HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-11MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Benson convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Jean M. Benson
III. INVOCATION - Councilman Richard S. Kelly
IV. ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilman Buford A. Crites
Councilman Jim Ferguson
Councilman Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Pro-Tempore Robert A. Spiegel
Mayor Jean M. Benson
Also Present:
Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
Robert Hargreaves, Deputy 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, RDA Executive Director
Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Paul Gibson, Finance Director/City Treasurer
Gloria Darling, Human Resources Manager
John Nagus, Community Arts Manager
Paul Shillcock, Economic Development Manager
Mary P. Gates, Deputy City Clerk
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
MR. LEON BENNETT, 48-350 Crestview, Palm Desert, President of the Palm Desert Chamber of
Commerce, stated that he felt the City had done a great job with the traffic in Palm Desert, even
though many people feel there is too much traffic going too fast. He encouraged the Council to
continue trying to find the right answers in this regard and said he would hate to see Palm Desert end
up like Orange County.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 28, 1998, and the Adjourned Joint
Meetings of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of April 2 and May 7, 1998.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 57, 58 and
58PD Office Complex.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#363) by Betty Coman in an Unspecified Amount.
Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the
Claimant.
D. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#364) by Susan Rena Linane in the Amount of $138.10 Plus
Tax.
Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the
Claimant.
E. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#365) by William A. Fiorelli in the Amount of $6,500.00.
F.
Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the Claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the
Claimant.
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Fine Quality Foods, Inc., for
Papa Dans Pizza & Pasta, 73-131 Country Club Drive, C-9, Palm Desert.
Rec: Receive and file.
G. MINUTES of the Art -In -Public -Places Subcommittee Meeting of April 15, 1998.
Rec: Receive and file.
H. MINUTES of the Promotion Committee Meetings of April 21, 1998, and April 30, 1998.
Rec: Receive and file.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION of Authorization to Advertise and Call for Bids for Curb,
Gutter and Cross Gutter Repairs (Contract No. C14540).
Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify the authorization to advertise and call for bids for the
subject project.
J. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Construction of Hydrogen Generation
Facilities at Sunline Transit Agency (Contract No. C14460).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute contract with the lowest
responsible bidder for the construction of hydrogen generation facilities at the
Sunline Transit Agency site in Thousand Palms, California.
K. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Engineering Design of Monterey Avenue and
Country Club Drive Intersection Improvements to Nickerson, Diercks & Associates (Contract
No. C14550, Project No. 640-98).
Removed for separate discussion under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda.
See that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action.
L. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION of a Contract for Catch Basin Cleaning as Proposed by
Sunline Services Group (Contract No. C14560).
Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify a contract with Sunline Services Group for catch basin
cleaning services in an amount not to exceed $13,500.00 from Account
No. 110-4310-433-3320.
M. REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS for the Portola Avenue and Magnesia Falls
Drive Traffic Signal (Contract No. C12940, Project No. 556-97).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the appropriation of $8,975.14 from the Unobligated
Traffic Signal Fund to the project Account No. 234-4273-422-4001 for additional
costs for relocation of Edison Utilities.
N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C14280 with Oaktree
Learning Systems, Inc., for Customer Service Training.
Removed for separate discussion under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda.
See that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action.
3
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
O. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Substitution of Subcontractors for Palm Desert Soccer Park.
Rec: By Minute Motion, adopt the findings presented in the report and approve the
substitution of Kincaid Plumbing (plumbing), Genette Construction, Inc. (framing),
and Falcon Painting and Wallcovering (painting) for Mesa Pacific (general building)
as subcontractors for the construction of the Palm Desert Soccer Park (Contract
No. C13140, Project No. 686-96).
P. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Replacement of Existing Radio Repeater.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the radio repeater replacement purchase from CommPact
Radio Telephone on a sole source basis in the amount of $1,399.67 from Account
No. 110-4260-422-2190.
Q. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of Street Right-of-way and Public Service Easements
Abandonment.
Rec: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 98-5Q initiating proceedings to
abandon that public service easement described as an easement "for bridle trail, storm
water drainage and underground public utilities," as shown on the Palm Desert
Subdivision Map; 2)waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 98-60 initiating
proceedings to abandon a portion of those public service easements affecting Lot 16
and Lot 17 of Tract No. 27520-3 in the City of Palm Desert; 3) waive further
reading and adopt Resolution No. 98-61 initiating proceedings to vacate a portion of
right-of-way known as Latisha Lane south of Robin Road.
R. REQUEST FOR DECLARATION of Miscellaneous Radio Equipment as Surplus Property.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Declare handheld radios, chargers and miscellaneous radio
equipment as surplus property; 2) authorize the donation of listed surplus property
to the Children's Discovery Museum of the Desert.
S. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Parcel Map 28541 (R. K. Development, Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 98-62 approving Parcel Map 28541.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Parcel Map 28760 (Grand Rent-A-Car
Corporation, Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No 98-63 approving Parcel Map 28760.
U. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, of Coachella Valley Economic Partnership Membership.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve membership dues for the Coachella. Valley Economic
Partnership FY 1998/1999 in the amount of $5,000.00.
T.
4
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
V. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of Amendment to City's Conflict of Interest Code.
Rec: By Minute Motion, direct staff to review the City's Conflict of Interest Code and,
if necessary, prepare a resolution to be adopted by the City Council amending the
Conflict of Interest Code.
W. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Palm Desert Transportation Center Feasibility Study.
Removed for separate discussion under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda.
See that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action.
X. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Remove Traffic Circle at De Anza Way and Cabrillo
Avenue.
Rec: By Minute Motion, direct staff to remove the traffic circle at the intersection of
De Anza Way and Cabrillo Avenue.
The following Item was listed on an Agenda Addendum posted 72 hours prior to the meeting:
Y.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy Amended
Supplemental Rental Agreement at Portola Community Center (Contract No. C11971).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the amended Supplemental Rental Agreement between
the City of Palm Desert and the State of California, Department of General Services
(C.V. Mountains Conservancy) for leased space at the Portola Community Center
(Contract No. C11971).
Councilman Kelly asked that Item K be removed for separate discussion under Section VII, Consent
Items Held Over, of the Agenda. Councilman Ferguson requested that Item W also be removed for
separate discussion, and Mayor Benson removed Item N for separate discussion.
Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as
presented by unanimous vote of the City Council.
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
K. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Engineering Design of Monterey Avenue and
Country Club Drive Intersection Improvements to Nickerson, Diercks & Associates (Contract
No. C14550, Project No. 640-98).
Councilman Kelly stated his concern was with the right turn in only on Monterey Avenue. He
said he realized there was some hazard for people wanting to make a left turn, and he
wondered if there was some way to at least let people who are stopping in the center for
gasoline, for example, to turn right out of the center onto Monterey Avenue.
5
MINUTES -
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Folkers responded that staff would be looking at changing it back to two-way.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve engineering design proposal from
Nickerson, Diercks & Associates (NDA) for the subject engineering design in the amount of $19,795.00 plus
a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $1,979.00 for a total amount of $21,774.00 -- funds are
available from Account No. 110-4300-413-3010; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No C14280 with Oaktree
Learning Systems, Inc., for Customer Service Training.
Mayor Benson stated she had removed this item because the request was to approve an
additional $1,000 for Oaktree Learning Systems, Inc. She said it upset her very much that she
had never seen anyone from this organization and no one had called her and made an
appointment to talk to her about this. She said this was to approve an additional $1,000 for
Mr. Restivo to give the City an assessment of the interviews, and she did not even know what
he was doing at this point. She said she felt it would be a courtesy to talk to the Mayor.
Mrs. Darling responded that Mr. Restivo had tried several times to make appointments with
the Mayor and that it was at a time when Mayor Benson was ill. She said Mr. Restivo would
be talking with Mayor Benson when he returns the end of July.
Councilman Spiegel stated that Mr. Restivo had been in the hospital, and Mrs. Darling added
that he had recently undergone back surgery.
Councilman Crites stated originally the issue was to look at how to increase our effectiveness
in dealing with the public as customer outreach. He said he hoped until Council authorizes
something different, what Mr. Restivo does ends up being what the Council hired him to do.
He said thus far one of the issues Mr. Restivo had not done, for example, was research on
external interface. He said if he was interested in customer orientation, that is one the areas
he would want to have data on.
Councilman Kelly asked what had been paid to Mr. Restivo thus far, and Mrs. Darling
responded that $1,500 had been paid so far.
Councilman Crites stated he was not arguing against Mr. Restivo or what he is doing, but he
would like to see Mr. Restivo do what the City originally asked him to do.
Councilman Spiegel stated that in addition to external customer service, Mr. Restivo was
looking at customer service within the organization, and that was part of the direction given
to him.
Mrs. Darling stated that Mr. Restivo would be doing the first phase of the training when he
returns.
6
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Ferguson suggested asking Mr. Restivo to come back and address the entire City
Council in a Study Session before any changes to the contract are approved. He said this way
the Council could find out where he is and where he is going to see if the Council is in accord
with it before he goes any further.
Councilman Spiegel stated that before such a Study Session, Mr. Restivo could meet with
Mayor Benson and any other Councilmembers who had not had a chance to speak with him.
Mayor Benson stated that she could wait and meet with Mr. Restivo when he meets with the
entire City Council.
Mrs. Darling stated that she would get in touch with Mr. Restivo and relay the Council's
concerns and direction.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to schedule a Study Session for Mr.
Restivo to meet with the City Council relative to the customer service training prior to approval of any
additional funding. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
W. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Palm Desert Transportation Center Feasibility Study.
Councilman Ferguson stated he had reviewed the proposal and saw that the request was for
approval of almost $40,000 for someone to assess whether it would be nice for the City to have
an intermodal transportation facility. He said he felt the question almost answered itself, and
he wondered why the City would have to pay someone $40,000 to say this would be a good
idea. He asked if it would be possible to use this money toward actually creating the center
instead of pondering whether we should have it. He asked if staff could provide additional
background on why this $40,000 was being requested.
Mr. Wohlmuth stated that the City of Palm Desert initially applied for funding for a Metrolink
station out by Interstate 10. The City designated as its in -kind contribution the land for the
Metrolink station and began working on the station based on a feasibility study conducted on
bringing Metrolink service to the Coachella Valley. Initially the City of Palm Desert received
a grant in excess of $1 million, and this grant was shared with Palm Springs and its station
based on some CVAG actions. Ultimately, Palm Desert had in excess of $400,000 to build
the station out by Interstate 10. He said to this day, the feasibility of Metrolink to the
Coachella Valley as a pilot program or a permanent program was still being studied. He. said
staff was looking at bus service to connect to Metrolink in the Inland Empire. In the
meantime, the grant that was originally received to build a station was removed by the CTC
(California Transportation Commission) and utilized in the Bay Area. The City was given
engineering money to look at an intermodal station in the center of Palm Desert to serve the
residents and businesses, with the possibility of a Metrolink station to continue to be looked
at. He said negotiations had been ongoing with the Town Center Mall relative to use of the
northern parking area as a possible station. He said the City of Palm Desert had approximately
$80,000 to fund the design for that intermodal station, and it was funding from the CTC. He
said in order to complete Phase I, it was necessary to use those design services and look at
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
what is needed, what kind of transportation services can be provided at an intermodal station
at this possible location and perhaps others. He said this money was coming from the State.
Councilman Ferguson stated this was not just a feasibility study but was actual design work,
and Mr. Wohlmuth responded that the design would be looked at.
Councilman Kelly stated it was what was needed to receive the remainder of the grant.
Mr. Folkers added that it was for preliminary design up to and including site design.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a proposal from Parsons Transportation
Group, Inc., Pasadena, California, in an amount not to exceed $39,860.00.
Councilman Spiegel asked if any other locations would be considered other than behind the Fire
Station on Town Center Way.
Mr. Folkers responded that the master plan for the Town Center had that area zeroed in.
Councilman Kelly stated that it would also be a location for all the SunLine buses to
interchange. He added that they made all their connections between different lines on Town
Center Way. He said this had been worked on for several years and it seemed to be the only
open area near where all the connections would be made.
Councilman Spiegel seconded the motion by Ferguson, and the motion carried by unanimous vote
of the Council.
VIII. RESOLUTIONS
None
IX. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
8
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For Adoption:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 874 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING THE KEEPING AND CONTROL OF
DOGS AND CATS AND PROVIDING FOR THE CONTROL AND SUPPRESSION OF
RABIES AND REPEALING COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 630.3 AND ORDINANCE
NO. 716 AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. $24. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 875 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 2.60 TO TITLE 2 FOR THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMISSION.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. $75. Motion was
seconded by Spiegel.
Councilman Ferguson stated that the Commission will be comprised of five individuals from
the community to oversee the City's fire protection, police protection, emergency medical
services, and disaster preparedness program. Of those five, the City would be seeking one
individual with a law enforcement background, one with a fire protection background, one
from the retail business community, and two community at -large members. He said
applications would be solicited through the end of June, and he encouraged interested persons
to contact the City Clerk.
Mayor Benson also noted that letters had been sent out earlier that day to all members of the
previous Police Advisory Committee.
Mayor Benson called for the vote, and the motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. PRESENTATION TO PALM DESERT SHERIFF'S DEPUTY JOHN KAISER.
Captain Neil Lingle stated that in all the years he had been involved in public service, he had
seen and heard of many acts of public safety representatives above and beyond the call of duty;
however, he had rarely seen acts of heroism. He noted that Deputy John Kaiser's act of
heroism was selfless and clearly humanitarian. He stated that on August 14, 1997, at
approximately 6:00 p.m., Deputy John Kaiser was off duty and driving his personal vehicle
east on Fred Waring Drive when he observed two vehicles that had just been involved in a
traffic collision at the intersection of Elkhorn Trail. As he stopped, he observed one of the
vehicles begin burning. He ran to the vehicle and pulled an injured passenger out of a rear
window and then pulled a second passenger out of that same window. He then went to the
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* * * * * *
front driver's window and attempted to pull a third passenger from the vehicle, which was
complicated due to the damage to the vehicle and the fact that she was entangled in the car.
He said the fire was rapidly consuming the vehicle, with flames coming through the dashboard
vents. At this point, Mr. Donald Coffin, a passerby, assisted Deputy Kaiser in untangling
passenger number three and pulling her from the vehicle. The two gentlemen then returned
to the car and attempted to pull the driver out but had to back off because the gasoline in the
vehicle ignited. He said Deputy Kaiser was seriously burned on his hands, arms, and legs.
By the time he was able to extinguish the burning gasoline on his legs, the car was completely
engulfed, and nothing more could be done.
Captain Lingle stated that in May, Deputy John Kaiser was selected as the Riverside County
Law Enforcement Officer of the Year, the first in the history of the Palm Desert Police
Department. He said he had also received the Riverside County Sheriff's Department Medal
of Valor, the highest recognition and the most prestigious award of service above and beyond
the call of duty. He introduced Deputy John Kaiser to the Council, staff, and audience.
On behalf of the entire Council, Mayor Benson presented Deputy Kaiser with a plaque in
appreciation of his service above and beyond the call of duty and thanked him for his unselfish
and courageous act of heroism. She also presented him with some passes for Metropolitan
Theatres.
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
CONDITIONS INVOLVING REAR ELEVATION OF BUILDINGS C AND E FACING THE
PARKING STRUCTURE AND PARKING STRUCTURE RAILING PLANTERS
(Madison Marquette Realty, Appellant).
Mr. Drell requested a two -week continuance. He said this was discussed at the Architectural
Review Commission meeting, and the applicant wanted to consider the latest input from that
Commission prior to discussion with the City Council.
Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this matter to the meeting of June 25, 1998. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 2 FOOT BY
4 FOOT OUTDOOR CLOTHING DISPLAY OF WOMEN'S APPAREL IN FRONT OF THE
CITY LI'I'ES BUSINESS AT 42-335 WASHINGTON STREET #J Case No. CUP 98-6
(Louis Lassabatere/City Lites, Appellant).
Mr. Drell requested that this matter be temporarily removed from the Agenda. He said in its
haste to get this matter before the Council, staff neglected to notice this as a public hearing
item. He said the matter would be brought back to the Council as a public hearing after it is
properly noticed.
10
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCLL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel moved to withdraw this item from the Agenda. Motion was seconded by
Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
D.
Councilman Kelly complimented staff on the pictures included in the staff report. He said he
was prepared to go out and look at the location; however, after looking at the photographs
included in the report, he did not need to do so. He said these were the best photographs he
had seen so far and said he hoped staff would continue to provide same to the Council.
REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF NOTICE TO ABATE ON
PROPERTIES (Carl Voce, Appellant).
Mr. Ponder, Code Compliance Supervisor, reviewed the staff report, noting that in
conjunction with the Fire Department, the City held its annual weed abatement. He said one
of the property owners, Carl Voce, believed that his properties were not a public nuisance.
He said the staff report included photographs of the lots showing dead brush, litter, tree
overhang into the public right-of-way, etc. He said based on Palm Desert Municipal Code
section 8.20.020, staff felt the properties were a public nuisance and asked that the Council
make a determination that a public nuisance does exist and make a finding that the abatement
described in the notice to abate is reasonable and necessary to comply with the law.
Councilman Kelly complimented staff on the good photographs included in the report.
Mayor Benson asked if Mr. Voce was present to speak, and no one came forward to do so.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Determine that a public nuisance exists on the
properties described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 627-171-004, 627-171-005, 627-171-006, 627-171-013
and 627-171-014; 2) find that the abatement described in said Notice to Abate is reasonable and necessary to
comply with the law.
E. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF SPEED ZONE STUDIES ON VARIOUS CITY
STREETS.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that several of the recommendations (#1 for
Alamo Drive between Mesa View Drive and Haystack Road, #2 for Mesa View Drive between
Highway 74 and Portola Avenue, and #3 for San Luis Rey Avenue between Ironwood Street
and El Paseo) were for reestablishment of existing speed limits on streets as required by the
California Vehicle Code. He said unless there is a major change in design or configuration,
speed limits are good on City streets for five years. He said with regard to Recommendation
#5 (San Pablo Avenue), staff was recommending establishment of a 35 miles per hour speed
limit; recommendation #6 was for reestablishment of a 45 miles per hour limit on Country
Club Drive between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue and reestablishment of a 50 miles
per hour limit on Country Club Drive between Portola Avenue and Washington Street (in
conjunction with the County of Riverside); recommendation #7 was to reduce the speed limit
on Cook Street between Frank Sinatra Drive and Country Club Drive from 65 miles per hour
to 55 miles per hour.
11
MINUTES -
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
With regard to Recommendation #4, he said there was an omission in the report to Council for
Haystack Road. He said there was not unanimity at the Technical Traffic Committee meeting
as far as discussion, and the Police Chief had concerns with raising the limit from 45 miles per
hour; however, under the California Vehicle Code and the requirements discussed during the
study session prior to the last City Council meeting, the law is such that when the 85th
percentile falls where it does, the City has no choice. He said staff could find no extenuating
circumstances; therefore, staffs recommendation was that on Haystack Road between Highway
74 and Portola Avenue, the speed limit be raised from 40 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour.
He offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Kelly stated he had comments/concerns with the following items:
#1 Although the cover page of the staff report indicates a recommendation to reestablish
the 30 miles per hour limit, the last paragraph of the Engineering and Traffic Study
included in the report indicated "maintaining a 35 miles per hour speed limit".
Mr. Folkers responded that he would look into this to see which was correct.
After additional discussion, Transportation Engineer Mark Greenwood noted that the
35 miles per hour as listed on the Engineering and Traffic Study was a typographical
error, and the correct speed limit was 30 miles per hour.
#3 The Engineering and Traffic Study included a comment that "sight distance at all of
the intersections is adequate for traffic to safely enter San Luis Rey Avenue." He
said he had occasion to cross from east to west across San Luis Rey on Shadow
Mountain, and it was difficult for him to get out and across before someone is onto
him all the time. He said at that location, the road curves around, and motorists
cannot see around, especially coming from the south, and he felt it was a dangerous
corner. He said coming the other way, going west to east, because of the way the
road curves, he is able to see both ways far down the street.
#4 Whatever is done on Haystack, he said this made him think about how staff is always
studying traffic at a certain percentile because of the speed that the cars are going
when the traffic studies are done. He said it seemed that if a good job is done
policing the streets, that percentile would not be as high. He said he would like to
have the study done after implementation of enforcement that is being done now.
#6 He expressed concern with establishing 45 miles per hour for half of Country Club
Drive and then 50 miles per hour for the other half. He said he felt this would be
confusing for motorists who are going from Monterey toward Washington and that
it should be one speed all the way from Monterey to Washington.
Councilman Ferguson stated that with regard to Haystack Road, the City had in the past week
increased enforcement on Haystack, and during the first week it yielded 21 violations, mostly
for speeding. He said the average speed of the people cited was 56 miles per hour. He noted
12
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
that a considerable amount of time had been spent in looking at traffic, and he agreed with
Councilman Kelly that he would like to let the enforcement program run its course and then
go back and take a survey to see what the speeds are. He said he had a hunch the 85th
percentile would be somewhat less than 45 miles per hour, and if that is the case, there was no
reason to leave it at 40 miles per hour where it is now.
Councilman Spiegel stated that some of the comments already made by Council were ones that
he would also have made. He said he felt staff might wish to revisit this and take another look
at some of the concerns of Council. He said he drives 40 miles per hour on Haystack all the
time, and it was not a problem to drive 40 miles per hour. He said he felt these concerns
needed to be looked at before he was ready to vote on the matter.
Transportation Engineer Mark Greenwood stated that he felt he could address some of the
concerns raised by Council as follows:
#1 Alamo Drive -- there was a typographical error on the Engineering and Traffic
Study, and the correct speed limit should be reflected as 30 miles per hour rather
than 35 miles per hour. He said staffs recommendation was for reestablishment of
30 miles per hour.
#3 San Luis Rey -- staff did take into consideration all of the driveways and the
marginal sight distances. He said the critical speed on San Luis Rey was a little over
35 miles per hour, which would normally direct staff to a 35 miles per hour
recommendation; however, with the concern for sight distances, staff felt in this case
there were mitigating circumstances that warranted a recommendation to maintain the
30 miles per hour rather than recommending raising it to 35.
Councilman Kelly stated he was willing to go along with 30 miles per hour, but then
it should not be stated that all the intersections are adequate because that one
intersection is bad.
Mr. Folkers stated that staff would be going back and looking at that particular
intersection.
#4 With regard to Haystack Road, he said staff was doing 24-hour data collection
concurrently with the enforcement program to see if the speeds are being affected.
#7 Councilman Spiegel asked if the speed limit was on Cook Street from Interstate 10
to Frank Sinatra was 55 miles per hour, and Mr. Greenwood responded that it was
65 miles per hour. Councilman Spiegel stated that staff's recommendation was to
go to 55 miles per hour on Cook Street between Frank Sinatra to Country Club, with
a 45 miles per hour limit from Country Club to Fred Waring Drive.
Mayor Benson stated she agreed with Councilman Kelly regarding Country Club between
Monterey and Portola Avenue and said there was a stop light at the Marriott and a stop light
13
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
at Cook Street, and she felt 45 miles per hour was adequate all the way through on Country
Club Drive.
Mr. Greenwood stated that on Country Club Drive the existing speed limit was 50 miles per
hour for the vast majority of the road, and staff recommended continuing with the 50 miles per
hour limit. He said the portion that staff is recommending be 45 miles per hour is currently
at 45 miles per hour, and this is a recommendation for no change. Mr. Folkers added that it
was reestablishment of the existing speed limits.
Mayor Benson asked if the length of Country Club Drive between Portola Avenue and
Washington Street could be made 45 miles per hour like the rest of the street. Mr. Folkers
responded that going by the 85th percentile, it falls beyond the level we could reasonable
expect the officers' tickets to be held up in court. He said the Council could, if it wished,
change the limit to 45 miles per hour; however, it would be into the speed trap law, and the
only way enforcement could be handled would be through pacing and not using radar.
Mr. Folkers asked what the time limit was for getting these limits established to make sure the
City has effective speed limits. Mr. Greenwood responded that some of these had expired in
the time that it took to go to the Traffic Committee, and some were due to expire in the next
month or two. Mr. Folkers stated that staff would go back and look at the entire package.
Councilman Crites moved to accept staff's recommendation on items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, and to
continue items 4 and 6 to the meeting to the meeting of June 25, 1998. Motion was seconded by Ferguson
and carried by unanimous vote.
follows:
For clarification purposes, items #1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, approved per the above Council action, are as
1) By Minute Motion, re-establish the 30 miles per hour speed limit on Alamo
Drive between Mesa View Drive and Haystack Road (Ordinance No. 526);
2) By Minute Motion, re-establish the 40 miles per hour speed limit on Mesa View
Drive between Highway 74 and Portola Avenue (Ordinance No. 526A);
3) By Minute Motion, re-establish the 30 miles per hour speed limit on San Luis
Rey Avenue between Ironwood Street and El Paseo (Ordinance No. 546);
5) Waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 877
rescinding Ordinance No. 663 and establishing a 35 miles per hour speed limit
on San Pablo Avenue between San Gorgonio Way and Magnesia Falls Drive;
7) Waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 879 to
establish a 55 miles per hour speed zone on Cook Street between Frank Sinatra
Drive and Country Club Drive.
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For clarification purposes, items #4 and #6, continued per the above Council action, are as follows:
4) Waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 876
rescinding Ordinance No. 513 and establishing a 45 miles per hour speed zone
on Haystack Road between Highway 74 and Portola Avenue;
6) Waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 878
rescinding Ordinance Nos. 803, 716 and 702 to re-establish a 45 miles per hour
speed zone on Country Club Drive between Monterey Avenue and Portola
Avenue and to re-establish a 50 miles per hour speed zone on Country Club
Drive between Portola Avenue and Washington Street;
F. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONSOLIDATED PALM DESERT LANDSCAPE
AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 ENGINEER'S
REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that this would set the public hearing for July 9,
1998. He offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 98-65 initiating
proceedings for the annual levy of assessments, FY 1998/99; 2) waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 98-66 declaring intention to levy annual assessments, FY 1998/99; 3) waive further reading and adopt
Resolution No. 98-67 approving the preliminary engineer's report and assessment levy, FY 1998/99. Motion
was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF DESERT WILLOW RATE SCHEDULE 1998/99.
Mr. Diaz noted the proposed 1998/99 rate schedule in the packets and offered to answer any
questions.
Councilman Spiegel asked if this schedule would be for both courses starting in October when
the south course opens up, and Mr. Diaz responded that it would. Councilman Spiegel asked
if the resident rates were basically the same as last year, and Mr. Diaz responded that they
were.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the Rate Schedule 1998/99 for Desert
Willow Golf Resort for the period of May 26, 1998, through September 30, 1999, as proposed by Kemper
Sports Management per the Management Agreement between the City and Kemper Sports dated September
21, 1996. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, OF ADMISSION OF THE CITY OF BLYTHE TO THE
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MEMBERSHIP (Contract
No. C03652).
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and stated that Blythe was the only city in Riverside
County which did not belong to an association of governments, and staff felt it should be part
of CVAG. He said it would also help in terms of discussion from time to time with
representatives from western Riverside County.
Councilman Crites asked if it was really expected that Councilmembers from Blythe would
drive in for every CVAG committee; if so, he said he suspected the "pleasure" of that would
wear thin in a fairly short period of time, and it adds another vote needed in terms of quorums
and things like that which he guessed was not likely to be achieved very often in terms of their
personal representation, especially when he suspected not one item out of 20 or 30 would have
any impact on them. He said he had looked at the Agenda for several committees and could
find zero items that would get anyone to drive ten minutes let alone a little over two hours.
Councilman Spiegel agreed with Councilman Crites; however, he said they were beginning to
use teleconferencing at CVAG, and there was no reason why they couldn't teleconference the
meetings, except for the Executive Committee.
Mayor Benson added that the Blythe representatives would only be on certain committees, not
as many as the cities in the Coachella Valley.
Councilman Kelly stated that as we go into the new structure at RCTC, Blythe will have a
member on that commission as well. He said frequently things come up that are of interest to
us, and this is one more vote. He said this will basically help Blythe more than the Valley
cities, but they are out there all alone, and this is the neighborly thing to do.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request. Motion was seconded by
Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
Mayor Benson stated that Corky Larson of CVAG could also be directed to advise them that
we are concerned about the attendance and that they make sure they have someone in
attendance.
I. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AIPP AND CIVIC ARTS COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMMENCE RESTORATION OF DESERT ROAD
ARTWORK.
Mr. Nagus reviewed the staff report, noting that this fence at Washington Charter School was
beginning to rust out. He said a meeting had been held with the artist, consultant Steve Colton,
and Carole Horlock at Washington School, and they had come up with a way to ensure the
sculpture itself is basically rust -free, rust -proof, and will last pretty much into perpetuity. He
said the second phase would be for the artist to work with the students at the school to paint
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and color the fence, and staff would bring this phase back to Council for approval at a later
time.
Councilman Ferguson asked whether the goal was to preserve the existing fence in its current
condition and color. He asked what would happen with the fence.
Mr. Nagus stated that the artist proposed six years ago to brighten and lighten the piece and
had come back with some lively, happy colors, so the fence would be much different than it
currently looks.
Councilman Ferguson asked if it would be the same creatures but different colors.
Councilman Crites agreed and said it would have nice, happy desert pastels and bright colors.
Mr. Nagus stated that part of the problem with the creatures was that they were very
whimsical, with backpacks, roller blades, etc., but that was lost in the current colors.
Councilman Kelly stated that at the time the Council originally approved this artwork, it
received a lot of flack from the community. He said this was an opportunity to fix it.
Councilman Crites noted that the City received no flack from the students at the school, and
they seemed to love it.
Councilman Ferguson noted that he received flack from his two -year -old who was frightened
by the appearance of some of the animals.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the expenditure of AIPP Maintenance
funds in an amount not to exceed $45,000.00 for Consultant Steve Colton to supervise the repair and
conservation of the Washington Charter School Fence to include: 1) Creation of new fence/wall fastening
system; 2) removal of fence sections for sandblasting of rust, paint removal and priming of fence for powder
coating, including transportation to fabricator; 3) powder coating of all fence sections; 4) transportation to and
reinstallation of fence sections on site. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
J. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT LEASE -PURCHASES FOR SOUTH
COURSE AT DESERT WILLOW.
Mr. Diaz stated that Mr. Gibson was available to answer any questions.
Mr. Gibson asked that the Council continue this matter to the meeting of June 25, 1998.
Councilman Crites moved to continue this matter to the meeting of June 25, 1998. Motion was
seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
17
MINUTES -
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
K. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Update on Interchanges:
a. I-10/Washington Street
Mr. Folkers noted that the grand opening for this interchange had been
scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 8, 1998.
2. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies
Mr. Drell stated that staff had hoped to have something to announce at this time; he
said there might be a lease signing the following day in New York for a major
vacancy, and staff hoped to be able to announce this at the next meeting.
3. Progress Report on Utility Deregulation
Councilman Crites suggested that this particular item be removed from future
Agendas.
Councilman Ferguson agreed. He noted that an article was being put out to the
residents of Palm Desert who filled out their energy surveys as to what the Cove
Commission did and what its findings were. He said the findings essentially were
that the savings were minimal compared to the cost to administer the program,
creating marginal if not negative benefit to the communities, and given the state of
the industry, we should sit tight and wait to see how it shakes out.
Councilman Kelly stated he had attended a one -day conference in Sacramento dealing
with deregulation and other types of energy. He said everyone agreed from all over
the State that there is no way under AB1839 to do anything to save any money on
residential energy service.
With Council concurrence, staff was directed to remove this informational item from future agendas.
4. Progress Report on Desert Willow Clubhouse Facility
Project Manager Rudy Acosta stated that as noted at the last meeting, Artist Albert
Paley would be visiting Palm Desert and would meet with him, John Nagus, and the
architect of record to share the concerns of the Council with regard to the artwork
for the clubhouse. He noted that members of the Art -In -Public -Places Desert Willow
subcommittee would also be available to the artist. He said the structural and civil
drawings were being worked on and would hopefully be turned in to the Building
Department and Public Works Department within the next 30 days.
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel asked if this project was on schedule, and Mr. Acosta responded
that it was so far.
Mayor Benson asked whether the artwork would come back to the Council for
review, and Mr. Acosta responded that it would.
5. Progress Report from the "Save The Rink" Committee
Associate Planner Jeff Winklepleck stated that he had been in contact with Sandra
Wright, that the first committee meeting would take place within the next week or
so, and that he would hopefully have something to report back to the Council at its
next meeting.
MS. SANDRA WRIGHT stated that she had received news the previous evening
from Michael Kirby that the Ice Rink facility at the Palm Desert Town Center was
scheduled to reopen on Fathers Day, June 21. She said it was expected that every
city would be represented on the committee in the next few days, and the only name
she did not yet have was the representative from La Quinta.
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS WERE LISTED ON AN AGENDA ADDENDUM POSTED
72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING:
L. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND CALL FOR BIDS for El Paseo
Palm Tree Program (Contract No. C14570).
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for
bids for the installation of new trees along El Paseo. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by
unanimous vote.
M. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF RENAMING OF DESERT WILLOW AT PALM
DESERT GOLF COURSE.
Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report, noting that both the Desert Willow Committee and the Golf
Course Committee had considered different names for the two golf courses. He said there was
agreement on the original Desert Willow course with the name Firecliff because of its historical
significance. He said there was a split with regard to naming the second golf course, the one
that is currently under construction. One of the two names under consideration was Verbenia
because it is the City flower and because it was an opportunity to emphasize the fact that the
entire project is indeed being done to be environmentally and nature sensitive. The other name
considered was Deep Canyon because of the view that one has from that course down into
Deep Canyon.
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Benson stated that when the golf course was named Desert Willow, she had suggested
Mountain View, and Councilman Kelly said he felt it was a good name for one of the courses.
She said she felt it was a far better name than Deep Canyon because people will be looking at
the mountains from both of the golf courses. She said she did not know names were being
considered or she would have thrown the name "Mountain View" in for consideration.
Councilman Ferguson asked how she felt about the name "Firecliff' for the existing golf
course, and Mayor Benson said that name was okay with her. Councilman Ferguson stated that
he would go along with Mountain View in light of Mayor Benson going along with Firecliff.
Councilman Kelly agreed.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, name the north course of Desert Willow the
"Firecliff Course" and the south course the "Mountain View Course." Motion was seconded by Ferguson and
carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM THE PALM SPRINGS DESERT MUSEUM FOR
A GRANT-IN-AID IN SUPPORT OF ITS 60TH ANNIVERSARY AND ITS MAJOR FOLK
ART EXHIBITION "RECYCLED/RE-SEEN: FOLK ART FROM THE GLOBAL SCRAP
HEAP" (Continued from the Meetings of April 23, May 14, and May 28, 1998).
Mr. Nagus stated that at the meeting of April 23, 1998, the City Council suggested that staff
look at alternate funding mechanisms. He said some representatives of the Museum were
available to further clarify the request. He noted that he had a slide presentation and some
material for the Council to view.
Councilman Ferguson stated that the last report from staff showed all of the cities who were
participating and the amount to which they were participating, and he asked if staff could
provide that information again. Mr. Nagus provided a copy to Councilman Ferguson.
Councilman Spiegel stated that this request was presented to the Civic Arts Committee which
unanimously recommended approval of the request.
Mr. Nagus added that the Art -In -Public -Places Committee had also recommended approval.
Councilman Spiegel stated that 1998 was the year of the City's 25th Anniversary. He said it
was his understanding that this art exhibition would begin on July 1 and run through the end
of the year, and the City's celebration would also run until almost the end of the year. He said
if the request from the Museum was approved, he would like to see the City's Birthday played
up in a major way
Mayor Benson noted that the Museum had included, under Publicity, a banner on the
Museum's exterior wall, and that banner could state "Palm Desert's 25th Anniversary."
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Nagus stated that there had also been discussion about having an exhibition space for City
of Palm Desert programs within the Museum itself.
MS. CAROLYN MILLER, Palm Springs Desert Museum, stated that there would be
exhibition space to display the recycling programs of the City of Palm Desert, and this would
actually be in the Museum adjacent to the exhibition itself. She added that this would be a first
in the history of the Museum.
Councilman Crites asked about the docent programs for local school students.
MS. SYDNEY WIT LIAMS, Director of Education, Palm Springs Desert Museum, stated that
there were a number of components as part of the educational program. One component was
educational kits that would be purchased and put in all of the elementary schools in Palm
Desert. She said the kit would include a 35-minute video from the exhibition, color photos,
and a curriculum guide to five different lessons dealing with recycling issues around the world,
since that was the theme of the exhibition. She said the Museum had a junior docent program,
and high school students from Palm Desert were currently applying and being interviewed.
She said the students would be asked to come on Saturdays for the nine family workshops and
would be there to answer questions and work with the public.
Mayor Benson stated that with regard to the free Palm Desert Community Day, she would like
the City to be involved in picking the date. She said she believed in these regional types of
projects but hoped that if the Museum comes up with another one, it will come to the City
before all of the brochures are printed and ask that the City be a major supporter rather than
waiting until everything is done to ask.
Councilman Ferguson agreed with comments made by the other Councilmembers. He said the
only intellectual problem he had with this was why Palm Desert would pay almost double the
amount being put in by the host city. He said he felt the nexus to the benefits to Palm Springs
were infinitely greater than they were for the City of Palm Desert. He expressed concern that
Palm Desert was being asked to contribute $35,000, while Palm Springs was contributing
$20,000, and Rancho Mirage $5,000, and he said he could not personally support the
contribution of $35,000. He said he was glad to see that the funding came from quasi-AB939
money, money that the City has segregated for recycling awareness.
Councilman Kelly agreed. He questioned what a grant-in-aid is.
Ms. Miller explained that this is what they called the funding from cities. She added that they
did not look at Palm Springs as the host city; it just so happens the Museum is located there.
She said $10,000 of the $20,000 was coming from the City of Palm Springs waste recycle fee
and $10,000 from its art fee.
Councilman Crites stated that something that had happened recently which he felt was positive
was the fact that the Palm Springs Desert Museum has decided it is not a "Palm Springs"
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
museum but is trying to be a Valley museum. He said he hoped that where something exists
in the Valley becomes increasingly less important than what it provides to the Valley.
Councilman Ferguson stated that while he did not disagree with that philosophy, he knew that
plenty of Palm Desert residents would. He said having really taken the brunt, he and Mayor
Benson, on the McCallum Theatre and trying to espouse that same philosophy and basically
being told to shove off by a number of cities, Palm Desert was called a host city and was told
it was primarily responsible. He said he thought nothing but great thoughts about the Palm
Springs Desert Museum and was willing to participate in the program, but not at almost twice
the amount of the contribution by the City of Palm Springs. He said he did not find that to be
a responsible use of the City of Palm Desert's money.
Councilman Spiegel said he felt it was also important to look at what is available. He said the
Tram was certainly something that brings people to the desert, as is The Living Desert, and
The Living Desert was working with all the cities. He said when there is a major event like
this, he could see no reason why Palm Desert couldn't be a lead city. He said Palm Desert was
very fortunate to have a nice surplus at the end of this year, and if Palm Desert can support the
other cities like it does by supporting the Date Festival for $10,000, he felt it was an obligation
of the City to do so.
Councilman Crites stated that if this were a yearly grant-in-aid, he did not think he would be
in favor of it. He said he felt Palm Desert had a unique leadership role in terms of the
particular exhibition that this is, having to do with recycling and conservation of resources.
He said he felt the issue of money was a reasonable comment, although he did not have a
problem with the City of Palm Desert participating.
Mayor Benson stated she understood how Councilman Ferguson feels and that she had done
the same thing with the McCallum Theatre; however, she felt the City should be above that.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he was in favor of participating; however, he had a problem
with the level of participation. He said Palm Desert was blessed with money, but that does not
mean it should not be handled prudently.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request for support of the Palm
Springs Desert Museum "Recycled/Re-seen" exhibit and educational programs for a total of $35,000.00 from
the Waste Recycling Fee. Motion was seconded by Benson.
Councilman Crites asked Councilman Ferguson what level of contribution he felt would be
acceptable.
Councilman Ferguson responded that based on the size of Palm Desert and where it is located
geographically, he felt $10,000 would be a more healthy appropriation, with the
encouragement that other cities in the Valley also participate. He said if every city participated
at $5,000 or $10,000, the Museum would not need $35,000 from Palm Desert.
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Benson asked whether other cities in the Valley were asked to participate. She noted
that when this request was first presented, the Council suggested that other cities be approached
as well.
Ms. Miller responded that the cities not listed on the information provided to the Council in
the packets were not able to participate for one reason or another.
Mayor Benson called for the vote. The motion carried by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmen Ferguson
and Kelly voting NO.
B. REQUEST FOR CON$IDERATION OF APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING PLANS FOR TWO SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLINGS TO BE LOCATED AT 74-525 AND 74-515 DAYLILY CIRCLE,
Case No. 1VMISC 98-3 (Daniel and Maryanne Shillito, Harold and Alma Armbrust, Robert and
Lori Dickey, Monty and Gina Sorensen, Mark and Rosalyn Weissmann, Ignacio and Jenell Del
Rio, David and Vicki McFarland, and Bud Meyer, Appellants) (Continued from the meeting
of May 14, 1998).
The following is a verbatim transcript of this item:
Key
JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor
RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager
BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Councilman
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
DS Dan Shillito, Appellant
JF Jim Ferguson, Councilman
BH Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney
FT Franz Tirre, Developer
MW Mark Weissmann, Appellant
MPG Mary P. Gates, Deputy City Clerk
JMB Next item is a request for consideration of appeal to a decision of the Architectural review
Commission approving plans for two single-family dwellings to be located at 74-525 and 74-515
Daylily Circle, (Daniel and Maryanne Shillito, Harold and Alma Armbrust, Robert and Lori Dickey,
Monty and Gina Sorensen, Mark and Rosalyn Weissmann, Ignacio and Jenell Del Rio, David and
Vicki McFarland, and Bud Meyer, Appellants).
RAD Yes, madam Mayor, I believe Mr. Smith of the Community Development staff will be handling this.
23
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SS Good evening. Plans are on the wall to Council's right. As well, you had received copies of the
plans. As indicated, this was continued from your meeting of May 14th. At that point in time, it
looked like there had been a settlement between the two parties; unfortunately, the final arrangements
of the settlement could not be finalized. Therefore, the appeal is back before the Council. Daylily
Circle is located east of Deep Canyon, north of Fred Waring Drive. D&F Development owns five
lots on the street...there are five vacant lots...there are ten existing lots developed on the street, of
which seven have two-story homes, three one-story homes. The matter has been before the
Architectural Review Commission on March 10, March 24, and April 14. Architectural Review,
at its meeting of April 14, granted approval subject to conditions requiring the roof materials and
colors to be similar to the adjacent homes, that the stucco colors be the same, that the front yards be
designed to provide courtyards, and fourth, that the roof design be changed to "hip", which is
reflected in the drawings. The homes on the street presently range from 2,600 to 3,600 square feet
approximate. The homes in question, one would be at 2,100...the other would be at 2,300 square
feet. The ordinance prescribes a minimum of 1,000 square feet for lots of this size, the 8,000 square
feet. Architectural Review took the position that the issue is one of architectural compatibility and
that with conditions as imposed, that would be assured. Hence, they approved it, and it was on a
5-0 vote. A timely appeal was filed. You have a copy of the appeal in your packet. Essentially,
the appeal...the neighbors are asking that the homes be a minimum of 2,600 square feet. With that,
I would conclude. The staff recommendation is that you deny the appeal and affirm the action of
the Architectural Review Commission. If you have any questions, I would be pleased to try and
answer them.
BAC In reading the Architectural Review Commission minutes, I think I noted that the Architectural
Review Commission did not feel it was appropriate for them to be involved in the issue of
compatibility of size.
SS Correct.
BAC So, the Architectural Commission looked at the issue of architectural compatibility, not the issue of
size and neighborhood fit. Is that a fair...
SS They also did look at streetscape compatibility. I believe it is stated a couple of times that they
would be hard pressed to know the size of a dwelling and review it from the street.
RSK Well, I think the point is that the decision we made regarding size compatibility does not conflict
with Architectural Review. That is a completely separate issue.
BAC Yes, that's just what I'm asking.
RSK From what I read...and you asked if that is true.
BAC Yes.
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK At least, that's the way I'm taking it, so I would like confirmation also.
BAC The answer is yes, then, that those are different issues or may be seen as different issues.
SS Correct.
BAC Okay.
RAS I assume that the homeowners that are appealing this are doing so because they feel the value of their
homes will decrease?
SS The homeowners are here and will speak. I understand the developer is also here, so I would defer
to them.
JMB Just in relation to your remark that you can't tell the size of the house going down the street, do you
know what the size of the houses are on that next street that's a different developer?
SS The street to the south?
JMB Yes.
SS I have it in the file. They are smaller.
JMB That's what I wondered because they seem a lot smaller, and I just wondered in comparison what
they were as to what the 2,100 looks like.
SS The one...the westerly of these two homes that is under consideration today...the one immediately
south of it, I think is probably the smallest in that area, and it is around 1,850 or 1,900.
JMB On the other street?
SS On the other street.
JMB Thank you.
BAC Just one other question. The last time we had this, in a large sense maybe two years ago on the
project out Hovley...
?? Sunterra.
BAC ...and there we had at least the option of buffering the size change by a street that had to be compatible
and then it shifted. Is my recollection about..
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SS I think that was in Belmonte.
BAC Wherever it was out there. And obviously we have no option of that nature. We either...
SS Right. This is all on one street.
BAC That's what I mean. Okay.
JMB Okay. Is there someone...do any of the appellants want to speak to this?
DS Good afternoon. I'm Dan Shillito. I'm one of the individual homeowners on that street. We were
under the impression...we worked earlier with Mr. Ferguson trying to reach a resolution, and it wasn't
until yesterday when we received the mail that the process that we had worked under...obviously we
never heard from the developer, so many of the homeowners aren't here today, other than myself, who
got a copy in the mail. We were led to believe that we were going to get back together and find out a
resolution or solution to possibly this problem and, therefore, all of a sudden many of the members, Mr.
Dickey, Mr. Del Rio, aren't here today because of that. From our perspective, we would like this thing
to be continued to your next meeting because of that so that they have the opportunity to see what goes
on, rather than kind of somewhat getting blind sided by a document that we just received yesterday. We
hope that's appropriate. We think it is and hope you will consider that.
JMB Buford?
BAC Just a quick question. The request you made to Architectural Review was for a minimum of 2,600
square feet?
DS Correct. That's what we bought under.
BAC Right. If that were the decision of this body, would you still want that continued?
DS No. We've always said that 2,600 feet is what we bought under, and that's what the proposed plans
were approved under.
BAC Thank you.
JMB Thank you.
JF I have a question for our City Attorney. Can we legally require that the homes be a minimum of 2,600
feet?
BH There is case law to the effect that size could be taken into consideration when judging the compatibility
of the structure in a neighborhood.
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JF So even though the zone would allow for as little as 1,000 feet, we could just unilaterally right now say
no, we don't want 2,000 or 2,100, you will be forced to develop at 2,600?
BH Yes. I'm not going to tell you that it's entirely written in stone, but I know that issue is litigated in La
Quinta under similar circumstances, and the determination there in the trial court level was that the City
could go forward and limit the size...it was a large tract where they had built out the first phase at a
certain size, and they downsized or they came into the City for architectural approval of the smaller
homes that were consistent with the zoning ordinance but inconsistent with the way the tract had been
sold and developed, and the City won at the trial level and as far as I know they prevailed at the
appellate level.
JMB We did that on the one we did at the Belmonte Estates.
BAC That may not have gone to the court.
JF Yes, La Quinta tried to...
JMB We used La Quinta's example at the time, I remember.
JF Well, La Quinta's ordinance has been thrown out as unconstitutional since then, and the tension with
these is when you have developers come in and build out certain standards and sizes in a development,
then can't build out the lots, and then many years later somebody else comes in and wants to package
a lower economical product, and the existing neighbors who bought on the reliance that they would have
certain design standards feel that they've been somehow ripped off. And La Quinta tried to say you
couldn't deviate any more than five percent from the average square footage at the time it was originally
proposed, and the courts threw it out. So...but this authority that our City Attorney now is telling us
may cause the developer to rethink his position and...I know you will all have a chance to speak in a
minute, but I'm personally a little bit disappointed. I...you and I and Mr. Dickey had.met...I tried to
reach him...he was in Washington yesterday and is in Chicago today...I'm not sure he's even aware of
your letter. Last he heard you were going to get some estimates and get back to him. Did you ever get
back to him?
FT Just by a copy of that letter.
JF Okay.
JMB Alright. Did somebody else want to speak?
DS By the way, your question on the surrounding lot sizes of the neighborhoods, they were between 2,300
and 2,700 square feet on the other lots...I know that.
JMB Okay, thank you.
27
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MW I'm Mark Weissmann, I'm also a homeowner on that block. I just concur with what Dan Shillito said.
We received the letter, the notice, along with the letter from D&F. It was dated June 4th; we received
it from the City in our mail on June loth, and as Dan had said, Bob Dickey has been traveling as well
as Ignacio Del Rio, and we have not had any opportunity to discuss this with the whole group of
neighbors who are involved. Thank you.
JMB Thank you. Are there questions or comments?
JF Well, I have one more comment, just to...why don't we let the applicant...
JMB Okay. Do you want to speak?
FT Honorable Mayor, City Councilmembers, my name is Franz Tirre. I live at 46-333 Burroweed in Palm
Desert. I'm rather embarrassed to stand here and try to justify that these houses don't meet the highest
standards of that neighborhood. I think that to just require that the builder have a certain number of
square feet to meet the exact square footage of the existing homes would certainly be unfair based on
the fact that we have made considerable changes as requested by the Architectural Review Committee,
expensive changes. I've met at least three times with these homeowners, and I want them to be on my
side, of course, as you can imagine. But the market is not like it used to be for this area, Daylily Circle.
Unfortunately, it's not there. You've got competition on both sides with new tracts. The homes...I
don't know exactly what the homes were that were built right adjacent in that subdivision, but I knew
they went down to $147,000, and if they were over 2,300 or 2,200 square feet, that was a giveaway.
So what I'm trying to say is there is a market in that area, but it's for a certain size house, a house with
certain amenities, and these amenities that we have are certainly equal to, and I think in some cases
superior to, the houses that are there. The market did a terrible thing to most people that had homes
over the past four or five years. In Daylily Circle, one of the homes was repossessed, and I think I've
written that in my written response, so there's probably no need to go over all those things. I think
that...as far as the homeowners saying I didn't get back to them, I called Robert Dickey, and he was in
his office, and I left word for him to return my call, which he did not do. Again, the first meeting with
these people, they asked me one thing. They said they really wanted bigger homes...they want bigger
homes because they want the price of the homes to be more expensive than I feel the market will bear
at this time. They asked me if I would be interested in possibly selling the five lots, which I said yes, I
would. And I would give them an exclusive period of time, at a reasonable price, to find a buyer or to
buy the lots, and then they could develop or have another developer put on exactly what they wanted.
I got no response and obviously I got no offer. So the next thing was to meet with the Architectural
Review Committee and incorporate all of their recommendations, which we did, and some were
expensive. I think that the thing was the size of the house, but again it's not the size of the house, it's
the cost of the house, and the homeowners want those homes to cost sufficiently over $200,000. And
I have to tell you that that right now, at this time, is not really a marketable product, based on the new
subdivisions that are on both the south and the north side. So, we did whatever we could do. And now,
then, the last thing that I tried to do was to get this product up to the 2,600 square feet. So I said I'll
go and consider a free-standing guest house, 300 plus square feet, as a buyer option. I would also add
a third car garage or a bonus room as another buyer option. Well, when I met with Mr. Ferguson and
28
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Dickey, I said that I had to talk to my investor, whose got his neck stuck out a mile on these lots,
to see if he is willing to add those, not buyer options, they wanted to see that these two options were
included in the plans. And I did, and he said to find out what the costs are, and I did, and the costs are
way up over where they were three or four years ago. So we went back and explained in that letter and
there's been plenty of time for the owners to...they said once before that I didn't meet with them, which
I did, and didn't say I would but I have, that we would use these as options, buyer options, and if the
market is there, we'll sell the extra bonus guest room and we'll add the one house...we can add a third
card garage or a bonus room in addition. So that's basically where we stand. We have excellent homes.
We don't think that we can survive by, you know, just giving a 2,600 square foot product without a
buyer. We don't have buyers, of course, these are spec houses. I'd be happy to answer any questions,
but we've done...the fact that we made the changes, we've offered to sell the lots, we can't build these
things if we have to build a 2,600 square foot house without knowing what the market is for Daylily.
It could be totally different some place &se, but right now if you drive down Daylily and you look at
those vacant lots and you look at the homes that are there, you'd say it's risky to go in there for a
$240,000, $250,000 product. If we build these two houses and we find the market is there, certainly
we'll increase the size on the other three lots. Two of the other lots are bigger. But we're not going
to build two-story houses. We just don't feel that's the market. And I know there are two-story houses
on the block, there are seven out of ten. So it would be a financial disaster for us to have to do
something that we don't think would sell, and we feel this is certainly within the code and ordinances
of the City, way above the 1,000 square feet. Also, I think if those homes are built, the neighborhood
will be a lot better off, and it would certainly increase in value as the market goes up in real estate over
what it is now, with homes there, with new homes there. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
RAS What do you plan on selling your homes for?
FT Well, we'd like to get $100 per foot, so for 2,100 it would be $201,000, a little over $200,000; for 2,300
it would be $230,000. It is difficult because the price on just one house costs considerably more than
building a tract these days.
JMB Any other questions?
JF Well, I want to clarify two things. First of all, the residents aren't asking you to build your homes to
the average size of their homes. 2,600 foot is the smallest house in that entire subdivision.
FT True.
JF Secondly, I don't think the residents, or at least Mr. Dickey, was asking you to put a guest house and
a built-in garage on every one. There are five vacant lots, three of which are adjacent to Mr. Dickey's
home and I think across the street from Mr. Shillito's home, and the thought was that the first home he
would build would be a 2,100 square foot home with a 300 foot guest house and a 200 foot addition,
bringing it up to 2,600, and then for his remaining lots, the buyers could either exercise their option or
not, but at least there would be that buffer between Mr. Dickey's home and at least two other vacant
lots. That was the compromise, and I guess the cost that is so unacceptable now is the cost of one guest
29
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
house, not five, and one walled -in garage, which in light of our City Attorney's position might seem a
little bit more attractive to you than having to build all of them at 2,600 square feet. And so what I'm
going to ask you, would your preference be for us to vote on this tonight, or would you like a
continuance to maybe revisit with the residents?
FT Pardon me. Say that again, Jim.
JF Would you rather have us vote on it tonight, knowing that our City Attorney says we have complete
authority to require you to build 2,600 square foot homes on all five lots, or perhaps go back and meet
with the residents and reconsider building one model with those two options and then having five of
your remaining lots free to do whatever the market will bear?
FT Well, if I could get that agreement, I might consider it, but that wasn't the agreement. The agreement
was that we would build the guests...get the 2,600 square foot house next to Mr. Dickey's house, and
the other house would remain 2,300 square feet, which is what it is...
JF Which is one of your plans.
FT ...and the guest house would be an option, a buyer option on that.
JF Right.
FT But the rest of them, Mr. Dickey said he would work with me concerning the square footages. But that
doesn't mean that they are going to approve anything less than the...on the balance...I mean, if I could
get...ifyou're telling me tonight that you'll approve whatever square footages I think are marketable if
I put 2,600 on lot 28, and I get 2,300 on lot 29, if that's what you're saying, then I'd consider it.
No, what I'm saying, as a Councilmember my preference is to see the private sector work it out, the
residents and the private developer come up with an agreement. I thought we were well down that road,
at least when I left our last meeting, and if you simply just wrote me this letter and copied these
individuals without talking to them, it's kind of...I don't think good faith, and I would like you to go
back and talk to them.
RSK I think the question is...would you like to do a little mediation with the residents, or would you rather
that we took action tonight?
FT Well, if I knew which way you were going to vote, I guess I could answer that.
JF I wish I knew.
RSK I was thinking you could figure that out.
30
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
— FT Well, first of all, I don't think, you know, the Attorney says that yes you can dictate the square footage,
and I'm not an attorney but I don't know if that is challengeable in this instance or not, I mean it might
be.
JF You can always challenge anything.
BAC Let me try another comment. I suspect that if we came in and told you you had to build all of those
homes to the size of the largest home that is there, you'd have a darned good reason both to be grumpy
personally and legally, and you might have part of one if we said you have to build them to the average
size. But I think what the City Attorney is saying is that we probably have a pretty darned good case
if you're talking about having to build them to the minimum size of the existing things. But rather than
dictate that, I think you're hearing from, I suspect, more than one or two people that you might be well
advised to go have another visit with the neighbors and see whether or not you can reach some kind of
accommodation that is a more reasoned accommodation than simply a fiat by vote.
RSK We need to see them, or I need to see a little movement from both directions. When I see one side just
stick their feet in the ground, then I wind up with no choice but to do what I think is right, which I don't
think would please you. So, I for one need to see some movement in both directions.
FT Well, if I requested another time period to meet again with the homeowners so that none of them are
left out, they all know everything that has happened and is happening, would you look more kindly on
my coming back with a 2,100 and a 2,200 square foot house in the future if we end up in that same
position, or am I going to be...
JF Can I rephrase your question in the form of an answer? If you were to in good faith meet with the
homeowners, I have every confidence that you will reach an accommodation with them. If you can't,
I for one would he happy that you made the effort.
FT I'll do it.
RSK We expect them to do some giving also. We expect some giving from both sides.
FT That's difficult because of the financial costs of the houses and, you know, what we've got to do to
market them.
RAS Why don't we just continue it to a date certain...
JF And maybe we can instruct our City Attorney to get a little sharper focus on that issue as well.
FT Okay, I would appreciate an extension.
JMB Okay, do we want two weeks or a month? If we're only going to meet once in July...we have one more
meeting in June and one in July.
31
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAS Second Thursday in June.
FT I would defer that to the homeowners and what would be good for them. I would just as soon have it
as soon as possible, but...
DS I think just because some of the homeowners aren't here, they're out of town (unclear)
JMB Alright, we'll move it to the first meeting in July.
BAC So seconded.
JF I would also like to say I've enjoyed working with you, Mr. Tirre. I think you have been reasonable.
Your letter, frankly, surprised me. I also think the homeowners have been very reasonable. I certainly
don't want to dictate to you what size your homes are. I would rather see you work it out with the
residents, and I thank you for being willing to take that route.
FT Thank you.
JMB Please vote.
MPG The motion carries by unanimous vote.
C. CONSIDERATION OF ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ON WARNER TRAIL (Continued
from the meeting of May 28, 1998).
Mr. Diaz stated that staff's recommendation was to table this matter until the study on the
entire area is completed. He noted that Mr. Folkers was available to answer any questions.
Mayor Benson asked if staff had received a copy of the letter received earlier that day from
Mrs. Walter W. Clubb.
Mr. Folkers responded that he had received a copy of the letter. He stated that with
concurrence of the Council and the City Manager, staff would send letters to the people who
have signed petitions to let them know what is happening with this item.
Councilman Spiegel asked when staff expected the study to be completed, and Mr. Folkers
responded that it should be completed by August.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, table the matter until area study is completed.
Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
32
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF USE OF CITY VAN BY DESERT WILLOW STAFF
(Continued from the meeting of May 28, 1998).
Mr. Diaz stated that staff's recommendation was that the City lend this van to the operator of
the Desert Willow Golf Course, subject to approval by the City Attorney.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, assign one City -owned van to the management
staff at Desert Willow to establish and evaluate the concierge program as proposed by Desert Willow
Marketing Director, subject to review and approval by City Attorney. Motion was seconded by Kelly and
carried by unanimous vote.
Councilman Crites asked whether Desert Willow then assumes the liability.
Mr. Diaz stated that this was part of what the City Attorney will be looking into.
Councilman Crites asked if, before the van is loaned, staff and the City Attorney will assure
the Council that Desert Willow assumes that liability and that it is not transferable back to the
City.
Mr. Diaz stated that this was correct. He noted that staff would add this matter to the next
Agenda as an informational item to report to the Council to make sure everything is acceptable.
XII. OLD BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR MEDIAN STAMPED CONCRETE
INSTALLATION (Contract No. C14200).
Mayor Benson stated that she did not see any information in the staff report relative to where
this concrete will be going.
Mr. Folkers apologized for the omission and stated that it had been covered in the staff report
authorizing staff to go out to bid on this project. He noted that this installation would be on
Hovley Lane between Portola Avenue and Cook Street and on Cook Street north of Hovley
Lane. He added that it will be installed on the ends of the islands, and staff would redo the
landscaping.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Award the bid for street median stamped concrete
installation to James E. Simon Company, Indio, California, in the amount of $96,300.00 and authorize the
Mayor to execute the subject agreement; 2) authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $9,630.00. Motion
was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
33
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR 1997/98 DRYWELL/INLET PROGRAM
(Contract No. C14380, Project No. 500-98).
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that this program covers areas throughout the
City, including Palm Desert Country Club. He said this was to pickup nuisance water in
various locations where there are problems.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Authorize staff to reduce the amount of the
contract award to an amount of $410,830.00 and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of
$41,083.00 to remain within the budgeted amount for this program of $453,515.51; 2) award Contract No.
C14380 to Dateland Construction Company, Coachella, California, in the amount of $410,830.00 for the
construction of the Drywell and Inlet Program and authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount
of $41,083.00 -- funds are available in Account No. 420-4690-433-4001; 3) authorize the Mayor to enter into
a contract with Dateland Construction Company. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by
unanimous vote.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AIPP AND CIVIC ARTS RECOMMENDATION FOR
TUCSON HOMES TO COMMISSION ARTIST LESTER WIESE.
Mr. Nagus reviewed the staff report, noting that the artist had been working with Lance
Alacano of Tucson Homes and had been paid a design fee to design the entryway gate.
Upon question by Mayor Benson relative to the location of Tucson Homes, Mr. Nagus
responded that the project was located on Washington Street north of Fred Waring Drive, next
to Desert Breezes. He said the artist and developer were initially looking at just the entryway
gate. The total fees were $44,000, and if they worked with just the gate they would only spend
about half of that amount. He said he had encouraged them to utilize the entire art fee to really
make the property more aesthetically enhanced.
Upon question by Councilman Crites relative to the gate itself, Mr. Nagus stated that he did
not have a rendering of the gate but that it would be similar to the rendering of the wall
provided in the Council packets.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he would like to see the whole art piece that the Council is
being asked to approve.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of June 25,
1998. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
34
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE REFERRAL
OF THE CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST FOR WALGREENS FROM THE COUNCIL
MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998.
Mr. Drell stated that at its meeting of June 2, 1998, the Planning Commission reaffirmed its
earlier recommendation of approval. In addition, he said Dr. Lyons submitted some additional
correspondence and a petition.
Mr. Hargreaves stated that procedurally, any reconsideration is somewhat complicated by the
rules of the City Council which require an action to be reconsidered at the same meeting and
also the Zoning Ordinance which basically says you cannot review the same zoning decision
twice in the same year. He said if the Council was inclined to go back and re -review this,
there were ways this could be accomplished. He said the important thing is whether the
Council wishes to look at this again; if so, staff will get it packaged in a way that it can
happen.
Mayor Benson stated that the Council could also reaffirm its previous action. She asked if that
would be the end of it if Council decided to do so, and Mr. Hargreaves responded that this was
correct.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, relook at this issue. Motion was seconded by
Ferguson.
Councilman Kelly stated that in reading the comments from the Planning Commission meeting,
it seemed that the Council was chastised for not giving the Commission direction and not
saying why it was not approved. He said he had obtained a copy of the Minutes of the City
Council meeting where it was not approved, and he highlighted all of the places where Council
expressed concern with the project. He said if the Planning Commission did not understand
why Council did not approve the project, either the members did not read the Council Minutes
or staff did not explain to them what the Council said and did. In addition, he noted that the
Minutes did not reflect his comment made during that meeting that as he saw it, the project the
Council was looking at was not the project it was looking at when it was condemning the
properties. He said he felt this was an extremely important part of his reason for not voting
in favor of the project. He said at the time the Council reviewed the project, he felt it was
fairly obvious that it would be a 3-2 vote, and he was surprised that the applicant did not ask
for a continuous so that he could address some of the Council's concerns. He noted that he had
discussed some of those issues since then with the City Manager and had expressed some of
the things that would help him to make a decision. He said he understood that some of the
things he would like to have seen were not necessarily very popular with other staff people;
however, he said there were some things that if done, he might look at the project a little
— differently.
35
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Benson called for the vote, and the motion carried by a 3-2 vote, with Councilman Crites and
Mayor Benson voting NO.
Councilman Crites asked whether the Council could legally relook at this issue.
Mr. Hargreaves stated that there were several options. It could be brought back in the form
of a development agreement; the ordinance can be amended that states a zoning issue can be
looked at only once a year.
Councilman Ferguson noted that with regard to the term "zoning issue", the Council sent the
change of zone back to the Planning Commission, and it is supposed to come back to the
Council, so the Council can still vote on the change of zone. He said it was the conditional use
permit that was not sent back and that final action had been taken on.
Mr. Diaz stated he felt the development agreement was the best method to utilize in this
particular case because it would take care of both issues simultaneously.
Councilman Ferguson asked whether this matter could be continued to get a better grasp on the
legal issues.
Mr. Hargreaves stated that the message was that "if there's a will there's a way." He said the
underlying issue was the merits of the particular proposal and the procedural aspects.
Councilman Kelly moved to continue this matter to the meeting of June 25, 1998, and ask staff and
the City Attorney to come back with more clear delineation of what Council is able to do, what methodology
to be utilized. Motion was seconded by Ferguson .
Councilman Crites stated that, right or wrong, there are Council regulations that say
reconsideration must be made at the same meeting and that for certain issues a certain period
of time must pass before Council can look at the issue again. He said if what the Council is
doing "is now finding a way around that, right or wrong, then we ought to make sure that
everyone who is denied a zone change or a CUP or whatever it is knows that that's not really
a denial, it's just a denial unless you want to go do it as a development agreement, or we need
to change the darned regulation to say you can't go around the corner to get back in the
building unless you do it within the existing rules." He said this was a decision the Council
needed to make, but it needed to make sure whatever playing field is established is one that
everyone has equal access to.
Councilman Spiegel stated that staff was directed at the last meeting to bring back to Council
an amendment to the Municipal Code to eliminate the necessity for referral of a denied project
back to the Planning Commission.
36
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Crites stated that if the Code was changed so that denied projects did not go back
to the Planning Commission, and if someone came to the City and proposed a certain project
and the Council denied the project, would the applicant then have the right to come back a
week later with a slightly different project but calling it a development agreement so that it is
considered a brand new project and, in essence, go around the City ordinances that say,
correctly or not, that this cannot be done with a certain time period? He said he felt this whole
issue needed to be tidied up to make sure that everyone understands what the regulations are
or are not.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he had voted in favor of Walgreens. He said he did not like
"where there's a will, there's a way" answers when it comes to the law and that he was more
concerned about the integrity of the system than he was about any one project. He said if he
was not comfortable that legally the Council can do this and that it is proper and not setting a
horrible precedent, he would not vote for it.
Councilman Kelly agreed.
Councilman Ferguson stated that if there was a proper way to get it done, then the Council
would reconsider it; if there is not, and he had serious questions as to whether there was a legal
way to do it, then he would not pursue the matter any further.
Councilman Kelly stated that he felt the entire Council was surprised that the project could go
back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Diaz stated that the report Council would have at its next meeting would look at the entire
issue and ordinances. He said staff does not like to utilize "where there's a will, there's a way"
either; however, staff also wanted to make sure the Council has every opportunity to express
its position on projects. He said all of that would be addressed in the report at the next
meeting.
Mayor Benson stated that it was her understanding Councilman Crites would not be present at
the next two Council meetings, and she felt the entire Council should be present to consider
something this serious.
Councilman Crites stated that he was comfortable leaving this matter with the rest of the
Council.
Councilman Ferguson agreed and said he did not want to kick this matter into next fall because
one Councilmember is absent. Councilman Crites agreed.
Mr. Diaz stated that the way to eliminate the "where there's a will, there's a way" was to
amend the ordinance to allow for reapplications in less than a year for a zone change.
However, if there was absolutely no sentiment on the part of the Council to even look at that,
37
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
he said "we could cut to the quick right now." He said he would like an opportunity to prepare
a report to the Council and indicate why staff feels it should or should not be amended.
Councilman Ferguson suggested that the matter be continued and that a legal opinion be
prepared.
Councilman Crites suggested that staff also look at regulations in other communities with
regard to the time frame and noted that just because the City ordinance relative to the one-year
time period has been in effect for a long time does not necessarily mean that is the right length
of time, and there may be a more appropriate timeframe for that.
Mayor Benson called for the vote. The motion carried by unanimous vote.
E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE
BLUROCK PARTNERSHIP FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR HYDROGEN GENERATION
AND HYDROGEN DISPENSING FACILITIES.
Councilman Spiegel asked if these were the same dollars that were involved initially through
the Redevelopment Agency as opposed to the City. Mr. Shillcock stated that the Council, on
April 9th, appropriated $200,000 because with the project moving outside the City limits,
Redevelopment monies cannot be spent. He said this was part of the $200,000.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Ratify the expenditure of $16,000.00 for
changes in the site plan and building design for the Hydrogen Generation Facilities to be sited at the Sunline
Transit Agency; 2) approve an amendment to the existing agreement with The Blurock Partnership (tBP) to
provide design services for the hydrogen refueling facilities in an amount not to exceed $15,000.00, and
authorize the. Mayor to execute an amendment to the existing agreement with The Blurock Partnership in the
amount of $31,000.00. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
XHI. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
NOTE: THE NEXT ITEM WAS CONSIDERED JUST PRIOR TO PUBLIC BEARING "C":
1. Clime Prevention Seminar in Little Rock. Arkansas.
Mr. Diaz asked that this matter be added to the Agenda.
Mayor Benson moved to add this item to the Agenda for Council discussion and action. Motion was
seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
38
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Diaz asked that Council approve the appropriation of $787.50 to send
representatives to the Crime Prevention Seminar being held in Little Rock, Arkansas.
He said the National League of Cities was the sponsor of this seminar.
Mayor Benson added that this was a police conference for small cities, and since the
Public Safety Commission was being formed, she thought it might be good to see
what ideas are out there.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request and appropriate $787.50 to
send representatives to the Crime Prevention Seminar in Little Rock, Arkansas. Motion was seconded by
Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
B. CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Hargreaves noted the items listed on the Agenda for Closed Session.
1) Report and Action on Items from Closed Session Made at This Meeting.
2) Request for Closed Session
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:
1) Property: Southwest corner of Highway 111/San Pablo Avenue
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: City of Palm Desert/Ramon A. Diaz and Phil Drell
Property Owner: Alan Nyman
Under Negotiation: _x Price a Terms of Payment
2) Property: Northwest corner of El Paseo/San Pablo Avenue, APN 627-202-005
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Kam Holdings, Inc.
Under Negotiation: x Price Terms of Payment
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a):
a) City of Palm Desert v. REFCO Capital Corporation, et al., United States District
Court, Central District, Case No. CV92-7632
b) City of Palm Desert v. Western Waste, Riverside County Superior Court, Case
No. 090744
39
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
c) City of Orange, et al. v. Alabama Treasury Advisory Program, et al., Los Angeles
Superior court Case No. BC106461
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b):
Number of potential cases:
C. CITY CLERK
Mrs. Gilligan noted the thank you note to the Council from Lincoln School for the Student Art
& Essay Contest.
D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
1. Councilman Crites stated that with regard to the capital improvements budget
for street repair, he was concerned with holes in the alleyway behind Big A
Auto Parts on San Pablo and felt they needed to be repaired. He also expressed
concern with Shadow Mountain just east of Highway 74 and felt this should also
be looked at.
2. Councilman Crites stated that the letter from the Palm Springs School District
reminded him that that District continues to be within the City of Palm Desert
boundaries.
Mr. Diaz stated that an application had been made by the residents of Kaufman
& Broad to the County Department of Education to switch the school district
boundaries.
Councilman Crites asked if the City was doing everything it could to be of
assistance to that process legally.
Mr. Diaz responded that this was being done.
Councilman Crites asked if this could be set as a very high staff priority.
Council concurred.
Mr. Diaz stated that he would place this item on future City Council Agendas
as an informational item.
o City Council Committee Reports:
None
40
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XIV. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION
See individual items for Council discussion and action.
XV. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. PRESENTATION OF AWARD OF HONOR AND EXCELLENCE FROM AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FOR DESERT WILLOW GOLF RESORT -
NORTH COURSE (Presented by Golf Dimensions).
MR. ROB JONES, Golf Dimensions, stated that in October of 1997, Golf Dimensions, on
behalf of the City of Palm Desert and the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency, entered the
Desert Willow North Golf Course into a competition that was sponsored by the American
Society of Landscape Architects. He reviewed the letter dated June 2, 1998, from George
Peterson of Golf Dimensions, addressed to Mayor Benson, relative to this award. He stated
that the Golf Course was awarded an "Honor Award" in the category of Land and Water
Reclamation and Conservation as well as the chapter "Award of Excellence" as the overall
outstanding project in all categories. He thanked the City and the Redevelopment Agency for
giving his firm the opportunity to manage the construction and development of the Golf
Course. He said he would like to recognize the efforts of the talented design team members
and contractors and staff who made this possible. He presented plaques to Mayor Benson for
both the City and the Redevelopment Agency.
Mayor Benson accepted these awards on behalf of the City Council and the Redevelopment
Agency.
B. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION FOR STUDENTS WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THE 1997/98 STUDENT WORK PROGRAM.
Mrs. Darling noted that the City had been fortunate to have a very good group of students this
year. She said the City had participated in this program since 1986, and staff was very happy
that the Council would be continuing the program. She noted that two of the students were
present at this meeting, while the other two were unable to attend.
She introduced Ms. Marbee Amirghan, who worked in the Code Compliance Department. She
said Ms. Amirghan would be graduating from Cal State San Bernardino the following
Saturday. She noted that the Code Compliance Department hated to see Ms. Amirghan leave.
Mrs. Darling also introduced Mr. Carroll McSwain, who worked in the Business Support
Department. She noted that Mr. McSwain had come at a later time, filling in for another
student who left.
41
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Benson presented each of the students with
certificates of recognition.
C. APPOINTMENT OF TWO REPRESENTATIVES (ONE EACH FROM LAS SERENAS
APARTMENTS AND ONE QUAIL PLACE) TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION (Continued
from the meetings of March 26, April 23, and May 14, 1998)
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of June 25,
1998. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
D. APPOINTMENT TO THE RENT REVIEW COMMISSION TO FILL THE VACANCIES OF
JIM AINSWORTH, ROBERT COATES AND ULRICH MCNULTY.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Mr. William Sprigg and Mr. Donald
Moran to the Rent Review Commission. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with
Councilman Crites ABSENT.
Mayor Benson noted that the Council had interviewed both of these gentlemen, and it was felt
they were both excellent for this committee.
XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF THE FORMATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S PLAZA BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
Mr. Gibson stated that this was the final public hearing to adopt the President's Plaza Business
Improvement District. He said there was formerly a landscaping and lighting district;
however, in the process and evaluation of Proposition 218, it was determined that this needed
to become a Business Improvement District to be able to handle the trash collection. He noted
that ballots were received by staff and would be tallied along with any testimony offered at this
hearing, with a final count to be provided by the City Clerk following the public hearing.
Upon question by Mayor Benson relative to appointment of an advisory board, Mr. Gibson
stated that staff was recommending the El Paseo Merchants Association since they already have
those types of individuals on their committee.
Councilman Spiegel asked if this committee would just be made up of businesses or owners in
President's Plaza, and Mr. Gibson responded that there was a requirement to have a business
owner on the committee as well as a property owner.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED —
to this district. With no testimony offered, she declared the public hearing closed.
42
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mrs. Gilligan stated that as of 5:00 p.m., there were 23 yes votes (76.68%) and 6 no votes
(23.32 %) .
Mr. Gibson added that this was based on the assessed values since Proposition 218 requires that
the ballots be based on their percentage of the total assessments.
Councilman Spiegel asked how many ballots were sent out. Mr. Gibson responded that there
were 48 ballots, of which four were City/RDA properties. He said the remaining were sent
out based on the property tax roll provided by the County of Riverside. He added that two
were returned due to incorrect address.
Councilman Ferguson asked whether the City/RDA voted on its four ballots, and Mr. Gibson
responded that this was not done.
Councilman Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 98-68 approving
the management district plan for the President's Plaza Property and Business Improvement assessment district
for fiscal year 1998/99 and appointment of an advisory board; 2) waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 98-69 ordering the formation of the President's Plaza Property and Business Improvement assessment
district and the levy and collection of assessments for said district, fiscal year 1998/99; and 3) waive further
reading and adopt Resolution No. 98-70 declaring the results of a property owner protest proceeding and
approving certain related actions. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with
Councilman Crites ABSENT.
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S. I. (SERVICE
INDUSTRIAL) ZONE Case No. ZOA 98-3 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report, noting that in 1995 a zoning
ordinance amendment permitting mixed residential/commercial uses in the C-1, PC, and OP
zones. The City now has a request to do this in the service industrial zone. He said staff found
the issues to be substantially similar and felt it would not be a problem. He noted that the
Planning Commission had reviewed the matter and recommended unanimously to approve the
request. He offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED
to this request. No testimony was offered, and she declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 880.
Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
43
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR AN 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE,
1,200 UNIT TIMESHARE RESORT AND SUPPORTING AMENITIES ON 300± ACRES
ON THE EAST SIDE OF MONTEREY AVENUE BETWEEN FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
AND GERALD FORD DRIVE Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-5. TT 28818 and DA 98-1 (Marriott
Ownership Resort, Inc., Applicant)
The following is a verbatim transcript of this public hearing:
Key
JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor
RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Councilman
JF Jim Ferguson, Councilman
BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman
RE Ronald Eastman, Marriott Representative
SW Steven Withers, Marriott Representative
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor Pro Tempore
JB Joe Butok, Resident
DW Denise Welch, Resident
RF Randy Forrester, Resident
M Mr. Milasovich, Resident
JMB Consideration of approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit, tentative tract map, development
agreement, and negative declaration of environmental impact for an 18-hole golf course, 1,200-unit
timeshare resort and supporting amenities on 300± acres on the east side of Monterey Avenue
between Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-5 _ T'1' 28818 and DA
98-1 (Marriott Ownership Resort, Inc., Applicant).
RAD Yes, Madam Mayor and members of the Council. Before I turn this matter over to Mr. Drell, we will
be requesting a continuance of this hearing after the staff report and presentation is completed in order
to allow us to have discussions with the Palm Springs Unified School District to address some of the
issues that they've addressed in their communications to you. The reason we would like to proceed with
the public testimony portion of this hearing is that in a project this size, it is very unusual, of course, that
it is approved on the initial hearing, and if there are any suggestions or changes or concerns that Council
would like to see addressed after hearing the testimony, this would allow the applicant to come back and
address those concerns. Mr. Drell...
44
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PD Yes, when Marriott first came to us and inquired about the possibility of building a 1,200-unit timeshare
project on this property, our first response was to examine our timeshare ordinance to determine
whether they would qualify for a conditional use permit under our timeshare ordinance, which requires
an 18-hole golf course and,that it be developed in conjunction with a 500-room hotel. We pondered
what "in conjunction" meant and whether "in conjunction" required that a project be physically adjacent.
We concluded that, taken literally, it did not require that the project be physically adjacent but at least
have a close association and relationship with a 500-room hotel in the City. The proposed project,
again, built by Marriott, is an extension of their existing Villas at Desert Springs. They will have the
same relationship, design, construction, have the same market, the same management, the same
maintenance, the same access to facilities, as the existing Villas units at Desert Springs have at the
original site. In staffs view, that identical very close relationship qualified as developed "in conjunction
with" as defined by the ordinance. To memorialize and guarantee that relationship since this project
involves a development agreement, the development agreement provides that that relationship must be
maintained for the life of the project. When we originally adopted the timeshare ordinance, all those
things were our concerns as to the development of timeshares...design, construction, marketing,
management, maintenance, etc. I believe that with our experience with Marriott over the last ten years
that the concerns that we've had over timeshare when we required that relationship with a hotel has been
borne out to be a proper decision, and we are comfortable that the objectives of the ordinance are met
with this project. Another requirement of the ordinance was that a $150.00 per share week be paid as
a public mitigation fee. Given the fact that as part of this project the developer is asking for a
development agreement to vest his rights over 20 years, we felt it was appropriate that that fee be
updated to reflect increase in the consumer price index since it was originally adopted in 1989 and
continue to be indexed and adjusted to reflect the consumer price index over the life of the agreement.
That would increase that fee from $150.00 per week share now as originally adopted to approximately
$200.00 today and then over the next 20 years as the CPI increases increasing as that dictates. The
ordinance requires that the project obtain a conditional use permit. Again, the parameters of the project
and the physical characteristics will be discussed by Mr. Smith and the applicant. In reviewing
conditional use permits, we examined the project from a land use perspective...how does the project,
the physical characteristics of the project design, match the physical characteristics of the site, the
adjacent land uses, and based on the physical characteristics of the site we saw, in general respect, a golf
resort principally occupied by a golf course, units adjacent to fairways, a unit intensity similar
to/consistent with existing zoning, and the result of that, based on a pure land use perspective, deemed
it to be compatible and appropriate for a conditional use. You will note that there is an issue of height,
which deviates from the standards of the zone. The zone contains opportunities for exception, and we
analyzed the height issue based on past precedent of protecting scenic views, line of sight, we looked
at setbacks, and again that will be discussed in detail by the developer who will provide a visual
demonstration of the impacts of the various heights of the units as they deviate from the code standard.
Again, in all those areas, it was staff's conclusion and, as you will learn, the Planning Commission
conclusion that the project is in compliance with the requirements of the timeshare ordinance and the
basic required findings for a conditional use permit. And now, Mr. Smith will give a basic physical
description of the project.
45
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SS Good evening, again. We have a site plan here, you have Monterey Avenue across the bottom, Gerald
Ford Drive, Frank Sinatra at the south end. The project takes its main access point from an intersection
with Monterey Avenue at this location here, at some 1,430 feet south of the intersection at Gerald Ford.
The project also takes an access on Gerald Ford in here. At this northeasterly corner, I have their
maintenance facility and parking lot for the maintenance facility. The main circulation on -site runs from
the main access driveway on Monterey easterly and then it turns southerly to where it connects with
Frank Sinatra Drive. I should indicate that this colored rendering has not been revised as have the plans
that you did receive. The access point has actually be deviated to a point down approximately here,
some 400 feet further west...ah, there we go. As well, this plan has been altered as a result of
discussions with the neighbors in the Kaufman & Broad development to the east, which is located in this
location here. The driveway in Village 3 formerly went directly east/west; it has been turned at an angle
at this location here to get away from the problem of car lights going into the yards of the homes at the
north end ofDrexel Drive. I will just conclude by saying there is another access point on Frank Sinatra
Drive, and it has been relocated to a better location.
Okay...the matter was before the Planning Commission at two separate hearings. The applicant had a
traffic impact analysis prepared; you should have received a copy of it in your packets. The analysis
looked at nine intersections in proximity to this site. On pages 19 and 20 it outlines a series of
mitigation measures. The applicant has agreed to implement all of the mitigation identified. They did
meet with the City of Rancho Mirage, included their requirements and mitigations to make them happy.
That has been agreed to.
RSK What was that? What was the agreement?
SS The City of Rancho Mirage outlined a series of...they gave them basically a wish list. They have agreed
to it. That is included in the mitigation measures on pages 19 and 20.
JMB Of which one of these documents?
SS Of the traffic impact analysis. The project includes an 18-hole golf course that will be designed by Nick
Faldo. It includes in the center area an area for the Nick Faldo Golf Institute. Off of the main entrance
driveway immediately east of Monterey Avenue, you have the sales center building up against the street,
parking lot in back, to the south or the right as you enter from the driveway at Monterey you have the
check -in facility, the golf course clubhouse, and the starting area and a restaurant. As indicated
previously, the Planning Commission in its recommendation of approval...I should indicate the action
at Planning Commission was on a 3-1-1 vote...you had Commissioner Jonathan voting NAY due to the
height of the buildings and Commission ABSTAINING due to a possible conflict. Commission noted
in their approval that the project as a timeshare would have less traffic than if developed with a similar
number of single-family residences, that it will pay to the City transient occupancy tax for any
unoccupied weeks, perhaps as high as 30% of total weeks, that due to the substantial setbacks, three -
and four-story buildings would not be a problem, that the project as designed would guarantee the long-
term protection of views for the homes on Drexel Drive, whereas single-family homes set back 20 feet
"would basically obliterate the beautiful views." I should indicate that the units in here (unclear) and
46
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
in fact the homes on Drexel (unclear) 83% of the site open space under this plan, typical in a single-
family would be in the range of 40%. Marriott timeshare is a quality project. As part of the Planning
Commission action, they established a series of conditions. First is that along the Frank Sinatra
perimeter and adjacent to the homes on Drexel Drive, single-family, two-story buildings 24 feet in
height. Secondly, the three-story buildings which are proposed, and the developer has a series of
presentation boards that he will show you that will demonstrate the elevations of these units, the three-
story buildings will be a minimum of 350 feet from any residential property lines, four-story buildings
a minimum of 650 feet setback. Architecture has been reviewed by Architectural Review Commission.
It was given preliminary approval. I believe Mr. Drell covered the issues of the development agreement.
The tentative map would underlay the project and would allow the division of the site into 74 lots to
separate golf course parcels, well sites, the maintenance facility, the clubhouse, etc. The findings for the
approval of the tentative map can be affirmed. In conclusion, the matter has been reviewed for CEQA
compliance. We would recommend a negative declaration. As indicated previously, there was a recent
letter from the Palm Springs School District...(unclear) Desert Sands...it is not, it is Palm Springs School
District, and that letter does need to be reviewed further and, hence, the need for the continuance
tonight. So with that, I would conclude. If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to try and answer
them, and I know the developer has a full presentation. I should indicate, we also passed out to you the
economic analysis, a colored document.
JMB Councilman Kelly?
RSK You mentioned coordination with Rancho Mirage and so I'm assuming that included that their plans for
any future development on the west side that they would interconnect with the same entry that you have
for this project.
SS That is correct. The...
RSK Yes is good enough.
SS Yes, the traffic engineer met with the City of Rancho Mirage.
RSK My question is when this commercial project is developed here, then will it line up with another entry
onto Monterey and we'll be faced with the problem of...we'll wind up with a right turn out, right turn
in. Why wouldn't we have coordinated this entry so that we could use the same signal to access the
commercial corner when it's developed?
SS The developer probably is in a better position to respond...
RSK No.
SS ...in that it is our understanding they will be...
47
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK It doesn't show you. So we have a responsibility...we wind up with all these streets, and there's an
excuse when the County did one side and we did the other side. Here we have a chance to coordinate
with Rancho Mirage, and it seems to me we are going to create a problem when that corner is
developed. We have an opportunity here to condition this so that we have one signal to take care of
both.
SS That is the intention that it will connect into the parking lot for the sales center.
JMB Could I just ask a question there on that, Dick, when you said that corner commercial. When we were
out the other day, they just said that corner was left empty, they could bring it in to the project, there
was no mention of any commercial.
RSK Well, if they leave that...it says it will be developed at a later time...you know, I have a big problem with
that.
JMB But they didn't say anything about it being developed commercial.
RSK Well, I still have a question of why our staff wouldn't work to make something happen so that that
wouldn't be isolated and have to worry about another entry off of Monterey.
PD We can include as a condition that easements be granted to that commercial property to provide access
to a signalized intersection.
JF Why do you keep referring to it as a commercial property...is it zoned...
PD It is zoned commercial.
JF It is zoned commercial?
PD It is zoned as a neighborhood shopping center.
JMB Then how come they told me the other day they could bring that into the project if it was spread out?
PD They can buy the property and apply to expand the project into...in essence eliminating the commercial
zoning, but it can be conditioned on if a commercial development is provided that that development will
have access to this signalized intersection.
BAC Let me try another piece of, I think, Councilman Kelly's good question. If that signal that has the two
little water features next to it is to serve that shopping center, that's a darned poor place to put an
entrance. I would imagine that if somebody's going to shop at Steve's Friendly Drug Store, the Marriott
would not want them wandering by their sales center to drive out to Monterey Avenue. I mean, it seems
not particularly complex to say that driveway needs to be right at the corner of the green and the white.
Otherwise, we're going to end up with another thing like we have at the corner of Monterey and
48
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Country Club, and Dick Folkers or his successor is going to be telling us we can't let people turn in and
out of it and all the rest of that hoorah, and it just strikes me that that...I' m amazed that we're not doing
that one.
SS That we're not doing...
BAC That we're not moving that driveway over and putting it in there so that we've tended to that. I'd
understand if I were Marriott I would want this one privately, and I'd let the neighborhood shopping
center worry about their problems sometime down the future. But staffs not Marriott.
PD We can study that issue as part of the, I assume, long list of issues that might be on the agenda.
BAC Okay.
RSK But, I have maybe a couple of other questions. The entry on Frank Sinatra...I notice that the entry at
Palm Desert Greens, when I was out there today and just driving that little short distance down there
to make a u-turn to come back, four cars came out of that, and it looks to me that Palm Desert Greens
folks, all of them that are going to go north anywhere out of town, use that entry...why wouldn't we
connect that one with this?
___. PD And again, that could be another thing for the traffic engineer to reexamine.
RSK You know, I just...seems like we ought to be doing that way up front. It should never get to here.
BAC Different question. Is there a reason we didn't do that?
RSK Yes, that's kind of...maybe there's a big reason why we didn't.
PD Again, I'm not sure the traffic engineer is here. Again, instruction was given for a traffic analysis and,
rightly or wrongly, those issues weren't brought up in the traffic analysis.
RSK Well, he analyzed what they handed him.
PD Correct.
RSK Then I guess another question is...was there any consideration, you know all the trouble we've had with
the height (unclear) where the houses are, but I notice on the west side there is a fairway, a wide buffer,
was there ever any consideration to that whole thing being moved down and then Mr. Faldo could
redesign it a little different so the fairway was up on the east end where those houses are?
PD That suggestion was not made.
49
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BAC Okay. Let me throw another one along with that. On the very northern end up in the corner you have
a maintenance shed, a maintenance facility. And then I assume that to the east of that will eventually
be residences, right?
SS Immediately east...it's planned residential.
BAC Okay. Whereas immediately down at the bottom where we have the blank rectangle, down at the
bottom of the map, that's probably not going to be planned residential, right?
SS It is zoned commercial.
BAC It is zoned commercial. Wouldn't it make more sense to put a maintenance shed next to commercial
zoning than next to residential? It's the same kind of issue that Councilman Kelly raises on the other
one.
SS Not if it were to be another golf course on the east property.
BAC But we don't know that. But we do know what's going to go down there, right? Very few people take
commercial and turn it into residences.
SS Well, that has been discussed.
BAC I know, but the point is it seems much more likely to have any negative impacts if it was down at the
back end of a potential neighborhood commercial than it does next door to potential planned residential.
SS Yes, it does if it is going to develop as a neighborhood center.
BAC Okay.
JF Well, I was just going to...on the other side of the coin, just because there aren't single-family homes
west of Monterey doesn't mean I as a resident, coming into Palm Desert, don't appreciate that open
space along there, and I personally if you move a three-story building from...
BAC No, there's a whole big chunk of property down there yet. Right where it says vacation club is still
property that belongs to our neighbors.
JF I gotcha. Well, I agree completely in terms of lining up the roads, particularly along the area that we
share with Rancho Mirage. We've had a Rancho Mirage/Palm Desert Monterey Corridor Committee
forever, I don't think it's ever met, this might be something they want to look at. But one of the aspects
I most liked about this site plan, although there are aspects that could use some refinement, shall I say,
is the open space along Frank Sinatra and Monterey. And I'm not entirely wild about having
50
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
commercial there, I think we have our own commercial problems at Country Club and Monterey, but
I for one did appreciate the open space along Monterey.
JMB Do we have any more questions of Steve, though, so we can get on with the presentation before we
discuss it.
JF Yes, one thing that troubles me --because we've been doing this for 25 years now --did we actually fail
to give Palm Springs Unified School District notice that this project was going on?
SS Yes.
JF Okay, so we have to have a continuance legally...adequate notice, our City Manager is telling me.
SS Correct.
JF Okay.
JMB Any other questions of Steve? Okay, then, I will open the public hearing and those that wish to speak
may do so now.
— RE My name is Ronald Eastman. I live at 935 Farmhaven Drive, Rockville, Maryland. I'm a Group Vice
President with Marriott International. I thank you, your honor, and the City Councilmembers for
considering Marriott's Desert Springs North Villas this evening. Before we start our presentation, I
would be remiss if I didn't thank Ray Diaz, Phil Drell, and Steve Smith for the professional way that they
assisted us in planning this resort. I have been developing hotels and resorts for the past 29 years, and
I can tell you that your city is blessed with three of the most knowledgeable and diligent public servants
that I've had the pleasure to work with. We at Marriott are very proud of our proposed resort. Desert
Springs Villas North consists of a Nick Faldo 18-hole golf course, a Faldo Golf Institute, and 1,200
vacation ownership units. Steven Withers, our Vice President of Design, will review the physical
aspects of our proposed resort in a few minutes. Guests at the existing Desert Springs facility would
be able to use the north facilities and charge their expenditures to their hotel room or villas; likewise,
the guests at the north facility will have access to the existing facilities on the same basis. Many of you
know that Marriott was the first major hotel company to enter the vacation ownership segment of the
resort industry when we purchased American Resorts over 14 years ago. Since that time, we have led
the way in established vacation ownership as a legitimate part of the resort industry. We pioneer
changes and regulations to protect the buyer and worked hard to establish this code of standards and
ethics of the American Resort Development Association. During the last several years, other leading
companies such as Disney, Hyatt, and Hilton entered this segment of the resort industry, giving it
additional credibility. Some cities are concerned that vacation ownership sales people will pressure
potential buyers. Since most of our potential buyers are already Marriott customers, we are not about
to damase our reputation by treating a prospect with anything but the highest respect. Your City
Manager tells me that the City of Palm Desert has never had a complaint about Marriott's sales
practices. Marriott has been a model corporate citizen since the day we broke ground on the Desert
51
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Springs Resort. Since that time, we have added 888 deluxe hotel rooms and suites, 484 luxury villas,
and we soon will be converting the Travelers Inn to a 112-room Fairfield Inn. Also, we will shortly be
breaking ground on a 136-suite Residence Inn and a 153-room Courtyard. All of these in the City of
Palm Desert. Marriott is indeed a major economic force in this city. Last year Desert Springs Resorts
and Villas paid over $5 million in real estate taxes, $4 million in transient occupancy tax; $500,000 of
that amount was paid by Marriott customers renting villas. In addition, we collected $3.5 million in sales
tax and paid over $100,000 in property tax. Our current payroll in Palm Desert is over $37 million per
year, most of which is spent by our associates right here in Palm Desert.
Let me take a moment and review the projected economic impact of the proposed Desert Springs Villas
North. Can you see it up there okay? During the sales period, we're projecting $423 million in salaries
and wages. These payments are the result of over $760 million of economic impact using the normal
multiplier effect provided by the American Resort Development Association. After sellout, we expect
the salaries and wages of $34 million paid by this development to provide $67 million in annual
economic impact. After this resort is completed and sold, we project nearly $100 million per year in
guest spending. The vast majority of this will be spent in the shops and restaurants in Palm Desert. You
may wonder about the magnitude of this number. The reason that spending by our vacation club owners
is so high is twofold: one, when they go on vacation, their accommodations are already paid for; and,
two, the median income of a Marriott owner is nearly twice that of all vacation club owners. You will
note that we are projecting $2.2 million in transient occupancy tax after this project is completed.
Historically, an average of 30% of our villas are available for rent, making Desert Springs North the
equivalent of a 720-key hotel, 360 rooms and 360 one -bedroom suites. The $2.2 million of TOT in
2016 is projected from renting 73% of the available rooms at approximately $130 per night. This seems,
I know, rather low to you but that's because much of our rentals is during the off-season. We expect
to pay $16.6 million in public mitigation fees as we sell out Desert Springs Villas North. This amount
is based on increasing the current fee of $150 per week to $200 in 1998 and then adjusting it each year
by any change in the Consumer Price Index. $9.3 million per year in real estate taxes will be very
important in financing our children's education as the City of Palm Desert continues to grow. The
$900,000 per year in sales tax is only that collected at Desert Springs North. The sales tax generated
by the money spent in Palm Desert by our guests and associates will be many, many times that amount.
At this time, I would like to turn the podium over to Steven Withers, our Vice President of Design, to
review the physical layout of our proposed resort. Steven...
SW Good evening. I'm Steven Withers, the Vice President of Design and Architecture for Marriott
Vacation Ownership, and Mr. Smith has certainly gone through the overall site presentation for you.
I would like to touch on a few points that I think that you all have addressed this evening. We...in terms
of the orientation, we are bringing the main entrance right off of Monterey here, with a secondary
entrance off of Frank Sinatra. The third entrance here at Gerald Ford is primarily for operations and
service. Just in terms of traffic, there is a 20-acre parcel right here that is zoned commercial, and we
have purchased the first five acres. That first five acres where the sales center is sitting is actually in the
commercial district, so when we were locating the drive, we did exactly as you suggested and located
at the line of the commercial piece. We fully intend for the traffic to come in here and go through to the
commercial piece. So, just to give you that understanding. The concerns that the Planning Commission
52
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and the staff have addressed to us we would like to give you an overview of those at this time. The
concern has been the impact along Monterey and Frank Sinatra, especially how we would impact those
two-lane arteries in the City, and we have one at the main entrance on Monterey. We consider it a very
strong statement of the water feature. This will probably be exactly where we will place the public art.
We have then opened the wall that is around the property with openings and closed the landscape
barriers so that you can see...and I apologize for the distance you are from this, but our intent is to see
across the major fairway so the buildings are well -set away from Monterey Drive. Similarly, along Frank
Sinatra, we have a series of openings and closed wall (unclear) which we will design to make sure that
the impact of the golf (unclear) from Frank Sinatra as people pass by there. Several concerns have been
addressed concerning the other buildings in addition to the unit buildings. We have a resort center, a
sales center, an operations building that's here. The sales center will be a one-story building, the
operations building will be a one-story building, the resort center will be two stories. Our intent is to
take the drive up to the second level so that all the golf operations can be on the lower level, almost
underground. It will feed out the back of the center to all of the golf course. In that design, we're
talking about three components --a golf clubhouse, a golf grille, and the reception center for the
timeshare villas. The composition is based on an old mission or cloister that will be the central focus.
That piece will be very Spanish tradition California mission style. This is an elevation. The front
elevation as the drive raises up to the cloister as I talked about, and the right is the golf building and the
left is the check -in for the timeshare. This happens to be a section showing that drive raises up, the
cloister which we plan to have a golf experience actually inside the cloister, just like at the Palm Springs
Airport where people can experience that from the golf, the timeshare, or the grille. And then the carts
will all be underneath those functions. The other concern has been the use buildings. This is an
elevation of the three-story building showing how the roof materials and the balconies will all be treated.
This is from the golf course side where we are picking up, again, the Spanish theme, very similar to what
we've done already at Desert Springs Villas I, II, and parcel D. This is the same building from the
courtyard. We're using the parking as a shaded structure to, again, create a courtyard and a trellis
similar to the cloister in front of the building here. This is a proposed four-story building which is very
similar. We've talked about possibly it in a corner to soften the edges, especially as we get up to the
residential property lines. This is an illustration of the courtyard and how it will appear with the
landscaping and the trellage over the parking, and the traditional California details that were in the early
mission Spanish architecture.
We've also met with the Kaufman & Broad neighborhood, and we identified seven major concerns that
they had from the original plan, and I'd like to go over those just briefly with you now. The first issue
was that we had two buildings at the end of this pair of fairways, one here, one there. We have removed
those buildings totally from the site plan to help open up the vistas from that neighborhood. Second,
we shifted the drive from this location down 450 feet here to give traffic a softening at that point to
make sure there was no impact at this line on their neighborhood. They asked us to add a gatehouse
for security at that entrance, which we have done. The road here which serves this village comes out.
They've asked us to realign that further north so that there are no lights coming into their neighborhood;
we've done that. We've modified the building heights in these buildings here, and we've lowered the
gray there two feet, so that's a maximum of 24, it's a normal grade but 26-foot to roof line. They've
asked us to make sure that the landscaping that we apply along this property line be on their property
53
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
lines perpendicular so that their backyards have views not obstructed by large landscaping pieces, and
we have moved the drive here 50 feet away from the property line to this location here, but at this
location right here, we are some 200 feet away. Of course, down here, we're 450 feet away from the
property line. In addition to that, we've done several pole studies to show them how these buildings
would impact their neighborhood. We've got two sets of these, one facing the audience and one facing
the Commission. These are photographs that we've taken from the backyards of the Kaufman
development, and these bars, and I'm sorry they're a little bit small, are the ends of the buildings that
will be closest to their property. The red ones are two-story, so for this neighborhood they'll see that
much of the building (unclear), the least impacted are the ones that are 650 feet away, which are the
four-story buildings. We wanted to illustrate this. We put the poles up, we've now indicated by the
ends of these tapes where those ridge lines would actually be. So this is from the lot 10, you'll see there
the two-story, there's a two-story, and then further down is a four-story. We want you to note that
between those buildings, of course, there is a tremendous continuance of their view. This is the lot 14,
lot 18. We then went into that neighborhood and photographed from the street over what the backyard
looks like if it's a typical residential neighborhood, and of course there's no view at all in single-family
at (unclear). We just did a quick illustration and took their neighborhood (unclear) and showed with
the density along their property line versus the density (unclear). That would be with the project being
these two buildings here are two stories which we made sure are perpendicular to the property line, so
the impact is very small. Given those seven points plus the pole study, I think we have tried to work
very well to satisfy their view need. The last thing is some of the road locations we did work with
Rancho Mirage to make sure that where they had planned previously these curb cuts we would also
match those to work with them. I think that concludes my presentation of the concept. I thank Mr.
Smith for starting it off and giving a good orientation. I'd like to turn it back over to Ron for closure.
Thank you, Steven. I think you can see that we've tried very hard and worked very diligently to satisfy
legitimate concerns that the neighborhood had. Tonight, we request that the Palm Desert City Council
support the development of Desert Springs Villas North. We were quite surprised tonight about the
School District and their filing, and so we know you can't approve it tonight. But we would ask for
your support. I believe that Marriott has demonstrated that we are a good corporate citizen, and very
few real estate projects provide the economic benefits to a community that this resort would provide to
Palm Desert. I have heard two concerns about our project: one, it would generate too much traffic; and
two, we have enough vacation ownership in Palm Desert. Actually, as the traffic study shows, this
resort would generate substantially less traffic than if 1,440 homes were built, which is an alternate use
of this land. Let me again state vacation ownership Marriott style is just one way that fine resorts are
owned. I am confident that, if approved, Desert Springs Villas North would be known as the great Palm
Desert Resort with the Faldo Golf Institute, actually enhancing Palm Desert's title as golf capital of the
world. Thank you, your honor and Councilmembers.
JMB Do you have any questions?
RAS Yes, could I ask just a couple of questions? I see no tennis courts. You don't plan to put any tennis
courts in?
54
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RE I'd defer to Steven on that question. No, no tennis is planned at this time.
RAS Okay. I see there's...I believe there are four swimming pools.
RE That is correct. I believe one for each of the villages.
RAS When you're built out with 1,200 units, I would assume that the majority of the 1,200 units purchased
are purchased because of the golf course.
RE Certainly many of them are, yes, sir.
RAS Because that's what you're...
RE That's right, that's why we're building this deluxe operation here.
RAS Okay. When you sell out your 1,200 units, people aren't going to be able to play on your golf course.
You've got a problem right now over at the Marriott. You've got 400 timeshares, you've got 800
rooms, you've got two 18-hole golf courses, and you don't have enough golf courses for the people that
are there, because I know they're going over to Desert Willow right now.
—RE Many of our owners will play there, and many will play on other golf courses throughout the Valley, that
is true, sir.
RAS Are you going to charge the people that live there to play on your golf course?
RE Oh, yes.
RAS Have you considered cutting the number of units down and not going to four stories?
RE If we went to less than four stories, we probably couldn't maintain the 83% open area.
RAS Thank you.
JMB Any other questions of Mr. Eastman?
BAC Just a quick one while we're chatting about golf courses. I assume you were here during the
presentation of the award to the City for its golf course.
RE Yes, we were.
BAC I don't see anything either pro or con, yea or nay, anywhere in any of the reports in terms of what you're
planning as a golf course. What exists at the existing Marriott; in this one person's opinion, comes from
a different time and place and looks a whole lot more like it belongs somewhere in either southern
55
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Florida or Hawaii than in the California desert. Do I have any reason to assume that what you're going
to do on this golf course and on the interior of this project is going to match the direction I think that
this community is headed or do you intend to, in essence, replicate what exists in the other Marriott
area?
RE The golf course, of course, is being designed by Nick Faldo, and it will be a very luxury golf course.
And we are going to be doing some work to upgrade our existing golf course. But at this point, I don't
believe we have much desert landscaping in our plan if that is your question, sir.
BAC And so we're going to get another wall to wall turf golf course?
RE I have not seen the final design.
BAC Well, I mean that's the essence...
RE I don't believe it will be a desert landscape like your existing courses.
BAC Thank you.
JF Perhaps we can get some, since we are continuing this, some additional information on the golf course.
I see my colleague has said I want to see a road where it connects with the main entryway, and perhaps
if you could tailor your next presentation to address some of the specific concerns that were raised
tonight...
RE We certainly will, sir.
JF It will eliminate more questions than raise them.
BAC Let me just...I'll just finish that comment, then. Part of, you know, you're not from the California
desert.
RE That is true, sir.
BAC And your business is to develop these and then get on to the next project and so on and so forth. One
person's opinion...someone who comes to this should not have to go out and find a map to discover that
they're not in another part of the world. This should have a feeling of being where we are, and I suspect
from what little I've seen that this has absolutely no connection at this point to that. And I think
Marriott is good enough to make that connection while also making sure that that product is an
incredibly saleable product to the customer that you want. You know...it's been a fight that's gone on
in the desert for 20 years, and for the most part people have begun to find a new way of looking at
where they are, and I certainly hope that the Marriott Corporation is among those who are looking to
the future.
56
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RE Well, we certainly will come back with more information on the golf course, and possibly Mr. Withers
has some...
BAC And also the rest of the landscaping palette.
RSK And the perimeter wall. Somewhere it may be here, but I've missed it. Maybe it would be nice to see
a sample of that.
SW Just as a comment. I think we have learned since Desert Springs I, as you've described, Desert Springs
II is a series of courtyards that moves around the site, and each one of them thematically addressed a
desert plant. And so, we would love to come in and have you tour that, because each one of them really
does. We have a xeriscape court, we have a date palm court, and that's exactly what we want to do as
well. We want our guests to know, like in the mission cloister, that they are in the desert. That's our
intent.
BAC I'd suggest that you might want to chat with some of the people who have worked on the two different
courses at Desert Willow and some of the things like that and begin to look at how certainly that would
integrate. And Councilman Kelly's comment...do we have anywhere in the plans, not just a look at the
wall but...
JF A relief or an elevation of it?
BAC Well, I was also going to say where and how many different view corridors there are as you go along
the three major streets. I didn't find that anywhere in here, and that may just be entirely my lack of
particularly good looking. But I don't see that in here, and that would be a very helpful thing to be able
to know.
SW Certainly. I would like to say that obviously this project is not totally finished in all the design details,
as you are aware, and we certainly plan to bring every piece of it back to the Architectural Review
Board and yourselves as you wish to have that dialog and make sure we are a desert property.
JF I'm glad to hear you say that because I'd like to offer just a very friendly observation. Marriott is
probably our biggest single business resident in Palm Desert. We have had a longstanding and very good
relationship with the Desert Springs Marriott. Your timeshares that are developing currently are of great
quality. We hit a little bump in the road initially with your Courtyard and your Residence Inn, and I
think Mayor Benson said it's hard for me to believe that Marriott came up with this initially, and sure
enough they went back and came back with what we're used to with Marriott. We've had great
relationships with Tim Sullivan from the Desert Springs Marriott, with Jim Lopez, they serve on
committees here. They sort of know what we value as a community, and I'm not just saying this
Council, but people who live here. And if you aren't done yet, you might want to sit down with some
of your local Marriott people and talk about what it is that Palm Desert likes, what we really enjoy,
`y because you're an excellent company, your plans are first-rate, the people that you've hired are first-rate,
57
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and there are some very easy ways to make this a much better product by, in my opinion, just talking
to some of your own local people about how to best go about that. Just a suggestion.
SW And actually we'll be hiring local consultants who know the desert as well to fulfill that expectation.
BAC But the starting spot has to come as a commitment from Marriott saying we want a project that fits in
Palm Desert rather than how can we take our corporate project...and it's not just a Marriott...
JF And make it fit Palm Desert.
BAC We see it...everybody that comes in and says well this is our way of doing projects whether it's in
Brownsville, Texas, or here and there and yonder. And to be honest at this point, just as one person,
I don't see the evidence...I see an evidence, as an example, of you folks working very diligently with
your neighbors, the residents that are to the east. But in the general sense, as Mr. Ferguson says, that
issue of really taking a good look at making this "here" doesn't appear to be there yet. And I think what
Councilman Ferguson says is valuable food for thought.
SW I think we will be driven by our own customers to make sure when they come to the desert they have
a desert experience. That's why they're coming here. And so, not only do we have our neighbors, the
Commission, but our customers are going to demand a desert experience.
JMB Alright, any other questions of them? If not, is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or
against this or any comments in general? Please give your name and address.
JB My name is Joe Butok. I live at 73-500 Woodward Drive, and that is the very northwest corner of
Kaufman & Broad. I realize so far that the Marriott Corporation has made quite a few changes to
accommodate some of the neighborhood. I emphasize "some" of the neighborhood. They've got the
pictures covered up right now, so I can't tell if they're really showing a good sample of what you can
see out of my back yard and out of the yard of some of my neighbors who would speak after me. But
we think that the proposal as it stands right now for Marriott is for the few of us down at the end, the
northwest corner, is still sadly wanting for several reasons. One is that it is difficult to really get a
picture of what is going to be outside of those walls just by those little lines there. I live...there is a
swing set right there, the second from the bottom on line 18, that is my back yard. To say that that is
going to be the view once these buildings are built if they're built in that place is very, very misleading,
and to say that, as we've heard previously, that the views are going to be preserved is utter nonsense.
It also has to do with the fact that not only the photograph is misleading but that it should be fairly
obvious that our privacy is reduced in our back yards and those of our neighbors. And the fact that...we
are not really planning on moving anytime soon, and if we were, what would our property values be?
I have a feeling it would be decreased by having to have large buildings there, there are two-, three-, and
four-story buildings right outside of our wall. We didn't just come here to complain. We have gotten
together and decided on some suggestions which we hope, since there has not been a single shovel of
dirt or sand misplaced yet, that there could be some changes made. And I don't know if anyone has a
map of the area in front of them or not. The buildings that we're speaking of are numbered 301, 2, 3,
58
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4, and 5; 301 through 305. Those are two-, three-, and four-story buildings, starting with the two, going
to three, and then four.
JF What were those building numbers again?
JB Those are buildings number 301, 302, 303, 304, and 305. They are buildings that would be in the third
phase. They're right in the corner, northwest corner, right outside of our wall. If those buildings could
be relocated somehow in a different phase or somewhere else in the same phase, that would greatly
alleviate that problem. Another possibility, one that we have all favored, is the possibility of moving
around some of those rows of housing and the fairways to give the same kind of view that some of our
neighbors down the street have. In other words, we simply talking about equity here. There are...I
understand very well that there are several, actually a fair number of people down the same street, who
have good views, and they're happy about it now. It seems as if all these buildings have been piled up
down at our end, and we have very poor views. Now I know the Commission members and the
Councilmembers have been in my back yard, and I don't think that you can really look out over that wall
and see all those poles out there which represent corners of buildings and say that the view is not
affected. Another possibility, or also to be considered in with the other two that I just mentioned, keep
the four-story buildings if they need to be kept, as Mr. Eastman said they must, in the first phase, which
is far to the north of the development, and then maybe the three -stories to the next phase, which is still
not anywhere near our development, and the third phase, which is the closest to us, to be kept to the
two -stories. But further back again, I would emphasize that, that is something that we feel is almost
non-negotiable because, again, you just cannot look at these photographs and say...with these little lines
on them, you can still see the mountains, but once the buildings are there, the view is virtually gone, and
the view from those buildings into our yards remains. And, again, property values...who can say? I
can't say that we're unhappy with being next door to Marriott...we're not. I think the first meeting that
we attended with Marriott, everyone came away fairly happy, although there were a lot of questions.
And these are some remaining questions that we need to ask and we would like to have addressed. And
another one of my neighbors would like to continue on after this. Thank you.
JMB Thank you. Next?
DW My name is Denise Welch. I reside at 37-575 Drexel. I, too, am on the north end. And the reason I'm
here tonight is because, first of all, I would be the first one to admit that the Marriott is a very high -
quality operation. And that's why I find it very hard to believe that out of four corners, that they can't
find a better place to locate that property. We're talking about one-fourth of this whole property, all
the way around this, and they are picking that particular corner. Now we've all of a sudden got the
80/20 rule; we've made 80% of our people happy on Drexel Drive, and I'm the 20%, and I'm mad, I'm
very mad. There are other issues. The other night I drove around the operation over at Desert Marriott,
and a couple of things disturbed me. First of all, I drove in and said I'm here just to check out the
property. The guy said sure, go ahead. Great. So I've got people driving through the back with no idea
who those people are. Number two...the lighting. I drove there at night. What's going to be the issue
-- with the lighting? There's lighting on every single building out there as well as the parking. The third
thing that I noticed is that the way the property has been established now by the Marriott is that there
59
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
are palm trees that line the middle sector of the drives going in and out of the timeshares. Those are
directly aligned with my view. And, yes, we have asked the Marriott to be very cordial on the back side
of the wall to make sure that is not obstructed, but we will still see these palm trees right in the middle
of our view. I still don't understand the height factor. We've asked for the two -stores to be reduced
in size. I don't understand. We keep throwing numbers around. I think it's very simple. I think that
the architect should have done the job right the first time, and that is to consider what they were doing.
They knew that we owned property there. There's no other property owned on any of the other sides
of this whole entire section except for us. So, my concern is that we, the 20%, really don't have a voice
at this point because the Marriott has made the 80% happy. I agree with the fact that the poles were
a very nice idea; however, we can see through those poles, and I would strongly suggest that the
Marriott come back with a much better model rendering of exactly what those buildings are going to
look like there, not only for me but for you as well because what you're going to see is coming in from
that side as well, those four-story buildings. They're going to be located, according to them, in the
middle of the property, so on all four sides, those four stories are going to be seen. And I'm not sure
if Palm Desert wants to see four-story buildings. I think that the other question that we have is the
elevation of these buildings. The elevation right now at the other Marriott, I am a business owner over
on Hovley, and all I see are Marriott timeshares sitting on top of hills. I don't want that. So I have no
idea what the elevation of these properties is going to be. We talk about height of the buildings...that
means nothing to me because I don't know what the elevation of the ground is, and so I'm requesting
that there be some type of elevation factor brought in so that we know exactly what we're dealing with.
I appreciate you listening to me, and I hope that you sincerely will consider all of the aspects of this
project. We are in favor of this project. We are in favor of it being moved to a different section of this
entire property so that we can be good homeowners. Thank you.
JMB Thank you. Next person.
RF Thank you, Mayor and City Councilmembers. And I would like to echo what my neighbor had also said.
My name is Randy Forrester. I live at 37-680 Colbridge. I am not on Drexel, I'm one street over, but
I still have some concerns. I'd like to acknowledge the Marriott as a first-class resort. We all know the
business they bring to Palm Desert, and it's much appreciated. I'm a resident of Palm Desert now for
a year. I love the city itself and the plan and the direction I know there is some forethought to. What
I guess I have a problem with is the contrasts that this resort is going to bring to the immediate area.
Councilman Crites mentioned the fact that the desert, which we have behind you as an illustration, and
I have concern in regards to how they laid out the 300 acres. With all due respect to Nick Faldo, I know
he has world -class golf courses, but the layout isn't, in my opinion they're bunching up too much of the
buildings in one area and then in other areas you can land an airplane, it's so wide open. I have concern
as far as also my other neighbors on the elevation. The contrast is you have single -story family homes
that will be next to four-story condominiums. We're going to have desert at Desert Willow and
surrounding desert, but yet we're going to have Hawaiian -style golf courses next door. Then the street
lights versus no street lights. We have no street lights at the Kaufman & Broad development, and it's
a pleasure to walk there at night and see all the stars. That will be ruined. That will be ruined by the
peripheral light coming off of the structures and the street light entrances, and a lot of these people are
going to have to have illumination to find their way to their condominium, or to their timeshare, excuse
60
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
me. That is also an unknown, and that will change the whole area, not just the immediate four streets
and the blocks that are connected to it. My other concern also is on Frank Sinatra Drive, especially the
street, just 400 feet to the west of Drexel. As a resident there, I have to go in and out of that
intersection, and traffic does move along at a pretty good pace, because one they pass Monterey heading
east on Frank Sinatra, speeds will go up to 55 miles an hour, and I've seen even speeds beyond that.
When you have the islands then installed with plant life, and if it's an unregulated area or street next to
another unregulated street, I will see a big problem coming in the future, especially with cars going 50
miles an hour, and then we've got two double sets of streets in close proximity all trying to get out.
That just comes back to the 300 acres that they have to work with. I just don't think that they're
optimizing it to really blend in with what's already been established and that we want to go as far as a
direction in architecture and desert -style. I think that the layout could easily have one of the fairways
and the golf courses to the east as opposed to the west, which is on Monterey, thereby even expanding
the distances further from the building height and the view of the neighbors on Drexel. And I know that
the City Council is going to look at this all in fine detail, but these are concerns that I have as a resident.
And I thank you for your time.
JMB Thank you. Anyone else like to speak, for or against?
M My name is Milasovich, and I live at 37-631 Drexel Drive. I want to say that Marriott people have been
very, very cooperative. At first we had quite a few changes to make, and they made them all. And I
don't know about these other people, but I'm really happy that this golf course is going in because that
is windy city there, believe me. My pool filled up six months ago and is all stained because of the sand,
so I really appreciate this golf course coming in. That's all I wanted to say.
JMB Anyone else that would like to speak? Okay, since this is going to be continued..
RAS Well, maybe we ought to make comments.
JMB Alright. I'll start, then, with Councilman Ferguson.
JF I made all the comments previously.
JMB Councilman Kelly?
RSK Well, I think I made my comments when staff gave their report. Just to reiterate...it seems like that
whole south side could have been shifted down and prevented the problem, the biggest problem we're
dealing with, and I'm concerned about the openings at the street, where they open. I concur with
Councilman Crites. I don't say that it has to be a golf course like ours, but something that is different.
I know Nick Faldo's got a lot of good ideas, he's a good golfer, he's used to playing on those wind-
swept Scottish links. He could probably come up with something pretty spectacular there. I think it's
great that we may have a Nick Faldo golf course, that would be really nice to have a Nick Faldo golf
course in the City of Palm Desert. And I guess I've enjoyed over the years working with the Marriott
folks, and they've been a real contribution to our community. We all appreciate working with them, and
61
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
we know what kind of people they are. It seems to me that Mr. Marriott would be just as concerned
about the problems we're talking about as we are. I suspect he would be every bit as concerned as we
are. So I think, also, our mitigation fee for timeshares is obsolete, and I don't know if the adjustment
we made is a proper adjustment. I'd like to see an adjustment that would give us some comparison to
the impact that comes from the hotel, where we require nine percent hotel occupancy tax, what's the
impact of the hotel versus timeshare, and some justification for why and where we should set that. That
is a concern of mine because it has a lot to do with how I vote when it comes down to time to search
for which light I'm going to push. There has to be some kind of mitigation that compensates for all of
those extra services. I know the chart here that shows all of the economic impacts, well we see lots of
these, but we also see crime go up in our community and put on more police officers and all the other
service impacts that go along with people coming into our community. So there are two sides to all of
those stories, so that is going to be very important when I decide what I'm going to do, and right now
I don't think what you've done is adequate, but I don't know because I don't see the backup material.
JMB Councilman Spiegel?
RAS I want to echo our respect for the Marriott Hotel and the Marriott Corporation. About a month ago
we had a Make a Difference Day in part of our city that was, let's say, a little run down. And we had
300 volunteers from the Marriott Hotel come in to this large two -block area and paint and put down sod
and clean up, and it was amazing what they did to this part of the City that really needed it badly. So
I want to thank the Marriott for that. That said, I do have concerns with the number of units with one
golf course. I have concerns with the lighting that I didn't mention earlier that was brought up by one
of your neighbors. I have concerns, as do Councilmen Kelly and Crites, about the location, and I have
concerns about the height. And those were the things that I'd like to see addressed.
BAC Well, just a couple of comments. First, Steve, my apologies for being overly grumpy when I was
looking at which side this should be on and so forth, so my apologies to you. Traffic is one issue. I
understand there is a traffic analysis, and timeshare doesn't produce nearly the traffic that a home does
and so on and so forth, and just as one member of the Council, I flat don't believe it. When you take
the average...out of a hundred homes, as an example, in the summer in this community, probably 40%
are empty, and I'd bet money that if Marriott has 40% vacancy in their timeshare, they won't build more
than two of them. They're trying to run this at 100% occupancy, and homes in Palm Desert, especially
in this area, where it might very well be a country club area if it wasn't this, don't tend to have that kind
of occupancy. People in timeshares tend to be out and about a lot. I know...anyhow...I know what the
traffic study says, I don't believe it. So. Among other things, I would like a little more detail. It talks
about how Marriott is going to help on the "temporary measures" down at the corner of Monterey and
Country Club. I think we might go back to the formal Walmart proposal which talked about all the
things they were going to do on that corner, that's vacant park land, I think it's on the northwest corner,
and look at some of the things that were going to happen there, some free flow lanes and such things
as that. I did not see, and I'm surprised Councilman Kelly hasn't already asked it, and that is...are we
doing some alternate energy golf carts, various kinds of things, in getting people between this resort and
over to the hotel because the last thing we need...assuming that people truly are going to go from this
part to the hotel and back and forth, the last thing we need is people running around in more cars doing
62
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
that. We ought to provide an alternative for that, and maybe it's there, Dick, and I missed it, I guess,
but...
RSK No, you're right on.
BAC So, anyhow, I think we need to have something that demonstrates something that is striking as a
different way to get people around than the normal throw them in the back of a diesel van and pollute
your way from one point to the next. Another issue is...I think the building lighting is an appropriate
issue to look at. I was not here the day that the story poles went up because I was staying at the
Marriott at Dana Point, which is also a lovely resort; however, come night, up on the fourth floor, they
have wonderful spotlights to accent the landscaping, and I'm sure they do a great job of accenting the
landscaping, but if I lived anywhere near that resort, I would be looking for long-range sling shots as
a constant kind of thing. And I think people have a right to think about the kind of lighting, which may
be more obtrusive than actually the bulk of the building will be in that kind of sense. Same issue with
street lighting. I think it might be appropriate to ask some of our own people working on golf courses,
and I agree with Dick that we're not asking somebody else to do what we've done at Desert Willow but
at least to make sure that we're in keeping with the theme that I think that we've established in our
medians and in new construction all over this community, and not something out of our past. I think
we need also to look at rearranging things around here on that. I'm curious as to what kinds of things
are being done, I don't see it here, for employee parking and bus shelters and various things because
we're going to have a lot of people in the service industry who are also going to have to come and go
and some of this, and I didn't see much on that.
RSK There was a requirement for employee parking on that.
BAC Okay, I didn't notice. I didn't notice where it was.
RSK I was going to mention that.
BAC Well, then, fair enough, I did, and thank you. And...those would be my comments. Thank you.
RSK But I wasn't going to say anything about it a bus shelter or a bus turnout because it might be a while.
But we know that down the line there is going to be one, and as wonderful as the Marriott is, I do
remember they wouldn't let us put a bus shelter on their side near their entrance, so we need...I want
a clause in there that if we need a bus shelter, that we can have one near where all those service
employees are going to want to walk in.
BAC Or shelters, as the case may be.
RSK And then if there's a problem that they don't like the looks of one, then they can build one that's really
nice and looks just like they'd like to have it.
63
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JMB Okay, I guess my comments are that certainly...and I know to reiterate so that they are firmly planted,
that this Council is a very strong supporter of the Marriott, and we recognize what they do in this
community, and that is why three of us years ago bent over backwards to accommodate the timeshares
on the property with the Marriott Hotel. And probably in our haste to be good friends and neighbors
with them, we put the words "conjunction with a hotel", when we should have been more specific,
forgetting that developers come in and change the language to suit themselves. To have it come in and
say this is in conjunction with the Marriott, as I said before I don't want to wait for a cup of coffee to
come by room service, it's a long way away to say that it is in conjunction with the Marriott Desert
Springs, and I take great exception that "conjunction" is being used that way because it was a slip on
our part in trying to accommodate them the first time around. Secondly, I would ask Ray to come back
next time also, because obviously Marriott doesn't know that Palm Desert is a no -tax city. We do not
get property tax. We get very, very little, and if there's any property tax coming from this project, I'd
like to know how much is coming back to us because we do not get property tax. So it doesn't help
with our educational benefits. Also, I didn't see any provision for any child care as well as a bus stop
for the employees that work there. And, secondly I guess, I take exception to the fact that when I buy
into a residential neighborhood I expect to keep residents in the neighborhood; I don't expect to see a
three- or four-story hotel come in next door. I think the neighbors that are out there are entitled to what
they bought into. So, those are my comments.
RAS Move we continue.
JF Second.
RAS Until when? Well, I guess...
PD We should have a time certain, or do you want us to renotice?
RAS Probably renotice because I don't know how much time Marriott is going to want.
JF Well, why don't we go to the first meeting in July.
JMB Well, we have to wait to see what the legal part of the school system is.
RAS Yes, we have to wait until we get that, too.
RAD We recommend first meeting in July.
RAS Let's go to the first meeting in July, and we could always continue it.
SRG Motion carries by unanimous vote.
64
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XVII. ADJOURNMENT
With Council concurrence, Mayor Benson adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. to Closed Session.
She reconvened the meeting at 10:20 p.m. and immediately adjourned.
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CIT CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, ALIFORNIA
N M. BENSON, MAYOR
65