HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-09MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Crites convened the meeting at 4:04 p.m.
H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Richard S. Kelly
III. INVOCATION - Councilman Robert A. Spiegel
IV. ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Mayor Pro-Tempore Jim Ferguson
Councilman Richard S. Kelly
Councilman Robert A. Spiegel
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Also Present:
Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
Rachelle D. Klassen, Acting City Clerk
Sheila R. Gilligan, Acting Assistant City Manager
Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works
Carlos L. Ortega, RDA Executive Director
Patrick Conlon, Director of Building and Safety
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
MS. ERICA WHITE, 43-065 Washington Street, #15, Palm Desert, stated she had noted on the
Agenda that the Council was considering an opening at Delaware Place. She requested that the
Council also consider an opening at Mountain View. She said the closure of Washington was an
inconvenience to the residents, and she said she was speaking on behalf of many other residents
who were not able to attend the meeting and had a petition signed by those residents. She said
the barricades at Mountain View would be another way for residents to safely get into and out of
their homes. She noted that residents right now have to pass their homes by several blocks and
make a u-turn, and Washington was not a safe place to make a u-turn. She noted that the loading
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and unloading of school buses was also affected, and her daughter rides the bus. The bus stops
at Mountain View and Washington no longer have an alcove to pull into to safely drop off and
pick up children and must stop in a traffic lane. She expressed concern that the school bus will
be rear -ended, causing injury to children. She said if this happens, she will hold the City and
County responsible because there is no safe place for her child to get onto and off the bus. She
said it was her understanding that the manager of the apartment complex had written a letter in
March on behalf of the tenants.
Mayor Crites asked if the request was for a temporary or permanent opening. Ms. White
responded that she was requesting a permanent opening. Mayor Crites stated that staff would be
asked to look at the issue, bring a report back to Council, and notify Ms. White as to when the
report will be on the Council Agenda.
Mr. Folkers stated that staff had intended to bring this item up as part of the discussion at this
meeting relative to Mountain View and Robin. He said staff's recommendation would be to do
this temporarily.
Ms. White stated that Mountain View was not on the Agenda, while Delaware was. Mayor Crites
responded that Mountain View would be discussed as part of the Delaware item.
Councilman Ferguson requested that Ms. White submit a copy of the petition to the City Clerk
so that copies could be made and distributed to Council prior to discussion of that item.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Adjourned City Council Meeting of November 18, 1999.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 25, 26,
27, and 26PD Office Complex.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#394) by Kathryn I. Waters in an Unspecified Amount
Rec: By Minute Motion, reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify Claimant.
D. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#3981 by Wheeler's Desert Letter in an Unspecified
Amount.
Rec: By Minute Motion, reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify Claimant.
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
E. CITY PORTFOLIO MASTER SUMMARY for the Month Ending October 31, 1999.
Rec: Receive and file.
F. PRESENTATION of City's Audited Financial Reports for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
1999.
This item was removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held
Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
G. MINUTES of City Committee and Commission Meetings.
1. Citizen's Advisory Committee for Project Area No. 4 Meeting of October 18,
1999.
2. Civic Arts Committee Meeting of October 11, 1999.
3. Golf Course Committee Meeting of October 18, 1999.
4. Housing Commission Meeting of October 13, 1999.
5. Library Promotion Committee Meeting of October 13, 1999.
6. Rent Review Commission Meetings of April 26-27, June 28, and October 26,
1999.
Rec: Receive and file.
H. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Ron Jackson from the Public Safety Commission.
Rec: Receive with very sincere regret.
I. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract No. C16570 with Community Gardens of the
Coachella Valley for Administration of the Palm Desert Community Gardens.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve the subject contract in the amount of $18,000 and
authorize the Mayor to execute same; 2) appropriate said amount from the
Unobligated General Fund for that purpose.
J. REOUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Construction of Permanent Fencing for
the Parkview Office Complex (Contract No. C16690-A).
This item was removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held
Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
K. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract with The Stan Miller Big Band for Musical
Entertainment at the City's Annual Committee/Commission Holiday Party (Contract
No. C 16840't.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve subject contract with The Stan Miller Big Band and
authorize the Mayor to execute same.
L. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of an Agreement with Mary P. Gates for Transcription and
Preparation of Minutes of City Council/Redevelopment Agency and Other City Entity
Meetings on a Contract Basis (Contract No. C16850).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Waive the two-year separation of full-time employment with
the City of Palm Desert stipulation for former Deputy City Clerk Mary P. Gates
(Palm Desert Municipal Code 2.52.430(b); 2) approve the subject agreement in the
amount of $25.00 per hour on an as -needed basis; 3) authorize the Mayor to
execute same; 4) appropriate $5,000 from. the Unobligated General Fund to
Account No. 110-4111-410-3090 for that purpose.
M. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Lease Agreement between Kemper Sports Management
and Palm Springs Motors for a Pick-up Truck (Contract No. C16860).
This was removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held Over.
Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
N. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Agreement with Community Gardens of the Coachella
Valley for Green Waste Consulting (Contract No. C16870).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject agreement in the amount of $2,500 and
authorize the Mayor to execute same.
O. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C 15420 for Civic
Center East Wing Tenant Improvements.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Change Order No. 1 to the subject contract with
Gamut Construction, Claremont, California, in the amount of $5,033.37 and
authorize the Mayor to execute same.
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
P. REOUFST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. C 15490 for the
Engineering Design of Joni Drive Extension Project (Project No. 627).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 2 to the subject contract with
JMS Engineering, Inc., Palm Desert, California, in the amount of $600;
2) authorize the Mayor to execute same; 3) authorize the transfer of said funds
from contingency to base contract.
Q. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C15940 for the
Retaining/Garden Wall on Cook Street (Project No. 688).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Change Order No. 1 to the subject contract with Demo
Unlimited, Inc., Indio, California, in the amount of $8,360 and authorize the
Mayor to execute same.
R. REOUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. C15770 — Landscape
Improvements East of Oasis Club Drive and North of Hovley Lane (Pink, Inc.).
Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to
file a Notice of Completion for the subject project.
S. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 28575-1 (Bighorn Development, LLC,
Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 99-110, approving Tract Map
No. 28575-1.
T. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 28818-1 (Marriott Ownership Resorts,
Inc., Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 99-111, approving Tract Map
No. 28818-1.
U. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contribution to the 2000 "Living for Your 90's" Senior
Inspiration Awards.
This item was removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held
Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
V. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Refund for Business License No. 98-09957
(Heip Bui Thi, Applicant).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject refund in the amount of $25.00 and
authorize payment from the FY 1999/2000 budget.
W. REOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase Defibrillator Unit for the Desert Willow
Clubhouse.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize staff to purchase an AED defibrillator unit (similar
to the one currently owned by the City) in the amount of $4,202.25.
Mayor Crites stated that staff had requested that Item J be removed from the Consent Calendar
because apparently only one bid was received, and staff wished to reject that bid.
Councilmember Benson requested that Item U be removed for separate discussion under Item VII,
Consent Items Held Over. Councilman Kelly asked that Item M also be removed, and
Councilman Spiegel asked that Item F be removed for separate discussion. Mayor Pro-Tem
Ferguson noted that he would be abstaining from voting on Item N.
Councilman Spiegel moved to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar as presented.
Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote, with Mayor Pro-Tem
Ferguson ABSTAINING on Item N.
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
F. PRESENTATION of City' s Audited Financial Reports for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
1999.
Councilman Spiegel complimented Finance Director Paul Gibson for putting this report
together. He said the report was very detailed and showed where every dollar is received
and spent by the City. He also complimented staff for an outstanding year. He said the
year ended with a surplus over expenses, and that is an outstanding year.
Councilman Spiegel moved to receive and file Item F, with the above comments. Motion was
seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
J. REOUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Construction of Permanent Fencing for
the Parkview Office Complex (Contract No. C16690-A).
Mr. Diaz asked that Council direction be to reject all bids received and authorize the City
Clerk to readvertise the project.
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, reject all bids received and authorize the City
Clerk to readvertise this project. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson and carried by
unanimous vote.
M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Lease Agreement between Kemper Sports Management
and Palm Springs Motors for a Pick-up Truck (Contract No. C16860).
Councilman Kelly stated there was no mention in the report of alternate fuel, and he asked
if the Kemper truck could be an alternate fuel vehicle.
Mr. Folkers stated that staff would have to look into this and come back to Council with
an answer.
Mr. Gregg Lindquist, General Managerof Desert Willow Golf Resort, stated that a dual
fuel vehicle could be pursued.
Councilman Kelly stated that there was an ordinance where the City does not purchase any
vehicles that are not alternate fuel, and he felt the City's golf course should do the same
thing. He added that there was a refueling station close to the golf course.
Mr. Lindquist stated that they currently had a van which uses alternative fuel, and they
could pursue that option for the pick-up truck as well.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the subject lease agreement between
Kemper Sports Management and Palm Springs Motors for a pick-up truck operated by the superintendent
in the amount of $412.19 per month for three years, said approval conditioned upon obtaining a dual fuel
vehicle. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
U. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contribution to the 2000 "Living for Your 90's" Senior
Inspiration Awards.
Councilmember Benson stated she had pulled this item because the memorandum indicated
it was to purchase one table at the "Living for Your 90's" event, and last year the City had
three tables. She asked that the approval be for three tables since the City always invites
past recipients.
Councilman Spiegel stated there was also a question of the selection of an individual to be
recognized, and he nominated Doloris Driskel.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve staff's recommendation with the
following changes: 1) Approve the purchase of three tables instead of one; 2) select Doloris Driskel as
Palm Desert's recipient of the Senior Inspiration Award. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem
Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VIII. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 99-112 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-93
TO RESTRUCTURE THE SISTER CITY COMMti tt& AS A SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE CIVIC ARTS COMMA' i tt AND TO ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
FOR SAID SUBCOMMITl EE.
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and stated that Mrs. Gilligan was available to
answer any questions.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 99-112. Motion
was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson, who commented that he was very glad to see the City is
moving strongly in this direction again and that he felt this benefits not only Palm Desert but the world
community as well. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 99-113 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PALM DESERT RENT
REVIEW GUIDELINE SECTION 101(B) AND ADDING A NEW GUIDELINE
SECTION 101(C).
The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting.
Key:
BAC Buford A. Crites, Mayor
RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
JMB Jean M. Benson, Councilmember
JF Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro-Tempore
CAP Charles A. Prawdzik, Attorney for Mobile Home Park Residents
DS Dorie Sullivan, Silver Spur Mobile Manor Resident
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Councilman
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, Acting City Clerk
BAC The second item under Resolutions is Resolution 99-113, having to do with Rent Review. We do
have several requests to speak on this item, but we'll begin with staff report. Mr. City Manager.
RAD Yes. The City Attorney, Dave Erwin, will give the report.
DJE Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you have in your packet the proposed modifications to the
existing Rent Review Guidelines of the Rent Review Commission. In accordance with the City's
ordinances, the Rent Review Board has conducted a hearing, has approved these, and sent them
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
onto the Council for your approval. Your approval is necessary before they go into effect. The
basic premise of the guidelines is to attempt to clarify the guidelines to provide, in one instance,
the ability... to recover capital improvements that may have to be made to the park, may be made
to the park. This, basically, is in accordance with some of the more recent cases that are coming
out of the Courts here. In addition, we're trying to line up with the recent decisions in our local
Court that will allow an individual owner of the park to apply for a hardship rent increase, but to
provide us with all of the information that we have otherwise requested. Previously, there was
the automatic CPI increase each year, then a hardship rent application for the net operating
income, and then you could apply for an additional hardship. We're trying to put it together so
that the two latter ones can be combined. It is a procedural change in our estimation; the
information to be provided is the same, and the recommendation is that they be adopted.
BAC Okay. Are there questions from the Council at this point?
JMB I would just like to state that I'll be abstaining on it.
BAC Okay. Thank you.
JF Yeah, I have a question. I've reread Judge Fry's opinion in the decision of Silver Spur Mobile
Manor versus the City of Palm Desert. Had we had these changes in place prior to that lawsuit,
would the result have been different?
DJE Had we had the changes in place, there probably never would have been a lawsuit because he
could have applied for this through these guidelines.
JF Okay.
BAC Other questions? Is it safe then for me to assume that from your perception the changes that are
being requested are changes that are driven by judicial decisions?
DJE Yes, sir.
BAC Okay. Rather than by the discretion of the City of Palm Desert.
DJE That's correct.
BAC Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Prawdzik. I believe you are here to address the Council.
CAP Thank you, sir. I have given...
BAC Would you start again with your name and address, please.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CAP Yes. Thank you, sir. My name is Charles Prawdzik. I am a local attorney, and I represent the
mobile home park residents in the City of Palm Spring...in the City of Palm Desert.
BAC And your business address, sir?
CAP My business address is 75-780 Temple Lane, in the City of Palm Desert. I'm happy to say that
I've been a resident of this fine city for well over 25 years. The City Manager or City Clerk has
requests to speak from well over a dozen individuals who have asked me to speak in their behalf,
and I have a half a dozen more, if you would care to receive them. Nevertheless, I would like
to address the resolution that you have in front of you. I completely disagree and am prepared
to offer proof, in fact, while I do speak. I would like to at least give information to the City
Council that I would like to address, and I believe that the documents would assist you. I do not
intend for you to read those, being received at such late date, excepting to merely say that they
would help you in deciding this issue. Let me say initially that I am here, that the tenants of the
mobile home parks within this City are here because of one, simple, little issue, and that is the
issue whereby you are saying that on capital expenditures, you refer to a sewer expenditure, that
all the landlord had to do is come on in, present his bills, and we, we, the tenants, must pay for
it. I disagree with the conclusion that this is an attempt to clarify the existing Rent Control
Ordinance. My God, it so confuses the ordinance with this amendment, that I cannot see how
come that this City Council would not listen to a decision that went before the Appellate Court
regarding a mobile home park versus the City, and you don't listen to the Court' s instructions
therein. That substituting discretions in place of guidelines has no place within the ordinance, the
Commission that hears the ordinance, and that the Courts will not tolerate it. I disagree when you
say that these are placed into your ordinance by recent cases, that's hogwash. Pure hogwash,
because I placed before you in the last several pages recent cases that uphold your existing
ordinance, and if your existing ordinance is being upheld, then why in the heaven's name are you
attempting to change it and confuse it? A Councilperson indicated he agrees with the decision of
Judge Fry in the recent case regarding a mobile home park. I'm sorry to say I wasn't the attorney
for that park at that time; it never would have occurred. The facts that were presented to the
Court were not the facts that were presented to this Commission. You must have to remember
that your Commission voted for the tenants of the mobile home park. The judge did not agree,
but your Commission agreed with them, and when it came time to appeal, this City Council didn't
have the stomach to pay the finances to appeal the decision that their commission made
unanimously. When you say that this change in your ordinance, or your guidelines, is driven by
judicial president, precedent, that's foolish. The most recent cases have consistently upheld your
ordinance which provides for a hardship rent increase. Now let me give you an example; any
schoolchild can solve the example. All you say in this guideline is that the landlord can submit
a request for an increase if he is changing his sewer system from a septic tank to a public system.
But what about the fact that for the last two or three years he might have been spending $20,000
a year in pumping expenses. Shouldn't there be a credit for his savings that he gets when he
makes the conversion? Of course, he should, the tenants should get credit. But show me in your
change that you're allowing the credit. All you are saying in your revision is, "Come on Mr.
Landlord, show us your bills, and we'll increase your rent 100% to pay you back." We have the
I0
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
exact provision in the ordinance already, but you must produce first your operating profits; you
must show what your net operating income is, and if your net operating income suffers because
of this conversion, then you are allowed compensation to pay you for those expenditures. But if
your profits are not hurt, then why should you get double dipping; why should you get increases
in profits and get your money back at the same time? If you're going to make this exception for
sewers, why don't you make it for public utilities, why don't you make it for electricity --most of
these parks' electrical system have been built 30-40 years ago, and they are also obsolete. Why
leave out electricity and gas and water, why sewer? You Councilmen know why sewer. You sat
in executive sessions, and you know full well that this City Council, this City is being sued by the
very park that you are trying to help. There' s only one park in this City that doesn't have the
public sewers, and that's the park that's suing you. It is a disgrace to these people who have lived
here for many years before might have joined the City yourselves. They are taxpayers, they are
seniors, these are plus 55 facilities, and you are telling them that because this park, this only park
that will benefit by this ordinance, that this park will dismiss us from the lawsuit if we pass this
ordinance. How dare you use such tactics to save your City's financial activities at the expense
of our tenants.
BAC Sir. Mr. Prawdzik, Mr. Prawdzik. You are quite welcome, sir, to make comments about what
you perceive to be differences in legal opinion.
CAP I understand.
BAC I would respectfully ask that you not engage in conjecture concerning motives of people and
engage in comments which may not have backing in fact in a public hearing, please.
CAP Thank you, sir. The California Constitution, Article I, Section 7, says, in abstract, "...that the
legislature may not single out a group for regulation wholly at its will; legislation must have a
rational basis in light of reasonable legislative objectives." It is very difficult to see that this
particular section, dealing with a sewer, helping one park, would have a legitimate legislative
objective the way it's presently drafted. As I indicated, you're opening up many doors, you give
us no guidelines whatsoever, you are taking us down a road that's completely unnecessary. We
already provide, as I've indicated, a method for the landlord to recover his capital expenditures
in our normal MNOI ordinance; we've been doing it for years, this particular park has come
before this Commission, has used our hardship ordinance, and has received recovery of capital
expenditures that it has made in the past. I believe that you're going down the wrong track. I tell
you that the MNOI ordinance has been approved and has been praised by the Courts in the State
of California. I give you examples of that in your package. The MNOI formula establishes an
objective formula. The MNOI formula, which forms the basis of our ordinance, has never, never
been criticized by any Court in the State of California. Your MNOI ordinance has survived over
15 years; it is reliable, it's dependable, it's consistent, and it establishes, by the Court's decisions,
a fair and reasonable return. And I implore you that once you deviate from your MNOI formula,
you're generating a basket of problems for yourself. I tell you one more thing, it's a fact, since
you started to establish the discretionary increases, such as what your promulgating again today,
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
in the last two years not a single park owner has applied for a hardship increase. Not a single
park! Why? Because he's tried to use the loopholes that you've established for him; he's got
another loophole today on your agenda, and I say for God's sakes, why are you scuttling the very
heart of your ordinance without a good reason. Thank you.
BAC Thank you, sir. Mr. Erwin, as City Attorney, do I assume correctly that you would like the
opportunity of time to examine the arguments presented today so that you might respond to them?
DJE I think that would be appropriate, Mr. Mayor, provide that to the Council.
BAC All right. And provide it also to...
JF Had you received a copy of this before today?
DJE No. I was handed it the same time you were.
BAC Okay. And you will also provide it to Mr. Prawdzik so that he would have the opportunity to
examine your comments.
DJE Certainly. Yes.
BAC Okay. Are there others in the audience...I think the intention of this body will be to continue this
matter. So are there others in the audience who wish to comment at this time? Yes, ma'am. If
you'll pull the mike down just a little bit, thank you.
DS Okay, thank you. I'm Dorie Sullivan from number 1 Prickly Pear Lane in Silver Spur Mobile
Manor. In 1988...before that time there was all cesspools in the park, so the tenants made a five-
year contract with the park owner that they would pay $60 a month extra for five years in order
to put in the sewers. This is 1999, we're going into 2000; we're still paying that $60 plus all the
CPI increases, which means it's about $70-75 a month, probably. This is done because someone
called it a rollback instead of what it is, a completed contract. So the Courts would not listen.
They said it belongs to the review board, and the review board didn't know what to do, I guess.
So we're still paying it. Now with this new...with this new ordinance or this new change you
want to make, this means that the problems we are having with the sewers now...everybody that
works on it calls it a "Mickey Mouse" sewer, and we're having nothing but problems with it, and
back-ups, and whatever have you. Now if the park owner decides he was going to rip up the
whole thing and start all over, not only would we be paying for the remodeling or the redoing,
we are still paying, after 11 years, on the original sewer. It just doesn't seem quite fair to us, and
we hope that you'll consider revising this amendment and sticking to the old one. At least we
only have the $75 that we're stuck with, okay. Thank you.
BAC Thank you, ma'am. Is there a motion...from Council?
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JF I'd like to make a comment, first.
BAC Yes, sir.
JF Because I know a lot of you are here on this particular item, and you're here because you know
that your Council looks after you and takes care of you, like we do all residents, and we try to
achieve a balance. We will certainly have our City Attorney look at the materials that were
provided at the eleventh hour today and go through them. I wish we had an opportunity to do it
beforehand so that we wouldn't waste your time this afternoon with a continuance that apparently
is necessary. But I think you know that this Council treats its residents fairly; it takes into account
your interests and the interests of the rest of the City. We'll take a look at the sewage provision,
as most of you are aware, we do require private home owners to convert to sewage systems upon
sale of their home. If...I'm interested, personally, in hearing your comments about what your
feelings are about conversion to sewage systems, and I certainly would ask our Public Works
Department, or whoever the appropriate authorities are to look back into any representations about
a conversion to a sewer some nine or ten years ago. And we will look at all those things, and
with that, I will move for a continuance.
RAS Second.
RSK To January 13th?
JF To January 13th.
RSK Second.
BAC There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Being none, please vote.
RDK Motion carries by a 4-0-1 vote with Councilmember Benson abstaining.
BAC Thank you.
For purposes of clarification:
Upon a motion by Mayor Pro-Tempore Ferguson, second by Councilman Spiegel, and 4-0-1 vote
of the City Council with Councilmember Benson ABSTAINING, Resolution No. 99-113 was continued
to the meeting of January 13, 2000.
IX. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For Adoption:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 926A - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE RELOCATION APPEALS
BOARD TO HEAR APPEALS FROM DETERMINATIONS OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT AND THE PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY.
Mr. Diaz stated that there had been no major changes since introduction of this ordinance,
and he recommended its adoption.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 926A. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 929 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THLE 26
OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, SUBDIVISIONS.
Mr. Diaz stated that there had been no major changes since introduction of this ordinance,
and he recommended its adoption.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 929. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 930 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REVISING SECTION 8.85 IN TITLE 8 OF THE
PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, HEALTH AND SAFETY, SKATE PARK
REGULATIONS.
Mr. Diaz stated that there had been no major changes since introduction of this ordinance,
and he recommended its adoption.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 930. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA FOR
THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC PROGRAM.
The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting.
Key
BAC Buford A. Crites, Mayor
RAD Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Councilman
JMB Jean M. Benson, Councilmember
JF Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro-Tempore
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, Acting Assistant City Manager
MG Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer
DM Dan Miller, Captain, Riverside County Sheriff's Department/Palm Desert Chief of Police
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, Acting City Clerk
BAC Under New Business, Request for Consideration of Public Safety Commission Recommendation
for Neighborhood Traffic...Mr. City Manager.
RAD Yes, you have the staff report and recommendation from the Public Safety Commission.
Mrs. Sheila Gilligan can answer any questions that you might have or give a brief report, if you
would like.
BAC Mr. Kelly.
RSK We have two that deal with neighborhood traffic. We have this one and another one...is it "R",
under "R" in the packet? I wonder if we ought to do both those together.
BAC Shall I hold this item, then, and we will consider them bother together?
RSK Well, there is one in there that has to do with speed limits of certain residential streets.
BAC Okay.
RSK ...which ties in very much with this one.
JMB Which one is it?
BAC Just a second...I' m looking for it myself.
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK It's...
BAC It's Item C under Old Business, so allow me, then, if there is no objection, to bring Item XII-C,
which is page 10, Consideration of Speed Limits on Certain Residential Streets, as well as this
item, then, together on the Agenda. Is that acceptable to my colleagues? Okay, Richard,
comments, or did you want...
RSK Are we going to both of them now?
BAC They are both now...we're here.
RSK Okay. Well, I think what we're proposing here is terrible. First, this criteria for the traffic
program, and I see a recommendation that says...it doesn't tell you right here in the
recommendation, basically that they're going to, the criteria is going to leave only Haystack as
a patrolled street, and the idea of the description of a speed trap where the Safety Commission
interpreted the speed trap as to designate streets like Warner Trail and Fairway Drive as speed
traps...I think that' s ridiculous. There's no way that whoever wrote the law regarding speed traps
was thinking of a street like Warner Trail or Fairway Drive as a speed trap. We have, you know,
we have a bad planning situation that has caused us to have residential streets that turned out to
be...I need a little water, here...they've turned out to be arterials and cut-throughs. Fairway
Drive, when we first started trying to do something with that, had a traffic count of 6,000 cars
a day, and we put the stop signs in there and a 25 mile an hour speed limit and put some traffic
control on there, and now it's down to somewhere a reasonable amount, 2,800 or 30,000, there's
still a lot of cars. Although I don't live there now, I had occasion to be in the driveway there
today, and I'll bet you the count today at three o'clock was back up near 5,000 or so because I
had to sit there and wait for a long time to even find a place to get out on the street. The other
thing is, there's a lot of comparison between, excuse me I'm having a little trouble with my throat
there...is somebody smoking? To compare Haystack, which has no houses on one side and a
hundred foot street with Fairway Drive or Warner Trail or some of those other streets that are 40-
foot streets and carry the same amount of traffic, doesn't make any sense at all. Also, the
comparison of Fairway Drive even after it passes Cook Street in Indian Wells, it has no houses
on one side of the street. Fairway Drive has houses on both sides of the street, and it's extremely
dangerous if cars are allowed to travel fast there. Having had one up in my front yard and the
side of my wife's car wiped out with somebody passing over the double line in a residential
neighborhood, I just think we have an obligation to protect our residents who live in these
neighborhoods. Basically, they're that way because of poor planning on our part, whether it was
the County or whoever it was, we, the organization, whatever it was at the time who did the
planning, did a poor job. And now we have the responsibility to make sure that those residents
have a livable community, and if we do some of the things that are proposed in these two items,
then I don't think we're going to do our job of protecting our neighborhoods and making sure that
our residents have a livable community. So...there's another item here, and I suppose I'll get in
some trouble over this, but if I'm wrong, then you can chastise me, but if I'm right, then I think
that you should bear the criticism, and that is that I've had complaints that the Public Safety
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Commission is staff- and Council -driven, and as I read this, if I read the minutes from the
meeting, I can't draw any other conclusion except that it is staff- and Council -driven. And so I
plead with my fellow Councilmembers to not do what's proposed in these two items unless there's
a better proposal to protect our neighborhoods.
BAC Thank you, sir. Other comments on these items?
3MB Well, I was absent from the Police Commission when this was discussed, so...
JF Well, I'll be happy to at least discuss what was discussed and address some of Councilman Kelly's
points. The Commission discussion was not an abdication of our role to help make our
neighborhoods safer by using police resources; we have to monitor street and critical speeds on
all residential streets. Your criticism to the proposal as it was currently constituted is that we had
Bel Air, for example, we had one resident, a gal who I know who tends to be quite vocal, one
resident call and make a complaint about speeds on Bel Air, a street which is less than a mile long.
We put a black and white on that street at $77.50 an hour, we spend almost $4,000 in enforcement
effort, and never issued a single ticket. Kansas Avenue, we had police officers out there for six
weeks because residents on Kansas said, "They're breaking the speed limit." We spend another
$5,000 or $6,000 on Kansas. Again, we didn't issue a single ticket. And the Police Department,
when asked, responded that they would like to be able to respond to concerns that they believe are
legitimate and as they see, in their professional discretion, appropriate, and I think the Public
Safety Commission agreed with them, and I don't think that was an abdication of their role, I
don't think it was an abdication of Council's role or staff's role or, frankly, of the Police
Department's role. They simply wanted that the police, who are responsible for enforcing safety
on our public streets, be given the authority and the responsibility at the same time and not be
directed by a neighbor here or a couple of neighbors there.
RAS I think you're talking about a couple of streets that we haven't really discussed, we've never
discussed Bel Air, and I don't remember discussing Kansas. Maybe we had. In the proposal, it
says if approved as presented, the City Council would be delegating authority to the Public Safety
Commission to oversee the Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement Program. In other words, they
would be the one that would be setting the speed limits and so on. And I'm not in favor of that.
I would like to see when we're going to change speed limits on streets in our city. And, getting
back to Fairway and also Shadow Mountain, there have been all kinds of tickets issued on the last
report that I saw on both of those streets, and I don't feel that we should throw those streets off
the...throw them out and not try to enforce traffic speed limits because they both are cut -through
streets.
BAC I'd like to just make a comment and I'll come to you, Councilman Kelly.
RSK I just have one quick one here. In the minutes it says right here, "It was moved by Commissioner
Lebel and seconded by Commissioner Tschopp to continue the traffic enforcement to only
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Haystack Road," a hundred -foot street with no houses on one side. That tells me...in other
words, only on Haystack Road...in other words, not on any other streets. That's ridiculous.
BAC Thank you, sir. Two comments. One, I'm not sure that the issuance of a ticket or the lack
thereof is necessarily the same thing as not having been effective in accomplishing something.
The presence of a police officer on a street may very well have a calming effect on traffic whether
tickets are or are not issued, and so I'm not sure that the lack of a ticket means there was no need
to be there. Concerning Councilman Kelly's other comment, I think members of this body have
very apparently different perceptions of the function of Council as they are involved with
committees. I think some members of the Council go to a committee and do a staff report from
Council actions and are available for questions, and other Councilmembers with other committees
are very active participants in the committee' s discussion. That is an issue that, if appropriate,
if we need to find some uniformity in that, then I think that' s a fair discussion to have. I think
we do different...I don't mean you and I in this case but members of the Council differ...
RSK We did have that discussion about three months ago.
BAC I remember that. What is the pleasure of the Council, then?
JF I want to add one more thing because I really, as long as we're laying it all out on the table here,
may as well lay it all out on the table. I think that the police...the perception that I had, that some
staff has had, and the Police Department has had is that they feel obligated to respond to every
resident who complains on every residential street because the Council has put together this
program to basically stifle complaints. And the Commission, and I agree with them, said we
ought to have a mechanism in place for sifting through complaints to find out which ones are
legitimate versus which ones aren't and prioritizing those and then using police resources the most
efficient way possible. And the part of the meeting I most vividly remember is on page 7 of the
minutes, which is where they ask the Sheriff's Department to work with the City's Traffic
Engineer to come up with a program and bring it back to the Commission for review and
recommendation at the City Council. I don't remember ever delegating authority to the Public
Safety Commission for enforcement of the program, and I wouldn't support such a
recommendation.
RSK We did set up a program.
JF Right, and the Commission basically is telling the Council that they think we can come up with
a better program with the police working with the Traffic Engineer.
RSK You know, I don't have any problem at all with the Commission coming up, or attempting to
come up with a better program. That is not a problem, but they went far beyond that when they
said stop all enforcement on every street but Haystack. Until they come up with a better one, we
should keep using the one we have, which is written out, a policy. It's related to the traffic that's
on the street and how many hours a patrol car will...they patrol according to, I think, one hour
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
for every 400 or 500 cars. In other words, if there were 500 cars, it would be one hour a week,
but if it was 5, if it was 6,000, it would be more, and so that's the policy that's in place today and
until they come up with a better policy that we can look at, that should stay in force.
BAC Okay. Councilman Kelly, have you looked at the two levels that are suggested?
RSK The...I read them all.
BAC That's page 2 of...
RSK I had to get to get the pan to vomit while I was reading them.
BAC So I will take that as disagreement.
RSK Let me take another...
RAS Mr. Mayor, could I make a comment while he's taking a look at it? We are going to be
approving an amended agreement with Riverside County law enforcement tonight for 43 Deputy
Sheriffs, approximately 209.7 hours a day. Has, and this is a question for Mayor Pro-Tem
Ferguson, has the Police Department come to you and said we don't have the manpower to do
this, we need officers other places?
JF I'll let the Police Department speak for itself, but the contract that you're talking about was... were
changes that were instituted by the Council on August 26th.
RAS I understand that, it just happened to be on the Agenda tonight, so that' s why I pulled it out.
JF Right. And I'd also, out of deference to Councilman Kelly, for whom I have a lot of respect, the
street closure issue was something that came up strictly from the Commission, I think it had to
do with speed traps, and I can't for the life of me remember, if Mark can, what precipitated that,
but perhaps Mrs. Gilligan can. Can you recall what...
SRG 1 think there are certain streets in the City that we cannot use radar on, I'd have to defer to
Mr. Greenwood, but I need to just say two things on behalf of the Commission. The Commission
receives the Neighborhood Traffic Plan monthly for review. When asked, when Mr. Greenwood
was asked by the Commission what criteria was used, because they were looking at the streets and
seeing, you know, where the black and white cars were being placed, and the response was that
one call, one telephone call, could initiate the placement of a black and white at $78 an hour, and
the Commission felt maybe that wasn't a great...
RSK Well, I don't agree with that, either. I don't think we should do that.
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SRG But the speed...the only thing they were dealing with was there's no criteria, could you come
back, then, with the criteria where maybe we would do something different than sending a black
and white out there, that we would use other Public Works methods to look at the streets rather
than just by responding to a black and white unit, with a black and white unit. They've never
discussed setting speeds because speeds are set by ordinance, and the Council has to enact those
ordinances, so speed limits on streets was never an issue with the Commission. But Mark maybe
can report why... something about the street widths and radar and what can and cannot be enforced
was before the Commission, which brought this up.
BAC Well, let's try to resolve...we have about four different pieces of issues here. So I'd like to...
RSK You asked me a question about that.
BAC Yes, sir.
RSK Here's the kind of thing that I object to. If the concern is not resolved by...if a person just calls
in, that's one person, I'm not saying you should be out there. If there's three or four hundred
cars, I'm not saying you should do that, you know, I agree with those comments. The thing that
really bothers me is this Item 5, the critical speeds, 85 percentile over 30 miles...what happens
if you do that...
BAC Richard, I think we're...oh, okay.
RSK You asked me to look at this.
if' You mean Item 3 on...
BAC You're on a different...
RSK This, well, it's a revision to the Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement Program. Well, I'm looking
at the recommended revision to the Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement.
BAC Okay, I think you're on a different page than the rest of us.
RSK Well, but the one that concerns me, this is one that is being proposed.
BAC Nope. I believe...
RSK It said revision, recommendation, revision of the Traffic Enforcement Program.
SRG I think that's the staff report that went to Public Safety Commission initially.
BAC Right, the one you have...
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SRG The top one is the recommendation from the Commission.
BAC Right. Page 2 of this report. Open one page. Now...
RSK Well, that's the same one. The problem I have is that you can take a neighborhood and...that
should have a...residential neighborhoods is 25 miles an hour speed limit. But if you use this
system, you can easily come up with a 40 mile an hour speed limit, and that's not right. It should
not be done. I know the Sheriff's like to do that, but then we have a different concern than they
do. We are trying to make the neighborhood a safe place for people to live, and cars going 40
miles an hour down a 40-foot street with houses on both sides is not safe. It, I mean, at 6,000
cars a day it's a nightmare to live in a place like that.
BAC Mr. Greenwood.
MG If I can clarify what it is that I reported to the Public Safety Commission, I did report that it took
as few as one phone call for an item to be referred to the Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement
Program, but that referral did not go directly from the resident to the Public Works Department
to the Police Department. Those referrals always went to the Public Safety Commission for their
approval before officers were ever assigned on the street, so the Public Safety Commission always
have made these referrals to the Police Department, they never went directly from staff to the
Sheriff's Department. So it was always the Commission in that loop, even on the original
program, and it's still that way now. Then...what we're trying to deal with now are two separate
but related issues, the issue of establishing speed limits and then the issue of enforcing them. It's
good that we have them together here, but we can also get confused a little bit about what we're
doing. The one item regarding establishing speed limits, it was pointed out to us that there was
a difficulty in the law, published in the Vehicle Code, that even though a street is 25 miles an
hour, it's a legal 25 miles an hour residence district, can also meet the definition of a speed trap.
The Vehicle Code prohibits the use...prohibits officers from presenting evidence in court based
on evidence gathered by a speed trap. Some of the things that define a speed trap is a residential
street wider than 40 feet, a residential street longer than 2640 feet, which is half a mile, or a
residential street which is on the FHWA classification maps. After it was pointed out to us, we
reviewed our whole program, and that's where we came up with the one staff report with the page
and a half of streets that are specifically in question as to whether they are speed traps or not.
RAS Question, Mark, when you identify a speed trap and it can't be enforced by the court, are you
talking specifically radar?
MG Yes, thanks for clarifying that.
RAS So if they're in a black and white and they stop you for going 30 miles an hour in a 25 mile
zone...
MG They can use other methods other than radar.
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAS They are justified in giving you a ticket, is that correct?
MG Yes. My understanding is yes.
RAS Okay, thank you.
RSK Question or comment.
BAC Yes, sir.
RSK First, we have projects and we do things, and one of our big concerns, and you especially, Mayor,
your honor, are always very concerned that the people involved have been notified, and I agree
with that. We have had this Council Chamber full of people from these streets that are subject
here, and now we're going to make a change that's pretty drastic, but have those people all been
notified that there's going to be a change made on their street?
BAC Well, let's start with this. Let me just take a little piece of this. Do we have a common point of
view about whether or not we wish to have the streets that were mentioned, which include Warner
Trail, Fairway, and Shadow Mountain, removed from the Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement
Program, which apparently is a suggestion, Mr. Greenwood, of the committee, is that correct?
RSK I didn't understand what you said.
BAC Did they wish to do that?
MG I believe that that was their recommendation, in the interim, while we determined whether they
could be enforced...
BAC So the answer is yes.
MG In the interim, yes.
BAC Okay. Now, at Council, is their support for removing Warner Trail, Fairway, and Shadow
Mountain from the Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement Program for an interim period? Council?
RSK Certainly I'm not.
BAC Okay. Jean? I'm just going to try...piece by piece.
JMB Before I answer that, when we started this Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement, it wasn't set in
stone that it was always going to be these streets.
BAC I understand.
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK No, that's right.
JMB And, so, I'm of the opinion, and I was not, as I said, at that, unfortunately, at that meeting with
the Police Commission, but I do think that the streets should be reviewed to see if we still need
to have them on all the streets. Now certainly Fairway is one I would think it should stay on, and
I would agree with Haystack, but in the interim neighborhood ones, maybe it's time to relook at
those and see if there's still, it's still a necessity to have them there.
RSK Warner Trail is also a difficult one.
RAS And Shadow Mountain is, too. It goes behind The Gardens on El Paseo.
BAC Well, those are the ones that are recommended for removal. I'm asking if my colleagues wish
to support that recommendation or not because that will take care of one of these issues.
RSK You know I don't support it, right?
BAC I know, I'm trying to get...
JMB I'm not too sure about Kansas; it shouldn't be removed, but the Shadow Mountain, Haystack, and
Fairway I would say leave in.
BAC Well, Kansas isn't on the one that was...
JMB Well, I have Kansas on mine.
BAC Well, I'm looking at...
RAS This is this one.
BAC Yes.
RSK I look at the report here and it gives me...
RAS You know my answer, so...
BAC Which is leave them alone?
RAS Leave them alone.
BAC Okay. Councilman...Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson.
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JF Well, my suggestion is that we...and I told this to staff afterwards, that we not change anything
until we have something better to replace it.
BAC Leave it alone.
JF So I would leave it alone until we come up with a better...
BAC Alright. We now have majority suggesting that until we institute something else, those streets will
remain in the local program.
RSK And one more comment. Item 3 on this staff report... says "if the critical speed limit 85 percentile
over 35 miles, etc., is over 1,000 vehicles per day, the issue will be referred to the Public Safety
Commission for the possible inclusion in the Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement Program."
Which traffic enforcement program is referred to there?
JF Again, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding. The recommendation of the Commission
was not to get rid of the Neighborhood Enforcement Program, it was simply to give more
discretion to the Police Department to implement it, and when we start, and I agree with you on
this, if we start establishing criterias and publicly announcing streets, what does that do to the
streets that aren't named in our enforcement?
RSK My question is, which traffic enforcement program are you talking about, the one we set up that
determines by traffic volume?
JF Yes.
BAC The answer is yes.
JF We had Bursera on this list that doesn't have a 1,000 cars a day, and the list of streets on here was
getting longer and longer...
RSK I agree wholeheartedly that the streets that don't have the volume, and the streets should be
checked, all streets should be checked, but I don't think you use the criteria because you're not
issuing any citations, but the problem is solved because the very presence of the police car out
there is what makes it tolerable to live there.
BAC Alright, we've tended to one piece of this. What be the pleasure of the members of this body on
the other parts of the two different Agenda items, one having to do with speed limits on residential
streets, one having to do with the recommendation for levels at which we begin the process of
looking for how to control traffic issues?
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAS Mayor, I asked a question earlier and didn't get a response. Is the Sheriff's Department
requesting that this be done because there isn't enough time to do the other parts of their job, or
is this something that we're doing?
JF Why don't we ask the Sheriffs Department.
RAS Okay.
RSK While the Sheriffs coming up there, can I make one more comment?
BAC You may, sir.
RSK The recommendation of exactly what is going to happen should be spelled out right there so
there's no doubt in our minds what it is instead of trying to figure out exactly what the
recommendation is.
BAC Okay, and I suspect in that, then, you're going to ask that this...
RSK So that even I can understand it, which I know is a problem, but...
BAC You're going to ask that this matter be continued...
RSK I would ask that the whole matter be continued and let's do it...these things have to be dealt with
together, in my opinion, and that we should have a clearer staff report that we know exactly what
is proposed.
BAC Might I suggest this, that for this particular item, Madam City Clerk, that we would ask that it
not be reagendized until we have this staff report, perhaps two weeks before Council meeting so
that people not only have time to read it but have time to make inquiry and to ask questions.
RAS It might be a good idea to have a Study Session.
BAC Or whatever be the pleasure of my colleagues.
RSK And what about the people out there that live on these streets?
BAC Well, being as though this can apply to any...
RSK Do they need to know that we're planning a change?
JMB Well, we didn't ask them when we put them out there.
JF And what about the people that don't live on those streets?
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK We dealt with them...yeah, anybody and everybody, that's okay.
BAC It will be a published Agenda item.
JF Well, I would like to follow up on Councilman Spiegel's suggestion because I do think this... well,
there's probably more closures than is apparent from this discussion, and that we have a Study
Session and maybe invite representatives from the Public Safety Commission, notably Vice
Chairman Lebel and Chairman Tschopp who had the strongest opinions on the subject on the
Commission, sit down with the Council and Mr. Greenwood and Captain Miller and go through
our resources and see if there might be a better way to do things, but if we're doing things fine,
then that'll be a reaffirmation of our program.
RSK What about citizen representation from some of those streets?
JMB I also think in lieu of Bob's question there, it isn't that it's diverting, and Captain Miller can
answer that, diverting...I think...could the resources that we're spending on this program, could
they be put someplace else to better use? It's not that they're receiving complaints or the officers,
but it's could this money be used in a better manner and still have a program in on certain streets,
but not the excess that we're spending on it now.
BAC Captain Miller, you've been asked a question, you should have the opportunity of a response, sir.
DM Thank you, sir. In answer to your question, no, I think the 209 hours of patrol service and the
equivalent, the equivalent of 43 deputies that you currently have in the contract, is sufficient. Our
position on this is only that we would like to have the latitude to be able to apply the resources
where we feel the primary need is. It's really nothing more than that. We just want to be able
to apply the resources to the area that is in need, and that's really kind of where it comes down
to. Now with regard to the enforcement with radar, we can still do any other type of enforcement
on these streets that are classified by law as a speed trap, we can clock some, pay somebody, we
can write illegal left turns, illegal right turns, failure to yield, any of those types of things we can
enforce. It's only radar, and it's not a law that we created or that Frank Maywood(?) created, it's
the State made it, and we're bound to comply with it.
BAC And was primarily created for communities that...
JF Made a lot of money.
BAC Made a lot of money where one was going down a major highway and came to a 25 mile an hour
speed limit ten seconds later and so on and so forth.
DM That's entirely possible. I'm not familiar with the history of it, but that sounds about right. Do
you have any other questions with regard to the contract or with regard to our position on this?
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAS No, but I'd like to see you be a member of the committee, or the Study Session, when we review
this so...
BAC Okay. There is that suggestion. Councilman Kelly.
RSK First, I think that we're the ones that manage the Sheriff contract, and we're the ones that receive
the complaints constantly from the residents that live on those streets and in those neighborhoods,
and I think that we probably have a perspective that is sometimes different from the Sheriff's, and
a different opinion about where that time would be best spent. If we make a decision that we're
willing to pay for an extra Sheriff to manage our residential cut -through problem, then I don't
understand why the Sheriff wouldn't be happy to respond to our request to do that. And I
remember that we said that we wanted to do that.
BAC Thank you, sir. Is there, then, a motion on this matter?
RAS Motion to continue indefinitely until we have a Study Session.
BAC Okay, motion to not place back on the Agenda until we have the opportunity for Study Session
and appropriate period of time to read staff reports.
JF And leave the program the way it is until we decide to change it.
BAC Leave as is.
JMG Now are we going to set a Study Session or...
BAC Well, we need to make sure that staff, yes, there will be a Study Session, we won't set it at this
moment, but there will be one. There is a motion, there is a second, there being no further
discussion, please vote.
RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote.
BAC Thank you.
For purposes of clarification:
Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this matter indefinitely until such time as a Study Session
can be conducted to resolve program criteria issues, leaving in place the Neighborhood Traffic Program
that currently exists. Motion was seconded by Mayor Crites and carried by unanimous vote.
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT (CONTRACT NO. C 151421.
Mr. Diaz stated that this would implement the decisions that had been made by the
Council.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject amendment and authorize
the Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by unanimous
vote.
C. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF DISBURSEMENT OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
FUNDS FOR THE CLUB INTRAWEST PROJECT ARTWORK.
Community Arts Manager Carolyn Miller reviewed the staff report.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of the Art
In Public Places Commission and approve disbursement of $34,515.23 from AIPP funds paid by Club
Intrawest for compliance fees for the placement of artwork. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem
Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
Councilmember Benson stated she felt a letter should be sent to IROC in appreciation of
the work they had done in this regard, and Council concurred.
D. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE EXPENDITURE OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
FUNDS FOR THE COMMISSION OF PORTRAITS OF ARNOLD PALMER AND
JOHN COOK TO BE PLACED IN THE DESERT WILLOW CLUBHOUSE
(CONTRACT NO. C 16880).
Mayor Crites noted the staff report included in the packets explaining staff s request.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Concur with the recommendation of the Art
In Public Places Commission and approve the subject commission of portraits with sports artist Richard
A. Marks; 2) authorize the expenditure of funds for same in an amount not to exceed $25,000;
3) appropriate said funds from Unobligated Art In Public Places Funds. Motion was seconded by
Councilman Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
E. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SISTER CITY/ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROJECT.
Community Arts Manager Carolyn Miller reviewed the staff report, noting that this project
would be located in Gisborne, New Zealand, Palm Desert's Sister City. She said the
concept was in reference to a garden that was being constructed and developed in Gisborne
which was going to be called "The Palm Desert Garden." She said there was a place
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
designated in that garden by the City of Gisborne to hopefully place a sculpture presented
to them by the City of Palm Desert, and it had been suggested that perhaps this could be
a joint project of the Sister City Committee and Art In Public Places Commission to form
an artist in residency program where a local artist could be sent to Gisborne to construct,
fabricate, design, and install an appropriate sculpture that would represent the City of Palm
Desert, its people, and its landscape. She said the funding would come from Unobligated
Sister City Funds in an amount not to exceed $3,000 to cover travel and accommodation
expenses, with additional funds from the Unobligated Art In Public Places Funds in an
amount not to exceed $15,000. She added that since the staff report was written, it had
come to her attention by the Desert Chapter of the Building Industry Association of
Southern California that there is a statement within the ordinance of Art In Public Places
funding that reads, "These funds shall be used for the acquisition, installation,
improvement, and maintenance of artwork to be displayed in the City." She said this
might raise issues that the Council might choose to discuss.
Mrs. Gilligan stated that when the City established the Art In Public Places fund, it placed
$200,000 as seed money into the account to start it off. She said, if approved by the City
Council, the $15,000 could be taken from the initial $200,000 which came from the
General Fund. Should Council not to do that and still approve the program, she said it
could appropriate the $15,000 from current unobligated General Fund monies.
Councilman Spiegel asked if there was a theme for what was going to be put into the
Garden, and Mrs. Miller responded that nothing had been determined at this time but
would be considered at the December 15th AIPP meeting, with a report back to the
Council.
On the basis of the success of the past year, Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion:
1) Approve in concept the commission of a sculpture by a local artist that is representative of the City of
Palm Desert, the landscape, and its people to be placed in the Palm Desert Garden located in its Sister
City, Gisborne, New Zealand; 2) appropriate $18,000 from the General Fund for the project, rather than
from the Unobligated Sister City Funds and the Unobligated Art In Public Places Funds as recommended
in the staff report. Motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel.
Councilmember Benson stated she would agree with appropriating the funds from the
General Fund so there is no question by the Building Industry Association relative to
diverting funds.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that this would bring expenditures to $48,000 for the
Sister City Program, which was more than had been spent in the last eight years on the
program. He said he hoped there would be follow through with a commitment with Palm
Desert's other Sister City, Osoyoos, and keep this commitment to the program well after
the Millennium Lights and the sculpture is in place.
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Crites called for the vote. The motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
F. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AERIAL STRIP MAPPING.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Spiegel asked if this had gone out to bid. Mr. Folkers responded that The
Keith Companies had done the work before, and staff was very satisfied with the quality
of workmanship.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the proposal from The Keith
Companies, Palm Desert, California, for professional services to provide digital ortho photography in an
amount not to exceed $65,500 (Contract No. C16890); 2) appropriate $65,500 from the Measure "A"
Funds to Public Works Professional Services Account No. 110-4300-413-3010 for same. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
G. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) RECIPIENTS.
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and stated that Ray Janes was available to answer
any questions.
Mayor Crites stated that there was a committee that reviews applications for these funds,
and two members of the Council as well as staff members sit on that committee. He asked
if there were any comments from Council representatives.
Councilmember Benson stated that there had been far more requests than in the past and
only $36,000 to distribute for Public Service, although there was more money for
applicants to apply for Capital Improvements on their programs, and that is why so many
applicants had been turned down for the Public Service portion.
Councilman Kelly stated that he highly approved the funding for Shelter From the Storm
and FISH and FIND and hoped the City always approves that funding. He commended
the Committee for their efforts.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of the Outside
Agency Funding Committee and approve the list of agencies selected for receipt of the subject CDBG
funds. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson seconded the motion with thanks to Councilmembers Benson and
Spiegel for their work in narrowing down the list of recipients.
Councilman Spiegel added that unfortunately the majority of the Block Grant monies has
to go to Capital Improvements, and while there were a lot of requests, they were not for
Capital Improvements.
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Ferguson stated that he appreciated the Committee including the Coachella
Valley Boxing Club and that he felt these were worthwhile organizations that promoted
regional development in the Valley.
Mayor Crites called for the vote, and the motion carried unanimously.
H. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FURTHER APPROPRIATIONS TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH
THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY).
Mayor/Chairman Crites noted that this item would be considered jointly with the Palm
Desert Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Diaz noted the staff report in the packets and stated that Redevelopment Finance
Manager Dennis Coleman was available to answer any questions.
Councilman/Member Kelly moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution
No. 99-114, making a further appropriation to the Redevelopment Revolving Fund; and 2) waive further
reading and adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 384, agreeing to terms of a resolution of the
City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, making a further appropriation to the Redevelopment
Revolving Fund. Motion was seconded by Councilman/Member Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
I. CONSIDERATION OF HIGHWAY 74 IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE FOR CITY WOK
RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 73-040 EL PASEO Case No. SA 99-130 (Stuart
Davis/City Wok, Applicant).
Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report, noting that the proposed sign was a six-foot metal
circular cabinet identical in design to the existing cabinet over the entrance on El Paseo.
He said it was originally proposed as a freestanding sign in the CalTrans right-of-way in
front of the trash enclosure; however, because commercial signage is not permitted within
the right-of-way and because almost all of the frontage of the building is within that right-
of-way, the sign was now proposed to be located at the northwest corner of the building,
the only area not within the right-of-way. He said the sign was reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission at its meeting of December 8th, and all five
Commissioners agreed that the design of the sign was acceptable. They differed on the
height of the sign and the necessity of the sign given existing signage on Highway 74. The
Commission felt it was appropriate for the sign to be below the rafter. He said two of the
Commissioners felt that, given the existing clock tower sign, this sign was unnecessary,
and if the sign was approved, the clock tower sign should be removed. During the
Architectural Review Commission meeting, two Commissioners had to leave, and the
recommendation of the remaining three members was that the sign be lowered
approximately a foot and a half so as to be below the rafter, reducing the height from eight
feet to six and a half feet but that the clock tower sign not be removed. He added that the
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
vote was 2-1, with Commissioner Urrutia voting no because he felt the clock tower should
be removed. He said he felt if Commissioner O'Donnell had remained, he would have
voted to have the clock tower sign removed as well, while his sense was that
Commissioner Connor did not have an objection to a clock and that his main issue was the
height and appropriate placement of the sign in what is a very tight spot.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that he would be abstaining from voting on this matter
because his office is located within 300 feet of this restaurant.
Mr. Drell stated that staff felt the sign was consistent with the original theme and agreed
that the clock tower sign was very sensitive to the building and does not detract from the
building in any way. He added that staff would accept the Architectural Review
Commission's recommendation to have the new sign lowered and leave the clock tower
as it is.
Mayor Crites stated that the Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting
stated that Commissioner O'Donnell pointed out that the City had not approved the neon
bands that are on the clock tower element, and he asked staff if this was correct.
Mr. Drell responded that they were not submitted as part of the original sign approval, and
the Commission did not review and approve them.
Councilman Spiegel asked whether a permit was issued on this sign, and Mr. Drell
responded that it was.
MR. STUART DAVIS, 73-040 El Paseo, stated that with regard to the necessity of the
sign, there is no visibility at the corner as to what is in the building if one were traveling
south on Highway 74 from Highway 111. He said the sign was necessary to draw people
into the restaurant. He noted that they had received a permit for the sign and had almost
completed work on the sign based on the approval of the permit. This is an expensive
sign, and he said they were not in a position financially to modify it, although they would
do everything they could to appease the City's desires in regard to the aesthetics of the
sign. He said they felt the overall look of the sign was aesthetically pleasing. He asked
that the Council approve the permit as granted and allow them to place the sign in the spot
chosen.
Councilmember Benson stated she felt with the clock tower and the billboard on the street
at El Paseo,the building got more visibility than any other she could think of, and it was
very easy to see what is there. She said she felt the clock tower sign was more effective
than this proposed sign.
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Kelly stated he had noticed the City Wok sign and felt this proposed sign fit
well with the image of El Paseo, better than other signs he has noticed as he has gone
through that area.
Councilman Spiegel thanked Mr. Davis for taking a bank building that sat empty for
several years and making a restaurant out of it. He said it did not make a lot of sense to
him that a permit has already been issued for a sign that the Council is considering now.
He said from his standpoint, the City Wok is a good addition to the City of Palm Desert
and El Paseo.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject signage as proposed by the
Applicant. Motion was seconded by Councilman Kelly.
Mayor Crites stated that he was cognizant of the fact that the City is in an awkward
position because the sign is half built, and if this was starting from scratch, he would wish
to have the sign lowered even below what the Architectural Review Commission
recommended, and he would be voting against the motion. He asked if the applicant
would make the attempt to lower it, and if to the degree it was not possible, he said he
could live with that given where it is if the proposed sign was to be in lieu of the existing
sign on the clock tower. He said he suspected the location for the proposed sign was a
better sign location for the applicant.
MR. DAVIS stated that he did not know that the clock tower sign was going to be
discussed. He said with all due respect to Councilmember Benson, the front of the
building was adequately signed, but the back of the building had virtually no signage. He
said the clock tower was invisible for all intents and purposes, and he would agree to
remove the neon circles there. He said they had made a concerted effort to fix the clocks
themselves on the tower but had not been able to do it because there had been no resources
to do so. He said they had searched Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties and had
not been able to find a contractor to do the work. He said they would remove the hands
from the clock, put them in storage for a later date, and remove the neon on the clock
tower. All that would remain would be the letters in the restaurant name in plexiglass.
He said they would like to keep the sign as approved and said they would make effort to
make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible, keeping it as low and unobtrusive as possible.
Councilmember Benson stated she felt the sign poles could be sunk further down in the
ground. Mr. Davis responded that this would mean the circle would then almost be
touching the retaining wall, and the whole point of the sign was to be visible to patrons
driving up Highway 74. If the sign were lowered to the point of the retaining wall, it
would defeat the purpose of an almost $10,000 sign. The chopsticks portion of the sign
would then be driven into the ground and rendered useless.
Mayor Crites called for the vote.
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilmember Benson asked if the motion included the condition of removing the items
mentioned from the clock tower.
Mayor Crites responded that the motion was approval of the sign, said approval to include
what the applicant had suggested he would do.
MR. DAVIS stated that the neon circles on the clock tower would be removed, and the
color bands would remain. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mr. Davis
responded that the lettering on the new sign would be lit.
Mr. Drell added that it would be lit identical to the sign on El Paseo.
Motion carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson ABSTAINING due to the
proximity of his office to this business.
For clarification purposes, the Council approved the subject signage as proposed by the Applicant,
with the Applicant agreeing to lower the signage as much as possible, probably not as much as
was directed by Architectural Review Commission, and to remove the circles on the clock tower,
with the color band to remain.
J. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT AND WESTFIELD CORPORATION, INC.
Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report, noting that Mr. Ronald Bakal had submitted a
request to speak to this item. He said Mr. Bakal had raised some issues, and under the
advice of legal counsel, the Council might wish to withhold action until it can discuss the
letter in Closed Session.
Councilman Ferguson stated he had read the two letters from Mr. Bakal, who was
representing Swensen's, and he had objected that he was not listed as a matter of pending
litigation under 6.8.2 of the agreement, exhibit 10, which said there was no litigation. He
said nowhere in any correspondence did he see there was a lawsuit between Swensen's and
Westfield over the assignment of their lease. He asked if this was properly a subject of
pending litigation.
Mr. Erwin responded that, in looking at the letter, there as at least an indication of the
possibility that if the Council moves forward on this, it might be joined in litigation.
Mr. William Strausz, Redevelopment Agency Counsel, added that these letters had just
been received on December 8th, and the City Attorney had not had an opportunity to
review them until today.
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked if the preliminary conclusions were that this was properly
a subject of closed session, and Mr. Strausz agreed.
Mayor Crites invited testimony from the audience.
MR. RONALD G. BAKAL, an attorney in Palm Desert, 74-040 Highway 111, stated that
he represented Bill and Jane Mazal, who were the owners of Swensen's Restaurant located
in the Westfield Shoppingtown. He said he was speaking in opposition to the City's
Resolution No. 99-115 but would not comment since he had just found out that the Council
would be discussing this in Closed Session. He said he felt there was a potential liability
on the part of the City in this matter. He said he had found it difficult to find out what
was going on in this matter. He noted that the Desert Sun newspaper publishes a list of
all of the Council meetings, and this was the first time that he had ever seen the Palm
Desert City Council Meeting not mentioned.
Mayor Crites stated that at times the Council meets at times different than normal, and the
Desert Sun tends to cover what they expect to cover. He said legally, staff makes sure it
is sent to the newspaper.
MR. BAKAL said he understood that; however, he was trying to find out when the
meeting was, and the Desert Sun checked and found that the meeting was today. He said
one of the reasons he was not able to get the documents to the City was that he was not
aware of when the meeting was scheduled. He said he had also secured a copy of the
Agenda and noted that every City appropriation that involved dollars included the amounts;
however, this particular item called for an agreement between the City of Palm Desert and
the Westfield Corporation in the amount of $10 million, and he did not understand why
that was not included on the Agenda. He said he had also gotten a copy of the proposed
agreement but would not comment on any motivation on the City Council or the City in
getting involved in this kind of a business relationship. He said any time a lawyer sees
that a city is purchasing an easement for a parking lot for $10 million, red flags go up, and
this easement was being purchased to allow City individuals to park in a mall parking lot.
He said the City had mandated in the wording of the agreement that the new owners of the
mall do certain positive things, such as bringing in new tenants, enlarging the mall,
making it look better, etc.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked whether Mr. Bakal was suggesting there was something
nefarious with this, and Mr. Bakal responded that this was not what he was suggesting.
He said the City had been aware of the dealings between his clients and the Westfield
Corporation since the first week in November, and Mr. Drell had been notified in
November about the dispute between the two parties. He said Mr. Drell was shocked by
the activity that was going on, had called Westfield, and had told his clients not to worry
about this, that Westfield was a big corporation, the City was about to give it $10 million,
and they would take care of everything. He noted that Swensen's at the mall was presently
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
closed. He said when his clients purchased this restaurant in March of 1998, they were
not informed of any dealings about the agreement by the mall owners at that time or by
the City, and the first time they had heard about this agreement was when they read about
it in the Desert Sun the end of summer in 1998. They went to the mall owners who
informed them this was being delayed and that the mall was for sale. The next thing they
heard was that the mall had been sold to Westfield Shoppingtown. He said they "saw the
handwriting on the wall", put the restaurant up for sale, and found a buyer in June 1999.
The buyer was qualified by every entity involved in the sale; however, approximately three
weeks before the sale was supposed to close, November 5, 1999, his clients received a
two-line letter from Westfield Corporation informing them that the buyer was not
qualified. He said he was then retained. His clients subsequently contacted Phil Drell
who called the developer, Dave Hokanson, who said everything would be taken care of.
He said he met with Mr. Hokanson who made a "non -offer" to his clients, and by the time
he met with him, the sale was dead. Three days later, his client went back to Phil Drell
and said he felt this company needed to be investigated as far as how it does business. He
said the reason Westfield did not want to do business with any new owner was because of
a section of the agreement which allowed the developer to get rid of the ice rink, the
daycare center, and a few other developer mall stores. He said he felt one of those stores
was Swensen's, and it was in the way of the theater package. He asked that the Council
put off voting on this item at this time. He said he realized that it sounded great for the
City to give Westfield $10 million, and Westfield would make a new and better mall, the
tax base would go way up, and Palm Desert would be in better shape than it is now.
However, he said he had other fears and felt Westfield would be dealing with other
businesses in the mall the same way they had dealt with Swensen's. He said he also had
fears that perhaps after Westfield is given the $10 million, the mall is going to look like
Hooter's across the street.
Upon question by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson regarding Mr. Bakal's concern for the City
of Palm Desert in this matter, Mr. Bakal stated that he resided at 75-706 Easy Street in
Palm Desert and that he was very concerned about the City. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson
stated that there was a lot of information that went into this package and that it had been
public and known for a long time. He said there were actually balloons out floating in the
parking lot to measure the height of the towers, and the residents had been contacted. He
said he did not know what more could have been done to make it public. He said the
implication and overtone that this was some conspiratorial scheme to defraud Mr. Bakal's
clients on behalf of the City was disturbing to him.
Councilman Spiegel stated that it was in August of 1999 that the sale was consummated
between TrizecHahn and Westfield to purchase what was the Palm Desert Town Center.
There was a notice in the newspaper and a meeting in the Town Center itself. He said the
Mayor had attended and spoke. He said the entire meeting was open to the public, and it
was not anything that was done behind the scenes or underground or nefarious.
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Crites added that well before the TrizecHahn Corporation decided to sell, they were
looking at redoing the mall as well, and the City was willing to look at the idea of building
a public parking structure much like what was done at The Gardens on El Paseo. That
issue was a public issue, with citizen committees, etc. to look at what should be looked at
for the year 2000, and it was not a new issue. He said he did not appreciate Mr Bakal
coming in and saying this was something that someone had attempted to sneak out when
it had been a matter of public comment for the past five years.
MR. BAKAL stated that his intention in being at this meeting was to ask the Council to
investigate the facts of his clients' complaint about Westfield. He said he was not
challenging the motives of the Council to enlarge or improve the mall.
MRS. JANE MAZAL, 73-373 Country Club Drive, Unit 1511, Palm Desert, stated that
she and her husband were the owners of Swensen's at the Town Center. She said she was
at the meeting because she felt they were being forced out. She said they were the little
guy and did not have the resources to fight a company like Westfield. She noted that she
and her family had moved to the desert two years ago to live in a small, quiet town with
good schools, and they had purchased the family restaurant because they felt it would go
with what they wanted to do. Unfortunately, the long hours required to be put in for the
restaurant defeated the purpose of moving here, and they listed the business for sale and
sold it to a qualified buyer. She noted that not only was the buyer qualified, he had the
backing of Swensen to co-sign on the lease. She said based on the comments by Westfield
as to why this buyer was not qualified as well as a few other comments, they did some
investigating because they felt there was some hidden agenda, not by the City, but by
Westfield on why Westfield did not want them to sell. After looking at the plans, they
found they were not part of the mall renovations. She said all they wanted to do was to
sell the business, and she asked why Westfield was not having to buy them out. She
expressed concern that they were not notified in writing about the parking structure that
was planned, and they would not have purchased the business if they had known about
this. She added that they did not want to pursue a lawsuit and only wanted what belonged
to them. She asked that the Council postpone a decision on this matter.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated to Mrs. Ma7al that the comments made were not directed
at the merits of her difference of opinion with Westfield. He said he hoped representatives
of Westfield would talk to her while Council was in Closed Session.
Mr. Erwin asked that Council add several items to the Agenda for consideration in Closed
Session. Please see Section XIII-C for those items.
Councilman Spiegel moved to add those items to the Agenda for consideration in Closed Session.
Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson, amended to include discussion of property west of
Highway 74 on Haystack Road on the Redevelopment Agency Agenda, with Mr. Ortega as the
negotiating party. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. to Closed Session
and dinner. He reconvened the meeting at 7:03p.m.
Mr. William Strausz, Redevelopment Agency Attorney, stated that with respect to the
matter described earlier by Mr. Bakal, Counsel had advised the City that the matter is a
private matter, a dispute between a landlord and a tenant, and that the City should not
inject itself into that dispute.
Mayor Crites stated that this advice did not stop the Council from encouraging the parties
to come to an early and amiable resolution of the matter, and Mr. Strausz agreed.
Councilman Kelly stated that prior to Assistant City Manager John Wohlmuth' s resignation
from the City of Palm Desert, he had been working on an intermodal station. He said this
would take some of the property on the west side, and it should be part of this agreement.
He said this was a main transfer point for buses traveling between Indio and Palm Springs.
Mr. Diaz stated it was his understanding that this was included in the plan and that the
main turnout referred to by Councilman Kelly was going to be on Town Center Way. He
said it would take some of the property, but it would be from the street, not where existing
parking is.
Councilman Kelly stated that while this was in the plan, he felt it needed to be named in
the agreement itself.
Mr. Ortega suggested that wording be added to the exhibit of the agreement that delineates
the parking that sufficient area be included for the intermodal station so that the developer
will know this is one of the conditions of approval.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that he remembered a feasibility and implementation
study being done on an intermodal facility, and there were three locations looked at. One
was the City's 12 acres, another was the cutout in the parking lot (referred to as "the north
40"), and the other was the interchange of Monterey and Interstate 10. He said he did not
recall actually picking one of the locations.
Councilman Kelly stated that while this had not come to the Council, he felt there should
be wording to reflect that as part of the agreement, there will be a bus turnout and a place
where people can comfortably wait while transferring, possibly an indoor shelter.
MR. DAVID DAHL, Vice President of Development for Westfield, 11601 Wilshire
Blvd., Los Angeles, stated that with respect to the intermodal station, there had been
discussions as to the location of this concept, and there was a plan that would be brought
to the Council as to the final implementation of the requirements.
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Kelly stated the agreement needed to include wording that space would be
provided to do that. He said that because it is a main transfer station, with many buses
that come through, there needed to be enough space for them to do the transferring without
people having to cross the street, which is the case now.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that the Council would not be approving a parking plan
for buses and was merely reserving the right to approve one in the future, and Councilman
Kelly agreed. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that, consistent with Agency Counsel's
recommendation, he would suggest that Appendix 10 of the agreement be amended to list
potential litigation between the Mazals and Westfield. He said that, in so doing, the
Council was recognizing the dispute between the parties without passing judgment one way
or the other except to recognize that this is a civil matter between private parties that the
Council hopes can be resolved.
A representative of Westfield addressed the Council and stated they were anxious to get
this_ project going forward, and this was one of a few steps in the process. He
acknowledged the dispute with Mr. and Mrs. Mazal and stated he had met with them
during the dinner recess and agreed to get them some timely responses. He said he hoped
to have the matter resolved quickly. He said if the Council wished to include in on
Appendix 10 of the agreement, he would not have a problem with that.
MR. BOB WHITNEY, 41-000 Town Center Way, Palm Desert, stated he represented the
owners of the shopping center where Trader Joe's is located, adjacent to the mall. He said
he wanted to make sure in the agreement that there was recognition of the attempt to get
a stairway between the two properties for access to the employee parking area.
Mayor Crites stated that he did not see any provisions that would guarantee a redo of the
parking lot, landscaping, trees, etc. He said using oleanders as shade trees was probably
not the best testament to Palm Desert's shade program. He asked if this was an issue that
also needed to be listed in the agreement.
Mr. Drell responded that the design would have to come back to the City for the redo of
the parking lot. Upon question by Mayor Crites as to whether all of the parking lots
would have to come back because of this, and Mr. Drell responded that there would be a
new landscape plan for the center since they were proposing to restripe the lots to get extra
spaces.
The Westfield representative stated that they recognized the landscaping was not what it
should be for this property. He added that they would be working with staff throughout
the renovation, and landscaping was an issue that would have to be brought back as a final
plan.
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 99-115, with
Agreement Appendix 10 amended to include potential litigation of Mazal v. Westfield and that the
agreement also reflect reservation of the right for bus transit and/or intermodal capacity should such be
required at the site.
Councilman Spiegel stated that this was something that had been long in coming to Palm
Desert, was something that would continue to make Palm Desert the retail focal point of
the Valley, and would be a real asset when it was remodeled.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson seconded the motion with the following comments:
He said that he, too, was surprised that this was headline news in the Desert Sun because
the City had been working on this project for a number of years. He said it was no news
that the City of Palm Desert had worked diligently to provide better parking for the
residents of the City, including completely redoing Presidents Plaza and working on the
parking plan for Desert Crossing shopping center. In addition, Madison Marquette
invested approximately $50 million for The Gardens on El Paseo project, with the City
matching that with approximately a ten percent public participation to get a parking
easement, covered parking, etc. He said Westfield acquired the shopping center for
approximately $72 million and was planning to put $45 million of investment into it. The
City's participation in this project was $9.86 million, less than eight percent of the project,
and this amount was in line and less than what the City did with The Gardens on El Paseo
project. He said this was not unusual for the City of Palm Desert, and he welcomed
Westfield's participation. He said he was satisfied that there were adequate safeguards in
the legal document to address any of the concerns raised earlier at this meeting, and he was
proud to see the mall undergo redevelopment with Redevelopment dollars.
Councilman Kelly stated that there were other areas where parking was added, and the
City had a Parking Authority to review those proposals. He said there had never been
parking meters in the City, and he hoped there would never be such a need.
Councilmember Benson stated that she felt a lot of people did not understand that the City
of Palm Desert was run just on sales tax and hotel transient occupancy tax, with no
property tax in the City. She said all the amenities the City had been able to provide for
the citizens, including the park, were done through careful management of our sales tax
and transient occupancy tax monies. She added that the reason Palm Desert was the hub
of the Valley was because it was willing to step forward and help developers locate in
Palm Desert, which then raised that tax base. She said it was for the benefit of everyone
to invest in our own city.
Mayor Crites called for the vote, and the motion carried unanimously.
40
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Just prior to adjournment of the City Council meeting, Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated
that the intent of the motion relative to this agreement was that the City remain absolutely
neutral with respect to the landlord/tenant dispute. He said he suggested listing potential
litigation as that particular item. However, in reading that paragraph carefully through,
he said the pending litigation has to have a threatening effect on the deal. He said by
listing it, the City may be impliedly making an admission of some liability, and in talking
with the Redevelopment Agency Counsel by telephone, he wished to move to reconsider
his amendment that Exhibit 10 list the potential litigation and instead make it subject to the
Redevelopment Agency Attorney's review.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson moved to reconsider the previous action with regard to Westfield
Corporation. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by unanimous vote.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that in reviewing the paragraph which requires the listing
of pending litigation, it required that the pending litigation have a material effect on the
overall agreement with the City. In reconsidering the matter and speaking with the
Redevelopment Agency Attorney, we might be impliedly admitting that there was merit
to one side's claim over the other by listing it. He, therefore, asked that the Council
reconsider it and make listing the pending litigation subject to the Redevelopment Agency
Attorney's review.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson moved to rescind the previous motion's amendment to Appendix 10 of
the subject agreement that would have included the Maial v. Westfield matter of potential litigation, and
make it subject to the discretion of the Redevelopment Agency Counsel. Motion was seconded by
Councilman Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS LISTED ON AN AGENDA ADDENDUM POSTED
72 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.
K. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM THE COACHELLA VALLEY BUSINESS
FORUM AND COACHELLA VALLEY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP RELATIVE TO
CITY'S SPONSORSHIP OF THE ANNUAL BUSINESS FORUM.
Mrs. Gilligan stated that the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership had approached the
City several months ago with a request to take this matter to the Promotion Committee;
however, sponsoring a business forum was not within the purview of that committee. She
said she had asked Councilmembers Benson and Ferguson to meet with Mr. Marra,
President of this group, to allow him an opportunity to make his presentation and get a
reaction from those two members of the Council. She said she and Mayor Pro-Tem
Ferguson met with Mr. Marra (Councilmember Benson was not able to attend due to a
last-minute conflict) and reviewed his request. She said these business forums had been
conducted for several years, and they are held four times per year beginning in January.
In an attempt to enhance and expand them, they were trying to get financial sponsors to
41
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
enable them to get more high -profile speakers. She noted that during the meeting, Mayor
Pro-Tem Ferguson suggested that the donation might be made through the Coachella
Valley Economic Partnership inasmuch as that is the organization we rely on for our
participation in economic development activities. She added that the second part of the
request was for the use of Desert Willow Clubhouse, and any expenses incurred as a result
of the forum would be paid by the Business Forum to Desert Willow.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject sponsorship in the amount
of $10,000 and appropriate said funds from the Unobligated General Fund for the cost of same. Mayor
Pro-Tem Ferguson seconded the motion but said he wanted to state clearly for the record that the City
of Palm Desert was committed to regional economic development and had identified the Coachella Valley
Economic Partnership as the vehicle through which we want to do that. He said it was his hope that this
could be included along with Palm Desert's other levels of contribution to the Coachella Valley Economic
Partnership so that Palm Desert's total can be shown to other cities who may wish to participate further
utilizing this mechanism of regional economic development. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the
Council.
XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF POLICY FOR ENACTING A PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE
AND AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3.32 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (Continued from
the meetings of August 26, September 9, September 23, October 14, and October 28,
1999).
Mr. Diaz asked that this matter be continued to the first meeting in January.
Upon motion by Councilman Spiegel, second by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson, and unanimous vote
of the Council, this matter was continued to the meeting of January 13, 2000.
B. CONSIDERATION OF SECONDARY ACCESS FOR VISTA PASEO PROJECT
(Continued from the meeting of November 18, 1999).
Upon motion by Councilman Spiegel, second by Councilmember Benson, and unanimous vote of
the Council, this matter was continued to the meeting of January 27, 2000.
42
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XII. OLD BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION, DENYING A PERMIT TO PARK AND STORE A 10'6"
HIGH BY 21' LONG RECREATIONAL VEHICLE IN THE FRONT YARD OF
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-500 FEATHER TRAIL Case No. RV 99-5
(Louis & Eva Conconi, Applicants/Appellants).
Mr. Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report, noting this was
previously before the Council at its meeting of October 28, 1999, with the Council
referring the matter back to the Architectural Review Commission to determine if any
other alternatives were feasible to screen the 10'6" vehicle. After visiting the site and
reconsidering its previous denial, the Architectural Review Commission reaffirmed its
decision, determining that there are no feasible alternatives to screen the vehicle. He said
any architectural screen would have to be higher than the house and would dwarf the
appearance of the residence and be out of character for the neighborhood. He said there
was no provision in the City's ordinance to grant an exception for this or any other type
of circumstance, and staff's recommendation was to reaffirm the decision of the
Architectural Review Commission and deny the request to park a recreational vehicle in
the front yard of the residence. He offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Crites asked if there was room along the west side of the house for storage of this
vehicle inasmuch as the residence to the west of this property was stepped up a level. Mr.
Alvarez responded that there was not room.
Mayor Crites asked if anyone in the audience wished to address this issue, and there was
no testimony offered.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Affirm the Architectural Review
Commission's decision, determining that there are no feasible alternatives to screen the recreational
vehicle that would be compatible with the residence and the neighborhood; 2) deny the request to park
a recreational vehicle in the front yard of the residence located at 73-500 Feather Trail. Motion was
seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by unanimous vote.
B. CONSIDERATION OF DESERT WILLOW GOLF RESORT CHARITABLE EVENTS
POLICY AND APPLICATION PROCESS.
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of the Golf
Course Committee and approve the new policy for authorizing charitable events at Desert Willow,
including the new application form. Motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried by
unanimous vote.
43
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. CONSIDERATION OF SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
Mayor Crites stated that this matter had been considered jointly with New Business Item A
and had been continued indefinitely until such time as a Study Session can be conducted
to resolve program criteria issues, leaving in place the Neighborhood Traffic Program that
currently exists.
D. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PLACEMENT
OF A BUS SHELTER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FRED WARING DRIVE BETWEEN
ACACIA STREET AND MONTEREY AVENUE (CONTRACT NOS. C16900 AND
C16910) (O. Michael Homme, Applicant) .
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that this had previously been before the
Council as part of the program to provide adequate bus shelters. He said this particular
shelter had considerable use by College of the Desert. He said staff had worked with
O. Michael Homme who was constructing the offices on that corner, but the agreement
had not gone through as fast as the construction of the shelter. He said staff's
recommendation was to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Mr. Homme
for the shelter that has already been constructed.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject agreements with
O. Michael Homme and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded by
Councilmember Benson and carried by unanimous vote.
E. CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY OPENINGS OF DELAWARE PLACE AND
ROBIN ROAD FOR THE DURATION OF WASHINGTON STREET
CONSTRUCTION.
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that the various construction activity on
Washington Street had affected commercial developments and institutions on both sides
of the street. He said staff was particularly concerned about the situation as it affects
residents and businesses of Palm Desert along the west side. As a result, certain actions
had taken place, including an agreement whereby the gate at the Tucson Homes
development will be open from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. each day for Robin Road access
for residents who live in that gated community. He said in talking to a former chair of the
Project Area 4 Committee, he was advised that the volume of traffic on that street has
dropped. He said staffs recommendation was that Council concur with keeping that gate
opened for those same hours until the construction on Washington Street is complete.
He said another situation brought to staff's attention was the temporary opening of the
barricade on Delaware Place west of Washington Street. He said the owners of the Tot
Stop had met with the Mayor, City Manager, and other staff members to look at the
impacts of the construction on this business. He said the whole intent of getting this
44
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
project done on Washington Street was to provide three lanes in each direction as well as
medians with u-turn slots. He added that requests had also been received from residents
of the apartments to do something at Mountain View, which was never intended to be
opened, and staff would like Council to consider this as well. He noted that a survey had
been done with regard to the temporary opening of Delaware Place, with notices being
sent to everyone along Delaware. As initially reported in the staff report, 80% of those
who had responded said no; however, as of this meeting, 18 responses had been received,
with 6 saying yes and 12 saying no. Those from Delaware who said yes expressed
concern with speed and safety and asked for enforcement so that vehicles using it would
not travel down the road at high rates of speed.
Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Folkers responded that the Washington Street
project should be completed by the middle or end of January.
Upon question by Mayor Crites relative to Mountain View, Mr. Folkers responded that
the residents of the apartments had indicated it was very difficult to get into and out of
their complex because of the median being closed and the left turn pocket that used to be
there being closed.
Mayor Crites invited testimony from the audience. The following individuals spoke in
FAVOR:
MR. ROBERT CRAVEN, Palm Desert Learning Tree, 42-675 Washington Street, stated
that over the last 17 years, a considerable number of parents had made left turns onto
Washington Street from the school, and to date there had not been any accidents. He said
he felt the median would provide some additional safety; however, in looking at this
temporary measure, he said he would also suggest that Council look at it as a long-term
measure as well. He said there had been two accidents in front of the school since
construction had begun. He noted there were about 60 vehicles making left turns out of
the facility alone, not counting the Tot Stop, St. John's Lutheran Church, Palm Desert
Palms apartments, and Kerrigan Medical Group, which had 12,000 active patients and
over 100 cars going into and out of there on a regular basis. He said they were in favor
of this temporary measure.
The following spoke in OPPOSITION to the temporary openings:
MR. BILL FARQUHAR, 77-705 Delaware Place, said opening this back up would
provide another cut -through for service vehicles which fly down that street, and this would
create another hazard down on Warner Trail. He said he felt it would be wise from a
safety standpoint to keep the street closed. As far as the Tot Stop, he said people could
come down Delaware, stop at the barrier, and walk their kids in to the facility.
45
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Crites asked if Mr. Farquhar had any objection, then, to people using Delaware as
a place to go to the end, stop their vehicles, walk their kids to the Tot Stop, etc., and
Mr. Farquhar said he had no objection and that this would be safer for them.
MS. JOYCE FRISCO, 77-575 Robin Road, said she was the past Chairman of the Project
Area 4 Committee mentioned previously by Mr. Folkers. She said with regard to Robin
Road, the gate at the end of the street was opened up, and none of the residents knew
about it. She said her first recommendation was that next time it is allowed to be opened,
the residents should be made aware of it. She said the understood why it was necessary
to open the gate, and they wanted to be good neighbors; however, they wanted to make
sure this was only a temporary measure and that it would be closed again as soon as
possible. She said their main concern was that if some other emergency comes up, the
residents should contacted before it is done again. There was some concern that now that
the street has been opened, it could be opened again when the tennis tournament starts and
there is major congestion on Washington. She said the gate was never intended for that
purpose. She added that they were also concerned about speeds and safety on the street.
MS. BRENDA SCARCELLA, 77-576 Delaware Place, expressed concern with safety of
children on the street, especially since there are no sidewalks. She also expressed concern
with speeds. She noted that the plans showed there would not be cuts for left turns for the
Tot Stop and several of the other businesses along Washington Street. She said opening
Delaware would mean vehicles would end up on Warner Trail, and there are many school
children traveling that area several times a day, which could create a safety hazard for
those children.
Mayor Crites asked if Ms. Scarcella would concur with her neighbor that it is not a
problem having people using Delaware to park by the barricade to take their kids to the
Tot Stop, and she said this was currently being done and did not pose a problem.
MR. MIKE KOCOUR, 77-640 Robin Road, stated that the Tucson gate was for
emergency access only, for emergency vehicles. He said contractors, pool contractors,
gardeners, etc. were not emergency vehicles. He said he wanted to be assured that this
would not be opened again for things like the tennis tournament, the Bob Hope Classic,
etc. He agreed with Ms. Frisco that the residents should have been notified of this by
phone, flier, etc. He commended the Sheriff's Department for all of their work on Warner
Trail but said something needed to be done there, and going out Tucson gate and turning
right would put more of a burden on Warner Trail for those going to Interstate 10. He
said he had checked the gates at many times, including 4:30 a.m., 8:00 p.m., and
midnight, and they were not locked. He said he felt a letter needed to go to the
Homeowners Association, if it was remaining open for any longer, that the residents
needed to slow down on the street.
46
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Folkers stated that according to John Driscoll, President of the Tucson Homes
Homeowners Association, they were supposed to be closed at 8:00 p.m. and opened at
6:00 a.m.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that these streets had been closed for some time, and
everyone had become used to the fact that they are closed. He said to open them up
temporarily would create an inordinate amount of dishevelment. He said he was a member
of the Planning Commission when it was decided to close Robin Road. He said there were
schools on Warner Trail as well, and he felt the Council would be creating a political
nightmare for itself, not to mention the public safety threat, by opening these streets for
five weeks and then closing them again. He said he felt things should be left as they are.
Concerns of the Tot Stop could be accommodated without arousing the concerns of a great
many more people.
Councilman Kelly agreed.
Councilmember Benson stated that although she and Councilman Crites had used the area
by the barricade at Delaware to park and look at the area, she did not feel it was
acceptable, and she would be in favor of opening it up during the construction on
Washington Street. She added that when this was first being considered, it was only to
open Delaware, not Robin Road.
Councilman Spiegel stated that he had no strong feelings one way or the other.
Mayor Crites stated that this was inconvenient for people with the construction. He said
if there was no option aside from Washington for people at the Tot Stop, he would be
willing to open Delaware for a month; however, anyone wishing to avoid Washington
Street could drive down Delaware, park under the tamarisk trees by the barricade, and take
a two -minute walk into the Tot Stop. He expressed concern that opening Delaware would
be used as a convenience for an enormous number of people hurrying to get somewhere.
He said he would concur with Councilmen Ferguson and Kelly as long as the availability
of parking at the end of Delaware remains for people to use.
Councilman Spiegel concurred with Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson and said it made sense to
not open the streets if they are going to be closed again in less than a month and a half.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, leave Delaware Place closed and leave the
Robin Road situation as it currently exists, closed. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson
and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember Benson voting NO.
On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Crites presented a gift to Ms. Joyce Frisco
in appreciation of her service as a member of the Project Area 4 Committee, noting that
47
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
the Council had wanted to make this presentation to her in September but that she was not
able to attend the meeting.
Upon question by Mayor Crites relative to future review of Mountain View, Mr. Folkers
stated that it was staff s feeling that prior to consideration of any permanent openings, the
construction of Washington Street should be completed and the traffic stabilized. He said
the recommendation was to consider this some time in April or later.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that he had also heard from a lot of people who live on
Mountain View that they were not going to oppose opening Delaware because they were
afraid if they did oppose it, the City would open Mountain View.
XIII. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION
A. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies
Mr. Diaz stated that there was no report for this item at this time.
2. Progress Report on Desert Willow Clubhouse Facility
Mr. David Yrigoyen, Redevelopment Agency Manager reviewed the progress of
the Clubhouse, noting that the roof was complete and that the paving should be
done in about two weeks. He stated that the furnishings and fixtures for the pro
shop were expected to come in the following week. He noted a construction
meeting had been scheduled for December 17th at 8:30 a.m., with the schedule to
be reviewed at that time.
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS LISTED ON AN AGENDA ADDENDUM POSTED 72
HOURS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.
3. Update on Traffic Signal project at Casbah and Hovley Lane East
Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that this signal was originally
scheduled for Fiscal Year 2000/2001. He said Councilman Spiegel and City
Manager had met with representatives of the area and, based on their concerns,
recommended that the signal be moved up to this fiscal year.
Councilman Spiegel added that Oasis Country Club was paying a percentage of the
signal, as was Indian Ridge Country Club.
48
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL. MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Kelly expressed concern that something needs to be done for the whole
area, including Kansas and Oasis Club Drive.
Mr. Folkers responded that there were funds set aside in next year's budget. He
said there had been some initial contact with the City of Indian Wells relative to
the east -bound lanes to the west of this area.
Councilman Spiegel stated that this was already in the five-year plan, and residents
came to the Section 4 Committee and asked that it be moved up one year.
B. CITY MANAGER
None
C. CITY ATTORNEY
Prior to adjourning to Closed Session, Mr. Erwin asked that the following be given
Council's consideration of adding to Closed Session:
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a):
a) City of Palm Desert v. Mary English Lloyd and Juan M. Armenta, Riverside
County Superior Court Case No. 006499
b) City of Palm Desert v. Juan M. Armenta, et al., Riverside County Superior Court
Case No. INC 014067
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b):
Number of potential cases: 1
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant potential to initiate litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(c):
Number of potential cases: 1
1) Request for Closed Session:
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING WAS LISTED ON AN AGENDA ADDENDUM POSTED 72 HOURS
PRIOR TO THIS MEETING:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:
49
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1) Property: 100± acres = West of Palm Valley Channel - South of Painters Path
- Palm Desert, CA
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Phil Drell/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: G. George Fox
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a):
a) Eddie Ahmad Babai v. City of Palm Desert, Riverside County Superior Court Case
No. INC 013297
b) City of Palm Desert v. Nye, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case
No. INC 013370
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b):
Number of potential cases: 2
Conference regarding Public Employment pursuant to Government Code Section 54957:
Title of Position: City Manager
2) Report and Action on Items from Closed Session Made at This Meeting.
None
D. CITY CLERK
None
E. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
1. Consideration of the Creation of Scenic Bicycle Trails with Identification
Signage (Councilman Richard S. Kelly).
Councilman Kelly reported that the committee would continue to work on
establishing a bicycle route that can be promoted and for which a brochure
can be printed.
50
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel added that the Promotion Committee should come up
with a brochure for this, and Councilman Kelly agreed.
2. Consideration of Bus Shelter Program (Councilman Richard S. Kelly).
Councilman Kelly stated he felt there was opportunity for the City to work
with the Art In Public Places Commission on bus shelters at three locations:
Portola and Highway 111, San Pablo and Highway 111, and Highway 111
at Bakers Square. He asked for Council concurrence of these three sites.
Council concurred.
3. Reauest for Update Regarding Rotary Rock
(Councilman Richard S. Kelly).
Councilman Kelly stated that the cost for someone to have their name put
on the Rotary Rock was $500.00, and there was an agreement whereby half
of that money would come to the City, with Rotary keeping the other half.
He said because we almost waste the $250.00 trying to account for it, he
would recommend that the agreement be amended to allow Rotary Club to
keep the entire amount collected. Upon question by
Councilmember Benson relative to the location of the rock, Councilman
Kelly responded that it was in the Sister City Garden area.
Mayor Crites stated that he thought Rotary was going to do some things for
the Sister City Garden area.
Councilman Kelly stated that perhaps Rotary could use some of that money
to do something.
Mayor Crites asked that staff come back to the Council with a report on
what could be done in this regard.
Councilman Kelly suggested that staff work with the Rotary President to
see how some of the money that would have normally gone to the City
could be used to do something with the Sister City Garden area. He also
suggested that the Mayor talk to the Rotary President about this matter, and
Mayor Crites responded that he would do so.
o City Council Committee Reports:
1. Councilman Spiegel commended staff and the Civic Arts Committee for the
Holiday in the Park program this past Sunday. He said in past years, the
51
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
program consisted of different choirs. Relatives would attend the event,
and as soon as their choir performed, the people would leave. He noted a
contest had been held this year with children decorating their red wagons
and bringing them to the park. Santa Claus then arrived by helicopter, the
Mayor read to them, and the children then had their pictures taken on
Santa's lap. All the children also received a souvenir from the City. He
said everyone stayed, and this made the event a lot better than it had been
in the past.
2. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that he had the opportunity of filling in for
the Mayor at Washington Charter School for its first quarter honors and
effort awards. He said he had arrived at 8:45 and did not leave until 11:00
and handed out well over 200 awards just to fifth graders. He said it was
very heartwarming to see the students' parents in attendance and see the
excitement on the faces of the students. He added that everyone, from the
parents to the students to the teachers and staff, really welcomed the City's
participation in these awards.
3. Councilmember Benson stated that she and Councilman Spiegel had met
with staff from the Portola Community Center, as they do each quarter.
She said the Council could be thankful that the building is being used so
much by the community, and all the offices are rented. She added that
there had not been any problems with tenants or mixing up meetings, and
converting the old library building into this community center was a great
thing for the City to have done.
XIV. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION
Please see individual items for discussion and action.
XV. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. PRESENTATION TO THE GUSTAVO LINERAZ FAMILY, WELCOMING THEM TO
THEIR NEW HABITAT FOR HUMANITY PROPERTY AND TO THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT.
Ms. Teresa LaRocca, Housing Manager, introduced the Gustavo Lineraz family, noting
they were the successful buyers of a Habitat for Humanity home which was built in the
City of Palm Desert.
Mayor Crites stated that he had attended this family' s home opening and the presentation
of the keys to their home and was given the honor of presenting them with a key to the
52
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
City on behalf of the entire City Council. He said the Council was proud to have this
family as residents of the City of Palm Desert, and he welcomed them.
B. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE DESERT SANDS UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN COMM! Y !Et, FOR PALM DESERT HIGH
SCHOOL.
Mayor Crites stated that this required the appointment of two community members and two
members of the City Council as well as Mr. Alvarez of staff.
Councilman Spiegel stated he would volunteer to serve as a member of the Council and
recommended the appointment of Julie Munson, a member of the Parks & Recreation
Commission, as one of the community members. He noted that Ms. Munson had one
child in middle school and one at Washington Charter School.
Councilmember Benson stated she would recommend the appointment of Mark Wiener as
a community member as well because he had been involved with the school system all the
way through.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson recommended Jay McQuillan, Assistant Branch Manager of
Granite Construction Company, who has a son at Palm Desert High School and has been
very active in making suggestions as to things the City could and should do to make things
better there.
Mayor Crites suggested Gary Johnson as a candidate for the community member position
and said he was active in the local community and had young children who would be
attending Palm Desert High School in the future. He recommended that the two members
of the Council be appointed and that they then be allowed to select from among the four
individuals suggested for the community member positions.
Councilman Kelly moved to appoint Councilmembers Ferguson and Spiegel to serve as the two
City Council representatives, allowing them to make the selection of the two citizen members from those
suggested (Julie Munson, Mark Wiener, Jay McQuillan, and Gary Johnson), with Martin Alvarez to serve
as the staff member assigned to the Committee. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and
carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
53
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD
SENIOR OVERLAY, APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-7 (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL - SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE) TO PR-7 S.O. (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL - SENIOR OVERLAY), PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN/CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (INCLUDING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR THE THREE-STORY
PORTION), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO A PROPOSED 250-UNIT
CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY AND A COMMUNITY CENTER
BUILDING ON 10.3 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE, SOUTH
OF PARKVIEW DRIVE AT 72-755 PARKVIEW DRIVE Case Nos. GPA99-3. C/Z99-2.
PP/CUP 99-7. and DA 99-3 (Pearl Industries, Inc., Applicant) (Continued from the
meeting of October 14, 1999).
Mr. Steve Smith, Planning Manager, reviewed the staff report, noting the Council had
received a full set of the most recent plans in their packets. He stated this matter was
before Council at its meeting of October 14th, and since that time it had been revised
significantly and now proposed 250 residential retirement units and a community facility
on 10.3 acres. He said the 99-bed nursing facility had been removed from the plan. He
said the three-story sections had been reduced to 25 feet in height from 28 feet, measured
from the adjacent curb heights. The two-story units had been reduced from 17 feet to 15
feet, and the tower elements had been deleted. The community facility building had been
reduced from 42 feet to 28 feet, and 60 parking spaces had been deleted adjacent to
Fairhaven Drive and Parkview Drive in the area of the main entrance in favor of additional
landscaping. He noted the revised plans were before the Planning Commission at its
November 2nd and November 16th meetings, and the Commission recommended approval
4-1, with Commissioner Finerty voting no. Architectural Review Commission also
considered the revised plan on November 9th and granted preliminary approval of the
architecture. Since the October 14th Council meeting, the applicant and several area
residents had met several times in an attempt to resolve some of the remaining issues, and
the applicant offered to facilitate the improvement of two lots within the Palm Dell Estates
area. In addition, the residents presented Planning Commission with conditions that they
asked be imposed on the project. He noted the Planning Commission resolution included
two special conditions. One endorsed the list of conditions proposed by the residents, in
substance, provided they were not in conflict with the items specifically approved by the
Commission. The Commission also endorsed the matter of the applicant investing in two
homes in the community to remodel and improve them, provided the applicant could be
protected from residents in the area asking exorbitant prices. Since November 16th, staff
had reviewed the list of conditions and reworked them to try and make them consistent
with the project as recommended by Planning Commission and had discussed the matter
with the residents and the applicant. He said the applicant had indicated acceptance, but
it was his understanding the residents may ask for a few modifications relating to the berm
54
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and wall heights. He said the main access to the project was from Parkview Drive at the
east limit of the property. He said at the west end of the site on Parkview and at the north
end of Fairhaven Drive, gated emergency vehicle only access points would be provided.
He noted the Project Data chart on page 4 of the staff report and stated the figure for
above ground parking should be changed to reflect 55 spaces as opposed to the 108 listed
in the chart, so the total number of spaces would be 373, higher than the code required
amount of one per unit, or 250 spaces. He stated the project would comply with the
Senior Overlay intensity limit, with 462 persons, while the property size would permit up
to 515 persons. He reviewed the affordable housing requirement described on pages 5 and
6 of the report. He said there was a lot of area for landscape treatment, and staff felt it
was critical to get a quality landscape plan prepared and implemented in this area, and only
a conceptual plan had been at this point. He reviewed the traffic impacts, noting that
Council had received a copy of the traffic study in the packets. He said Council had also
been provided with recent correspondence from residents in Monterey Sands, and their
concerns had been outlined in the staff report on pages 9 and 10. He added that Council
had also received written comments from the Mayor of Rancho Mirage and from
D.F. Middleton, PhD. He said the Architectural Review Commission had granted
preliminary approval of the architecture, provided that the elevations, when drawn to a
larger scale, reflect the details contained in the latest rendering. He noted that the
landscape plan was deemed too conceptual to approve. For purposes of CEQA, staff was
recommending a negative declaration of environmental impact for certification. He added
that the operating conditions from the neighbors had been attached to City Council
Resolution 99-117 as Exhibit "B".
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that one of the original benefits touted to him was that
this would be a buffer between commercial and residential. He asked if there was
anything fronting Fred Waring.
Mr. Smith responded that four acres had been deleted from the plan.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that if he heard staff correctly, the City would get no
credit for low and moderate income housing units for this project. Housing Manager
Terre LaRocca agreed. Upon question by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson relative to
quadrupling the density, Mr. Smith responded that it was going from seven units per acre
to 24 units. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked what public reason there was for changing
the zone from its current zoning. Mr. Smith responded that the General Plan recognized
and encouraged the creation of senior housing in the City at various locations. Mayor Pro-
Tem asked whether that General Plan policy statement was sufficient in Mr. Smith's mind
to overcome all these planning concerns raised, such as having it adjacent to One Quail
Place and having two major high -density apartment complexes abut each other.
Mr. Smith agreed and said as noted in the staff report that the traffic was not equivalent
to similar 24-unit per acre regular residential and would be approximately one-third. He
55
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
said even though there was a higher number of units, there would not be a higher number
of people nor the impacts usually associated with a regular family development.
Mayor Crites asked what the analysis would be as far as number of trips per day that
would be generated if this were to be built out as residential, with the current zoning
versus this facility.
Mr. Smith responded that the zoning permitted seven units per acre, which would total
about 72 units, with 10.1 trips per day per single-family home, totaling approximately 720
trips per day. He said the City tries to impose an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size, and
this would mean about four units per acre, or 40 units total, and approximately 410 trips
per day. He said in its present configuration, the traffic study estimated approximately
829 trips per day.
Mayor Crites said one of the reasons this project was proposed to the City was because of
its location, with Sunbus access, near shopping, near the library, etc. He expressed
concern with not including affordable units and instead having the City take that money
and build affordable units elsewhere. He said he did not know another location that would
be as conveniently located and did not like the feel of this.
Mr. Smith stated that he felt this was a policy issue for the Council.
Mayor Crites asked whether the developer had offered to make those provisions, and
Mr. Smith answered no.
Upon question by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson relative to the General Plan policy regarding
senior housing, Mr. Drell responded that it was in the most recent revision of the housing
element in 1992 and was probably also contained in the original Palma Village plan which
was a genesis of the Senior Overlay. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that in 1984 the
median age was 68.7, and today the median age is 31.5. He asked if the General Plan had
been reviewed to see if that is still a policy that is applicable to the City of Palm Desert
as it is today. Mr. Drell responded that it had not been reviewed. Mayor Pro-Tem
Ferguson asked how this would affect the street closures in Palm Dell Estates. Mr. Smith
responded that the plan before the Council would not affect those street closures at all, and
the only access from Fairhaven would be an emergency access only at the north end of
Fairhaven.
Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited the applicant to make comments.
MR. CHARLIE SWEET, 43-708 Virginia Avenue, Palm Desert, stated that with regard
to the Mayor's concerns with these units being made available to only the wealthy, this
was not their intent, and they anticipated the units would sell for somewhere in the range
of $90,000 to $200,000. He said they would be market driven prices based on the cost,
56
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and the units would be sold at cost. He noted that most seniors who acquire these types
of units average the age of 72 to 77, and his statistics showed that typically this type of
buyer has a home paid for, no encumbrance or debt, retirement income, stocks, bonds,
etc., and these are moderate living seniors. He said there would be moderate, low
moderate, and high income seniors living in this facility. He added that there were 32,000
people living in the Coachella Valley full-time who were over the age of 65. He said they
had worked extensively with the neighborhood with regard to the operation of the facility
and had come up with a list of 28-32 items they had agreed to abide by. With regard to
the letter from the City of Rancho Mirage and the statement regarding the density and
mass of the building, he said this would be substantially the same mass and density as the
Hacienda de Monterey facility. He said the City of Rancho Mirage, unlike Palm Desert,
had no history of operating these types of facilities and had no history of a neighborhood
surrounding these types of facilities. He noted they had interviewed 59 residents, and they
were all asked the same questions as follows, with the responses:
1) Does Hacienda generate excessive or bothersome vehicular traffic? The answer
was no.
2) Does Hacienda produce any excessive noise at any time, day or night? All the
answers were no.
3) Has Hacienda produced any siren problems from ambulances? They all answered
no. One resident answered that he heard a siren once within two years, and it was
a siren on Monterey Avenue.
4) Do you know of any local neighborhoods complaining to each other or to the City
about Hacienda de Monterey? Every answer was no.
5) Has the density of Hacienda caused any negative effects on the neighbors? They
all answered no. He said people were asked if they knew whether 50 people lived
at Hacienda, 100 people, or 500, and they all said they did not have any idea, that
it was quiet.
6) Does Hacienda product odors of any sort bothersome to the area? They all replied
no except for one resident who was convinced they had a French chef.
7) Has Hacienda de Monterey reduced your property value and why? All 59 residents
said no, and most said absolutely not.
8) Do you know friends or family that may need to live at Hacienda de Monterey at
some point in their life and why? Most people said yes.
9) Is Hacienda a compatible use in your neighborhood? They all answered yes.
10) Are you pleased that Hacienda has no overall negative influences to your
neighborhood? They all responded yes.
He said they had gone to all measures possible to satisfy staff, neighbors, Architectural
Review Commission, and Planning Commission to make this a quality project and keep
it open market -wise to as many segments of the buying senior public as possible.
57
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked whether Mr. Sweet was still doing the same financing as
they had discussed and what age range they were marketing to.
MR. SWEET responded that it was their intention to do the same financing. He said the
State license was a minimum age of 62, and typically in this market the average age of the
buyer was between age 72 and 77.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated it was his understanding that when a person passes away,
a portion of the purchase price is given to the family, and the unit is then sold to someone
else. Mr. Sweet agreed. He asked Mr. Sweet what kind of turnover he had experienced
in ownership in other facilities if the life expectancy was somewhere in the late 70's for
both men and women, and the units are sold to people at an average age of 77.
MR. SWEET stated that this was referred to as the morbidity rate. He said typically
residents will come in at that age bracket, and statistically approximately 80 % are widows.
Once a project opens, it takes approximately four years for the morbidity rate to stabilize.
After the fourth to fifth year, there is a turnover of approximately 12% of the units per
annum per facility.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that it seems there will be fairly high turnover, with the
possibility of selling the unit every four years at an escalating purchase price, and he
would like to see some provision for more seniors who are stressed means -wise.
MR. SWEET responded that it did not quite work like that. He said with the first
generation of sales, all sale proceeds go to retire debt so that at completion and sellout, the
project is debt -free and remains debt -free. He said the residents were attracted to live in
a community that is debt -free, and there were millions of these types of facilities in the
United States that had gone bankrupt because they carried heavy debt. Another major
reason to go debt -free in the community was that it kept the units available and within
reach of the consumer at a market rate in any given financial period.
Councilman Spiegel asked whether in Mr. Sweet's experience many people had moved
into such a facility and decided after being there for a while that this was not what they
really wanted, and they moved out. He asked what happens to their money.
MR. SWEET responded that this was not an uncommon occurrence. Generally speaking,
he said if a resident moves in and within the first six or eight months or so decides to move
out, all of the money is refunded, and if it is over 12 months, the resident is rebated 90%
of the funds.
MR. DAVID MOREHEAD, Pearl Industries, stated they were not tied in to the sales
arrangement described by Mr. Sweet, and they planned to pursue the type of sale that has
worked in the past. He said when the project is ready to go to the market several years
58
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
from now, they will have to take into consideration the market of selling the units, what
the demographics are at that time, and the possibility that they may lease the units. He
said although Mr. Sweet described their preferred arrangement, it would be extremely
premature for them to say what they will charge and how it will be done as an absolute
fact since they do not know exactly how much this is going to cost.
With regard to leasing the units, Councilman Spiegel asked if they were suggesting
something like one-year leases and if the 62-year minimum age would be maintained.
MR. MOREHEAD responded that they would have to keep the 62-year minimum age per
the agreement, and he said he would imagine the leases would be one-year minimum, with
some provisions if the unfortunate happened and someone had to move out. Upon
question by Councilman Spiegel regarding the possibility of renting the units,
Mr. Morehead responded that they would most definitely do so. He added that they had
met with Housing Coordinator Terre LaRocca relative to allocating some of these units for
the low income, and it was her thought that the money that would be set aside for that in
this project would be better spent to get more coverage in other areas. He said they had
never been against setting aside units.
MR. BILL MOREHEAD, property owner in Palm Desert, resident of Los Angeles, stated
that the subsidy associated with building the units out the way it is, some $750,000,
equates to months of rent subsidy (something like 1,500 months of $500 per month subsidy
in rent) for individuals who may not be able to afford these same circumstances. He said
this was not a trivial number, and he wanted this to be noted because a number of low
income people will be helped this way.
Councilmember Benson stated that when Hacienda de Monterey opened, they did lease out
their units until they were gradually sold.
Mayor Crites invited testimony from the audience in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request.
The following spoke in FAVOR of the project:
MR. FERN STOUT, 37 Lake Shore, Rancho Mirage, stated there were many people in
his age category who would be needing senior housing, and they wanted to enjoy the
ambiance of the Palm Desert community and the high quality of life which it offers. He
said he believed this project would provide that. He said he felt the project would be an
asset to the City of Palm Desert and would provide income for the City as well. He said
this would be a place for seniors to live out their lives under much better conditions.
MR. JOE SCARNA, 72-840 San Juan Drive, Palm Desert, stated his home would be
impacted by this project. He said he felt the project would be a welcome addition to the
community. He said he met with Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson in his office, along with
59
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Judi Rogers and Nancy Singer, and he was adamantly opposed to the project at that time.
After meeting with the developers, he said he was even more opposed. However, he said
there was a key statement made by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson in his office that had him
thinking. First was whether it was good for the City, and second was his commitment as
a Councilman to redevelopment and upgrading the neighborhoods. He said he took that
to heart as he left the Councilman's office and came up with a plan he felt was viable and
presented it to the developer — that if the developer felt so strongly about the project and
that it would not affect the neighbors adversely as far as property values, beauty, etc., the
developer should invest money in the neighborhood; i.e., buy two homes and build them
up to the standard which Mr. and Mrs. Rogers have and which he has. He said several
homeowners were already upgrading and improving their homes, and he felt with that, and
with the idea of completely abandoning Fairhaven and cul-de-saccing the streets that go
into Fairhaven, property values will improve, and the environment in the neighborhood
would be much better. He added that with the berming and landscaping as proposed, the
neighbors would not be able to see the project and would only see beautiful landscaping.
He said with regard to the property being a buffer between and One Quail Place and his
neighborhood, he could not see where One Quail Place had been an issue in his
neighborhood, and he had not had any problems with the people living there. With regard
to traffic problems on Parkview, he said he felt the only thing needed was better lighting
and police enforcement. He added that he felt the project should move forward and that
the developer had done a great job in meeting with neighbors to mitigate their concerns.
He said he felt the project would be great investment into the neighborhood and would
motivate people to upgrade their homes and keep the neighborhood at the level that Palm
Desert expects.
The following spoke in OPPOSITION to the project:
MS. KATHLEEN HUDGINS, 72-799 Arboleda Drive, stated that many of her concerns
were mitigated when the skilled nursing facility portion of the project was eliminated. She
said while she welcomed senior housing, she could not support a three-story building next
door to her neighborhood. She said she had asked Mr. Morehead why it had to be a three-
story structure, and he advised it was needed in order to make a return on their investment.
She said her concern was whether this was the right project for a residential area if it has
to be that large to make a profit.
Councilmember Benson said she thought the project had been reduced to two stories.
MR. SWEET stated that the building started out at 33 feet and was brought down to 25
feet by dropping the grade of the land five feet. From curb, the two-story portion is 15
feet above the curb. He said the third story portion was set back 120 feet behind the curb
and was 25 feet above the curb or a foot above the 24 foot allowable.
60
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MS. JUDI ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive, said that whatever the Council decided
relative to this project would be a precedent -setting determination, and she hoped the
Council would consider all thoughts verbalized at this meeting. She said if it was
Council' s intent to vote in favor of the project, she hoped the members would allow the
possibility of reducing its size, create a formal committee of neighbors to follow this
project to completion and help maintain its integrity with the surrounding property owners,
and allow the residents to leave with some hope that culmination of this undertaking would
still allow them to live peacefully in a residential setting.
Mayor Crites asked Ms. Rogers to be more specific with regard to her comment about
reduction of size.
MS. ROGERS responded that she agreed with what many others have said relative to
whether we really need a third story.
Mayor Crites asked if her issue was about the number of stories or the height of the
building. She responded that rather than the number of stories or the height, it was the
density that she was concerned with, the mass of buildings, the number of people, the
number of units.
MS. NANCY SINGER, 6 Novato Terrace, Rancho Mirage, said she was a board member
of the Estates at Rancho Mirage and had given the Council a written document. She noted
that the Mayor of Rancho Mirage was primarily concerned with the massiveness of the
structure facing the City of Rancho Mirage. She said they were not opposed to senior
housing but questioned the need for another senior project in the Valley. With regard to
the comparison with Hacienda de Monterey, she said the residents in that area do not look
directly at the structure as the people on the Rancho Mirage side of Parkview will and as
the residents in the Palm Dell Estates area will. She said they were also concerned with
two large density projects being side by side and what kind of precedent this will set if the
Council gives exceptions to both height and density. She said although the traffic study
showed Parkview could accommodate the extra traffic, there was an issue that it is more
than just the residents of this new community who would be using Parkview, it would be
the round-the-clock staff using it as well. She said the problem with this is that most
people exceed the speed limit on Parkview, and they were concerned with the possibility
of a serious accident and had proposed several traffic mitigation measures such as left turn
lanes and collector lanes when exiting the project, etc. She added that the City of Rancho
Mirage had agreed to look into putting no parking signs on the Rancho Mirage side of
Parkview, just as they will be put in on the Palm Desert side. She urged the Council to
deny the project in the interest of the integrity of the neighborhood, but if the Council does
go ahead and approve the project, they would ask that the Council not grant the height
variance. They would also ask that senior overlay be limited so that there are not so many
people, and this would, therefore, reduce the size of the buildings. In addition, they
61
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
would ask that the 32 conditions presented by Mr. Smith in the staff report be amended
to include the eight that she put in her written correspondence to the Council.
MR. ROD MURPHY, 72-764 Arboleda, Palm Desert, said he was against the project as
presently proposed. He said it was a commercial project that exceeds set height and
density restrictions for the residential neighborhood; however, if all 32 of the conditions
proposed by the area residents were to be met by the developer, and the area residents
advisory committee is permitted a continuous and forceful voice during and after
construction, he could be swayed in favor of the project. He said one of the proposed
conditions was that Fairhaven be vacated in order to further keep the project an arms'
length from the adjoining residential area, with the developer to bear all costs involved;
however, the wording in the City Council resolution distributed costs among the developer
and surrounding homeowners. He said he did not feel the homeowners should have to
bear a portion of the cost so that the developer could obtain approval of the project. He
said if the project is approved, he felt the developer should bear all costs, including
undergrounding and relocation of all impacted utilities, and this would include existing
poles and wiring on Fairhaven.
Mayor Crites asked if Mr. Murphy was in favor of the abandonment and vacation of
Fairhaven, assuming that the project proponents are responsible for the costs thereof, and
Mr. Murphy agreed. Mayor Crites asked Mr. Murphy if he would be in favor of the
project as long as all 32 of the conditions in front of the Council as Exhibit "B" were
imposed.
MR. MURPHY responded that there had been some wording changes to the conditions the
Councilmembers currently have, and he would want to contest some of that wording.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Crites declared the public hearing closed and invited
comments from the Council.
Councilman Kelly asked why the homeowners would have to share in the cost of vacating
Fairhaven.
Mr. Smith responded that condition #26 on page 14 of Resolution 99-117 dealt with this
street vacation, but he did not see where it stated that the homeowners would have to help
pay for it.
Mayor Crites asked if it was Mr. Smith's understanding that Mr. Murphy's request was
what condition #26 had in it and how it differed from what Mr. Murphy requested.
Councilman Kelly stated that the City had closed Fairhaven, and anything it does in
relation to the closure should be the City' s responsibility, and there should be no cost to
the residents.
62
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Smith stated that this was his assumption as well. He said what condition #26 says
is that if the vacation occurs during their processing, they will account for it in their plans
and pay for their improvements, they being the developer.
Mayor Crites stated what the neighbors were requesting was not that the street be just
closed but that it be removed and turned into a cul-de-sac.
Councilman Kelly stated that if the City is going to close a street permanently, he felt it
was the City's responsibility to pay for it, and Councilman Spiegel agreed. Councilman
Kelly further stated he felt it should be done in such a way that it is done right and looks
decent, just as was done on Monterey Avenue. He said he felt the developer had really
gone above and beyond the call of duty in trying to mitigate all of the concerns, including
bringing the height down to 25 feet for a three-story building.
Councilmember Benson asked if a normal two-story building is usually higher than that.
Mr. Drell responded that two-story buildings constructed before 1984/85 were 30 feet, but
the two-story height was reduced in 1985/86 to 24 feet, and this would be one foot higher.
He said the typical setback for a 24-foot building in that zone would be 20 feet.
Councilman Kelly stated that density to him was related to use, and this type of facility
would not make as much an impact on the surrounding area as regular residential housing.
Councilmember Benson stated that a lot of the same fears had been expressed when
Hacienda de Monterey was being considered, and those fears had not been realized at that
facility. She said she had been personally involved in that facility over the years and had
never heard an ambulance come into that place. She said she felt this was a good location
for the project. She said a lot of people who moved in to Hacienda de Monterey came in
with cars and eventually sold them because they can get out and walk across to the
shopping center, etc. She said with regard to people from Rancho Mirage, the City of
Rancho Mirage knew Palm Desert was looking at this project long before the homes were
approved and built on the other side of Parkview, and she was not really concerned with
their concerns.
Councilman Spiegel stated this had been ongoing for the five years he had been on the City
Council. He said when this was first brought to him three years ago, he was not really
familiar with what Mr. Sweet was doing, and Mr. Sweet suggested looking at one or two
of the projects that would be emulated. He said he and Councilman Kelly traveled to
Hemet and saw the facilities there, and he was impressed. He also saw the facility in La
Jolla, which was completely different and was a high-rise. He said he was very impressed
with the quality of the facility, and there was no noise. While everyone liked wide open
spaces, he said unfortunately that area was going to be developed at some time or another,
and there could be a project that might affect property values. He said in his opinion, this
63
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
particular project would not affect property values in the neighborhood, and he felt it was
a fine project.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated he had met with Mr. Sweet on several occasions,
including recently when these revisions were made to the proposed facility. He said he
also met with some of the residents in the area, both Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert. He
said his comments were that it did not matter where it lived, you either had good planning
or you had bad planning. He said he had respect for the residents and the Mayor of
Rancho Mirage and also for residents of Palm Desert. He noted that he had told the
residents that the concerns of the residents were one of the many factors that he weighed
and balanced, including whether it was good for Palm Desert, whether it was good
planning, etc. He said he was personally looking for a transition between commercial and
residential. He added that as far as he was concerned, this was like shoving a square peg
into a round hole. For a city as wide open and accessible as Palm Desert to have two high
density units right next to each other did not make good sense to him, and he said he
would not be voting in favor of the project. He added that this was not for any lack of
diligence on the part of the developer and that it just did not make good planning sense to
him.
Mayor Crites stated that the project he had first seen some months ago was one he would
have been very quick to case a vote against because he felt it was inappropriate for that
space. The developer had since then made modifications to the project, and he said he was
amazed at how few people had spoken in opposition and how many of those speaking in
opposition were conditional. He disagreed with Councilmember Benson and said that the
City has looked at a dozen different things and all kinds of sites, including this one, but
that did not mean someone who purchases a home across the street should have known
what was being considered or that the Council should not be concerned for those citizens.
He said he would like to see the eight conditions from the residents in Rancho Mirage be
integrated into the conditions that are set forth in the resolution; if they are not integrated,
he said he would want to know why not. He said he had heard Mr. Murphy say that there
are a few minor wording modifications on some of the 32 conditions, and he would like
to have the developer and the neighbors have opportunity to finish that wording. He said
with regard to the vacation of Fairhaven, he felt there were issues as far as where the
property goes at the end of the street and whether the City of Palm Desert then has a strip
between the homeowners and this development that it must take care of, or if that strip of
property is given back to the individual homeowners along Fairhaven, or if it is something
that the project is partially responsible for maintaining, etc. He said he felt this was
something staff, the neighbors, and the developer needed to have time to work out. He
added that if he had to vote now, his vote would be against the project.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that Councilman Seman of Rancho Mirage had been
appointed to work with the City of Palm Desert on joint planning use issues, and if
additional time was to be allowed for those items to be worked out, he would like
64
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Seman to be consulted, nothing more than a gesture of goodwill by
Palm Desert to Rancho Mirage.
Councilman Spiegel moved to approve the project with the following amendments: 1) That staff,
the developer, and homeowners across Parkview work to integrate the eight items in the letter submitted
by Nancy Singer during this meeting into the project conditions; 2) that neighbors have the opportunity
to work with the Applicant on minor wording modifications for the 32 conditions in Exhibit "B"; and
3) that we figure out both responsibility for construction and long-term maintenance of whatever is done
on Fairhaven. Motion was seconded by Councilman Kelly.
Mr. Diaz stated that for a project of this size, he would not want the Council to approve
the resolutions "subject to" and would rather have all of the actual wording before the
Council for consideration.
Mr. Drell stated that there were two ordinances before the Council which require a second
reading. He suggested that the Council waive further reading and pass these two
ordinances to second reading and continue the resolutions for the precise plan and
conditional use permit which contain all those conditions. At second reading of the
ordinances, staff would have all of the other modifications as well.
Councilman Spiegel amended his motion to: 1) Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 931
to second reading, approving C/Z 99-2; 2) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 932 to second
reading, approving DA 99-3; continue to the meeting of January 13, 2000, Resolution Nos. 99-116 and
99-117 to incorporate the additional appropriate items identified in the Nancy Singer submittal, with
neighbors to work with the applicant to resolve minor wording modifications in the 32 existing conditions,
and that determination be made relative to the responsibilities for construction and long-term maintenance
of whatever is done on Fairhaven Drive. Councilman Kelly amended his second, and the motion carried
by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson voting NO.
MR. SWEET thanked the neighbors, the development team, and City staff for all of their
efforts on this project. He also thanked the Council for its consideration.
With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites called a recess of the meeting at 9:39 p.m. He
reconvened the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
B. PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL AB1600 DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE REPORT
(Continued from the meeting of November 18, 1999).
Mayor Crites noted that this public hearing was still open, and he invited testimony from
the audience. No testimony was offered.
Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this matter to the meeting of January 27, 2000. Motion
was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by unanimous vote.
65
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO THE NOVEMBER 2, 1999, PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT LOCATED AT 72-300
DINAH SHORE Case No. CUP 99-14 (RV's of Merritt, Applicant).
Mr. Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report, noting that the Planning
Commission on November 2, 1999, had approved the conditional use permit by a 4-1 vote,
with Commissioner Finerty voting no. He noted the three key conditions to the approval
as outlined in the report. He said parking was not an issue in this matter. He added that
letters had been received from two major tenants within the shopping center stipulating that
they had no concerns and welcomed the sales of RV's at this location. He said staff's
recommendation was that Council approve the Planning Commission decision.
Councilman Kelly asked whether the City would receive sales tax from the sales, and
Mr. Alvarez responded that sales tax would be applied to the City, which Mr. Ortega
affirmed.
Councilmember Benson asked why this was different from the rest of the center.
Mr. Ortega responded that in all cases, the City gets the sales tax, but there was another
agreement between the County and the Redevelopment Agency where the County receives
tax increment.
Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED
to this matter.
MR. MICHAEL SASSI, Sales Manager for RV's of Merritt, addressed the Council and
stated that his organization was the first full-time RV dealer in the Valley, and this was
their third year in the area. He noted that they did a little over $6 million in retail sales,
with over $8 million the second year.
Upon question by Councilman Kelly relative to the arrangement between this company and
the shopping center, Mr. Sassi responded that they were a tenant and would be leasing the
property for a total of six months.
Councilman Spiegel asked whether any used RV's were sold, and Mr. Sassi responded that
they did receive some trade-ins but their lot in Cathedral City was where a majority of
those are kept. He added that if a used RV is put into this center, it will be a newer model
because the clientele really prefer the more modern units.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that this company keeps operating under a series of
TUP's, and he asked if it was the company's goal to eventually open a permanent RV
66
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
dealership in Palm Desert. Mr. Sassi responded that was their plan and that they would
like to be around the Interstate 10/Monterey Avenue/Washington Street area.
MR. JOE WALTERS, Kansas City, KS, spoke as the owner of the property and offered
to answer any questions.
Councilman Kelly stated that if the Council approves this, it would be changing one of its
normal philosophies about what is allowed. He said plans were to start a bus connection
to Riverside Metrolink, and it was necessary to have a temporary park and ride area until
a permanent location is found in the Monterey/I-10 area where the buses would begin and
terminate. He asked if Mr. Walters would be willing to work with SunLine to allow the
use of a portion of the parking area for this purpose.
MR. WALTERS agreed and said approximately a month after they purchased the shopping
center, Home Base announced that it was closing its doors. He said there were several
shops that remained and had concerns about how far off the road they sit and the lack of
traffic because they had relied a lot on Home Base. He said last year they felt RV's of
Merritt being there helped their sales. He noted that although he was not opposed to
working with SunLine, he was not really sure what Councilman Kelly was talking about;
however, he said there was a lot of excess parking out there, and having cars out there
would not be a problem. He stated that they did not own the Home Base parking lot, and
that building was owned by an individual from Los Angeles. He said there were
reciprocal easements on it, and there were no problems with people parking on it. He said
the long-term goal was to finish developing the property and to try and find a user for the
Home Base building, and any traffic generated back there would help toward that purpose.
Upon question by Councilman Spiegel relative to ownership of the Costco lot, Mr. Walters
stated that the original developer sold off the three big buildings. He said he owned the
small parcels, the restaurant building in the front, and the small shops in the back. He said
there were four ownership groups in this center: Costco, Home Base, PetsMart, and
Taco Bell.
Mayor Crites expressed concern that the parking areas were "less than a credit" to the
community in terms of missing trees and plants, broken curbs, etc. He asked what kind
of active program the multiple owners had in terms of fixing all of that.
MR. WALTERS described plans that were being formulated to address that issue.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Crites declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked if there had been any operational issues or complaints or
adverse affects with regard to this tenant.
67
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Alvarez responded that there had not been any to staff's knowledge.
Councilmember Benson stated that she had called this matter up because she did not think
it was an appropriate use for that area. She said it opens the door and if someone else has
some empty space somewhere, they might decide they want to sell new pickup trucks, or
something like that, and park them out there. She said the Council heard today that the
City's Code Compliance Department spends almost 24 % of its time getting people to
comply with the City's recreational vehicle parking ordinance. She said the Council had
worked the last 15 years trying to get people to get the RV's out of their yards because
they are a blight to the neighborhoods, and for the City to allow the sale of these vehicles
at this center was like the pot calling the kettle black. She added that the Council, at this
meeting, had denied a gentleman the right to park his RV in his front yard. She said when
the City of Palm Desert was started, it was decided not to have any car dealerships in the
City, and to her this was opening the door to other things coming in. She added that she
did not feel just parking a bunch of RV's in a row was good for the City.
Councilman Spiegel stated that he had seen the RV' s at this location for the last couple of
years; however, it looked like a temporary situation, and there was a time for temporary
things to end. He said it did not make a lot of sense to him to have something that will
be temporary again for another five months because it's the season. He said from that
standpoint, he was not in favor of the conditional use permit.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated he agreed with a lot of Councilmember Benson's
comments; however, he said he felt it was unfortunate that the large majority of people
who go to the time and expense of building an RV garage, acquiring a recreational vehicle,
and properly using and storing it within the City of Palm Desert get stigmatized by people
who do not want to follow the ordinance, who can afford six -figure vehicles but cannot
afford two -figure improvements of their homes to screen them. He said he did not want
to punish people who legitimately use recreational vehicles. He agreed with Councilman
Spiegel that at some point there needs to be an end to it; however, he said the Applicant
had one season to operate, and he would be willing to give him another season to try and
get established here with the hope and clear understanding that he, at some point, would
permanently relocate to a site with improvements and facilities, etc.
Councilman Kelly stated that he felt anything the Council can do to help that area so that
they can survive and get some kind of return on their investment was a good thing. He
said beauty was in the eye of the beholder. He said he had owned an RV for 25 years,
loved to look at them, and loved to shop for them. He added that he felt this was a good
use of the area and was an opportunity to allow the people to get some kind of return on
their investment. He said he would be in favor of granting the permit.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 99-118 approving
CUP 99-14. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson.
68
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Crites stated that he realized the shopping center had difficulties, part of which was
because it had not been kept up and had fallen well below the standards of Palm Desert.
He said he agreed with Councilman Spiegel's comments about the temporary use;
however, given the start of this year's season, he said he would personally vote against the
long-term CUP but would vote for a six-month extension that would not be renewed in
order to give the owner an opportunity to look for a permanent place. He said he would
sincerely ask that whatever the profits are, that the owner look toward putting some of that
back in to making the center an aesthetically pleasing place for people to shop.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated the intent of his comments was that the Applicant be
allowed one more season, and then we get something permanent or it goes away.
Mayor Crites noted there was a motion on the floor for the staff recommendation.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated he noted in the staff report that the City does allow open
air sales within certain zones, and if that is a concern, he would suggest that the Zoning
Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) look at the ordinance to see if it needs revisions
that might satisfy future concerns.
Mr. Drell stated that the open air sales were allowed with a conditional use permit and
were not a permitted use.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that if there were certain categories of uses that the City
did not want to have the subject of open air sales, perhaps ZORC should look at it.
Mayor Crites called for the vote, and the motion was DEFEATED by a 2-3 vote, with Councilmen
Ferguson and Kelly voting YES, and Councilmembers Benson and Spiegel and Mayor Crites voting NO.
Mayor Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a six-month, non-renewable extension of the
current TUP for RV's of Merritt. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson and carried by a
4-1 vote, with Councilmember Benson voting NO.
Mayor Crites asked the property owner to leave his business card with the City Manager
and stated that it might be appropriate for the City's Landscape Manager to contact the
property owner to see if there is something that can be done to mitigate some of the
landscape concerns.
MR. WALTERS agreed that the landscaping was a problem and said he would be more
than happy to talk with the Landscape Manager about it.
69
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 9,1999
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XVII. ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Councilman Spiegel, second by Councilman Kelly, and unanimous vote of the
City Council, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 10:25 p.m. He reconvened the
meeting at 11:00 p.m. and immediately adjourned with no action announced from Closed Session.
ATTEST:
,/,?, i 2._rf ,
BUFORD A. CRITES, MAYOR
RACHELLE D. KLASSE , ACTING CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
70