is drive through
Temecula today and see how that's been ruined, and I'm not suggesting San Diego
or any of these properties are yours, but as you drive down Highway 15 and see the
way the mountains have been torn asunder and what they are doing to that landscape,
it's really a darn shame. And I just hate to see this get started in Palm Desert. I
realize that a good portion of the property is currently in the County, and we have
no control over that, and I realize that you are willing to give the City many many
acres that we can dedicate to no development. But just to have these homes in the
mountains in Palm Desert, in my opinion, is wrong. If there were a way possible
to take the homes that currently exist in the mountains in Palm Desert, take those
homes off the mountains, I would be all in favor of it. I am just totally opposed to
any mountain development.
RSK Any other comment?
BAC I just have a question of Bob. I have no objection at all to your comment about the
road opening some County parcels. I guess I'd address the City Attorney, is there
any way in which the road being proposed by this can be restricted to...
DJE The road is not a dedicated public right-of-way, my recollection in this process. And
I think we have the potential in the Development Agreement context to require they
provide access only to specific property. If Council wishes to add that, I think that
is potentially possible. I mean, you add it so that access is provided to the property
of the developer.
BAC Would that solve your problem?
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAS That would solve my problem.
BAC It is a legitimate issue because those are not Mr. Miller's proposed locations or ones
that have been looked at by the City and by various members of the Council and
everything else. That's not true -of lands outside the City. We know what County
planning has done in terms of quality in the past. So, how would we insert
something like that?
DJE Tell me to insert it in the Development Agreement. That the road provide access
only to the property currently owned by the developer.
WHS Just like Bighorn.
JM I may be out of order, but I'd like to speak to that issue.
?? The public hearing's closed.
RSK Well, I'll open the public hearing.
JM Thank you. Some of us who have had properties in the County next to, adjacent to
these r.t.r:.. Les, have agreements with this developer that we will have access to our
ur;,d es through this roadway. Other individuals, at least six, have had access to
their properties on a road that was cut by Mr. Ricciardi over ten years ago. Those
r.,,Fe.ity owners want to develop their property. The roadway that this development
is going to travel on is a roadway that has been there and been owned, been
maintained by the group of us as property owners. I see that if the City elects to cut
these people out of a passage on a roadway that they have used for over ten years,
that they are really inhibiting the rights of individuals that were there long before this
project was under way. I really believe that needs to be addressed in a more careful
manner because there's at least six of us that have a homeowners association that's
been maintaining that road and getting access to our properties all these years.
RSK Let me ask the City Attorney. I had in a situation like this, and where there
was vested rights from use of roadways going across private property, and if you
wanted to develop that property, then what you had to do was move the road to the
property line so that they still had access.
DJE If access is currently being provided by a road then we would not want to interfere
with that access, but I think that in this development process, we at least have the
ability to look at the road and see whether that exists on the road that is to be
provided by this developer and see. We may well see that there are agreements with
Dr. Meintz and other people that impact this road. I think we need to know that if
we are going to place some restrictions because we don't want to violate anybody's
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
contractual rights or vested rights in the roads. But we do have, I think, an interest
in knowing the utilization of the road, albeit a private road.
BAC So we could, then, place a condition that restricts use of that road to the maximum
amount legally possible.
DJE Certainly.
BAC Then that could be investigated by the City Attorney to see what is and is not a right.
DJE That's correct.
WHS That would satisfy that.
JM I also should mention that the Land Tract Act of 1938, written by the Federal
government, prohibits anyone abridging the right of individuals in Section 36 because
we are homestead properties, from blocking our access, so I do appreciate this
consideration. Thank you.
RSK I'll close the public hearing again.
JMB Well, I don't have anything new to add, but I have to agree with Councilman Spiegel
that this is the last stronghold of mountain j . ly that we have, and once it's gone,
it's gone. I know that the developer has worked with us. I was up there with Mr.
Crites walking around looking at the lots. I'm not sure all of them that we asked be
moved were moved, but I just did it to try to see what it looked like. But when you
get up there and look at how they placed them, there is no way, the same as Bighorn
promised us they would not be seen and they are. It's the same way as the Ritz
Carlton Rancho Mirage, believe me, you'll never see it. You can see it from all over
the Valley, and it's just ruining the things that people come here to enjoy. I don't
see any reason to put it out at this time.
RSK You had formed a motion once, Councilman Snyder. Maybe you ought to review
that.
WHS Yes, I'll rebut that if we agree to this that that'll stay there. I think it's just the exact
opposite. The County will start putting that out to anybody that wants to build
anything they want. We'll have no control over it, and here we do, it will be subject
to our control from now on and it will be the proper time to build these with the
proper kind of approach to the thing. So I will indeed make a motion that this
program be approved as has been submitted and the discussions and the amendments
that have been asked for be included in the program.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK Verification of the ones that Councilman Crites brought up...
WHS Yes, sir.
RSK .:-.and also the stipulation with the road that the concerns for those using the road
now.
DJE Right.
RSK Plus some kind of...any control that we can have to keep it from being abused, the
area from being abused.
DJE Right. And my ability to redo Exhibit C.
WHS Right. That's in my motion.
RSK Did he miss anything in the motion?
BAC Oh, probably, but, you know...
DJE We'll get it from the tape.
RSK Was there a second to the motion?
BAC I will second.
RSK Is there any other discussion? Would you please vote.
SRG The motion carries by 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Benson and Spiegel voting no.
Rec: 1) Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 848 to second reading approving
C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1; 2) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 849 to
second reading approving a development agreement with Crest Partners.
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONSOLIDATED PALM DESERT LANDSCAPE
AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.
Mr. Gibson reviewed the staff report, noting that if people wished to vote during the public
hearing, they would need to complete a ballot and submit it to the City Clerk.
Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to
this request. No testimony was offered.
38
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
City Clerk Sheila Gilligan stated that there had been no new or changed ballots submitted.
Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing closed.
Mrs. Gilligan gave the official tabulation as of 6:00 p.m. as follows:
Total of 1,027 ballots cast
88% of the ballots voted yes, 12% voted no
Total of 835 voting yes, 183 voting no
Two ballots were changed that were not counted
Councilman Spiegel asked how many ballots had been sent out, and Mrs. Gilligan responded
that 2,800 ballots were sent out.
Upon question by Mr. Erwin, Mrs. Gilligan responded that no ballots had been received since
6:00 p.m.
Mr. Gibson stated that, based on the fact that the district was overwhelmingly approved, his
recommendation was that the Council waive further reading and adopt the Resolutions as listed
on the Agenda. In addition, he stated that the County of Riverside had asked for various
agreements relative to pit,i.,:,.ty taxes, and he asked that the Council approve these agreements
and authorize the Mayor to execute same, subject to approval by the City Attorney.
Councilman Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-6Q amending
and/or approving the final engineer's annual levy report for the Consolidated Palm Desert Landscaping and
Lighting Maintenance Assessment District, Fiscal Year 1997/98; 2) waive further reading and adopt
Resolution No. 97-61 ordering the levy and collection of assessments within the Consolidated Palm Desert
Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District, Fiscal Year 1997/98; 3) waive further reading and
adopt Resolution No. 97-62 declaring the results of a Fit/::iv owner protest proceeding and approving certain
related actions; 4) by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute any necosary agreements subject to City
Attorney approval. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote.
Councilman Spiegel commended Finance Director Paul Gibson, his staff, and Senior
Management Analyst Tom Bassler for their efforts in putting this together. He said he was
impressed with the 88% approval of the assessment district and felt it was because of the way
it was presented in a straight forward manner.
39
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. BEQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 (RESIDENTIAL) TO
urri�r. PROFESSIONAL AND PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A
1,581 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE INTO AN OFFICE LOCATED AT 44-835 DEEP
CANYON, Case No. C/Z97-7, PP97-7 (Andrew Pierce Corporation/Gary Lohman,
Applicant).
The following is a verbatim transcript of this public hearing:
Key
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor
RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
BS Beverly Schaefer
MF Maletas Forster
GL Gary Lohman
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore
LF Lee Fisher
TS Tad Smythe
NG Nicole Goudswaard
RJF Richard J. Folkers, Director of Public Works
SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
RSK That takes us to the request for approval of change of zone from R1 Residential to
Office/Professional and precise plan to allow the conversion of a 1581 square foot
residence into an office located at 44-835 Deep Canyon.
RAD Mr. Drell of the staff will give this brief report.
PD Last meeting, we got continued. At that time Council was informed that there is a
timing problem. The property owner's or the applicant's escrow will run out if he
doesn't get the decision now. Also, subsequently we have received a letter. I don't
know if the Council received it. It was addressed to the Council, but from Mr.
Pettingill, Mr. Fisher, two of the property owners, who came to you last meeting
requesting the continuance. It is a letter in support now of the application. Also, the
application is consistent with our current General Plan, and therefore, we recommend
that we proceed with it and approve the request.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK This is a Public Hearing. I'll declare the Public Hearing open. Anyone like to speak
to this item on the agenda?
BS Good evening, I'm Beverly Schaefer, and I'm representing the Goudswaard family
in their absence. I have a letter to read. This is to Honorable Mayor Richard Kelly,
Palm Desert City Council, and its concerning the rezoning of the property on Deep
Canyon. Dear Sirs: I hereby authorize Beverly Schaefer, broker, to act as my agent
in my absence at the Palm Desert Council meeting to be held July loth, 1997. She
is accordingly to vote for myself, and my wife Carline Goodswaard, owners of the
properties located at 44-775 and 44-735 Deep Canyon, respectively. She has been
instructed by me to attend the meeting on my behalf and then to vote against any
motion to allow business professional zoning on only one property located at 44-835
Deep Canyon Road. This was originally a request by Gary Lohman for a variance
which was initiated at the Planning Commission meeting on June 3rd. Since we have
lived in our home for more than thirty years, many of you will know me from
fighting against many other commercial developments proposed over the years. Now
that we have gone through the inconvenience of the shopping center being
constructed across from our driveways, I have finally accepted that progress indeed
must occur. And I have long accepted that our street is not, and has not been, a
horse area for many years. What my personal preference would be is a blanket
rezoning at this time to commercial as spelled out in the letter signed by all of the
homeowners on our street and presented to the Planning Department on June 3rd.
I personally have heard of no response to this letter. I sincerely regret that I cannot
attend the meeting due to a prior business commitment out of state. I wish to state
that I am very much against a lot -by -lot rezoning procedure making its way down our
street in a haphazard manner. Furthermore, I am depending on the Mayor and the
City Councilmembers, respectively, to come up with an organized plan that will
benefit not one but all of the residents living on Deep Canyon, be that business
professional or commercial rezoning. I would like to thank you for your time that
I know you will give to this very important matter which will affect many families
and will cause a major change in their lifestyles which any action is bound to bring.
And this is signed Gary Goodswaard. As a matter of record, one of his daughters,
Nicole Goudswaard, is attending the meeting tonight.
RSK Were you Mrs. Forster? Are you Mrs. Forster?
BS No, I'm not.
RSK Oh, I didn't hear your name.
BS Oh, I'm sorry, I'm Beverly Schaefer (unclear).
RSK Is it...Melitas Forster?
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MF My name is Melitas Forster. I have been serving as executrix of the estate of this
particular yi.,c.Lij. It has been in the estate for two years now, and the people that
have come to buy it have usually been residential. But next door is Dennis
Godecke's building, and when Mr. Lohman came, I thought it was a great idea
because I see that traffic there is -something else on Deep Canyon now. And when
he said he wanted to try to do this zoning, I thought it was a great idea. We did have
one extension already in the contract and in the escrow, and I feel that we should
continue and get this zoning changed as soon as possible because if you've got a
whole bunch of people down the street there, they are not all going to agree and it
make take a long time, I'm going to lose my buyer. The only chance of another
buyer at the present time has been a couple with two very small children, and I hate
to see some children living on that street now. The other part of it is I think it would
clean up the property. I know these fellas are going to do a good job. It would
clean up the property simply because the estate does not have any funds to tidy it up.
It's been two years and it's been a terrible blow to all of us to try...we just
don't...there is no money to keep it up, and I think the street along there eventually
will go similarly as Monterey has and it will eventually be a very nice little street for
offices, so I plead with you so that we can get this estate settled. Like I say, it's
been two years and that's a long time. So, thank you for your time.
GL Gary Lohman, 75-570 Merry Lane, Indian Wells. I'm the applicant, and I'm here
before you tonight to request a speedy approval relative to this request. We've had
several public hearings on this matter. No one has ever gotten up and spoken in
opposition of it, and I believe that Mr. Goudswaard is in effect not in opposition
because he himself has requested commercial. His concern is that it doesn't go on
a piecemeal fashion. However, we are specific users of the property. We intend to
clean up the property and occupy it immediately. As it has been mentioned, it has
been abandoned for several years, and the property is in a state of disrepair. We
believe that the Council granting this use is again consistent, as Phil Drell has
mentioned, with the General Plan overlay, and that if we are granted, we would very
definitely support our neighborhood effort of asking for the request for the additional
properties to go to commercial. It would be consistent with what we are doing.
Again, we would support that request. We look toward a unified development of all
of the properties; however, I do have a problem relative to the timing of this
approval. And if we aren't granted the approval tonight, we would be dropping out
of the escrow which would then, in turn, withdraw our approval. I don't know
where Melitas would go with the property. I don't know whether it would end up
residential or someone else would be interested in it as a commercial property.
Again, in the past we haven't had any opposition. I think, at this point in time, we
don't have any opposition, we just have one neighbor who happens to be about four
or five doors down. He is actually on the end of the block, and he is requesting, I
think, basically a piggyback situation. Again, I don't see a reason why if we are
granted and they have already come to you with a unified request that's consistent
42
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
with what you would be granting us. Thank you for your time, and I am available
for any other questions.
RSK Anyone else like to speak?
PD If I could respond, I guess, to Mr. Goudswaard that we do have a plan. The
Planning Commission initiated a General Plan amendment and change of zone for
all these properties, and we are going to be going to hearing. Staff is prepared to
recommend approval and, so again, we are not piecemealing it. This is...we
appreciate his...
RAS When you say all the properties, are you talking about all of the properties on Deep
Canyon, that begin with Alessandro and go down to Ramona Avenue?
PD Yes.
RAS That is one, two, three, four, five, six....
PD I'm not absolutely sure about...that the corner piece kind of wraps around, but
through Mr. Goudswaard--both of his lots.
RAS And you are not talking commercial, you're talking office professional.
PD We are talking the same sort of development that, again...Monterey is a good
example. Same sort of development.
RAS How about Fred Waring?
PD Same sort of yes. Due to the depth of the lots, we're not going to see the two-
story, but we'll most likely see the smaller buildings that, for instance, that we have
on the east side of Monterey. Either the conversion of these houses or the
construction of relatively small one-story office buildings.
BAC As it's recommended before us tonight, would this allow for construction of two-
story?
PD With...where they have adequate setbacks according to our OP zone, it would.
BAC Can we simply strike that on this?
PD That's a City Attorney question. I don't know if we can restrict ...
DJE The question is -- is it a two-story?
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PD The question is -- if we rezone it OP, can we deprive these property owners ...
RSK You could rephrase that a lot better.
PD Okay, can we restrict...
RSK Restrict it to one-story.
PD Restrict it to one-story. Again, what mechanism would we use to restrict it
in...again, I don't want to use the wrong word, which is...
RSK Don't we have a lot of situations where we have approved commercial but limited
everything adjacent to residential to one-story?
RAD Yes.
DJE When it's adjacent to the residential, I believe that the restriction applies.
PD No, we have a setback requirement for the two-story, and we have a specific setback
requirement in the OP zone. Depending on how you site the property, how far you
want to push it forward...In the OP zone, we have the sliding scale that the higher
you go, the bigger the setback becomes, to a maximum of... to do a full two-story,
you need almost like 65 feet, but in certain circumstances, people have chosen to
build one-story. And, in certain circumstances, they can build two-story. The only
time...again, through development agreements, we have granted zoning with
development agreements where we have restricted.
RAD Mr. Mayor and members of the Council...
RSK I think you need help there, all right?
RAD The ordinance has provisions in the office professional zone depending on the depth
of the r.vrc.. ty and the distance from the R-1. If we want to make sure whether the
present ordinance as we have it prohibits that, we would have to continue this matter
and go out and look at it and come back to you. The only other thing that we can
say is that each parcel when it comes in for development has to go through a precise
plan. A condition of one-story could be imposed at that time; however, it cannot be
absolutely guaranteed. So that's where we are. Can you stop at a one-story at the
precise plan hearing? Yes. Can that hold? We don't know. It's in the ordinance,
we can amend the ordinance if we want to, but we would have to continue this matter
in order to make... if you want to be one hundred percent sure and do some
measurements out there.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JMB We don't have to continue this matter, we'd have to continue the other properties.
It's not this one that we are concerned about a two-story, so that would come up
when we get to the change in zone on the other r x w r :,. tjr.
RAD To the zone change on the other ones.
PD We have a precise plan with this change of zone, and it's as you see it. It's one-
story. In terms of timeliness
JMB We just don't need to deal with other things but this one lot tonight.
BAC That's correct.
PD We have a precise plan.
JMB Because there are other issues on the other part of it because somebody could come
in and buy all three houses and make that a bigger lot and they can put up a two-
story building perhaps if they bought the whole thing as we have seen happen along
Fred Waring, so why don't we deal with this one. The rest of them are going to
come anyway and there is a consensus that it's going to be zoned that way. So, let's
let Gary get on his way with this....
RSK Well, the consensus, though, that the rest of it is going to be zoned that way? I'm...
JMB Well, I meant that they had a change of zone amendment going through.
RSK Yes, but I would not be in favor of changing the zone on the rest of it without some
kind of agreement that we are going to get some cooperation so that we don't do a
whole bunch of single ones, so that we do some kind of development there that
includes more than one.
JMB But I thought the General Plan Amendment includes all the property that you're...
PD Right, but we can't...we have tried, and we've succeeded to a great extent on Fred
Waring and Monterey to encourage properties. It's more efficient for properties to
combine. We can't guarantee that properties will combine, unless we buy them up
all ourselves and sell them to someone.
JMB I know that, but what I said is when that comes up, and what we allow in there
would depend on whether they came in individually or came in as a...
PD Correct, they'll have to go through the precise plan process where we will be able
to review what they are proposing.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAS Well, I think the only thing that's important, Councilwoman Benson...
RSK I guess I didn't close the public hearing yet. Did I close it?
RAS No, but I just wanted to reply to the comment is that one of the things that we were
concerned about at the last meeting was that we don't do this piecemeal.
JMB Yeah, right, but...
RAS But...and so something is going to go forward and that it be office professional, not
commercial.
JMB Right.
RAS Okay.
RSK We're listening.
LF Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Lee Fisher and I live two
doors north of the property in question. I want to urge the City Council to approve
Mr. Lohman's plan. I have been away in the mountains with an antique business the
last two years while the Lucky Market up and got home a few times last year, came
home now permanently to find my whole neighborhood has changed. It's not what
it was last year. It's mostly commercial and very very busy very noisy. And I
personally, my husband and I, are both for approval of Mr. Lohman's plan. Mr.
Goodswaard indicated in the beginning that he was totally for the plan, and I think
again his problem right now is that it all be done together. Our other neighbor, Mr.
Pettingill, Mr. and Mrs. Pettingill, are all for it. There is absolutely up until
between Mr. Goodswaard's property and the two adjacent properties on the end of
the block, there is a vacant lot, so there are only two other properties way way down
that we have not contacted. We didn't think there was a need to. But up to the end
of Mr. Goodswaard's property is what's in question at the moment. And again,
everybody seems to be in agreement that that's the best thing for it, to be turned into
an office or commercial area because I personally want a quiet place to live. Thank
you.
RSK Okay, thank you. Does anybody else want to speak because if we are going to
deliberate, we can't stop every five minutes for somebody to talk, so if you want to
testify, please do it now.
TS My name is Tad Smythe. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I would _
consider myself a co -applicant in this instance. I'll be very brief. The reason I want
you to support this at this time is that the proposed use is consistent with the plan
46
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
already approved by the City. The use proposed is consistent with the neighbors'
wishes as we've heard. The use proposed has been approved by your staff and the
Planning Commission to date, 4 to 0. We understand and recognize the neighbors'
desire to have a bulk zone change, but unfortunately we are not in a position to wait
at- this time for six months to a year at which time maybe all the property owners
could agree, and we could be back in front of you. In that regard, we urge you not
to penalize us for being the first applicant before you, and I don't know what would
happen to that property and to the neighbors' wishes if it does sell to another
residential user, how at that time would the surrounding neighbors be able to get
their wishes and be either office/professional or commercial zoning. So, I urge you
to grant our wishes at this time and we certainly will be in support of our neighbors
being consistent with our use. Thank you.
NG I'm Nicole Goudswaard, the daughter of Gary Goudswaard, the gentleman who
brought forth the letter this evening. My question is, why if we don't want to
piecemeal zone this property as addressed in the letter, why are we...
RSK Talk right into the microphone.
NG I'm sorry. Why would we be granting this certain piece this evening? What is the
guarantee to us that the eventual complete zone change will occur? Where is the
guarantee in this? If we do not receive the zoning that we all are requesting at this
time, and another resident does inhabit the home or buy the property, we will all
remain residents as we are at this time. There will be no change, there was no
change expected prior to this Fluye.lJ purchase. Has there been any decisions made,
has there been any addressed to the request of my father in the letter? And the letter
that the neighborhood had signed for commercial zoning of the entire block area?
BAC May I ask a question?
RSK Yes.
BAC Are you supporting the request this evening?
NG Am I supporting the request for...
BAC This evening, the one that's before us tonight.
NG The zoning? We are in support of...as you know with my father for the entire area
being considered.
BAC Right. But are you in support for the one that is in front of us this evening? The
other one is not in front of us this evening.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NG Right. I mean, my portion of it is, I am questioning what consideration has been —
taken for the entire area.
BAC It's not to us yet.
RSK We are not hear to answer questions. We are here to listen to your testimony.
NG I don't understand.
BAC But I'm just saying, that issue hasn't gotten through the process to get to us yet this
evening. It will, so there is no way we can act on that until it gets here, so this is
here. Are you in favor or not in favor of the granting of it?
NG We are not in favor of the granting of this at this time because there is a lack of
understanding as to why, if we're going to do it not a piece at a time, why do a piece
now and wait for the block later? If it is not wanted as a piece agreement to each
parcel of land for each owner. why should we be granting this now at this time to
one party if we are not all going to be granted at this time?
BAC So your preference is that you would prefer to wait until it all comes in.
NG Correct.
BAC And if, during that time, this piece sells to a resident and they don't want it changed,
then in that case, it wouldn't...
NG We will remain residents.
BAC Everybody.
NG Well, I cannot speak for my neighbors, I can speak for my family and as we stand.
BAC Okay.
NG And that is correct. We are business owners, and this was...up until now, we had
intended on remaining residents.
BAC Okay. Your preference is to remain there then.
NG Correct.
BAC Okay.
48
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JMB Which one is your father?
NG I'm sorry.
JMB Which one is your father?
NG Gary Goudswaard.
JMB Well, at the last hearing, the three property owners that were up here speaking at the
end came forward for Mr. Lohman and said they didn't mind us reconsidering his
if we got the proper notice out and reconsider his tonight because the other one
would be coming the end of August. So I don't know why you're arguing for it all
at once when you said it was okay for Mr. Lohman to go ahead.
NG I'm just asking for the consideration of it.
JMB Pardon?
NG I'm just asking for the consideration of it. It was just curiosity of what has been
considered in that aspect of it.
PD Again, the answer to the question is we are scheduling the hearing before the
Planning Commission on your request for the change of zone and general plan
amendment.
RAD Mr. Mayor, if I may. As I recall at the last hearing, and the City Clerk can correct
me if I'm wrong because we had to do a lot of efforts to get this thing advertised, the
matter was continued earlier on to our meeting on August 28th. Mr. Lohman was
not here during that hearing. Mr. Lohman then approached the Council, along with
Mr. Pettigrew, and I believe Mr. Goudswaard was still here, and they both indicated
that they didn't intend for Mr. Lohman's project not to go and the delay with causing
that, but they wanted everything to go, but to go ahead and hold the hearing here.
We then had to readvertise, and the City Clerk's office went through a great deal of
problems readvertising here this evening, so that's why this hearing is still before us
while the other things are coming in August 20th. So, I think staff is a little
confused as to...
PD Again, our recommendation is...
RAD Our recommendation has always been the same, but...
RSK We understand it.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAD Okay.
RAS Is your father's name Gary Goudswaard?
NG Correct.
RAS Well, then I don't understand because I have a letter... a copy of a letter in front of
me dated June the second requesting that, signed by your father and your mother
along with Mr. and Mrs. Pettingill and Mr. and Mrs. Fisher requesting a zone
change to commercial.
NG Correct.
RAS So, you don't want this approved tonight, but you would like to have yours approved
to commercial. Is that what you are saying?
NG We are saying we'd like the entire thing zoned as commercial. That was what the
original agreement prior to some things that have happened since then with the prior
Council meeting to this.
JMB But the request of Mr. Lohman is office professional as well, not commercial.
RAS Yes, not commercial, it's office professional.
RSK Well, I think we understand, we're not accomplishing anything. Is there anybody
that doesn't understand what's happening?
BS I can't say I'm a totally disinterested party, but I do not own anything on Deep
Canyon. I think I can clarify it.
RSK I think we understand it.
BS If you read that letter, he is very much, I think...he capitalized the "very"...very
much against the one passing tonight and not the other. I was here at the last
meeting where the men came back, and at that time, your notes should show that
Gary Goudswaard spoke up and was very definite that he was very much against it.
And he came back purposely for that purpose. So, he was never ever...
RSK Anyone else like to speak that hasn't spoken? We have taken testimony and we have
(unclear) I think we know what happened on this. Seeing no one else, I'll close the
Public Hearing and ask for Council direction.
50
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JMB I would move that we waive further reading and adopt Resolution 97-49 for change
of zone from R-1 to Office/Professional, Case No. C/Z 97-7...
DE And Ordinance 846 to second reading.
JMB And 846 to second reading.
RAS I would second, but I would like to add if Mayor Pro Tem is in agreement, that we
direct the Planning Department/Planning Commission to look at the entire block and
come back with a recommendation to Council.
JMB That's what they are doing.
RAS Well, I know that but I just want to make sure it's part of the motion.
JMB That's alright.
RSK So, you seconded that.
RAS I seconded it with that caveat.
DJE One thing that Council might note is that this is first reading of an ordinance. Your
second reading will be August 28.
BAC When we have the other stuff before us.
RAS • When we have the other stuff before us.
RSK Any other comment?
BAC One, and that is, I don't see in Public Works any requirement for reciprocal access
in driveway and parking.
RSK That's been a problem a lot of times.
BAC And I understand we are just at the start of this, but....
RJF I think that's an excellent idea.
BAC Oh, and here I was ready to argue the issue for a while. Why don't you say no first.
RJF On second thought...
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BAC Anyhow, I'd like to have that condition inserted, that there be an agreement.
PD That they would agree to an easement with adjacent r..,r:..LJ owners for mutual
parking circulation.
RSK You accept that?
JMB Yes.
RSK That's in the motion. Any other comment? Please vote.
SRG The motion carries by unanimous vote.
BAC Thank you. Now, the folks who didn't want it approved notice that all of it will be
back before us in the August meeting, August the 28th.
RAS But, it's going to be before the Planning Commission on what date, Phil? That's the
one they really need to go to.
PD Probably the first meeting in August, I think.
RAS The first meeting in August?
PD Yes.
RAS Maybe you can...Phil, could you get their names and addresses, and we'll send you
notice of the Planning Commission because that's where you've really got to, you
know, iron it out, and then it will come to us.
RSK Okay, we have, on the blue sheet, we have an item of public hearing, request for
consideration of resolution of necessity...
Rec: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-49 approve PP 97-7; 2) waive
further reading and pass Ordinance No. 846 to second reading, amending the Palm
Desert Zoning Map by changing the zone from R-1 13,000 to Office Professional for
property located at 44-835 Deep Canyon, Case No. C/Z 97-7.
Action:
52
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE A
PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY PETER R. DEMOS LIVING TRUST, C/O
TRUSTEES. MICHAEL A. NOTO, RUTH ANN DEMOS, GEORGE D. DEMOS, AND
PAUL A. BUCHHORN, AND BERTA F. BUCHHORN.
The following is a verbatim transcript of this public hearing:
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
RJF Richard J. Folkers, Director of Public Works
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro Tempore
RSK Okay, we have, on the blue sheet, we have an item of public hearing, request for
consideration of resolution of necessity to acquire a portion of real property owned by
Peter R. Demos Living Trust, c/o Trustees: Michael A. Noto, Ruth Ann Demos,
George D. Demos, and Paul A. Buchhorn and Berta F. Buchhorn. Staff report.
DJE Mr. Mayor, I think you have in front of you some place, hopefully, a very brief agenda.
This deals with the property at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon.
And I would ask...
RSK I'll open the Public Hearing.
DJE Thank you.
RSK And ask the City Clerk about proofs of mailing and notice of the hearing.
SRG The City Clerk has on file proof of mailing and notices of the hearing.
RSK And the City Engineer report regarding real property to be possibly acquired as related
to City purposes?
RJF Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. This property is necessary for the widening
of the south side of Deep Canyon and Highway 111.
RSK And the City Clerk, any note of written objections, protests, requests?
53
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DJE I might, in assistance to the City Clerk, ask Mr. Mayor that we make part of the record
and the City Clerk has a copy and each of you have a copy in front of you. It's a letter
from an attorney, Mr. Hennessey, who represents the property owners from the law
firm of Palmieri, Tyler, Weiner, Wilhelm and Waldren. It is a letter dated July 2...ask
that that be made a part of the record. For the Council's information, we have been in
discussion with Mr. Hennessey. It is not his intent, nor the property owners intent, to
appear but merely to allow this letter to be made a part of the City's record. I would
ask that that be done. In addition, to remove one of the objections that he does raise.
There is as part of your staff report, and I'd like noted in the record, a letter from Mr.
Philips to the property owners of June 26 sending a full copy of the appraisal with
regard to the real property. With that, I would ask, Mr. Mayor, if you would ask if
there is anyone else who wishes to object.
RSK Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Seeing none, I'll close the Public
Hearing.
DJE There is a resolution, Mr. Mayor, to be adopted basically in accordance with the staff
report and recommendation that we do recommend that you pass the resolution
determining the necessity to acquire this parcel of property.
RAS I move that we waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-59 declaring the
acquisition of the real property interest by eminent domain is necessary for traffic and
circulation purposes and making certain determinations.
SRG For the record, that would be Resolution 97-63.
RAS Thank you very much.
RSK Was there a second?
JMB Second.
RSK Is there any more discussion? Please vote.
SRG Motion carries by unanimous vote.
RSK Now, does that take care of everything before I ask for a final opportunity for anybody
who would like to speak to the City Council...
XIX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D
None
54
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XX. ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Crites, and unanimous vote of the City Council, Mayor Kelly
adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.
ATTEST:
✓SHEILA R. G LIGAN
CITY OF PALM DES
Y CLERK
55