HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-14MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ferguson convened the meeting at 4:03 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Jim Ferguson
III. INVOCATION - Councilmember Jean M. Benson
IV. ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilman Buford A. Crites arrived at 4:34 p.m.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Richard S. Kelly
Councilman Robert A. Spiegel
Mayor Jim Ferguson
Also Present:
Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
Sheila R. Gilligan, Asst. City Manager for Community Services/City Clerk
Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager for Development Services
Homer Croy, Director of Building & Safety
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Rachelle D. Klassen, Deputy City Clerk
With City Council concurrence, Mayor Ferguson suspended the Agenda at this point in order to
make a special presentation.
Mayor Ferguson stated that in 2000 the City of Palm Desert had two employees who marked their 25th
year of employment with the City. He went on to say that there would be a special dinner held for honoring
all employees on Saturday, December 16; however, one of the two 25-year employees, Linda Russell,
would be unable to attend. In honor of her years of service for the City, she was asked to come forward
at this meeting, and, on behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Ferguson presented her with 25 roses and
a diamond watch. Ms. Russell's current supervisor, City Manager Carlos Ortega, also commented on
Ms. Russell's tenure and expressed appreciation for her assistance as Secretary to the City Manager, a
position she'd held since 1984.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000,.*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
MR. GERALD POZEN, Director of Development, Animal Samaritans, 72-307 Ramon Road,
Thousand Palms, CA, expressed his organization's deep appreciation for the City's support of Animal
Samaritans' First Annual "Walk With the Animals" held in the Civic Center Park on November 4, 2000,
adding that it was very successful and the second annual event was greatly anticipated for 2001. Further,
he thanked the Council and staff for its continued support of their mission, specifically, the humane
education program. On behalf of the entire organization, Mr. Pozen presented a plaque to the City and t-
shirts, hats, and coffee mugs to each Councilmember as an expression of that appreciation.
MR. GREGGLINDQUIST, General Manager, Desert Willow Golf Resort, presented to the City Council,
on behalf of the participating teams and the Desert Willow staff, a framed commemorative poster of the
"Prestige at Palm Desert," an NCAA golf event held at Desert Willow in early November. He commented
on its great success and that 15 letters had been received from all the respective coaches of the university
teams participating in the event. As a result of this year's success, Desert Willow would again host Prestige
the same time in November 2001, in addition to the possibility that the NCAA would come to Desert
Willow with another proposal for a major championship. He acknowledged the City of Palm Desert's
$5,000 contribution (through its Promotion Committee) to the 2000 event.
Mayor Ferguson added that the Prestige was ten of the top universities in the United States that came to
play a golf tournament in Palm Desert, noting that he and Mayor Pro Tem Kelly had the chance to play with
the Yale team. He also extolled the success of the event, commenting that Kemper Sports and a number
of other schools' coaches facilitated it, with Northwestern as the 2000 winner.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of November 9, 2000, and November 23, 2000, and
the Adjourned Joint Meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of December 1, 2000.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,
49, 50, 51, 45PD Office Complex, 47 PD Office Complex, and 51PD Office Complex.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#4331 by Virginia Bragg, in the Amount of $2,718.
Rec: By Minute Motion, reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. CITY'S PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SUMMARY for the Month Ending October 31, 2000.
Rec: Receive and file.
E. CITY'S AUDITED FINANCIAL REPORTS for the FY Ending June 30, 2000.
Rec: Receive and file.
F. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION by French Dessert Company, for French
Corner Cafe, 72-423 Highway 111, Palm Desert.
Rec: Receive and file.
G. MINUTES of the City Committee and Commission Meetings.
1. Golf Course Committee Meeting of October 10, 2000.
2. Investment and Finance Committee Meeting of October 18, 2000.
3. Library Promotion Committee Meeting of October 11, 2000.
4. Public Safety Commission Meeting of October 18, 2000.
5. Recreational Facilities Corporation Meeting of August 15, 2000.
Rec: Receive and file.
H. REOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Dispose of Monthly Sales Tax Allocation Reports.
Removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held Over. Please see that
portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
I. RESOLUTION NO. 00-131 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, Setting Forth its Findings and Authorizing the Destruction of Files from the Department
of Building and Safety that Have Been Microfilmed (October 2000).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt.
J. REOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for the Citywide Tree Trimming
(Contract No. C18330, Project No. 588-01).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the subject
project.
3
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000l,,w
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .
11.,411
K. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of an Agreement for Implementation of Programs for the Community
Gardens (Contract No. C18340).
Removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held Over. Please see that
portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
L. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION of Agreement for Household Hazardous Waste Mobile Collection
Program (Contract No. C18350).
Removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held Over. Please see that
portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
M. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID FOR A DEDICATED NATURAL GAS VEHICLE.
Rec: By Minute Motion, award the bid for the purchase of a Honda Civic GX natural gas vehicle
to Scott Robinson Honda, Torrance, California, in the amount of $17,979.62.
N-1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of a 90-Day Extension to the SunLine Transit Agency Agreement for
Bus Shelter Advertising (Contract No. 00-489).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the 90-day extension of subject contract with SunLine Transit
Agency, Thousand Palms, California.
N-2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Continuance of the Approval of the FY 2001/02 Community
Development Block Grant Applications.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the continuance of the approval of FY 2001/02 Community
Block Grant Applications to January 11, 2001 City Council Meeting.
O. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Second Amendment to Lease Agreement with the Desert Sands
Unified School District (Contract No. C 16970).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the Second Amendment to Lease Agreement with Desert
Sands Unified School District for Olsen Field and Community Park, and authorize the
Mayor to execute same.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Negotiate with Kemper Sports Management for a
Management Contract for the Desert Willow Golf Resort.
Removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held Over. Please see that
portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
4
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Q-1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C16821 — Consolidated
Landscape Maintenance Area No. 5.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $13,800 to the subject
contract with Enviable Greens Inc., Palm Desert, California, for the additional public parks
at Washington Charter School and Palm Desert Country Club Neighborhood Park.
Q-2. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C17450 — Agreement for
Legal Services — Cable Television Franchise Transfer and Renewal.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $5,866.55 to the
subject contract with Richards, Watson & Gershon, Los Angeles, California, in order to
complete the cable television franchise transfer and renewal process; 2) approve the
expenditure of $4,633.45 which has been paid to the contract in excess of the original
authorization; 3) appropriate $10,500 from the Unobligated General Fund to Account
No. 110-4132-411-3090 for same.
Q-3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 and Acceptance of Work for No. C17830 —
Construction of the Palm Desert Community Garden (Project No. 597-00).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Oder No. 1 in the amount of $4,312.50 to the
subject contract with Dateland Construction Company, Coachella, California for additional
work necessary to complete the project; 2) accept the work as complete and authorize the
City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project.
R. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of the Fred Waring Drive Widening from San Pascual Avenue
to Deep Canyon Road.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Concur with staffs recommendation for the project schedule; 2)
approve the agreement with Overland Resources, Palm Desert, California, in the amount
of $22,500, plus $500 for reimbursement for right of way acquisition services for nine
parcels located on or adjacent to Fred Waring Drive (Contract No. C18380).
S-1. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Release Subdivision Improvement Securities for
Tract 27710-1 (The Reserve).
Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the subject subdivision improvements as complete and authorize
the City Clerk to release the related improvement securities.
5
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 200q„..
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
S-2. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 25296-7 (BIGHORN Development, LLC).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-132, approving Tract Map
No. 25296-7.
S-3. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 28575-3 (BIGHORN Development, LLC).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-133, approving Tract Map
No. 28575-3.
S-4. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Parcel Map 28780 (American Realty Trust, Inc.).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-134, approving Parcel Map 28780.
T. REOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Expend Grant Funds — U.S. Department of Justice Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant Program.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Concur with the recommendation of the Public Safety Commission
and approve the request for authorization to expend the subject grant funds for qualified
expenses in the amount of $40,168 ($36,526 Grant Funds plus $4,0158 matching City
funds); 2) authorize expenditure of the required 10%+ matching City funds in the amount
of $4,058 from the Police Contingency Fund for this purpose.
U-1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL -- Endorsement ofthe Palm Desert Games as sanctioned by the Senior
Olympics Committee.
Removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held Over. Please see that
portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
U-2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contribution to the 2001 "Desert Senior Inspiration Awards".
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve a contribution in the amount of $425 to sponsor a table
and contribute a gift to the 2001 Desert Senior Inspiration Awards; 2) select a Palm Desert
resident over the age of 75 years who personifies the ideals of this most worthwhile
program - funds available in the Unobligated General Fund.
U-3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL — Endorsement of Block Party Program.
Removed for separate consideration under Item VII, Consent Items Held Over. Please see that
portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
6
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
V-1. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL to Sponsor Legislation to Simplify the Government Code on
Commercial Paper.
Rec: By Minute Motion, direct staff to meet with Assemblyman Dave Kelly and Anthony
Gonsalves to begin the process of sponsoring legislation on behalf of the City of Palm
Desert in the next legislative session to simplify the Government Code on Commercial
Paper.
V-2. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL to Sponsor Legislation to Eliminate Duplicate Government Code
Sections.
Rec: By Minute Motion, direct staff to meeting with Assemblyman Dave Kelly and Anthony
Gonsalves to begin the process of sponsoring legislation on behalf of the City of Palm
Desert in the next legislative session to eliminate duplicate California Government Code
sections on authorized investments.
W. REOUEST FOR WAIVER of fees Associated with 2001 Cystic Fibrosis Foundation's "Great
Strides" Walk/Run .
Rec: By Minute Motion, waive fees associated with the subject walk/run scheduled to be held
on Saturday, April 28, 2001, at the Palm Desert Civic Center Park.
X. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL ofDismissal ofUnion Bank Capital Markets Group as Broker -Dealer.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Treasurer to dismiss Union Bank Capital markets
Group as broker -dealer for failing to submit required documents for annual re -qualification.
Y. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase a Satellite Telephone.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the appropriation of $5,455.77, including installation, from
the Unobligated General Fund Reserves (Account No. 110-4620-422-4040) for the
purchase of a satellite telephone and approve estimate revenue from EMA Grant of
$2,754.00.
Councilman Spiegel requested Items H, P, and U-1, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly asked that Items K and
L, and Mayor Ferguson asked that Item U-3 all be held over for separate discussion under Item VII -
Consent Items Held Over. Mayor Ferguson then stated for the record that he would abstain from the
Consent Calendar vote for Item N-1.
On a motion by Councilman Spiegel, second by Mayor Pro Tem Kelly, and 4-0 vote of the City Council
with Councilman Crites ABSENT, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented with
Mayor Ferguson ABSTAINING on Item N-1.
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
H. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Dispose of Monthly Sales Tax Allocation Reports.
In response to Councilman Spiegel's desire for more information with regard to the subject request,
Mr. Gibson said it was to destroy the monthly report provided by the State. He said staff actually
forwarded that report to MRC (Municipal Resource Consultants), even though MRC now received
the information directly. He went on to say the information from the State was useless to staff since
there was no address nor local business name provided (only corporate names). He added that the
MRC records were maintained; all the information provided therein was still available.
Mayor Ferguson questioned whether the records took up an inordinate amount of space.
Mr. Gibson further responded to Councilman Spiegel that MRC actually received the records on a
monthly basis, and they audited them. He went on to answer that other than doing another audit,
there was no way to check MRC's work.
Councilman Spiegel noted that since it had been working with MRC to monitor such information, the
City had saved a good deal of money (in excess of $2 million), and if the reports from the State'"'
weren't being used by City staff, he agreed with Mr. Gibson's recommendation.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the disposal of the Monthly Sales Tax
Allocation Reports. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote with Councilman
Crites ABSENT.
K. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of an Agreement for Implementation of Programs for the Community
Gardens (Contract No. C 18340).
Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Kelly, Councilman Spiegel said the $18,000 was to one person. He
went on to say that the City had agreed to $36,000 for the full first year, and then the program would
become self-sustaining. However, he said the Gardens didn't open until the fall, and the expenditures
amounted to $18,000; now another $18,000 was being requested in order to go through the spring
and get the program on its way, economically. In further response, he said the City would receive
a report at the end of the agreement's term.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Authorize the Mayor to execute subject Agreement
with the Community Gardens of the Coachella Valley, Bermuda Dunes, California; 2) appropriate $18,000 from
Account No. 110-4511-442-3910. Motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote with
Councilman Crites ABSENT.
8
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L. REOUEST FOR RATIFICATION ofAgreement for Household Hazardous Waste Mobile Collection
Program (Contract No. C18350).
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly said he wanted more information, as he thought such services were provided
in the waste contract and wondered how the subject agreement related thereto.
Mrs. Gilligan responded that the Household Hazardous Waste Round -up Station at Waste
Management would not open until next July. She said since the City had worked with the County
in the past, it was decided to continue with that program until July.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, ratify the City Manager's execution of the subject
Agreement with the County of Riverside through its Health Services Agency, Department of Environmental
Health, Hazardous Materials Management Division, for services performed in connection with the Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Program to be conducted in the City of Palm Desert throughout FY 2000/01 --
funds for this program are available in the Recycling Fund (236). Motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel
and carried by a 4-0 vote with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
P. REOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Negotiate with Kemper Sports Management for a
Management Contract for the Desert Willow Golf Resort.
In response to Councilman Spiegel's question, Mr. Ortega affirmed that the request was to negotiate
another five-year contract. Further responding, he said the issue of opening up the process to anyone
interested in bidding on it after the first five years was not addressed with Kemper when it was
awarded the present contract. However, he said before Kemper was named, a selection process was
conducted; there were several bidders, with three making the final cut, Kemper being the successful
one.
Councilman Spiegel asked whether it would be wise to open up the process to bidders again or stay
with Kemper. He recalled, relative to the City's waste contract, that five years ago when the City
renegotiated with Waste Management, it was obligated to negotiate with them first since that was
required in the current contract. He said the City made sure when that contract came due, which it
had recently, that it was not obligated to negotiate with any specific contractor but that it would be
open to anyone in the business.
Mr. Ortega stated that staff's recommendation to the Golf Course Committee, which administers the
current agreement that is scheduled to expire in October 2001, was that it would attempt to negotiate
an agreement with Kemper. He said as scheduled, there would be sufficient time to find another
contractor should agreement not be reached; if Council felt that staff should begin the open bidding
process now, it could do so.
Councilman Spiegel clarified that he wasn't suggesting staff look for others, he was just suggesting
that perhaps it should be opened to others.
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilmember Benson stated that the City had done similarly when advertising services were
performed on a contract basis; the people that had it had the right to apply, but it was reviewed
approximately every five years.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly said that considering the type of contract it was and the types of things being
built towards, he felt it would be extremely difficult, even detrimental, to change at this time.
Therefore, he suggested staff proceed to put something together, and if it continued to meet the
objectives that the City was trying to attain, that the Council would make that decision down the line.
Mayor Ferguson said he shared Councilman Spiegel's concern while at the same time understood
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly's point as a member ofthe Golf Course Committee. He desired the Committee
and its chair to make a threshold determination of whether the City should: 1) Negotiate exclusively
with Kemper; 2) open up for bidding; 3) consider taking over management as a City. He said that
recommendation should return to the Council; the residents would then know the City looked at all
of its options and decided to move forward as it did.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kelly, Mayor Ferguson said it would not have to be formal; if the
Committee returned and stated that it had looked at all three, here's what it wanted to do and why,
that would suffice.
Councilman Spiegel felt it really couldn't be decided tonight since all the components were unknown..
Upon question, Mr. Gibson stated there was an existing subcommittee that could consider the
aforementioned aspects.
Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this matter to the second meeting in January in order to receive
a report from the subcommittee regarding the pros/cons of: 1) Negotiating with the current contractor;
2) opening up the bidding process for the services; 3) City's taking over management of Desert Willow. Motion
was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
U-1. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL -- Endorsement ofthe Palm Desert Games as sanctioned by the Senior
Olympics Committee.
Councilman Spiegel stated that this item was for the first ever Palm Desert Senior Olympics; the event
had been held for the past many years in Palm Springs, and the City was fortunate to be able to move
it down Valley. He said Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District (CVR&PD) Executive Director
Don Martin, who was spearheading the event with his staff, was in attendance and would provide
more information to the Council.
MR. DON MARTIN, Executive Director, CVR&PD, said he was pleased to announce that the
Senior Games would be moving to Palm Desert, and he introduced CVR&PD Facilities Manager
Kevin Kalman who had been working very hard to make this happen.
10
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MR. KEVIN KALMAN, Facilities Supervisor, CVR&PD, reported the games had been in
Palm Springs for the past 13 years, and Palm Desert's Community Center had hosted some of them,
such as volleyball, for the past four years. He said it was learned that Palm Springs was no longer
going to host the games, which prompted him to meet with Mr. Martin and City staff to find out
whether there was interest in hosting the event. He said there had been much support and interest
from the community, as well as people from the outside who wished to visit and get back into the
swing of coming to the Valley in the winter for the games. He went on to say that events ranged
from track and field to golf and swimming, noting there were a number of agencies participating with
his organization in this endeavor. For instance, he said the track and field and swimming would be
held at Palm Desert High School, the 5- and 10-K run would be done by the Family YMCA in the
park, as would tennis; softball would be at the park and at Cook Street, with lawn bowling to be
hosted at the Joslyn Cove Senior Center.
Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, endorse the concept of the Palm Desert Games, a
regional event sanctioned by the Senior Olympics Committee, and support this event financially in an amount not
to exceed $20,000 -- funds available in the Unobligated General Fund. Motion was seconded by Councilman
Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
U-3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL — Endorsement of Block Party Program.
Mayor Ferguson noted that this item carried a recommendation from the Public Safety Commission,
and given the large number of residents in the audience, he felt it was a good opportunity for staff to
explain the program.
Community Affairs Specialist Pat Scully said that interest for this program had been expressed
throughout the community. As proposed, she said specific areas (not merely one block) would be
picked for beginning to bring programs to the community, such as crime prevention, Neighborhood
Watch, fire safety, emergency services, etc., with room for the program to grow as future needs were
identified by the various neighborhoods themselves. She commented that the overall goal would be
to bring the various segments of the community closer together while familiarizing them with their
public officials and available services; it would be conducted on a continuing basis in different areas
throughout the City.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Endorse the subject program and direct appropriate
staff to move forward in organizing and producing neighborhood block parties throughout the City of Palm
Desert; 2) make funding in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for FY 2000/01 - funds available in Account
No. 110-414-4416-3061. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote with
Councilman Crites ABSENT.
With Council concurrence, and due to the large number of persons in the audience specifically for
Old Business Item C and Public Hearings Item C, Mayor Ferguson suspended the Agenda at this
point in order to consider those items, respectively. Please see those portions of the Minutes for
discussion and action.
11
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
•
Mayor Ferguson reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
VIII. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 00-135 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A PILOT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE INITIATION OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY PETITION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE CONVERSION OF OVERHEAD UTILITY FACILITIES TO
UNDERGROUND LOCATIONS.
In response to Councilman Spiegel's inquiry, Special Projects Administrator Patrick Conlon said the
assistance program was a one-time opportunity. He noted it would all be initiated by residents; ifthey
wanted to form a future assessment district, it could be done, but they'd be excluded from the
program. He explained the reason for this was that a lot of money would be spent between the time
the petition came in and was certified and the time the Council adopted a resolution for formation of
the assessment district. Further, between that time and the time that ballots were issued to the
property owners for the final decision, the district would have to be engineered, legal requirements
would have to be met, and bids solicited for the work; it could be between $50,000-80,000.
Councilman Spiegel questioned when the resident found out exactly what it would cost because they
might turn down a ballot because they didn't know before the process was initiated and then be
excluded from the program.
Mr. Conlon said residents would find out before the ballots were sent out, they would be given a
magnitude of cost, but the final wouldn't be determined until after the engineering was done.
Mayor Ferguson explained that on the initial survey, it would be like a white report from the
Department of Real Estate that would give all the ranges and potential costs so that residents would
be aware that it would be significant. He said they'd have this before the City had a final cost. He
went on to describe that 70% of the residents had to agree to evaluate a "worst case scenario."
Councilmember Benson noted something similar was done with sewers previously.
Councilman Crites added that since a heavy investment of staff time and money was involved,
residents would be encouraged to be very serious before they signed up the first time, providing that
they'd be given an assessment range to go from.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-135. Motion
seconded by Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
12
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. RESOLUTION NO. 00-136 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDED APPENDIX
OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT
OF 1974.
Mr. Ortega noted the report within the packets, adding that the City Clerk's Office had requested the
inclusion of one position to the list of those designated.
Ms. Klassen stated the position would be that of "Traffic Signal Technician - ALL."
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-136, as amended to
include the position of "Traffic Signal Technician - ALL" to the Appendix list of Designated Positions. Motion
was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
IX. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
For Adoption:
None
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION/OBSERVATION SERVICES ON VARIOUS TRAFFIC
SIGNAL PROJECTS (Contract No. C183601.
In response to concern, Mr. Folkers reported that traffic signal technology was very involved and
technologically innovative. He said currently several signal projects were underway, and it was
necessary that the City have someone in the field to work with the contractors in providing inspection
and observation so that the signals were appropriately installed for proper operation afterward. He
went on to say this contractor had worked on other jobs, he had the qualifications and had done a
good job for the City previously. Therefore, in order to have traffic signals properly installed and
maintained, staff recommended to proceed with the subject contract.
Councilmember Benson asked whether this was related to having someone from Riverside being
called out to work on signals.
Mr. Folkers answered this was for the construction part of the signal. For maintenance, the City had
now brought on board a technician, which down the road may eliminate the need for future services
of the sort being requested in the subject contract.
13
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute a professional
services agreement with Jerry L. Hahs, P.E., Redlands, California, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the
subject services. Funds are available in Account No. 110-4250-433-3325. Motion was seconded by
Councilmember Benson and carried by 4-1 vote, with Councilman Spiegel voting NO.
B. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID FOR DESERT WILLOW GOLF RESORT GOLF CART
FLEET.
Responding to Councilmember Benson, Mr. Ortega said the previous golf carts were leased.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, award the bid to E-Z Go Division of Textron,
Inc., Augusta, Georgia, for the purchase of 80 new golf carts for the subject property for the net cost of
$249,062.88, and approve all required signatures for the purchase. Motion was seconded by Councilman Crites.
In answer to Councilman Spiegel about the life of a golf cart, Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly said
depending upon the desired appearance and condition, they could last as long as six years. However,
if they were to be in good condition, as the City liked to provide, and in consideration of the
Desert Willow greens fees charged, three years was probably a maximum.
Mr. Gibson added that one manufacturer provided a four-year warranty; the others were for three,
and after that the cost of repair would be borne by the City.
Mayor Ferguson called for the vote, and the motion carried unanimously.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY (JOINT
CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY).
Councilman/Member Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the City of Palm Desert's "Statement
of Investment Policy" for the Year 2001, as submitted by the City Treasurer. Motion was seconded by Mayor
Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Kelly.
Investment Manager Thomas Jeffrey responded to Councilman/Member Spiegel's question, stating
that the policy would be presented to the Investment & Finance Committee at its next meeting.
Councilman/Member Spiegel requested the motion be amended to state that the policy would be
approved subject to the approval of the Investment & Finance Committee.
Councilman/Member Crites agreed to amend his motion to state the approval would be subject to approval
of the Investment & Finance Committee. Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Kelly agreed to amend his second
of the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote.
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DECISION APPROVING THE RELOCATION OF THE BUILDINGS EAST WALL SIGN TO
THE EAST FASCIA, AN EASIER TO READ FONT TYPE, A NON -ILLUMINATED
PINEAPPLE SHAPED LOGO BOX, AND THE USE OF REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERS (i.e.
WHITE HALO LIT), INSTEAD OF THROUGH THE FACE, RED ILLUMINATED LETTERS
FOR HOSPITALITY DENTAL ASSOCIATES LOCATED AT 77-900 FRED WARING DRIVE
Case No. 00-86 SA (DGI Signs and Hospitality Dental Associates, Applicants).
Ms. Klassen reported that the Applicant had told her he could not stay for the meeting's being
reconvened at 7:00 p.m. Therefore, he had requested a continuance to the meeting ofJanuary 11,
2001.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, continue consideration of the subject appeal to the
Council's regular meeting ofJanuary 11, 2001. The motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried
unanimously.
E. PRESENTATION OF UPDATE ON STATUS OF MOUNT SAN JACINTO STATE PARK
GENERAL PLAN.
Mr. Ortega noted the Council had a report from the City Attorney, as had been requested.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the report. Motion was seconded by
Councilman Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL — ENDORSEMENT VALLEY WIDE MASSAGE ORDINANCE.
Business Support Manager Ruth Ann Moore affirmed Councilman Spiegel's summarization of the
matter in that City staff felt the concept was good; however, the draft ordinance didn't meet all of
Palm Desert's needs. Further, she emphasized that it would be returned to the Council prior to any
agreement that the City would enforce such a regulation.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Conceptually endorse the creation of uniform
requirements and standards for massage therapy which eliminates redundancy; 2) direct staff to provide City
Councilmember's and staffs concerns as they pertain to the Valley Wide Massage Ordinance to CVAG and the
Coachella Valley Spa Director's Association.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly stated it was being considered by a CVAG Committee, to which
Councilmember Benson was the liaison, and specific concerns should be forwarded to her. In
addition, he said one of the proposals suggested SunLine as the permit -issuing agency, and as a
representative to the committee there, he would have an opportunity to provide input, too.
Councilman Spiegel felt there were some problems, one being that a massage therapist could use their
home, and he couldn't support that.
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 20004pm
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ms. Moore said staff recommended that be taken out of the ordinance, and the Spa Association had
looked into the issue and was inclined to remove it, as well.
Mayor Ferguson said his comment for CVAG was that he was significantly concerned over what
separated massage therapy from construction or anything else where people would love to have a
Valley -wide ordinance and vest jurisdiction for its enforcement with another agency. However, he
was willing to let it be reviewed and have it come back, adding that he'd highlighted all the provisions
that were more relaxed than Palm Desert's standards— those drafted at ZORC by
Councilmember Benson and he as members.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly explained that for establishments, regulation would still be done by the
City, as was the case now. He said the subject ordinance would only cover a massage therapist who
might be working at different locations, acknowledging Mayor Ferguson's concerns. He said it
would be similar to how taxis were regulated so that they didn't have to obtain a permit in each city.
Councilman Crites felt that perhaps this was another example of how cities could do more things so
people didn't have to obtain seven different licenses and could be, if possible, regulated uniformly
through the Valley, providing it met our standards.
Mayor Ferguson disagreed, as he didn't feel regional government was the answer, noting that the City
had spent a long time separating massage from adult entertainment regulation to legitimize it, and he
felt a very good ordinance was the result. He was unwilling to see it watered down just because there
was trouble going from one city to the next.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly said he'd be very skeptical before voting yes, but he felt it was worth
reviewing and trying to cooperate.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Crites and carried on a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Ferguson
voting NO.
G. CONSIDERATION OF SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN POCKET FOR SILVER SPUR MOBILE
MANOR ENTRANCE ON SOUTHBOUND HIGHWAY 74.
Councilman Crites noted many Silver Spur residents were in attendance prior to the break.
Mr. Ortega said staff encouraged and recommended paying for the turn pocket.
Mayor Ferguson said the two people he spoke with who couldn't attend also asked that signage, both
north- and southbound on Highway 74, be included to alert motorists that the turn pocket was
approaching.
Mr. Folkers stated staff had been working with Caltrans and would try to work with them again to
get the signs.
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with staffs recommendation that the Palm Desert
Redevelopment Agency fund the subject improvement, further directing that staff work closely with Caltrans to
include signage that would indicate the presence ofthe turn pockets. Motion was seconded by Councilman Kelly
and carried by unanimous vote.
XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2000 (Continued
from the meeting of November 9, 2000).
Upon a motion by Councilman Spiegel, second by Councilmember Benson, and unanimous vote ofthe City
Council, the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of October 26, 2000, were approved as presented.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH
FRONTAGE ROAD WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 111 (Continued from the
meeting of November 9, 2000).
Upon inquiry by Councilman Spiegel whether this matter involved the inability oftrucks to access one
of the businesses since this was done, Mr. Folkers said the big trucks were no longer a problem, that
matter was taken care of during Closed Session by the relocation of that business.
Mr. Folkers went on to say that the developer and the City went through the planning process, the
City agreed to pay for certain things, and now the Applicant wished to receive reimbursement of
$26,479. He said staff felt that was appropriate and recommended approval. Responding to Mayor
Pro-Tempore Kelly and Councilman Spiegel, he explained that with the land switch, it resulted in a
net 339 square foot of right-of-way for the City as part of the process of redeveloping the subject
corner— providing the ability to widen Portola Avenue and Highway 111.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the reimbursement of $26,749 for superblock
modifications of the south frontage road west of Portola Avenue and Highway 111. Motion was seconded by
Councilmember Benson and carried by unanimous vote.
XII. OLD BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF INCLUDING DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE HOME
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY).
Councilman/Member Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, include owner -occupied duplex residential
properties as eligible properties in addition to currently eligible owner -occupied single-family residential
properties under the Home Improvement Program as part of Component 1. Emergency Grant Program,
Component 2. Rehabilitation Grant Program, Component 3. Matching Fund Program, and Components 4A, 4B,
4C. Rehabilitation Loan Programs. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Kelly and
carried by unanimous vote.
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
R
B. PRESENTATION OF STATUS REPORT OF THE PM10 MITIGATION EFFORTS - LARGE
SCALE DEVELOPMENTS PROJECTS.
Mr. Ortega explained that the City Council had earlier requested a report on how the City handled
the subject issue, noting report from the Public Works Director that was included in the packets.
Councilman Crites stated that as Chairman of CVAG's Energy & Environment Committee, he
attended the AQMD Air Quality Workshop approximately one week ago held in Thousand Palms.
He said the Marriott Shadow Ridge project was pointed out as an example of what could go wrong
in terms of large-scale, mass -grading projects. Of all the air quality complaints AQMD received
within a 12-month period, he said more than ten percent of the entire total for the entire South Coast
Air Quality Management District were received in regard to this one project in Palm Desert. In
retrospect, he said there were communication problems unknown at the decision -making level early
enough as to the extent of the problems and complaints by residents, and AQMD said it would work
with the City much more closely to make sure something like it didn't happen again. He
acknowledged one of the issues was that it was non -local project managers who were working on
the site, in addition to many other contributing factors. He cautioned that Palm Desert should make
every effort to ensure it does not again become the first area with a serious attainment problem.
Councilman Spiegel countered that earlier this week when he was on northern Monterey Avenue, he
felt as though it looked like half of Rancho Mirage was blowing into Palm Desert due to the strong
winds. He asked ifRancho Mirage needed to do something with its land to control the blowing sand.
Councilman Crites responded the data was fairly good that if the desert was not touched, PM10 could
stay in check except on "high wind/event" days, which were excluded from the calculations because
this was the desert. He added that Rancho Mirage had broken the crust along Monterey, and unless
that was remedied, there were problems. He pointed out that he was speaking on a Valley -wide
basis, noting that perhaps not as diligent a job had been done as was in the past. Further, he said
there were new remedies available, AQMD had promised to be more involved, and the BIA was in
the process of trying to figure out how it could contribute to or solely fund another AQMD inspector
for the Valley, which he took as a good sign.
Councilmember Benson inquired whether there was a way to monitor the situation through the
building permit process; if the construction schedule appeared to be in the "windy season," perhaps
it could somehow be delayed.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly said in fairness, most of the aforementioned complaints resulted on the
"event" days that weren't counted. Additionally, he believed even the undisturbed desert created a
lot ofPM10, citing his previous experience working out of a central office in Thousand Palms where
there was no construction going on, and it had to be dug out twice a year— the Coachella Valley
desert had been blowing and moving for hundreds of years. However, he agreed that the City needed
to do a good job when there was construction because that exacerbated the problem.
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Crites concurred, adding that construction was booming and was now occurring in places
that were the most likely to engender these problems.
Mayor Ferguson said he agreed with Councilmember Benson in questioning the reason for issuing
grading permits in the windiest part of the year and in the windiest part of the Valley.
Mr. Folkers commented that there were many points brought out, and from staff's standpoint, the
construction inspectors from Building & Safety and Public Works were trying to work with the
developers. Unfortunately in the Marriott situation, acknowledging Councilman Crites' earlier
comments, he said there was a situation that started off bad, the City tried to work with the Marriott,
and in hindsight, the issue should have been brought to Council's attention much sooner. He hoped
that sort of situation would never occur again, and staff was going to do everything within its power
to ensure it.
C. PRESENTATION OF STATUS REPORT ON THE HEARING WITH THE PALM DESERT
COUNTRY CLUB RESIDENTS.
Mr. Folkers reported that this matter was the result of an issue that had been ongoing for some time.
He explained that approximately one year ago, construction taking place on Washington Street was
causing problems for some of the residents in the area, mainly residents of the apartments. As a
result, he said Councilman Spiegel, the Chief of Police, some other concerned parties, and he went
out to meet with those residents and representatives of the school, which was followed by a series
of recommendations. One of those was removal of the barricades, as was opening up the gate at the
residential area that has frontage on some of the streets in that area. Unfortunately, he said that didn't
take place; but as a result of the concerns expressed, a series of further discussions took place. He
said ultimately, the item was taken to the Citizens' Advisory Committee for Project Area No. 4,
followed by the Council's requesting a study, of which the preliminary copy had just been presented
to them. He went on to say that as staff saw the situation, for the barricades on Mountain View and
Delaware, there were three options: 1) Leave the barricades exactly as they were, those immediately
west of Washington Street; 2) move the barricades further west to east of Warner Trail, thereby
reducing the traffic volumes by approximately 1,700 cars/day on Warner Trail; 3) relocate the
barricades west of Washington, slightly modifying their location in order for a cul de sac to be placed
that would provide sufficient room for fire apparatus, along with beautification of the site. Presently,
he said, in spite of the concerns held by residents of the other part of Palm Desert Country Club, staff
felt the barricades had reduced the amount of traffic through the area; the original paving of the
streets was done as part of a PM10 program to reduce dust. The program had worked; therefore,
staff felt the barricades should remain, and possibly the exact details could be presented to the
community as a whole or to those closest to it for input, returning that information to the Council.
He reiterated that the report had just been received from the consultant; he felt neither staff nor the
Council had a good opportunity to analyze the information.
Mayor Ferguson invited residents of the Delaware/Mountain View/Palm Desert Country Club area
who were in attendance to speak to the issue.
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 200(
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MS. CAROLYN WEBSTER, 77-800 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, stated she wanted the barricades
to be permanent, and she didn't want to have to come to City Hall every other year to fight the same
battle.
Note: Councilman Crites arrived at 4:34 p.m.
MR. RICK CLARK, 77-590 Mountain View, Palm Desert, believed staff had studied the issue and
had made the right decision.
MS. EMMA MONTES, 77-550 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, agreed with the two previous
individuals, saying she wanted the barricades to remain for safety and security. She added that she'd
like to see them be more aesthetically pleasing.
MR. DAVID POWERS, 42-995 Latisha Lane, Palm Desert, indicated his approval for making the
barricades permanent.
MS. DONNA LUCKEROTH, 77-555 Delaware, Palm Desert, conveyed her approval for permanent
barricades.
MS. DEBBIE MCNICOL, 77-665 Mountain View, Palm Desert, indicated approval for permanent
barricades.
MS. ESTHER ZAMORA stated she lived on the other side of the barricades and said due to their
placement and the island, it was necessary to make a u-turn to come back up the street. She asked
if the barricades could be moved up a bit further or if speed bumps could be implemented, noting her
parents were disabled and it was difficult to drive all the way around. Further, she said the fire
department recently had trouble getting to the other side due to the barricades in this area.
Additionally, she said her children attended Gerald Ford School, and they sometimes had to go all
the way around; the traffic was terrible there.
In light of the last comment, Mayor Ferguson said that the Council was just presented with the
consultant's report, which recommended permanent barricades with some minor alterations to
facilitate some of the concerns just raised. He said if the Council was so inclined, he felt residents'
input would be sought.
In response to Councilmember Benson's inquiry about photographs of some barricades,
Councilman Crites answered they were temporary barricades that he saw in the City of Gisborne,
New Zealand; however, they were equipped to be filled with water when more permanence was
desired. He didn't feel they were of the type that was desired in this instance. 0.0
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly felt that it had worked out well, staff recommended leaving the barricades, and
if it were fixed up to be aesthetically pleasing, he was in favor of it.
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve permanent closure of the named streets,
working with the residents to make the installation aesthetically pleasing. Motion was seconded by Councilman
Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
D. CONSIDERATION OF SPEED HUMPS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
Mr. Ortega noted the report and Public Safety Commission's recommendation against speed humps
on residential streets. However, he pointed out at the end of that report, the Project Area No. 4
Committee had understood why the Council may not want to adopt a policy, but asked for its
consideration of speed humps in the Palm Desert Country Club area.
MayorPro-Tempore Kelly said he'd heard at the Public Safety Commission meeting all ofthe reasons
that they were a bad thing on public streets. Along with that, he concurred because of his own bad
back.
Mayor Ferguson said he'd remembered approximately 12 reasons articulated for why they were a bad
idea.
Councilman Spiegel said he and Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly were the Council representatives to the
Project Area No. 4 Committee, and that body had asked that staff be present to discuss speed humps
at their January meeting. Therefore, he asked that the matter be continued to after that meeting.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly said it was important for the staff experts be present at that time. He
added that even as slow as you could go where there were speed humps, front-end vehicle
realignment would be necessary.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, continue the matter to the City Council Meeting of
January 25, 2001, following Project Area No. 4 Committee's consideration at its meeting of January 22, asking
that the Minutes from the Public Safety Commission's consideration of the matter be forwarded to the Project
Area No. 4 Committee for its review. Motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried by unanimous
vote.
XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies
Business Support Manager Ruth Ann Moore noted the report in the packets that discussed
Desert Crossing. She said since the report was submitted nine days ago, there were two
new announcements on El Paseo: 1) Le Chateau - European fashion store based in
Beverly Hills - would be opening in the former Illusions location near Highway 74; 2) Your
Wear - St. John - reopened their store, but they were also going to sign a lease on the
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Carl Martin location that they had used temporarily, in order to bring in their St. John
Home store.
Councilman Crites said along the lines of retail, he had a complaint registered with him
regarding the Palms to Pines East center. He said some of the roadway along and behind
Smoky's restaurant was in disrepair with large potholes. He understood that there was a
pending rehabilitation of the center; however, until that occurred, routine maintenance
should still be done.
Mr. Drell affirmed that potholes were still supposed to be filled.
Councilman Kelly questioned whether there were City regulations in place to ensure that
businesses maintained their property and that certain levels of maintenance were required
in order to prevent deterioration.
Mr. Drell noted that the subject center was approved before the City's incorporation;
however, the City had the ability to enforce such regulations under its
Property Maintenance Ordinance.
With Council concurrence, a full report on the status of the Palms to Pines East project was requested for
the Council's meeting of January 11, 2001.
11.,140
Councilman Crites added that there was the need for a gentle nudge to merchants with
awnings to ensure their upkeep, as well.
2. Commercial Space Inventory Survey Project
Councilman Spiegel congratulated staff for the subject report, as Palm Desert was one of
the few cities that provided such information. He noted the positive comments from
Realtors who greatly appreciated the effort.
Ms. Moore remarked that the report was mailed every two months to over 200 brokers/
site selectors, locally and nationally, and she felt the survey provided valuable feedback that
the information had been beneficial. She said part ofthe report, that which was disclosable,
was now on the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership's Web site, and it was hoped the
information could eventually be disseminated through the City's site, too. She commented
that there had already been success realized from the questions asked by those accessing
CVEP's site.
3 Magnesia Falls Drive Extension E.I.R. Status
Mr. Folkers stated copies of the report were received this afternoon just prior to the
Council meeting, and copies would be provided to each Councilmember, as well as
appropriate agencies for the comment period. He said copies would also be available at
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
the Planning and Public Works Departments for citizens to view. He explained that when
the information was sent to staff on November 10, it indicated taking it to the Council for
the second meeting in February; however, based on the report, it was now planned for the
first meeting in March.
Responding to Councilman Spiegel's question about how residents of Monterey Country
Club would know the information was available, Mr. Folkers said a copy had been sent to
the property owners' association today or would be tomorrow. Further, he said staff
would be contacting all of the people to notify them the information was available.
4. Purchase of Fleet Vehicle
Mayor Ferguson noted the report that was provided.
B. CITY MANAGER
With great pleasure, Mr. Folkers introduced Mr. Homer Croy as the City's new Director of
Building and Safety.
C. CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Erwin requested a continuance of Closed Session following the close of the regular session. He
asked for the addition of another item of real property negotiation to Closed Session consideration:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:
1) Property: Located east of Cook Street, north of Dinah Shore Drive
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: American Realty Trust
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
Councilman Spiegel moved to add the aforementioned property negotiation to Closed Session at this
meeting. Motion was seconded by Mayor Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
1) Request for Closed Session:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:
1) Property: APN 640-080-008 (Booster Station)
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
23
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 14, 2000 „.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2) Property: 72-840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Westfield Corporation
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
3) Property: 44-536 Portola Avenue (APN 625-062-001)
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David Yrigoyen/Lauri Aylaian/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Jerome M. Beauvais
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
4) Property: APN 622-200-07
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David Yrigoyen/Lauri Aylaian/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Danilo Sipovac
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
5) Property: APN 622-200-011
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David Yrigoyen/Lauri Aylaian/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Caterina A. Foucrier
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
6) Property: APN 622-200-012
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David Yrigoyen/Lauri Aylaian/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Russell J. Prechtl
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
7) Property: APN 622-200-015 and 622-200-016
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David Yrigoyen/Lauri Aylaian/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Michael O. Hendricks Sr.
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
8) Property: APN 622-200-017
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David Yrigoyen/Lauri Aylaian/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Mark A. & Sarah Glassman
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
rio
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9) Property: APN 622-200-018 & 622-200-019
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David Yrigoyen/Lauri Aylaian/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Coachella Valley Water District
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms ofPayment
10) Property: APN 622-200-060
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David Yrigoyen/Lauri Aylaian/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Joseph William Tatchell
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms ofPayment
11) Property: APN 624-200-002
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David Yrigoyen/Lauri Aylaian/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Alberto A. Loza
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms ofPayment
12) Property: APN 630-250-003, 630-250-022
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Phil Drell
Property Owner: Patricia J. Ebaugh
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms ofPayment
13) Property: APN 630-250-047, 630-250-048, and 630-250-049
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Phil Drell
Property Owner: Jack S. Keshtkar
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
14) Property: APN 625-100-036
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Phil Drell
Property Owner: American Stores Property, Inc.
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms ofPayment
15) Property: APN 627-101-002, 627-101-017, 627-101-033,
627-101-038, and 627-107-039
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Phil Drell
Property Owner: Herbert and Jane Boeckmann
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
16) Property: APN 620-370-018, and 620-370-019
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Phil Drell
Property Owner: Bishop Trust
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
17) Property: APN 622-150-008 (18.64 acres m/l - NE quarter of
Section 17 T5SR6E)
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega
Property Owner: Ray VanAlstein
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
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant tc
Government Code Section 54956.9(b): ,d8
Number of potential cases: 5
Public Employment pursuant to Government Code Section 54957:
Titles of Positions: City Manager
2) Report and Action on Items from Closed Session Made at This Meeting.
Please see the announcement made at meeting's adjournment.
D. CITY CLERK
Ms. Klassen confirmed that the City Council intended to convene for the purpose of making
appointments to the various committees and commissions on December 29, 2000, at 9:00 a.m.
E. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
1. Consideration ofProclamation Declaring December 15, 2000, as "Bill ofRights Day'
in the City of Palm Desert (Mayor Jim Ferguson).
MR. JAMES LEWIS, 43-210 Silktree Lane, Palm Desert, said he'd written the
Council to request their approval of the subject proclamation. He believed due to
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
recent developments that had brought to light specific foundations of the United
States Constitution, he believed it would be appropriate to honor and declare support
for the Bill of Rights, which had already been done by the State as well as several
other California and national cities. He provided background regarding passage of
the Bill of Rights and their ratification on December 15, 1789, stressing the
significance of the establishment of individuals' rights and the connection to our
country's form of government. He urged Council's approval of his request
proclaiming December 15 as "Bill of Rights Day."
Upon inquiry by the City Council, Mr. Lewis said the proposed proclamation was in
honor of an annual event.
On a motion by Councilman Crites, second by Councilman Spiegel, and unanimous vote of the
City Council, the Mayor was authorized to proclaim December 15, 2000, as "Bill of Rights Day" in the City of
Palm Desert.
2. Consideration of Proposed Regulation of Smoking (Mayor Jim Ferguson).
Mayor Ferguson stated there was a memorandum from the City Attorney on this
subject. He said Councilmember Benson and he had been discussing the issue that
began as regulation of smoking at the Skate Park; it was frequented by youth and was
felt they should not to have to walk through teenage or other smokers to enjoy a
public facility. He went on to say this led them to notice the amphitheater, which
hosted concerts and movies, and a desire for a smoke -free environment by several
residents, as well as a number of City employees and visitors that wanted to walk into
and out of the City without being in a cloud of smoke. He noted that the City
Attorney stated in his report that other cities had begun to look at such regulation.
He was drawn to the issue as a former smoker and a newspaper article from
Sacramento that showed California went from one of the highest smoking per capita
rates in the United States down to 49th simply by embarking on a public advertising
campaign through the Department of Health Services that discouraged people from
smoking. While he didn't want to make pariahs out of smokers, he wanted them to
be courteous to those who didn't smoke; the request was for his colleagues to
consider drafting an ordinance to enact such regulation in Palm Desert.
Councilmember Benson noted along with this, the American Lung Association was
going to provide pictures of Palm Desert stores with blatant displays of tobacco. She
wondered if regulation of where those displays were located could be incorporated
into such an ordinance.
Mr. Erwin responded it could be. He added that since this memo was provided to
Council, he'd seen some other ordinances, including those provided by
Councilmember Benson from the National League ofCities Conference, which he felt
27
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
would strengthen the City's ordinance. He hoped to provide this at the Council's first
meeting in January.
With Council concurrence, staffwas directed to continue to explore the issues surrounding such regulation,
including that which regulates tobacco display, returning to the Council with an ordinance for introduction.
o City Council Committee Reports:
1. Councilman Spiegel stated the December 12, 2000, trip for staff and Council to
SunLine was very worthwhile. He suggested those colleagues who hadn't been able
to go do so to see what that agency had done with fuel cell technology, adding he
believed one of the smartest things the City had done was turn the program over to
SunLine. He could see of no better way to correct pollution in the Coachella Valley
than through fuel cells.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly said he'd driven a fuel cell car in the Golf Cart Parade last
month. He went on to say the first 20 fuel cell buses to be manufactured would come
on line two years from now, and SunLine was scheduled to receive 10 of the 20,
Oakland would receive the other 10. He agreed that the infrastructure where SunLinee"
was manufacturing its own hydrogen to run the bus was something to be seen.
2. Councilman Spiegel reported that the City had received a request from Desert Sands
Unified School District to endorse its request for a $9 million grant from the Federal
Government for an International Baccalaureate Program for kindergarten through
middle school. He noted they already had one in the high school; there were three
baccalaureate programs in the United States for lower schools, and Desert Sands
would like to have the fourth one. He said there were currently 40 Palm Desert
students attending the International Baccalaureate Program at La Quinta High School,
they wished to bring the program to the Valley, and while he wasn't sure which
school would be the host, he was certain it would be open to Palm Desert residents.
He said the District had asked for an endorsement from Palm Desert, signed by the
Mayor, to participate.
With Council concurrence, authorized the Mayor to provide such a letter of endorsement that was needed
by the School District by December 18.
3 . Councilmember Benson stated that when she and Mrs. Gilligan attended the National
League of Cities Conference in Boston, she attended a youth conference, noting that
a number of cities that had a committee or commission made up of youth only. She.
felt it was something that should be explored by Palm Desert, adding that the other
cities gave the youth commission official standing the same as any other legislative
entity. She said there were over 200 young people attending from various parts of the -
country, they had their own sessions at the National League, and of those she heard
speak, they were very articulate and interested in their communities. She thought it
28
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
would be an excellent way to bring up youth into local government, and she urged
Palm Desert's exploration of such an idea.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission was
looking into a youth center. He said in Lodi students actually ran a quasi -
governmental body like the City Council; they were charged with handling youth
delinquency and like problems, assessing fines, etc. He explained that after being
judged by their peers, if they chose not to abide by the ruling, then they were sent
through the standing judicial process. He believed Lodi's model should be given
serious consideration for the proposed youth center.
Councilman Spiegel commented that the Parks and Recreation Commission was
working with Palm Desert High School students to develop a plan for the teen center.
He said there should be a memo to each Councilmember today providing an update
on the matter. He pointed out that it was the teens that were planning it and not the
Parks and Recreation Commission.
4. Mayor Ferguson reported that he, Councilman Crites, Planning Director Phil Drell,
and Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck walked the City's
22 acres west of the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches. He said it was about one
year ago that negotiations were begun for buying the property for the purpose of
facilitating wintertime hiking because of recent enactments by Fish & Game and the
BLM with respect to bighorn sheep. He said after their walking the area, there were
some very simple things that could be done to allow people to make use of it this
year, including the parking area, etc. He asked that the City be in a position to do
something this year, because if not done quickly, it would be another year before
benefits would be realized.
Councilman Crites thought the first order of business should be to figure out how to
recognize Messrs. Adams and Homme, saying he thought he had a photo sent to him
by Mr. Homme that might work. Secondly, he felt Congresswoman Bono should be
approached about getting a sign that alerted visitors that they were now inside the
United States' only Congressionally -approved, BLM/Forest Service National
Monument. Further, he and Mayor Ferguson discovered, if the land purchase was
made for trail right-of-way, an excellent location for a casita about 100 feet up off the
Valley floor (an abandoned home site) that would provide one ofthe most spectacular
views of the Coachella Valley he'd ever seen. Lastly, he acknowledged Mayor Pro-
Tempore Kelly's aversion to the use of date palm logs, even as temporary boundary
markers; however, Mayor Ferguson had found about a linear mile's worth of free
palm logs. Given that they witnessed someone off-roading in a pick-up truck while
they were there, he believed something that placed a physical barricade to somewhat
control such use and that which would delineate the temporary parking area would
be of value to the citizens. Therefore, in the interest of obtaining the palm logs that
29
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
were offered, he requested consideration be placed on this meeting's agenda for
action.
Mayor Ferguson commented that the casitalpad idea came about after his discussion
with some homeowners there who complained that people went up there to see the
view of the Valley. He felt they should be able to see such a view without
encroaching on other people's privacy, the City had land that was within a five-minute
walk of that view, it was open to the public and away from private property. He said
the Adams and Homme Families facilitated acquisition of the property by the City at
a substantial savings to the City, and he felt it would only be appropriate to honor
those gentlemen in their lifetime to enjoy the fruits of their efforts. Additionally, he
felt the City had committed itself morally to providing some overflow parking in that
area, which could be easily delineated, whatever the material, before the season began.
Councilmember Benson moved to add to this agenda consideration of accepting the donation of palm logs
for delineating the parking area at the Homme/Adams park land. Motion was seconded by Councilman Crites
and carried by unanimous vote.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize acceptance of the donation of palm logs,""`"
working with stafffor appropriate placement of same so as to delineate a generalized parking area for people and
trail head and also to assist in combating trespass problems, further directing appropriate City staffto create some
marketing information that alerts residents of the existence of the trail system and to encourage its use. Motion
was seconded by Councilmember Benson.
Councilman Crites noted for the record that he'd checked with Messrs. Drell and
Winklepleck and confirmed that the aforementioned requests were consistent with the
objectives of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Councilman Spiegel commented that perhaps the neighbors in the area were unaware
of the City's plans, and he suggested letting them know.
Councilman Crites stated marking the boundaries would be necessary eventually,
anyway, no matter what was to be done on the interior.
The motion carried by unanimous vote.
XIV. COMPLETION OF HELD OVER ITEMS
Please see individual items considered following the break at 5:55 p.m.
30
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XV. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. PRESENTATION TO SHIRLEY EISLEBEN IN RECOGNITION OF HER SERVICE TO THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT AS VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR OF THE PALM DESERT
LIBRARY.
Ms. Eisleben was unable to attend due to the fact that she'd already moved to Vancouver,
Washington. Her engraved, crystal clock would be shipped to her new home along with a letter from
the Mayor expressing the City's appreciation.
B. APPOINTMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Mayor Ferguson noted this matter would be on the agenda for the Council's Meeting of
December 29, 2000, at 9:00 a.m.
XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
APPROVING A REQUEST BY MOBIL OIL CORPORATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN
EXISTING PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MOBIL GAS STATION,
CONVENIENCE STORE, INCLUDING BEER AND WINE SALE FOR OFF -SITE
CONSUMPTION, AND DRIVE-THRU CAR WASH ON 1.58 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 36-650 COOK STREET Case No.
CUP 00-06 Amendinu PP/CUP 96-10 (Mobil Oil Corporation and Urrutia Architects, Applicants)
(Continued from the meetings of August 24, September 14, September 28, and October 26, 2000).
Mayor Ferguson noted that the Applicant and his architect had requested a continuation to the
City Council Meeting of April 26, 2001.
Councilman Spiegel moved to continue the matter to the City Council Meeting of April 26, 2001. Motion
was seconded by Councilman Crites and carried by unanimous vote.
31
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 106
ACRES INTO SEVEN LOTS (TT 29428) AND APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
FOR THE HILTON CONFERENCE CENTER INCLUDING 250 SUITES, A 64,250 SQUARE
FOOT CONFERENCE CENTER, PARKING STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
AND A HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR THE CONFERENCE CENTER BUILDING, ALL
LOCATED ON LOT 2, TT 29528, A 16.86 ACRE SITE AT THE NORTHEAST END OF
DESERT WILLOW DRIVE, 39-000 DESERT WILLOW DRIVE Case Nos. PP/CUP 00-09 and
TT 29529 (Desert Willow Conference Center, LLC, and Mainiero, Smith & Associates, Inc.,
Applicants) (Continued from the meetings of September 14, and October 26, 2000).
Key
JF Jim Ferguson, Mayor
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor Pro-Tempore
RS Robert Sonnenblick, representative of Desert Willow Conference Center, LLC
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
HP Henry Prego, Montecito resident
PM Pat Mitchell, Montecito resident
GF Gary Foye, Montecito resident
SAN Reid Sanford, Montecito resident
DF Donna Foye, Montecito resident
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
DY David Yrigoyen, Redevelopment Agency Manager
JMB Jean M. Benson, Councilmember
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, Deputy City Clerk
JF Next item. Consideration of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 106 acres into seven
lots and approval of a precise plan of design for the Hilton Conference Center, including 250 suites,
a 74,250 square foot conference center, parking structure, and accessory structures, and a height
exception for the conference center building, all located on Lot 2, etc., etc., etc. May we have a staff
report?
PD Again, you have the report. Again, if you want to ask questions or you want me to go
through...basically, this...the issues of the design and certain mitigating features of the design of the
conference hotel relative to the...
BAC Mr. Drell. With the audience, it might be a good one to go...
(Audience) Speak up, speak up, please.
PD Various issues have been suggested and discussed over the various hearings relative to mitigating
view impacts of the buildings facing east, also issues regarding the adequacy of on -site parking during
32
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
special events within Desert Willow. And thirdly, the Council requested a better idea of the overall
design and plan for both hotels. These three issues were brought to the Desert Willow Committee
for discussion and recommendation, and I'll start with the first one, which is the issues of alternatives
for mitigating view impacts. And one of the issues, suggestions that came up at the last hearing, was
to lower the height of at least two units, which was the plan— the second and third from the top,
facing east, two buildings to one story, and replacing those 16 lost units with some...either an
additional unit placed along the west boundary. After looking at the various alternatives, the
Applicant came back and said the only feasible location to place an additional building was at the
southwest portion, encroaching into what is called the "tournament lawn" next to the clubhouse.
Upon looking at that, the Desert Willow Committee felt that the tournament lawn was an important
design feature of the project; they felt it was definitely a loss to the design of Desert Willow and the
clubhouse amenities if it lost that tournament lawn. At the meeting, it was suggested that the same
goal could be accomplished if, instead of adding an additional unit, two units, two buildings, located
directly behind the conference meeting building, which is in the center of the project and is already
considerably higher than the rest of the project. Those would be the third and fourth buildings,
measured...counted from the bottom, that increasing those to three stories would not have a
detrimental effect since they're the farthest distance from the Montecito homeowners, and that view
would already be blocked by the conference building. And that increasing those to three stories,
those two buildings to three stories, would compensate for the lost 16 units, and the Desert Willow
Committee made that recommendation. The idea was forwarded to the Applicant and his architect,
who felt that while it was probably more feasible, economically, than most of the other solutions that
have been suggested, architecturally, they felt that there would have to be modifications to the design
since the architecture was done in the science of two stories, and the separation of buildings went to
the design of two stories, and that he felt that the current design was not appropriate. Planning staffs
position on that issue is that given all the other options we have, that that solution should be pursued.
It, economically, is within the range of, again, considering other sorts of situations we've had in terms
of accommodating impacts on local residents, that this was a reasonable solution. And, again, the
Applicant and the Redevelopment staff can provide their own input. Second issue was (I'm not sure
we have the plan up today with the parking lots), but the final study back from the traffic consultant
on parking, basically, concurred with all of the staff's earlier assessment that there would be a need
for overflow parking, given special events; their analysis actually identified a greater need than we
had in terms of all three facilities, of 400 units, but concurred with us that at least, initially, we should
first look at existing facilities we have that could accommodate those. And the map there behind
Mr. Kelly, Councilman Kelly, shows locations of existing parking facilities— one next to the academy,
one down across from Intrawest that they built for their own overflow, which they no longer need
on our property. Also location on the 19 acres, and that the conclusion was that those existing
facilities were all expandable to accommodate, at the time we had the meeting, 300 units, 300 parking
spaces, but they'd also be expandable for 400 parking spaces. And that they are, the objective is,
initially, to not necessarily to spend the money on permanent spaces until we can assess really what
the real demands are, because we don't want, necessarily, to have huge seas ofparking unnecessarily,
which might not be necessary. So in talking to Kemper relative to the logistics of ferrying, and
basically these lots would be used for employees— basically during these major events, all the
employees would be directed to park at one of these lots, leaving the totality of the on -site lots for
customers and guests of the various events. And that logistically, these sites were acceptable, and
33
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4
we have existing golf cart routes which would allow the ferrying back of employees. So they have
to satisfy that we have a solution which has to be, then, defined, but the opportunity is there and
available. Lastly, we have a site plan that shows the entire plan, the relationship between the
proposed conference hotel and the yet -to -be -submitted luxury resort. The recommendation given to
the Applicant was to pursue that which implements the design solution of a one-story/three-story
view mitigation.
JF Questions for staff. Mr. Crites.
BAC Remind me, we, in part, got into this view issue because our pad...what we have now is about two
to ten foot higher than what we started with years ago.
PD No. It was two to ten foot higher than the natural contour of the dune at that location.
BAC Thank you. That's...all right. And our ordinance is 24 feet, right?
PD Correct.
BAC So would it not be more proper to say that these three-story units would not be taller than the
proposed taller conference center, which is in excess of our ordinance.
PD That is correct.
BAC Okay. And which we have not approved.
PD That is correct.
BAC Was discussion also given to simply eliminating 16 units?
PD Yes...that's one...that's an issue you can take up with the Applicant.
BAC I'm not._.I'm taking it up with you.
PD I do not believe so, that was discussed at Desert Willow. Dave...the Redevelopment Agency, in
essence, to my recollection, it was not discussed.
BAC Okay, so that's an option we haven't even talked about.
PD Correct.
BAC Okay. And then the other one, where I see a parking structure up here, it's the sort of beigey-yellow,
just to the right of the circle out there.
JF On the Regent.
34
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PD On the luxury hotel, yes. Oh, that one, yes.
BAC Do we plan to build a parking structure there?
PD Yes, and the elevations for it are directly behind you.
BAC So that the first thing that someone, then, sees as they approach the clubhouse area is the long side
of a parking structure?
PD There is...if you look at the landscape plan...
BAC No, you're driving up, you're seeing the long side of a parking structure.
JF No, if you remember the... and this takes knowledge of the golf course, and I don't know ifPhil plays
golf, but if you look at the green of that hole, it is significantly higher than the spine road coming up,
and this is tucked behind a berm...
BAC So you won't see the parking structure?
JF Not hardly at all.
RSK Do you see that...well, you do, you...
BAC Okay, and that's why I'm asking.
RSK Well, if you drive in there right now, you'd see the sixth fairway, or fifth fairway, and the green, and
it has a real high berm along behind it...must be...looks like it's maybe almost 20 feet above the level
of the green.
JF Yeah.
RSK And so for you to see through that and see or be attracted to anything besides that would be very...I
just don't think it will happen.
BAC So we won't see it, in essence.
RSK I don't think you'll see it.
BAC Okay. Thank you.
JF Other questions for staff? Seeing none, this is a public hearing. I will, as is our custom, open it by
asking the Applicant to speak, then I will ask members of the audience to speak, and provide the
Applicant with a brief period to correct any statements of fact that he believes need correction at the
end. Mr. Sonnenblick.
35
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RS Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. Mr. Drell gave, I think, a very good overview
of what's gone on in the last month or so since we've all been together last. There were some very
specific directives that Council had given ourselves and staff. And to be very specific, what you have
in front of you deals with the first issue that I think was a major issue, per the Mayor's request, which
is now the entire resort project, not just a conference center or a resort and a clubhouse-- everything,
per renderings that you've all received, are totally linked both operationally and, maybe more
importantly, architecturally. Everything is all the same exterior materials, interior materials,
landscaping plans, access, and things like that. So per your request that has, in fact, been done, and
were someone driving up the drive coming in off of Country Club, you would see (upon completion)
the conference center, the clubhouse, and the resort. And to their eyes, it is all one, cohesive unit,
as opposed to fragmented, like we had discussed before. So that has been implemented per your
request. The second issue Mr. Drell talked about is the parking issues. We received a copy of the
Walker Parking Study that the City did commission, have had a chance to review it, and we are, in
fact, in agreement with it. It identifies that the current clubhouse is under parked, which is everything
that we've all talked about and have acknowledged, and it deals with, again, on the aerial photo over
Councilman Kelly's shoulder, it does talk about the three surface lots, and we are in agreement that,
in terms of our operations, any one of those three, per the Council's choosing, will work for us,
operationally and can easily be implemented through shuttle bus use. And we don't have any problem
with the findings of the study and the conclusions that Mr. Drell made reference to. The third issue,'
which I think is maybe more pertinent to all of you and certainly to our guests here tonight, deals with
the height issues and the views from Montecito, and maybe let's all focus on that very clearly. One-,-,
of the things that was brought up was, as you all know, the original proposal that we had before you
was a straight two-story set of villas. The part that exceeded the 24-foot height limit that was
brought up before dealt with a part of the conference center building itself, the spine of it where we
wanted a nice high ceiling kind of galleria going the long way through that building. It's not the villas
that are above the 24, just for the record, and should Council determine that, "Gee, we really want
to stick to that 24 and don't want to put any kind of variance for that open air area," we can, in fact,
take it down to the 24. I mean there were some spires and things like that that were over the 24—
they were mainly architectural, aesthetic things, nothing to cause us any problems. So should you
in your discussions decide, "Hey, stick to the 24 on that," it's something we can do. My architects
will be a little bit less happy, aesthetically, but nonetheless, it's easily doable. I only mention it
because you brought it up. On the more specific issue of the day, the two story versus the three and
the one, as I have said publicly and still do maintain today, our position as developer is we do not
have any problem making the changes that were discussed, in terms of going from a straight two-
story to taking two of the units, two of the villas, and changing them to one-story and three-story.
Again, the one-story being on the easterly side, facing Montecito, the two, three-story villas being
on the westerly side, facing the golf course. You've received a breakdown of cost on that. There
is, however, one major issue that Mr. Drell did make reference to in his report, and kind of gets
dropped onto your lap, and so let's discuss that for a second, if you would. And that is EIR issues.
As you are all aware, the approved EIR limits us to two stories. By doing the one-story/three-story,
and again, I want to make it very clear, our position is we are neutral as to what you all decide. I'm
dropping responsibility into your lap here, guys, I apologize, but...when you do the one-story/three-..
story, you, technically, may run afoul of the EIR two-story height limitation, and that causes us,
36
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
potentially, some issues between us. I just want to make sure that the Council has got its eyes open
and is aware.
JF Just come right out and say it.
RS Okay.
JF You're dancing all around it.
RS Well, yeah, all right. The bottom line to it is if someone decides that they want to hold the project
up and file lawsuits and can easily point to the fact, "Oh, guys, the EIR says two-story," your Council
or staff may say, "Oh, that's not a material change, we're not worried about that." But somebody
else coming in can potentially hold this thing up in court, potentially hold this thing up in court for
years, and maybe force a judge to decide that issue. It also makes another issue between us. In our
agreement, that our approved agreement, we have agreed to indemnify the City in the event of
lawsuits like that. But that was based upon a design that fit, that we all knew fit inside the EIR. I
want to make it clear that if we go outside of that envelope, I'm willing to do it, but our
indemnifications to you go out the window because now you're potentially talking about hundreds
of thousands of dollars in legal fees and costs to you for studies and things like that. So I just want
to be honest and up front with the City, and you're the guys that make the financial decisions, that
you are potentially opening up an issue that may cause you problem and many years' time delay on
this. And I just want you to...you know, that's your choice, I just want everybody's eyes opened so
everybody, together, knows what's going on in terms of that. Maybe Mr. Drell wants to comment
on that issue for a second.
PD Again, if we have that concern, we can go through the process of an addendum, which does not have
to be re -circulated, you just have to notice it...
(Audience) Can't hear, can't hear.
PD Oh. Okay.
RS You want to come up here for a second.
PD Again, we can go through the process of an addendum, which does not have to be re -circulated to
all of the people to say this is what we're doing, this is the change, as to why the change, we do it,
we notice it as part of our public notice, and then we approve an addendum. And, again, what I
mentioned before is that there must be a controversy concerning whether an impact is adverse. If
those folks who are generating the controversy are in favor of the...basically, this is a mitigation
measure, and we're given a mitigation measure, and we do an addendum that identifies it, and we go
through the process of an addendum, and folks who are likely to raise a controversy are in favor of
the addendum, then we'll find out, and if it's adopted, then we're, you know...but, basically, we can
do that in 30-45 days.
37
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a
JF Anything else, Mr. Sonnenblick?
RS No. Other than that one issue, we are prepared and ready to move forward with the project as
discussed and...
JF Okay.
RS ...look forward to whatever the City might say.
JF Any questions for Mr. Sonnenblick?
RAS I have...
JF Councilman Spiegel.
RAS ...one. What happens to the project if the two units that have been identified as potentially one-story
were brought down to one-story, and there were no three -stories built?
RS Right. You know what, I'm sorry, I meant to address that when it was brought up, and I apologiz'
for not doing it. The question was asked whether Mr. Drell had been...that issue had been discussec
with Mr. Drell, it had not; he answered correctly. That issue, however, has been discussed
substantially with staff other than Mr. Drell, more on the economic side. It causes us tremendous
financial hardship in this deal; the numbers don't pencil out. And let me tell you why, because I want
you to understand everything on economics. We are putting in a 65,000 square foot conference
center building in the middle of the project, as well as the garage. In order to fill this thing, the
numbers that, for example, for IAC (the conference center certification group, nationally), we need
to have minimum numbers of rooms. As well as just filling the rooms, all of a sudden, the numbers
aren't going to pencil out for us, because that's something we looked at very early on, as soon as the
original discussion was brought up about lowering parts of it. The answer is it throws the numbers
way off, and the deal doesn't pencil for us. And the only way to make things pencil is to come back
to you guys and say, "Hey, guys, give us grant money," and that's not what, you know, that's not
what we're here to do. So we have spent a lot of time looking at the numbers. When you pull 16
rooms off, it throws our numbers way off in the deal, and the project just doesn't pencil.
RAS Thank you.
JF Other questions for Mr. Sonnenblick? Thank you.
RS I'll sit down in case...but I would like to come up to respond.
JF
I understand. You'll be given that opportunity. Okay, members from the audience, if you'd like tc
address the subject, please step to the podium, try and speak into the speaker. We have kind of art-.0
awkward configuration while we're under construction, so speak loudly and state your name and
address for our record, please.
38
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HP Good evening. Henry Prego, 46 Lucerne. I don't know, we've been into this now for about a year,
and at this point, I feel the City Council's being pushed into a corner by Mr. Drell, and I would love
to see you give him his walking papers. There's no reason why this can't be rearranged and just made
better than it is right now. For 16 rooms, you can't do it? Can't you take a little less profit?
BAC Mr. Mayor. I've asked that the gentlemen, number one, address the Council rather than the
Applicant. And, number two...
HP Sure. I'm sorry.
BAC ...and address issues rather than making personal comments about the hiring policies of this City.
JF Point well taken.
HP That's all I have to say.
JF Thank you. Next. Ms. Mitchell.
PM Pat Mitchell, 38 Lucerne. First of all, Mr. Prego mis-spoke; I'm sure he meant to say
Mr. Sonnenblick and not Mr. Drell. He's worked with us very well, Mr. Drell.
HP I'm sorry. I did mean to say Mr. Sonnenblick.
JF Well, I think the comment's applicable either way.
PM We have asked Mr. Sonnenblick for just about every kind of configuration possible— one-story, three-
story, two-story, whatever you can do. Just take us into consideration; we're sitting on 100 half -
million dollar homes, and, you know, we want the same consideration that the people got at four
o'clock, only they had 100 people come in one by one, and we could do that, but I'm sure that we're
doing a favor by limiting the numbers. We're just hoping that...last meeting Council said, "We will
try," and "Why don't we look at a view corridor, so everyone doesn't lose view," and we thought
we had sort of come to some conclusion. And I just want to find out where you stand on it now,
what our next move should be, that kind of thing. I just wanted to let you know we're still hoping,
at least, for some consideration at Montecito. Thank you.
JF Others? Yes, sir.
GF My name is Gary Foye, and I'm a resident at 44 Lucerne. Let me start out by saying that I'm glad
to see that all of you are back, I think the City of Palm Desert has a really good team, and I think that
you, in our experience in coming to these different meetings, have really struggled with these issues.
I think I said before that you carry even a greater burden given that the City has a big investment in
this, and you've already made some decisions that have put you in this position already. My
recollection from the last meeting...there were a lot of concerns about the parking issues, and I'm not
sure that all of those are resolved. I'm concerned about the number of cars that are going to be
39
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000�
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
coming in there and the impact on the residents. Mr. Mayor, you...I think you had a very good handle
on it, asking for a more strategic plan of the whole development. They've provided some
information; I think your concern was that...you had that "tail wagging the dog" here by starting out
with the small project rather than the keystone of the project and how much revenue was going to
be derived or carry the project. I think, from an economic standpoint, some balance really needs to
be considered, given that the conference center is really not the primary revenue generator in this, and
there would seem to be some flexibility, especially if you were trying to give some consideration to
the residents. The last time the Mayor, I think, made a gesture of compromise, of trying to find a way
to give the residents a view corridor that was...I think he tried to come up with a way that would
satisfy the residents in some small fashion. My analogy, maybe, was a little strident, but I feel like
I'm going to be in East Berlin when this wall is constructed. If you have those casitas along the l lth
fairway, and you look where those...where the crosses are out there, they're right in our face, and I
think a small measure would allow us to see what we all really appreciate in our environment. A
gentlemen here spoke earlier tonight about individual rights, I think this is one of the issues that are
before you tonight. We have a few individuals, and all we're asking for is some consideration. How
much is the economics of this worth? You've looked at a couple of other projects here today. This
Council has a special interest in preserving the environment; that's all we're asking for. I think our
goals are the same as yours, I just think you have...you're in an economic situation here on this
investment, and I think it's time to take the higher ground and try to find a way to forge 2'
compromise. So I would hope that you can come up with another consideration. Whether or no)
you want to do the EIR, I think the homeowners that have come here and have the concerns about-
the project would certainly welcome an opportunity for a revision in the EIR that can some how
mitigate the view impact that we're going to have. So I would hope that you could give us some
measure of compromise. Thank you.
JF Others wishing to speak? Yes, sir.
SAN Reid Sanford, 23 Taylor Avenue, Montecito. I like former Mayor Crites' suggestion that we
eliminate the three stories all together. And the financial concern, I think, is somewhat addressed by
the fact that, to a degree, it would be less costly to build a one-story than a three-story or even a two-
story, I would think. I can't believe it would cost as much, number one. Number two, I think the
land costs being $1.00 as they were certainly mitigate somewhat of the concern, and if the hotel
owner is the same owner as the conference center, which I don't know this to be a fact, but if it is,
it certainly takes care of a lot of concerns about hotel room and making the whole thing fly. So for
those reasons, I guess I would definitely favor no three-story, but, and at least, the two, one -stories.
I had another concern that I felt was a big one, and that was the use of Cook Street as a possible
construction entrance, and Phil Drell assures me that that's been taken care of, and I hope it has. The
other one Mr. Sonnenblick addressed earlier when we spoke about the concern that we were going
to have some crowd control problems. We're fenced out from the golf course, but I'm glad to heara
that they're going to be fenced out also, so at least we're on equal turf if any warfare starts.
Thank you.
JF Other comments? Yes, ma'am.
40
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DF Hi, I'm Donna Foye at 44 Lucerne.
RAS Could you speak into the microphone?
DF I've been to about probably three or four of these meetings, and my main concern is that to me, the
whole purpose of these is compromise, and that's what a public hearing is about— we hear all sides,
they hear our side. And I, too, believe, and I think it's the source of Mr. Prego's frustration there
sometimes...but I understand there's an economic interest here. This project serves everyone. But
that every time that it's been suggested of a compromise, any kind of compromise, and tonight it's
down to 16 units, it's, it becomes economically not feasible, and I just...I can't believe that. And, like
I said, I just...I really and truly believe that this can be worked out some way, and again, Mr. Crites,
I did...I was very much in favor of your proposal at the last meeting. I'd like to see more done,
but...because we're probably the people that are going to be the most impacted. But, you know, as
I've said, I understand how it is, but I really believe that we're going to have to compromise. If we
just leave this at two stories the way it was, we've been spending an awful lot of time and effort to
no avail. So I would really urge you to consider some sort of compromise. Thank you.
JF Other comments? Mr. Sonnenblick.
RS Addressing one thing, quickly, we have agreed in writing not to use the Cook Street side during
construction or even, other than emergencies, even in operation. (unclear) Maybe one other point,
and along the lines ofMr. Drell's recommendation, I don't have a problem, should the Council decide
to do this, in moving forward with the three -one recommendation that he's talked about. Mr. Drell
is confident, I think, that the EIR challenge process, if it takes 30 or 45 days, per his comment, we'll
know whether or not... some of you are saying this, but maybe some others of you aren't saying this,
is, I guess, the best way to do it in terms of the homeowners. So maybe in the spirit of compromise,
if that's what the City is saying, I don't know what else to tell you. We think things work the way
they are. I don't know...I'm kind of at a loss for what else to throw on the table, but...
JF Let me ask two questions, if I may. Number one, setting aside the height exception, in which you've
said 24 feet's, 24 feet's, 24 feet...
RS Yes.
JF ...other than that, is it your view that what you're proposing to do fits entirely within the approved
EIR for that site?
RS Yes, and as well as our lawyers, also.
JF Okay. I'm going to ask the City Attorney a question. Who has standing to challenge an EIR
amendment? Or if we went three stories and didn't do an amendment, who'd have standing to
challenge that?
41
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DJE That is going to be those that can show an impact. Generally, it's going to be the ones within 300
feet...
JF Okay. And we're...
DJE ...of the project.
JF ...how far from the nearest resident?
RS More than that.
JF Seven hundred feet, I think.
RS Much more than 300. You've got the 1 lth hole is, itself, wider than 300...
JF Okay.
RS ...from side to side.
DJE That makes it much more difficult for them to show impact.
JF Okay. Anything else, Mr. Sonnenblick?
RS No. No.
JF Okay. Okay. Any other comments before I close the public hearing? Okay. The public hearing is
now closed, and I will ask for comments and guidance from the Council.
RAS Well as I understand it, the Golf Course Committee, and I'm not trying to push it off, but they've
reviewed this, and they've come with a recommendation, so it would be good for me to hear the
recommendation of the Golf Course Committee.
RSK You're talking about the...not the Golf Course Committee, but the Desert Willow Development
Committee.
JF Desert Willow,
RAS That, yes, yeah...
JF Dave Yrigoyen, I think, can address that.
DY At the last meeting that we had with the Desert Willow Development Committee, the Committee waste
asked to look at the configuration that was put to you before with regards to the unit that would be
close to the clubhouse site. They completely rejected that. The idea that was put forth by the Desert
42
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Willow Committee itself, and this was an idea of the Committee, was to go ahead and to place a
three-story, two, three-story units that would be specifically behind on the west side of the property,
specifically behind the conference center so that it would be hidden from the Montecito people. That
would allow the single -story units on the east side, the second unit, and the third unit from the top,
on the east side, to go to a single story. That was the recommendation that was forwarded by the
Desert Willow Committee.
JF Okay.
RAS Thank you.
JF I might also point out, Bob, that recommendation came from Phil Smith, who is Bill Bone's developer
on the section of land out here, as being not only commercially practical, but a good compromise with
the residents.
RSK What? Oh, go ahead.
BAC I was just going to say that I'm looking at that site plan, the amount of green space, and I don't mean
that that's a lawn, but just the green area and not building area, and so on, over that whole thing, I
guess I'm just one person, I'm not convinced that you can't find, without getting into the tournament
lawn...
RSK Yeah, I was going to make sure that everyone knew that the Desert Willow Committee's reason for
suggesting the three-story instead of another standing two-story unit was they didn't want to give up
the tournament lawn.
BAC Right. But I look at that space up there, and I'm just simply not convinced that you can't find that
two-story building within where it sits...
RSK Without giving up the tournament lawn.
BAC Yup. I'm just not convinced. (unclear)
JF Well, I'd also point out that the Desert Willow...
RSK (unclear)... or just use just a part of it.
BAC Or some-, something, I am...yeah, I...
JF Okay, you're not convinced.
BAC I'll grant your issue about not giving up the tournament lawn. I think that's fair from (unclear)
perspective.
43
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JF Okay. Let's try and have an orderly discussion to this, because I have a feeling it's going to be pretty'
spirited. The Desert Willow Committee's observation was that they are just as much a resident next
to this project as you folks are, and to disproportionately burden one side of that project at the
expense of the other didn't seem equitable. And so the fairness aspect, at least at the
recommendation that they forwarded, was this would lower you to one-story, but at the same time
put the three-story farther away from the clubhouse instead of taking up valuable space right next to
the clubhouse and impacting views from the clubhouse, the golf course, and the other aspects. I truly
think they believed, anyway, that they were striking a balance between competing interests on a
clubhouse. Other questions and comments.
RAS Show me on that pad over there which ones are the three story.
JF It's this one right here.
RSK (unclear)
RAS Those are the two-story.
RSK Because they were proposed three-story so that we could make those other two up there single -story.
JF These two buildings would be three-story.
BAC Bob?
RSK Show him that...
(Unclear discussion amongst Councilmembers.)
JF Other comments.
JMB I'll make my comments.
JF Okay, Jean.
JMB Because I'm going to vote against the project, but I firmly believe that we owe it to our partners in
the City that have hotels. We're not in a dire need for this right now, and I don't see that the City
should be in competition with the other people that have these facilities in the City. I just don't think
it's right, and it amuses me that when we're giving the land, which I'm against, for a dollar, that you
can't pencil something out. And if I had a dollar for every time I sat here for 20 years that somebody
told me they couldn't pencil out, I wouldn't have to work the rest of my life. So it really amuses me
that...
(Applause from audience)
44
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JMB ...you can't pencil it out, so. It really upsets me, because I just don't think we need to be in the hotel
business, at all, and I don't think that we need to go against our partners in the City that have helped
us grow with a surplus that we have today.
JF Okay. Other comments.
RAS I'm going to disagree with Councilwoman Benson, and although we're good friends, we occasionally
disagree. The golf courses were built for economic reasons, and the people that developed Montecito
knew that they were going in and knew that there were going to be hotels there, and all this
happened...you didn't know there was going to be a hotel when you bought your home?
(Audience) No.
RAS Then the developers didn't tell you what was going on.
(Audience) The Planning Department... (unclear)...
RAS The Planning Department?
JF The type of dialog is...
RAS Yeah, no dialog. Anyway, the planning for this facility was/is some eight years old, as I understand
it (before I was on the Council). The City has invested many millions of dollars to put in the golf
courses with plans to be used by the residents but also by hotels. As you know, that's where our
money comes from— it comes from sales tax, and it comes from hotel occupancy tax, and that's the
facts of life. I cannot really compare this discussion to the one that we had a four o'clock, because
that was a rezoning problem; this is not a rezoning problem, this has always been there. If the
residents, and I have the feeling that the residents would prefer the two-story/three-story option, then
I certainly would be in favor of that.
(Audience) You mean the one-story.
RAS I mean one-story/three-story. Excuse me, not two-story. I apologize. But I am in favor ofthe hotel
because of economic reasons for the City of Palm Desert.
JF Other comments.
RSK (Unclear)
JF Mayor Pro-Tem Kelly?
RSK Well...just how the hotel was configured is a decision for tonight, but to do a hotel or not to do a
hotel, that decision was made when we decided to do the development. And...many ofthe plans that
we've done while I've been on the Council, we did them with the eye of creating some income for
45
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
the City so that we could provide better police and fire and open space, and we've already bought
a lot of open space, mostly all in the hillsides. Now we have a committee, and we're going through
and looking for purchase of open space on the flat land, I call it the flat land committee, which
improves the environment for everybody in the City. And as we've done this, and it's worked out
extremely well, and the way we've done it— many other cities could have done the same thing, but
they're having hard times and have to lay people off; they have to worry about filling potholes, and
we have been very economically sound. And this project was put together to make sure we continue
to be an economically sound city. I can understand that we want to have a really first class,
environmentally sound hotel, and in the discussion with the Desert Willow Committee, and we have
some...I have some people who I have a lot of respect for that help us from the community...they felt
like the best possible way to do that was, instead of putting another building in, was to put the two,
three -stories behind the conference center. And my feeling is that that... probably....because behind
the conference center, it's going to be very difficult to tell that there's a three-story there, and then
we can provide those one -stories, provide that view corridor. So...and keeping it open around the
clubhouse benefits everybody in the community. The clubhouse is used by many, many people that
are not golfers— the people love it, people come there and have lunch, bring their guests there and
have lunch. And I don't think that we'll see that parking structure because there's a very high berm
there behind that, I can't remember now whether it's the fifth or sixth fairway, I think it's the...
JF Sixth.
RSK ....sixth fairway and green where the water feature comes up there. So I'm in favor of moving along
with the project, primarily because we made the decision that we're going to do something when we
put the whole project together. And if we want to continue to purchase open space and provide more
open space in our community, we have to have the income to do that; and this is one of the things
that's going to provide the income. If we decide not to do these hotels, choose not to do them, then
we're going to have to give up and quit our program to buy more open space to make the whole City
a better place to live.
JF Other comments.
BAC First, I think we have a lot of things we spend money on, not simply open space.
RAS Yes, that's true.
BAC And so...
RSK All of them are...I'm including all of them.
BAC So whether this is an issue (unclear)...
RSK But those are the ones we could get along without— we can't get along without police, we can't get
along without fire.
46
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BAC If we had to sit down and start discussing where we would cut, we would probably have differences
of opinion on where we would cut.
RSK We wouldn't want to cut the police.
BAC I don't think that would be it, but there are lots of other spots, Richard, that we might agree on or
not agree on.
RSK Gardens and parkways...
JF Okay.
RSK ...medians.
BAC Anyhow.
RSK Excuse me.
BAC I differ with Jean. I think that we did make that decision, correctly or not, I don't feel uncomfortable
being a part of the development process, nor would those who spoke against it if they happened to
be in Mr. Sonnenblick's position in this. Marriott would be very happy to trade positions, and they'd
be doing this, and he'd be on the other side of the hotel saying, "Don't do it," and that's, I suspect,
how that works in place after place, and so on. I also think that we have chosen, we have partnered
with a developer who is an honorable person in terms of what I've said, and I can think of some
people like Bighorn and a few other people where when they come down and tell us something, I
believe them and think that they're honorable about that. So I don't have any problem with us
building hotels and that that's part of what we've chosen to do, and I think the long term value is
good. I was not comfortable a couple of months ago with a building that was 50% above the height
in the zone, which is 24 feet, and this goes up to 36 feet, and not being comfortable with that, I'm
not very comfortable with three-story buildings right next to it, which also exceed the maximum
allowed height limit. And I like the hotel, I like the whole combined layout. I think we're going to
have a beautiful project, I just can't find myself comfortable with the heights to which it goes, and
we haven't resolved that, and that leaves me out of it.
JF Okay. Reference was made earlier to the four o'clock session, and I want to focus on that for a
minute because if nothing else, I'm as concerned procedurally how we do things as I am substantively
what we decide. And as I understand it, at four o'clock we were being asked to change the zone,
alter people's expectations, potentially cause them some financial harm, and we had no real reason
to be doing it. This situation, we have a master plan, we have an EIR, it's been in place, I think for
over 10 years, not just eight. You folks, most of you, bought your homes or built your homes while
that master plan was in existence. Some of you came to us about five years ago, and you wanted to
open up your fences so that you could enjoy the views at the golf course. We worked with you, we
allowed that to happen for those of you who took advantage of it. I personally think that we gave
you something better to look at than blowsand; I think we have a world class golf course that's won
47
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
many awards. And the sticky part came when we wanted to put what we said we were going to do
700 feet from your homes. And I think we have tried to work with you. My experience, personally,
and if you've been to most of these hearings, and a lot of you have because I recognize your faces,
I have been no pal of Mr. Sonnenblick in terms of putting some scrutiny to what he's proposing to
do. Having said that, I agree with Councilman Crites, I think he is a businessman who's doing a job,
he's working within parameters that we gave him in our master plan and has been trying to make it
fit and has been up front with us at every stage in saying, "I'll do whatever you want; if it alters our
economic expectations of our deal, you may have to pay for part of it, but I'm willing to do...I build
things, I'll build it any way you want to build it." So I don't think there's been any lack of good faith
on Mr. Sonnenblick's part. I was uncomfortable with how we were piecemealing this and the parking
and a number of other things. But really the deciding point for me came when our Desert Willow
Committee took a look at this, and we have developers, Ted Lennon' s one of them, Phil Smith is
another one, that have developed some of the finest golf course communities in Palm Desert, and
Indian Wells, that said we think this is a fair approach, this balances, this puts the highest part of the
project in a place where the homeowners will never see it, the golf course and clubhouse people may
see it, but it's far enough away that it strikes a reasonable balance. And somebody pointed out,
correctly so, that we have been doing this for about a year now. We have tried, I think, in every way
possible to strike the balance that we're at tonight, and unlike Buford, I'm going to disagree with,
I think we've looked at every option, I think we have tortured the process. "
(Recording stopped during changing of tapes.)
...three-story, we'd probably go the one-story or three-story. If that's not true, I'm sorry. Tonight
I'm prepared to vote for a hotel. I will either do it in two-story all the way around or one-story and
three-story, and my inclination is to go with the recommendation that the professionals that are on
our Desert Willow Committee and go with a one-story and a three-story configuration. And as to
the height, the last point, I know it's getting late...
(Audience) (unclear)
JF Architecturally, my feeling is you would prefer to look at something interesting as it has been
designed, albeit an exception, than something that is less interesting and flat. And my view is that if
you grasp unerringly to a limitation and devoid yourself of the context within which it comes up,
you're probably doing yourself a disservice. I don't think any of you care how high something is,
what you care is how intrusive it is to your view. If something is three-story but you can't see it in
your line of sight, you really don't care about it. I have people that want to build on the hillsides, and
I say if I can't see it, and it's within your area, great; come up with a design that you want, but if I
have to look at it, then you're causing my interest to become concerned here. I don't have a problem
with a height exception, I think it does add architectural flavor and interest. I think you will benefit,.....
ultimately, from it, and I also think that it hides the three-story configuration, which you will never
see. We will see, but every other aspect of this balance that has been struck remains in tact, and with
that, I'm prepared to vote for a one-story/three-story configuration tonight, if there is such a motion. -
Any other comments?
48
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK I guess if...I...just one last comment. I would like very much if we could work out Councilman
Crites' concern and add a building there instead of doing the two-story, but in my honest feeling is
that it's going to look better if we don't stick another building in there.
RAS Then I'll make the motion that we approve the hotel with two, one-story units and two, three-story
units that can't be seen by the people at Montecito.
RSK Second.
JF Okay. There's a motion and a second. I assume that motion is to incorporate the proposals
recommended by the Desert Willow Committee.
RAS Right. Right.
JF Any further discussion? I'm going to ask the Clerk to do a roll call vote on this one.
RDK Councilmember Benson?
JMB No.
RDK Councilman Crites?
BAC No, with the caveat that I very much respect the efforts that people have made to make this work and
respect the developer and believe a quality product, and not find it acceptable.
RDK Mayor Pro-Tem Kelly?
RSK Aye.
RDK Councilman Spiegel?
RAS Aye.
RDK Mayor Ferguson.
JF Aye. Motion passes three to two.
For clarification nurnoses:
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-115, approving
TT 29528 and PP/CUP 00-09, as recommended by the Planning Commission and amended to incorporate
Desert Willow Committee recommendations, with two, one-story units and two, three-story units that would be
hidden from the Montecito development. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly and carried by
a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Benson and Crites voting NO.
49
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL TO
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/PARK, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1, 120,000 TO PR-
4/OPEN SPACE, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 270 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (8,000 SQ.
FT. MINIMUM) AND 1 LOT FOR PARK PURPOSES, A 9 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
FOR FINANCING PURPOSES AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 117.5+1- ACRES
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARISK ROW DRIVE AND COUNTRY CLUB
DRIVE Case Nos. GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, and DA 00-1 (ABD Palm Desert 118,
LLC, Appellant) (Continued from the meeting of November 9, 2000).
Mr. Drell summarized the report on the cases, noting that the project included 270 single family lots
and a 38-acre regional park site on 118 acres; the average lot size would be 9,685 square feet, with
the majority (approximately 55%) being between 9,200 and 12,000 square feet. He said there would
be fewer proposed lots in this map than would have been originally planned on the 118 acres if all
were 12,000 square feet. He said the proposed home sizes would range from 1,700 to 3,100 square
feet with pricing between $230,000-370,000. After reviewing the revisions and information provided
by the developer to the City Council on November 9, he said the Planning Commission voter''
unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of the map. He stated the Commission concluded tha
given the proximity of the project to the railroad tracks, regional park and school site, and the
proposed diversity of housing opportunities afforded by this project was appropriate. He explained
that it was not the purpose of residential zoning or housing policies to maximize either the real estate
value of investments or developer profit; the purpose of housing policy, as articulated in the City's
General Plan and required by State Planning Law, was to provide for a diversity of housing
opportunities within high quality neighborhoods where existing and future residents could live and
raise their families. He said Palm Desert was an elite community not because it excluded certain types
of housing and mandated only that the most expensive housing could be built; the City was a desirable
place to live and, coincidentally, a good place to invest in residential real estate, because of its high
quality neighborhoods that provide a diverse and high quality of life whether a resident of
Desert Rose in an $80,000 home or at the Canyons at Bighorn in an $8 million home. He went on
to say the proposed project would be one of the last single family developments that probably would
be seen; most of the large, vacant, residential parcels were planned for country club type
development. Given the project's unique accessibility to two important public facilities, a regional
park and an elementary school, he felt it would be inappropriate to limit the residents of this
neighborhood to only those who could afford a 4,000-5,000 square foot home and that the diversity
of housing opportunities afforded by this project, created by the diversity of lot sizes, was both
appropriate and desirable.
In response to Councilman Crites' inquiry regarding the public necessity to change the zone,
Mr. Drell said the zoning on the property was applied by the County 30 years ago for whatever
reason. He explained that every time a project was before the Council, there was opportunity tom
analyze it and determine whether it was appropriate for Palm Desert given today's circumstances.
He felt it was in the public's interest to grant such a change for the reasons stated above.
50
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Ferguson remarked that he didn't like being told that if the zoning wasn't changed for a
builder, he was discriminating against moderate income housing people. He didn't feel that the policy
decision for the existing zoning was done casually or that people adjusted their economic expectations
easily; they relied on that zone. He felt the Council was being asked to change something for a
reason, and its reluctance to do so might have nothing to do with the income levels of the area's
present residents. Secondly, he questioned the nexus of the subject project and the acquisition of a
regional park should the project be denied.
Mr. Drell replied that if the subject project was denied, the City would still negotiate with the
property owner to acquire land for a regional park; if the project was approved, negotiation was
already completed.
Upon inquiry by Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly, Mr. Drell said the City was negotiating with a developer
who represented the property owner who owned the property as a passive investment and couldn't
pursue entitlements himself under the tax laws of his ownership. Therefore, he clarified the City was
negotiating with someone who had an agreement to purchase the property.
Further responding to Councilmember Benson's question whether there could be a park if the houses
weren't approved, Mr. Drell stated the City would have to again negotiate purchase ofthe real estate.
Answering her next question, Mr. Drell said at a previous hearing, it was brought up that the decrease
in lot size would result in more houses on the property than were originally anticipated when Regency
Estates was developed. He said at that time, the expectation was that the entire 118 acres would be
developed with houses at 12,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. He said the 30-acre park site would
be taken out of it, likening it to development of a golf course— fewer units got built, lot sizes were
typically smaller in golf course developments.
Councilman Crites didn't feel the golf course analogy was appropriate in this case. He explained that
in a golf course, the developer chose how to configure amenities and lot sizes within a certain piece
of land. In the subject instance, he said the City purchases part of it, there would be a remainder, and
the number of units on the remainder went up— comparing that if there were 100 acres, the City
purchased 99, and a high-rise condo was placed on the one acre, it could be said with the same
appropriateness that there were no more units than there would have been before the 99 acres were
purchased. He emphasized that there were at least some more units per acre now than before.
Responding to Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly's question if the City purchased the park site, the School
District purchased a school site, and the remainder had 12,000 square foot lots, how many units
would result, Mr. Drell said there would be fewer units— 220 or 210. He added they would be larger
and more expensive.
Mayor Ferguson invited the Applicant to address Councilmembers.
MR. JACK SHINE, American Beauty Development (ABD), 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, CA,
said his company was the developer of the subject project. He said their project was before the
Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation to deny the project;
51
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *'
that decision was appealed, and they went back to the drawing board. He explained that they then
went out to visit with all of the neighbors and sent letters to 202 members of both Regency projects;
approximately 40 of those owners attended coffees hosted at a couple of homes within the
developments. Further, they visited with the Boards of Directors of the Resorter and Whitehawk.
Based upon the information received, he reported the list of concerns expressed:
1. Request to build casitas - now withdrawn.
2. Request for variance for side yard setbacks - now withdrawn.
3. School site - learned Desert Sands Unified School District has requested appraisal of
the site.
4. Concerns for landscaping and appearance of access points from Tamarisk.
5. Southerly access directly across from Regency Estates' main access from Tamarisk —
concern for increased traffic and congestion. ABD and City traffic engineers
analyzed potential relocation of both secondary accesses of the subject project onto
Tamarisk into one access midway between both. The secondary access was planned
for 400-600 feet north of the other development; thereby possibly warranting the use
of a signal, which ABD had agreed to fund such installation along Tamarisk. Noted
ABD was required to improve its portion of Tamarisk that will double the size of the
street from curb to curb from Country Club to the north. '.m'
6. Lot sizes — out of 270 lots, there were:
4 at 8,100-8,400 square feet
98 at 8,400-9,200 square feet
Remainder from 9,200 to almost 18,000; the bulk of which were 9,200-
10,400 square feet.
Average size 9,685 square feet.
MR. SHINE went on to say their average size lot proposal was based on good planning, and with
42 years of development and family home-building experience between two different land uses,
transition was the normal, best, and most accepted practice of land planning, citing the 8,000 square
foot lots at Whitehawk, 12,000 square foot lots at Regency, proposal for a park and school, existing
industrial to the east, and railroad to the north. He said after meeting with homeowners, the changes
were brought to the Council, this being a continuation of hearing after referring the project back to
the Planning Commission to review same, resulting in its recommending approval, with four members
present. He went on to say that the project had the support of the Whitehawk Homeowners'
Association (letter included within staff report), and the Resorter residents supported the project but
had concern for a dust control plan on the site. He said once the project was complete, that problem
would be eliminated. He acknowledged that the Regency Homeowners' Associations did not support
the project for understandable reasons; however, some individuals within those projects supported
it. He expressed his pride in the project, the public benefits that would be realized— widening and.
signalization of Tamarisk, dedication of a bike path along the northerly part of the property, the
median completion on Country Club Drive and the full width improvements there, elimination of sand
problems, and the ability to have a park and school in the area. He reiterated that when complete,
the project would, in the aggregate, result in less people living on that property; less cars coming
from less homes, and less children on 118 acres, even though they were building on a smaller part of
52
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
it, and the lots were somewhat smaller; it was a transition size between Regency on the west and the
rest of the people on the south. He asked the City Council to accept the recommendation of its
Planning Commission, further requesting that he be able to return to the podium in answer to those
speaking after him.
In answer to Councilman Spiegel's question whether the Applicant had considered using the "dog
leg" part of the proposed park area that was to the north and east of the project, Mr. Shine responded
affirmatively. He said they were advised that would be a desirable place for an additional soccer field
for the park, and it was suggested that be left available for park use. Further responding to
Councilman Spiegel's inquiry if that property were taken and no homes were added how lot sizes
would be affected, Mr. Shine guessed it would make the average of just below 10,000 as opposed
to the 9,685 square feet; he said it was about two acres, 80,000-90,000 square feet. He went on to
respond that they would accept Council's decision to delete that from park land and include it with
their project with no more lots to make the average lot size larger.
Upon Councilmember Benson's question whether all the lots in Regency were 12,000 square feet,
Mr. Drell replied they were.
Mayor Ferguson asked Mr. Shine whether his firm would be building the homes.
MR. SHINE said builders were brought in on all of its projects, adding that their firm had built homes
for 35 years under the name of American Beauty Homes throughout California. In 1982 they left the
construction business, he said lawyers in construction defect litigation would understand, and they
now selected builders; presently, they were working with the Graystone Home Company and others
of that kind. He clarified that while they weren't building it, it didn't mean that they just walked
away— they had certain design guidelines and criteria that were required— they would not let just
anybody build anything.
Mayor Ferguson assured Mr. Shine that he should not feel anything but proud; it was not the quality
of the home building or his company, it was whether or not to change the zoning to allow something
that many people weren't expecting.
Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING the
subject cases.
MS. KATHY WILMOVSKY, 39-362 Palace Drive in Regency Estates, Palm Desert, said she'd
written several notes in the past to express hers and her husband's concern about the reduction in lot
sizes; however, she felt it was important and more significant for her to appear in person. She said
when they purchased their property eight years ago, it was with the understanding that the vacant lot
across the way was zoned R-12 Residential, pointing out she specifically asked that question as their
house backs up to Tamarisk Drive and would be impacted by any future development of that
property. Additionally, she said when that land was purchased, the owners did so knowing it was
zoned R-12 Residential. She said at the meeting Mr. Shine referred to, he went over his various
proposals and mentioned that he wanted 270 homes— because the City wanted to have a park and a
53
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
potential school, the reduction of the lot sizes was necessary. Her family's concern was that the
reduction in lot sizes and subsequent reduction in home size and property values would have a
negative impact on their development and home. Especially concerning them were the lots and homes
backing up to the train tracks; in looking at the proposal, those were some of the smallest lots and
homes, which they felt would be a pretty poor row of homes with much lower income there.
Additionally, their concerns included increased density, traffic, noise, and placement of the potential
traffic signal on Tamarisk Drive— they didn't want it behind their home going on and off at night; their
home was just southeast of the bend in the road, many cars traveled very rapidly there, and it could
be a potential safety issue. She urged Council not to sacrifice property values of her community,
especially when they were assured of the zoning at the time they purchased. She said if the existing
zoning was maintained, the builder would be able to construct larger, nicer, and more expensive
homes— he wouldn't lose money on the property where the park would be built, it would be an
opportunity cost, but it would be purchased back from him. She added that a friend of hers called
the school district to ask if they were considering building the school and was told absolutely not,
making her question what change had occurred in the last 10 days.
MR. GARY JOHNSON, Regency Estates resident and Member of the Homeowners' Association
Board, stated he and his wife were not opposed to the development ofthe subject property but were
opposed to the zone change. They were concerned about the impact to their home values; there were
92 homes in Regency Estates and over 100 in Regency Palms— both developments zoned 12,000.
He believed the owner ofthe subject property was aware of the zoning when it was purchased, there
was no reason to change, developing it at R-12,000 was ideal, and they looked forward to same.
MR. JOHN YOUNG, President of the Regency Estates Homeowners' Association Board of
Directors, presented a letter to Councilmembers. It was received for the record, made a part of
these Minutes, and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
Councilman Crites asked Mr. Young whether data was provided from other comparable dollar -per -
square -foot developments for the same time period, as there were an enormous number of things that
caused the value of a home to go up or down. He added that what had been presented to the Council
simply said two things happened at the same time; nothing led him to believe there was a causal
relationship.
MR. YOUNG said he had not completed that; he could.
MS. MAXINE FREEMAN, 39-805 St. Michael Place, in Regency Palms, Palm Desert, said she was
one of the original homeowners in the older development. One of the reasons she chose Regency
Palms was because she felt it was a unique community compared to everything else in the area
because of the 12,000 square foot zoning. She was also aware that the adjacent land where Regency •+*
Estates was subsequently built and the lots where the proposed development is were also zoned
R-12,000, influencing her decision. She stated she was a real estate broker, marketing property in
the two projects, and she opposed the zoning change as she felt it would definitely affect the market
value of their homes. Additionally, she was concerned that the current owner of the land was not
building the homes, saying he'd told her himself that he doubted he would sell the entire project to
54
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
one builder, meaning two, three, or more different builders would construct different types of
properties that could be mismatched. She believed, however, the school and park were good ideas
if the 12,000 lot size could be maintained; if not, the 12,000 lot size as originally zoned should be.
In response to Councilman Spiegel, Ms. Freeman said the average sale price in Regency Palms was
between $240,000 - 310,000, with minimum square footage of 2,118 and maximum just over 3,000.
MR. BENJAMIN KEPLINGER, 38-993 Palace Drive, Palm Desert, said he'd just recently moved
there, and he was very disappointed in the overcrowded local schools since he chose Regency after
hearing Carter School was the best in the area. Therefore, he felt this project should be carefully
scrutinized for the density of family homes.
MS. LESLIE TODD, 38-981 Palace Drive, Regency Estates, Palm Desert, said she, too, would like
to know the rationale for changing zone. She felt those who previously set the zoning at 12,000
square feet had done so with good judgment, and she and other homeowners there purchased with
such an expectation. She believed most of them were not opposed to building but to downsizing the
lot size. Traffic was of great concerned to her; adding 270 more homes would mean more traffic,
especially with the new university being built down the street. She questioned the validity of the
traffic count done with one counter near the front gate of Regency Estates for one day; no utilization
of the back gate, which she uses most, was considered. Further, she was concerned about the size
of homes on the lots and by previous discussions about five-foot side yards. She felt the difference
between 270 and 220 homes was only a matter of the builder making more money by selling more
smaller homes— there was no pressing need to change the zoning.
MS. PATTY HENDERSON, 39-434 Palace Drive, Regency Estates, Palm Desert, commented that
changing the zoning was not in the public's interest. She agreed with all the others opposed, adding
she felt it was troublesome to think about having a park and school there because of the safety issue —
it was a 55 miles per hour speed zone. She had personally seen the results of two horrible traffic
accidents almost at the entrance of Regency Estates. She noted that she was an original owner who
had been there since the very beginning, and she was told the same thing by City Councilmembers,
developers, and builders, urging the present City Council to listen to those who'd been there many
years.
MR. VAN TANNER, 39-918 Cricket Cove, Palm Desert, said Mr. Young had asked him to provide
copies of"Desert Real News Addendum," which was received for the record and made a part ofthese
Minutes as Exhibit "B." He said it gave an idea of houses similar to their square footage that were
either escrow pending or closed. He agreed with Ms. Henderson, also asking what public's interest
was served— Palm Desert's or certain people's best interest. Secondly, he wanted to correct the
response given by Mr. Drell to the question previously asked by Councilmember Benson regarding
the size of lots in Regency Estates. He said Regency Estates' lots were 12, 000 minimum, running
from 12,000 to 20,000, and he estimated there were only a couple that were at the minimum size.
He asked that the City Council not pass the rezone request under any circumstances and settle the
matter once and for all.
55
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000,.�,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel asked Mr. Tanner how he felt about the park, noting that Mr. Tanner was the
Chairman of the City's Parks & Recreation Commission.
MR. TANNER said he was obviously in favor of the facility because he was a huge proponent of
youth sports and youth activities, and youth, middle-aged, and seniors. He said he'd taken himself
away from any voting on the Commission as it pertained to the park for that reason. He wanted to
see the park on the east side but felt the primary reason for the large number of opponents in
attendance at this meeting was to urge the City Council to keep the zoning at R-12,000.
MS. DEE PIEDEN, 40-322 Bayhill Way, Palm Desert, said she was a resident of the Resorter and
on the Board of Directors. She said they were very much in favor of a development across the street.
She acknowledged the feelings of the Regency Palms and Estates residents that 12,000 square feet
should be maintained; however, she felt everything was subject to change. She didn't feel there
would be too many more residential developers who would be willing to take on the property if they
were limited to a minimum of 12,000 square feet, pointing out the railroad track and industrial uses.
She believed the street light on Tamarisk would help everyone, and they looked forward to the park
and the elimination of sand blowing into their development.
MR. RICHARD HILL, 39-523 Newcastle Drive, Palm Desert, said he was a real estate appraiser.
He felt there was no purpose for downsizing the property across the street, relating that he'd seen
it in Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, La Quinta for more density, and values of the existing'
surrounding homes had declined. He said in his neighborhood it was between $330,000-450,00, the
square footage was 2,500-3,800, and the proposed development's sizes were 1,700-3,100 square feet
with a price range of $230,000-270,000, which was not comparable to their neighborhood. He
believed the disparity of price range would attract a different buyer and make his property worth less.
He had been a 10-year resident and purchased because of the R-1 12,000 zoning, asking Council not
to approve the downsizing.
MR. BUCK PREWITT, Regency Palms resident, 76-800 Lancelot Court, said two months ago
before the Planning Commission, it was stated that the average price would be $235,000-250,000;
two months later the average price was $298,000. He said that made him uncomfortable— how could
$50,000 appreciation occur in two months when expansion to the property lines, casitas, etc. were
deleted. He acknowledged that while things could change, since most of this consisted of proposals,
projections, and promises, they might change backward to being smaller and of less value. He
remarked that as was stated at the last City Council hearing that the only thing that larger lots ensured
was more expensive homes, it was the only thing he was relatively sure of that was being discussed —
bets should be hedged with larger lots. He'd been an 11-year resident of the development and a
Valley resident for over 30, recalling that a few years ago when WalMart wanted to come in, it was
turned down partially to protect the value and the investments of the residents and businesses.
MR. JOHN KULLER, Treasurer of the Resorter Homeowners' Association, said his Board of
Directors had no problem with the development as planned. He said they wanted to work with the'
City and the developer, if approved, to mitigate construction problems and other problems as they
came up. He agreed with Ms. Pieden that this would be better than open desert across the street.
56
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Ferguson said he understood Resorter residents favoring development because of biowsand
problems, etc., but asked Mr. Kuller if there was an opinion about the 12,000 versus 8,000 square
foot lots issue.
MR. KULLER said he didn't feel it made any difference to the Board or the residents.
MR. CLINT DOOLEY, 39-595 Newcastle, Regency Estates, hoped residents of Regency Estates
and Palms weren't being made out as bad guys because they wanted to maintain 12,000 square feet
and keep the density low. He said after all, it was their investment and their quality of life that the
Council would be deciding. He remarked that the park and everything sounded very good. However,
he was a bit skeptical after having lived in Cerritos prior to Palm Desert, and when a big regional park
was put adjacent to his home there, it was beautiful for a few years but became a magnet for gang and
other undesirable activities that required a great deal of additional law enforcement. He said there
were also parking issues, and he didn't want to live next to another regional park after that
experience. He urged serious consideration.
MR. SHINE said he heard the Regency residents and understood their points of view; however, it
was only their point of view. Responding to some of the remarks, he explained that the map
previously referred to was probably an old one; engineers would be able to determine that it was
within a foot or less of the same number they'd cited— 9,685 feet, and the pie chart previously
displayed was accurate based on the map being considered at this meeting. He pointed out that there
had been nine maps, all the way back to an industrial development along the north end of the
property, which would have exited onto Tamarisk, to the elimination of industrial because they'd
heard the homeowners certainly wouldn't want industrial development and employees exiting up and
down Tamarisk Row. With respect to the pricing, he said it was true that at first, without the benefit
of any market research, they'd used a number of $250,000 as an average price. However, they
retained Prudential Realty - Marketing Associates, which they were told was the leading market
research firm in the area, to do a thorough study; it resulted in the numbers presented to everyone —
prices from $229,000 to $369,000 or $389,000, the average pricing closer to $300,000 than
$250,000. He said it was accurate and based on research from a Palm Desert firm that had been here
many years and knew what it was doing. Hearing the Regency concerns and looking at the property,
he said good planning dictated that transition was the appropriate type of zoning for the development
of the subject property between Regency on the west, and everyone else on the south and east.
In response to Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Shine said the homes would run from 1,700 to 3,100 square
feet, selling from $229,000 to $369,000. He said they planned for two product lines, one in the north
and one in the south. Further, in answer to the previous railroad/small lot and home statement, he
said the lots next to the railroad were much, much larger because they knew that anybody willing to
live next to the railroad needed something in return— that first being more land.
Councilmember Benson was concerned over a resident's comment that Mr. Shine had said there
would be several developers on the project. She said the City had gone through such circumstances
before where a developer built a few, then the next comes in and returns to the Council saying they
can't do it, more lots were needed. She asked Mr. Shine what his intentions were.
57
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MR. SHINE said when he went out to the homeowners, in answer to their question how they would
know that he cared about what was going to be built, he responded that he seriously doubted that any
one developer would give him a check for all the lots. He said lots would be sold to builders as they
went; they were going to be there, and when the first houses were built, the next lots would be
available. He said they wouldn't allow someone to ruin the first lots so that no one would want the
second group— as the prime developer, their best interests were served by having the design guidelines
they'd planned, and it probably would be at least two different builders doing two different types of
product, which they thought was healthy.
With public testimony concluded, Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Benson agreed that transitional was fine, but she didn't feel it needed to be quite as
low. She believed there was room for negotiation, something 10,000 to 12,000 (not 8,000 or 9,000).
She saw a mixed bag all along Country Club— from private clubs to the Resorter, to Whitehawk, to
Regency— transition on the whole street. But she felt nothing under 10,000, and something from
10,000 to 12,000 would be appropriate.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly remarked that he was very concerned for the change in the access point
so that it didn't coincide with the opposite project's access. He said there were situations all over"""
the City that resulted from County approval, and now the City was attempting to resolve them, and
then a signal was needed. He said in such situations where streets didn't align, he was extremely
distressed over the resulting traffic situation. He questioned City traffic staff's endorsement of such
a proposal.
Mr. Drell clarified that it was the access on Tamarisk; the access on Country Club would align. He
said the residents at Regency objected to the alignment; the Applicant proposed access alignment
originally, but Regency residents felt they would be congested. Therefore, he said it had been a
concession by the developer to Regency Estates' and Palms' residents. Responding to Mayor Pro-
Tempore Kelly, he didn't feel it was a good idea; however, he said they'd separated them sufficiently
so as to avoid conflict.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly felt sooner or later both developments would want traffic signals, meaning
two would be needed as opposed to one.
Senior Transportation Engineer Mark Greenwood said the recommendation to separate the two
driveways was not one by Public Works staff, and it wasn't necessarily supported. Further, he said
they didn't support signalization of that driveway and felt it would not ever be needed based on traffic
volumes or safety. If a signal was to be considered, he said the best thing to do would be to align
those two driveways so that the signal would serve both developments. He reiterated that Public•
Works was not recommending a signal but affirmed that alignment of the two driveways would be.
In response to Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly's statement over a resident's concern that the traffic signal
light would be a nuisance to their home, he said the least impact would occur if the signal was at the
entry gates where there were no houses very nearby.
58
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel disagreed with Mr. Greenwood, as he felt Tamarisk Row would end up being
a cut -through for the new UCR and Cal State San Bernardino campus. Therefore, he felt the 55 miles
per hour speed zone on Tamarisk Row should be reviewed for possible reduction to 40, which he felt
could be done and enforced without many ramifications.
Mr. Greenwood said the discussion had been held many times— it was one thing to reduce the speed
limit, quite another to enforce it. In further response, he said a speed limit could only be enforced
when it was established from an engineering and traffic survey, from which the 55 miles per hour zone
was implemented. He stated the chances of the speed ever going down to 40 were very slim.
Councilman Crites said he understood when people bought a piece of property and did so based on
being told that something next to them was zoned for a particular purpose and would never change.
However, he explained that the reason this hearing was being held was that zoning was not a right,
nor was a request to change zoning, it was a decision based on what appeared to be the best for the
community. Further, he clarified that WalMart wasn't barred from the City of Palm Desert; they tried
to change the zone enormously from residential to core commercial, and he believed that wasn't a
very difficult decision for most members of the City Council. He said they were told to find a place
in Palm Desert that was more akin to their needs in terms of zoning. He'd spoken with several people
in school planning, asked if the existence of 60 extra homes in that area made any substantial,
appreciable, discernable difference in the school population of Desert Sands in Palm Desert, and the
answer had been consistently no. In terms of property values, he said it was an issue heard every time
a zone change came up; there was little data to substantiate that small zone changes had any
appreciable value across major streets and gated communities. However, he said there was data to
suggest that zone changes in areas in which the homes are next to each other could have an impact,
as would major zone changes. He was unconvinced that this would have any impact on prices. He
believed Councilmember Benson's comment had merit; going from 8,000 to 12,000, 10,000 could
be more acceptable, saying he believed not many people would actually know the size of community
average lots as they were driving by. Lastly, the issue which made him most uncomfortable was the
appearance that the City's purchase of land for a park/open space and school was somehow tied to
a request for a developer to make change in zoning; it was unacceptable. Therefore, he would be
voting not to approve the subject zone change and to ask that the City's negotiations for purchase
of land from the developer be conducted independent of any discussion about zoning ofthe remainder
of the land. He said then the developer could return with an independent proposal and take his
chances with the other issues raised between groups (e.g. quality of housing, etc.).
Councilman Spiegel believed Councilman Crites had stated it very succinctly— it appeared that there
was a development, a park, and a school that were all interrelated and should not be. Having said
that, he noted Sunrise planned to develop multi -million dollar homes off of Fred Waring adjacent to
Palm Desert's affordable housing. Likewise, adjacency of homes and parks to Bighorn were in no
comparison to the price of the home. On his own street, homes ranged from $190,000 - 450,000;
he purchased his home because he liked it and felt that was the way most people did so, not
necessarily taking into account the exact square footage of the lot. He looked forward to talking to
the developer separately about the school and park issue.
59
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Ferguson expressed appreciation to Mr. Shine for his participation in this process. He recalled
when he first became a Planning Commissioner, he was told to remember he wouldn't build a
community, property owners and developers would; a Planning Commissioner was there to facilitate
the process and make sure it was done properly. He agreed with his colleagues over the same
concerns. First, he observed that it was not a crime to have an investment -backed expectation— both
the developer and the homeowners had them, and he believed both had merit. Second, he said there
was currently underway a General Plan Amendment process to provide a comprehensive update, last
done in 1984. If there was a concern by staff or residents that income diversity wasn't being
accommodated in Palm Desert, it should be addressed as part of that process. Third, he was very
troubled, procedurally, by the appearance that the City was trading land for zoning, i.e. that down -
zoning would provide a better deal on the property. He said in his investigation, it would be easy to
arrive at that conclusion, pointing out that he didn't know a single member of the Council or of City
staff that would ever do such a thing, and residents' faith in government was that there was no
appearance of impropriety. He went on to say that if the transactions were unlinked, it probably
would have never come up that the property would be down -zoned from 12,000 to 8,000 square feet,
a 33% reduction in lot size. He provided an example of a developer wanting to use a "flexible lot line
approach," going down to 8,000 at Deep Canyon and Fred Waring, and Councilmember Benson and
he on Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review flatly denied it. He said with those three
considerations aside, a right point was made when it was stated that General Plans weren't cast in''
stone, there was a process for changing zone, but there had better be a very good reason to do so.
He didn't see one in this case— there was an entrepreneur trying to turn a project, which was great;
there was the possibility of a park and a school, which was also great, but it should have nothing to
do with Council's consideration today. He said for him to ignore an appearance of impropriety, tell
those in attendance that he knew better about their investment -backed expectations than they did, and
ignore General Plan process for making revisions to zoning for no apparent reason made no sense.
He would be voting against the project for those reasons and not because of the reputation of the
developer or his proposal.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, deny the project and direct staffto prepare the appropriate
documents effecting same for the Council's next regular meeting. Motion was seconded by
Councilmember Benson and carried by unanimous vote.
With City Council concurrence, Mayor Ferguson adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at
5:55 p.m.
D. CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITY (JOINT
CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY).
Redevelopment Agency Manager David Yrigoyen stated there was a report provided to
Councilmembers/Agency Board Members, and the report identified the need for certain findings by
both bodies with regard to the expenditures of funds for a Visitors and Information Center on the
12-acre site owned by the Agency on the corner of El Paseo and Highway 111. He said the findings
needed to be that: 1) The building would benefit the Project Area; 2) there were no other reasonable
means of financing the facility; 3) the cost of development would assist in the elimination of blight
60
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and the blighting conditions within the Project Area. Further, he noted this was an advertised public
hearing, with staff recommending adoption of the resolutions following the public hearing.
Mayor/Chairman Ferguson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony FAVORING or
OPPOSING the subject expenditures. With no public testimony offered, he declared the public hearing
closed.
Councilmember/Member Benson moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) City Council Resolution
No. 00-139, approving Payment by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency for all or part of the cost of the
installation and construction of a publicly owned Visitors' Information Center; 2) Redevelopment Agency
Resolution No. 409, approving payment by the Agency for all or part of the cost of the installation and
construction of a publicly owned Visitors' Information Center. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-
Tempore/Vice Chairman Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
E. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR-7) TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
(O.P.), A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A 64,521 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE COMPLEX
(THREE (3) TWO-STORY BUILDINGS), HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT HIGH
BUILDING AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT
RELATES THERETO FOR PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FRED WARING DRIVE
300 FEET WEST OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE, 72-600 FRED WARING DRIVE. THE
APPLICATION INCLUDES A PROPOSAL FOR JOINT USE PARKING WITH THE
UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED
WARING DRIVE AND FAIRHAVEN DRIVE Case Nos. GPA 00-04, C/Z 00-07, PP 00-11, and
VAR 00-06 (Charles K. Sweet and Kenneth & Vanessa Katz, and William Broz, Appellants).
Planning Manager Steve Smith noted the plans displayed for Councilmembers, explaining that there
were two different site plans and two different colored elevations, one being 24 feet, and the other
being 30 feet. He said the property involved was some 2.74 acres on the north side of Fred Waring,
across from Trader Joe's, and was currently zoned PR-7. He stated that part of this request was for
approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Office Professional; the Applicant also
sought approval of his Precise Plan that included a joint parking arrangement with the University
Baptist Church immediately adjacent to the east. He commented that the original site plan considered
by Planning Commission had essentially a 50/50 split in parking on site/off site; he called attention
to the revised site plan with a reduction in the building area and the addition of a row of parking along
the north side of the building, that concept brought the parking split down to approximately 65/35
(65% on site). Further, he said the request included a height variance on the building height itself,
which resulted from action by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC); the Applicant initially
presented the 24-foot plan there in August, and the concern was that the building looked overly top
heavy. He went on to say the Applicant came in with the 30-foot version of the plan, and that was
given preliminary approval by ARC; therefore, the 30-foot plan with 50/50 parking split site plan was
presented to Planning Commission in October, and the Commission did not endorse that concept.
He said at the end of that hearing, Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of
61
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
denial, which was presented to the Commission in November; however, in the interim, the Applicant
revised his plan down to the 65/35 concept and was willing to go with the 24-foot high building
elevations. Notwithstanding, the Planning Commission adopted its resolution of denial, which
resulted in the subject appeal. He said staff recommended approval of the original plan that was
submitted to Planning Commission, noting that it was felt the height variance recommended by ARC
could be affirmed, and it was felt the original site plan that provided more landscape/green area and
a better entry was the superior one. He observed that Code allowed for approval of projects with up
to 50% off -site parking, which was requested in this instance.
In response to Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Smith said the height limit in the zone across the street was
30 feet. Further, in answer to Mayor Ferguson, Mr. Smith affirmed that the recommendation was
to affirm the appeal of the Planning Commission decision.
Upon inquiry by the Council, Mr. Smith explained that the Planning Commission denied both the 24-,
and 30-foot versions, and their initial concerns were the joint parking arrangement and the building
height. Before Planning Commission adopted its resolution, he said the Applicant revised the
architecture down to 24 feet, so the height exception was no longer necessary. He affirmed that the
joint parking arrangement was the issue, even though it was reduced to 35%, the project was denied
on the basis of parking.
Answering Councilman Crites' request for clarification, Mr. Smith affirmed that Planning*-4.
Commission: 1) Had an objection to height but that objection was probably taken care of; 2) never
reopened the public hearing to discuss that issue nor the changed parking arrangement from 50/50
to 65/35.
Councilman Spiegel commented that in reading the Planning Commission Minutes, he said
Commissioner Finerty said she didn't know how the rest of the Commission felt, she knew they had
a major concern about the parking arrangement when it was 50/50, but her opinion of 65/35 (an
increase of 19 parking spaces) was that it just wasn't enough, leading her to move to deny the project.
Further, he said Commissioner Jonathan then concurred on principle; he didn't like it when they went
through the entire process, arrived at a resolution one way or another, and then got it rescinded when
it really should just be a formality of voting.
Councilman Crites remarked that was where he took his comments from; at least some of the
Commission seemed to be reacting more to the format of when the changes were made rather than
the substance of the changes.
Upon inquiry by Councilmember Benson as to the tower height and its relation to overall height,
Mr. Smith stated it was 31 feet, making it plus seven to the 24-foot version. He added the 30-foot,
version had a 12-foot tower.
Responding to Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Smith answered that Chairman Beaty abstained from the`
vote since he'd been absent at the previous meeting where the public hearing was held.
62
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING the
subject cases.
MR. CHARLIE SWEET, 43-708 Virginia, Palm Desert, stated that the Baptist Church didn't have
the funds necessary to do the improvements it needed. He said when he and his partners came along
with the subject office project, a deal was made with the Baptist Church that the Applicant would
absorb the cost of all the Church's improvements, including undergrounding of the utility lines,
parking, landscaping, and continual maintenance. He said in order to do this, the building had to be
enlarged to generate common area maintenance area fees to support those improvements and ongoing
costs. Based on that information, he explained the project was designed all within City Code
(i.e. height of the building, setbacks). He noted that the City's joint parking ordinance required 50%
be on site, which they provided. Additionally, he said the center building had 158 feet of setback
from the curb, far exceeding setback requirements. With regard to total coverage of the project, he
stated that on the 2.74 acres, the office site alone constituted 22% coverage; whereas, the City
normally allowed up to one-third coverage, the subject project was below that. When the Baptist
Church and the office were considered on the 4.5 acres, it was a total of only 16% coverage, making
for lots of parking and open space. He said it was quite a functional project; the owners, Katz/Broz,
had a signed agreement with the University Baptist Church for the reciprocal parking— the church
would utilize on weekends and certain holidays, the office project would utilize it Monday through
Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He added that the covered parking on the north end of the church
property was to be used for the office employees, as an incentive for parking in the shade and walking
to the office, providing for more customer parking around the office building. He noted that after
the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Jonathan specifically said that he knew of no shared
parking in the City of Palm Desert, and this would, in fact, be dangerous. However, Mr. Sweet said
they knew that shared parking was quite common in Palm Desert, and the proposed would be a very
good mixture to share parking with the church due to their difference in operating hours.
Responding to Councilman Spiegel's question about what would happen if the Baptist Church
decided to sell, Mr. Sweet answered if that happened, the future user would be restricted by the
covenant with the owners, Katz/Broz, in perpetuity.
Councilman Crites asked whether there was a copy of a letter from the church officials that
recognized that they had substantially devalued the potential resale of their property.
MR. SWEET responded that a copy had been provided to the City, and he affirmed that the church
recognized the potential Councilman Crites described.
Responding to Mayor Ferguson's question, relative to potential approval of the subject project, if
there was a condition of approval that the reciprocal parking agreement be recorded against both the
Applicant's and the church's parcel, Mr. Sweet said there was.
Mr. Smith added that it was to be in a form that was acceptable to the City Attorney.
63
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000.E
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Upon inquiry by Councilman Crites whether there were similar reciprocal arrangements elsewhere
in the City, Mr. Drell said at one time there was the reciprocal agreement between the Seventh Day
Adventist Church and Temple Sinai. He stated there were reciprocal easements but none to this
extent; there had never been a retail building sharing with a church and where there was the ability
of having such a large one. He added that with restaurants and hotels, it was 50%; it was assumed
that 50% of the restaurant use would be from the hotels.
Responding to Councilmember Benson, Mr. Drell said there were reciprocal agreements in terms of
the shared parking; there were very few to the extent of the proposed since there wasn't the perfect
fit found in this instance with weekend/weekday use.
MR. SWEET added that according to Senior Transportation Engineer Mark Greenwood, there were
two churches in the Cook Street area that shared parking with other industrial users, and it had been
quite successful.
In answer to Councilman Spiegel's question what exactly was requested for tonight's hearing,
Mr. Drell responded that the whole range of options for parking and height was to be reviewed, all
ofwhich he believed the developer would accept whatever Council's decision was for the alternatives.
MR. KENNY KATZ, 77-587 Ashberry Court, Palm Desert, recalled for Council that the subject
property fell out of the senior citizen project, and he and his partner picked it up on the basis that the'
neighbors had been upset over the proposed hospital -type use there— they would prefer another. He
said they came by the joint venture arrangement with Pastor Savage when the cost of undergrounding
utility lines was discussed. He went on to say it was necessary to pencil the project to accommodate
the cost of putting parking together, development of the church site, and the maintenance costs as
compared to the monthly rental fees. He explained the Applicants went to staff for guidance in
creating something that was within Code, and they came in at 24 feet (they didn't want 30) with all
the right setbacks. However, a situation came up, because he said the City had indicated it was going
to take 12 feet off the north side of Fred Waring, leaving their parking situation 50/50; they didn't
hear until the day of the Planning Commission hearing that the 12 feet wouldn't be taken. He said
that allowed them to come in with a 55/45% arrangement for parking. When Planning Commission
turned it down, he said they went back to the drawing board, cut some of the building off the back
and added some parking, so while they gained 19, they lost another 20, netting 39, which they tried
to get to the Planning Commission. However, Planning Commission wasn't particularly interested
at the time. Therefore, today the Applicants wished to see approval for the one most economically
beneficial to them, a 55/45% arrangement and 24-foot roof line, with the tower being seven feet
above.
Councilmember Benson commented she had no problem with 24 feet, but in that location and in
consideration of the buildings along Fred Waring, she didn't feel the tower added anything to the
project. She said all the commercial had been carefully reviewed along Fred Waring; she'd proposed
office professional from Highway 111 to Portola Avenue years ago, and no one agreed with her at
that time. Therefore, she felt the subject project looked good, and her only suggestion would be
24 feet without tower.
64
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MR. KATZ said they were quite happy to go with whatever the Council decided. They felt the joint
venture between the church and their project made a lot of sense, and they would upgrade the whole
corner in their plan, making a beautiful location.
In response to Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly's question about street widening at the location,
Mr. Folkers said when originally in design for the widening of Fred Waring, staff had envisioned
having to widen on the north side. Now being further into design, he stated it was determined that
the additional property would be sought on the south (Trader Joe's Center), and the 12 feet was not
required from the subject property.
PASTOR KEN SAVAGE, University Baptist Church, Palm Desert, addressed the Council, stating
that approximately six years ago, they started to consider reworking their 25-year-old parking lot.
However, their dilemma was that they wanted to change it out to the corner, and the original plot
plan called for a building there. When it was realized that wouldn't work, they were unable to
accomplish reworking the existing lot, so it was repaired and utilized for another five years. He said
they could redo the parking lot they had, but it would be unsatisfactory. Three years ago, he
explained they were approached for participation in undergrounding the utility lines, and they agreed
in principle that doing it all at one time would be the most efficient; however, one of the three
property owners (the church next to theirs) decided not to participate, and the cost was prohibitive
with just two property owners participating. Yet, they were very concerned about the appearance
and undergrounding the utility lines; when Mr. Katz approached the church with this possibility, they
immediately agreed that this was the way they could accomplish their goal and were very
appreciative. With regard to parking spaces, he stated Code required them to have 60 spaces
according to their capacity; however, even if they were at capacity attendance, there would still be
at least 40 parking spaces remaining. He couldn't foresee a parking problem, even during the week.
He hoped Council would vote favorably for this project.
MR. KATZ said with regard to the rear exit of the church parking lot, sealing it off with a gate had
been agreed to by the Applicant and the City. He said the church had requested access on Sundays,
which he thought was very appropriate; the gate would remain closed and locked the rest of the
week.
MS. JUDI ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive, Palm Desert, was opposed to the project, citing the
fact that their neighborhood had already been subjected to approval of the mega -skilled nursing
facility, with the project at hand being unrivaled in density at over 64,000 square feet. She
appreciated the gated parking, as described; however, she didn't want increased traffic and noise that
she already heard from her home. She felt it was unnecessary for the City to worry about money;
therefore, unnecessary to keep approving large, unattractive buildings. Their neighborhood was now
adjacent to six lanes on Fred Waring and was boxed in by 30-foot commercial buildings. She had
previously been opposed to only the parking issue, and noted that of the previous examples of shared
parking within the City, all of those mentioned were not in residential neighborhoods. Now she felt
the project was just bad sense.
65
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MR. DAVID MIDDLETON, 72-799 Arboleda, Palm Desert, was opposed to the project. While the
church would benefit from undergrounding the utility lines and assistance with their parking lot, his
neighborhood would bear the cost. He felt the major change in zone from residential to office
professional was unwise, resulting in increased traffic, noise, and pollution. He wondered how the
current electricity shortage may affect the project, wondering if emergency generators would have
to be installed, adding to the noise. Further, he was concerned that while the proposed building was
attractive from Fred Waring, he would be looking at the sides and back, which his previous
experience had proven to be unpleasant. He was distressed by the proposed six -lane Fred Waring,
already difficult to cross, and he felt approval of the subject project constituted a violation of the
social contract with the neighborhood residents since when they moved in 12 years ago, it was
planned as residential. He requested support for the original Planning Commission decision to deny
the project.
MR. ROD MURPHY, 72-764 Arboleda, Palm Desert, said while the two previous speakers were his
neighbors and good friends, he realized what was happening in the City and along Fred Waring. He
asked City Council to see that the subject project remained within the established Municipal Code
restraints and to also address a buffer zone with a wall or landscaping along the rear of the project
and along Fairhaven. Further, he asked if there were means to reduce lighting impact and noise,
suggesting the City Council or a committee of neighbors and the developer work together for an
acceptable resolution to those issues.
MR. KATZ stated the side of the building would be just as attractive as the front; the large one was
about 800 feet from the houses, and it would be buffered by the church's parking lot. He added it
would also be improved dramatically with the landscape plan that would include a wall and plantings
comparable to the rest of the City's scheme, providing landscaping all along the side that faced
residents.
With no further public testimony, Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Benson moved to, at the height of 24 feet without tower, waive further reading
and:1) Adopt Resolution No. 00-140, approving GPA 00-04; 2) pass Ordinance No. 975 to second reading,
approving C/Z 00-07; 3) adopt Resolution No. 00-141, approving PP 00-11 and VAR 00-06.
Councilman Crites commented that everything in the project complied with the ordinance for height
and setbacks, suspecting the other option on this property would be multiple -family housing, which
also had issues. However, he noted that with the One Quail Place project, almost -mature landscaping
was a requirement. Therefore, he suggested a condition of the subject project should be, insofar as
was financially practical, a requirement to increase the size of the plants (i.e. 15-gallon to 24" box,
etc.) to beef up the landscaping along the east side of the project and the east side of the church""
parking lot— a double row of landscaping that would buffer the impacts from neighboring residential.
Councilmember Benson agreed to amend her motion to include the requirement for enhanced landscaping
on the eastern boundary of the project to provide a lush buffer for neighboring residences.
66
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel said he agreed with the height limit, but he liked the tower element that would
add interest to the building without blocking anyone's view.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly felt it was a great chance to take advantage of shared parking while at the
same time eliminating some power poles that would improve the neighborhood. He agreed with
staying with the 24-foot height, but he liked towers that added an aesthetically pleasing feature on
such a building.
Councilman Crites seconded Councilmember Benson's amended motion, adding that he preferred the
project without tower element.
Councilman Spiegel provided a substitute motion, that to approve the project as was stated above WITH
tower element. Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly seconded the substitute motion.
Mayor Ferguson stated for the audience that it should be recognized that the Council did not change
zones lightly and wanted a good reason for doing so. He said the City's General Plan and CVAG's
Master Plan had Fred Waring going to six lanes to relieve the congestion on Highway 111 as the
second major east -west arterial through the Valley, and that intention had been on the books for
years. Further, he said the second item in the City's General Plan was that whenever there were
major traffic arterials, it was desirable to place office professional along them to provide a buffer for
residential neighborhoods, like the Fairhaven-Arboleda area. He said the third element in the City's
General Plan was to place all electrical overhead lines under ground in commercial areas in
conjunction with projects, such as the one being considered, to visually improve the area. He said
that was why the Change of Zone probably hadn't merited as much discussion as some of the other
things, because it was perfectly anticipated in the General Plan. He recalled being on the opposite
side of the Council's previous vote to barricade streets in the subject neighborhood three years ago,
and he voted against the mega -building because he listened to neighbors the first time when they
didn't want it, then minds were changed at the last minute, and the City has the building. He said this
vote had nothing to do with that building and had everything to do with providing an office building
consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, he was in favor of the building, whether or not
it had the tower element, and he felt it was wonderful to be able to provide parking for a church and
to provide an overall benefit to the area.
Mayor Ferguson called for the vote on the substitute motion by Councilman Spiegel and Mayor Pro-
Tempore Kelly. The motion FAILED on a 2-3 vote with Councilmember Benson, Councilman Crites, and
Mayor Ferguson voting NO.
Mayor Ferguson called for the vote on the motion by Councilmember Benson and second by
Councilman Crites, approving the project without tower element and enhanced landscaping to buffer adjoining
residences. The motion carried by unanimous vote.
67
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
F. HEARING ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY -- ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF
WAY ASSOCIATED WITH TENTATIVE TRACT 29444 (Dick and Paula Baxley
[APN 653-380-018], and Charles and Rita McGregor [APN 653-380-008], Owners).
City Attorney Erwin stated there was a report from his office. He recalled for Council that on
resolutions of necessity, it was a hearing at which the property owners were those who should be
addressing the Council on four issues: 1) Whether the public interest and necessity required the
project; 2) whether the project was planned and located in a manner most compatible with the
greatest public good and least private injury; 3) whether the real property described in the resolution
was necessary for the project; 4) whether the required offer to purchase the real property had been
made.
Mr. Folkers explained that Exhibit "B" of the document showed property to be acquired, and it
provided access to properties off of Frank Sinatra. As part of the development process for the area,
he said it was necessary to acquire the subject property, and staff recommended proceeding with the
program.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony. With no public
testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-142, declaring that the
acquisition of certain real property by eminent domain is necessary for the Tract 29444 project. Motion was
seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by unanimous vote.
G. HEARING ON AB1600 DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE REPORT.
Mr. Gibson stated each year staff was required to provide a report on revenues collected and
expenditures made from the various development fees. He said that staff had met with the Building
Industry Association (BIA) to discuss what had been spent. He noted that there were two corrections
for the report relative to the New Construction Tax Fund. Number one was that interest revenue
should be $215,000 instead of $2,200,000. Secondly, he said that after a discussion with the City
Attorney regarding the undergrounding, it was recommended that a transfer be made from New
Construction Tax to the General Fund due to the fact that the particular site was not necessarily in
a public right-of-way; therefore, it was disqualified from this fund. He commented that BIA
Executive Director Ed Kibbey was satisfied with the report.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony for this matter. No
testimony was provided, and he declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Crites moved to approve the report, as amended to reflect the following changes relative to
the New Construction Tax Fund: 1) Interest revenue of $215,000; 2) transfer of Undergrounding to the General
Fund due to the City Attorney's determination that the named site was not entirely a public facility, thereby
disqualifying it. Motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
68
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
XVII. ADJOURNMENT
With City Council concurrence, Mayor Ferguson adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 9:49 p.m.
He reconvened the meeting at 11:25 p.m., at which time the following announcement was made from
Closed Session, and he adjourned immediately thereafter:
City Attorney Erwin announced that on a 4-0 vote of the City Council, with Mayor
Ferguson ABSENT, the Claim Against the City of Palm Desert Presented by
Renee Capela (No. 440) was rejected, and the City Clerk was directed to so notify the
Claimant.
TT, ST:
SHEILA R. GIIGA , (CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DE E T. CALIFORNIA
69
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EXHIBIT "A"
68-910 Adelina Rd.
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Phone (760) 325-9500
Fax (760) 325-9300
Regency Estates Homeowners Association
December 14, 2000
Palm Desert City Council
Tamarisk Road Development
We would first like to acknowledge that we are pro -development and do support
some type of residential neighborhood to be developed on the site adjacent to our
property. It is our opinion that this proposal in its current state does fit in the area.
Our concerns are for the safety of our residents arising from increased traffic and
traffic visibility, the overcrowding of local schools, and reduced home resale values.
a. Safety- The layout of Tamarisk Road is such that the back gate along
Regency way, which is a common road between Regency Palms and
Estates, provides a very short line of sight. Often, we have heard
concerns from owners that the traffic has increased to the point that
owners are weary of using the back gate. In addition to the added wait
time to be able to make turns from this road, the speed and poor visibility
require our owners to rapidly accelerate from the drive out of fear over
what they cannot see coming from around the two turns.
b. Schools- The density of the development and the resulting additional
families will add to our overcrowded school system. We do not wish to
see our local schools strewn with portable trailers as classrooms,
notwithstanding the potential elementary school on this site. The middle
and high schools will still be affected by higher density.
c. Financial Impact- The Applicant can provide very little by way of
security to the existing homeowners, as they have no plans to develop
this land themselves. If approved this map will be sold to the highest
bidder with no guarantees of quality construction, home size, or sales
price, for our existing Owners. We have heard that there are people
involved in this decision from the planning department that are
describing those of us that oppose this development as elitists trying to
keep certain people of perhaps lesser incomes from moving into our area.
That is simply not the case. Several of the members of these
communities are actively involved in the city in various capacities
whether philanthropic in nature or as civil volunteers. We continue to
play active roles in the city, realizing the responsibility we share with the
rest of our community. We do have a significant investment in our
70
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
homes. An investment that we felt was secured by the zoning assigned to
this area years ago. The reduction of the zoning from R1-12000 to R1-
8000 is the main focal point of our contention. The reduction is nothing
more than a way to jam more families into a smaller area. The results
will be the aforementioned concerns over traffic, education, and home
values. We ask the council if they are aware that although the average lot
size in this project is listed at 9069 square feet. by our calculations
there are a total of 196 of the 270 lots that will be less than 9000
square feet. That is an astounding 72.9%. Some exceedingly large
lots at the north of the project that are affected by the noise from the
railroad lines dramatically skew the average lot size. Obviously we can
see that these lots have to be larger to offset the noise that those owners
will have to endure on a constant basis. We have already endured a
situation with the Sheffield homes at Whitehawk selling at lower prices.
Two years before the Sheffield homes sold at Whitehawk, the average
sales price per square foot of a Regency Estates home was $106. The year
up to sales of Whitehawk Regency Estates averaged $109 a square foot.
During the sales period of Whitehawk, the prices at Regency Estates fell
to $94 a square foot. These numbers are from the Multiple Listing
Service and tax roles for non -distressed properties.
In closing we ask the Council to deny this project in it's current form. We would
ask how a down size of the zoning and adding density adds to the quality of life for
us or the future residents of this new development. There is a unique opportunity to
add the park and schoolsite and actually alleviate to some extent the density of our
surrounding area.
We would hope that the Council would align themselves with the tax paying voting
members of our community to insure that what is developed on this land is to the
betterment of our city, and not to succumb to the pressures applied by out of area
Developers here solely to make a buck.
Sincerely,
The Regency Estates Homeowners Association Members & Board of Directors.
71
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 14, 2000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EXHIBIT "B"
Julin 1 nun_'• Alunihl� "llc�cn It
\c ;lcucr n P.ilm 1)c,cri
Volume 1,Issue 12
December, 2000
DESERT REALNEWS ADDENDUM
DECEMBER MARKET ANALYSIS BY SELECTED PROJECTS
The following projects are listed in alphabetical
order and all are north of Hovley.
In Belmonte Estates , there are still two homes
available, both original Williams plans.
Plan 1 1970 SQ. FT.
NONE
Plan 2 2002 SQ.FT.
NONE
Plan 3 2240 SQ. FT.
NONE
Plan 4 2935 SQ. FT.
NONE
Williams Plan 3 approx. 2604 Sq. Ft.
6 Belmonte $359,900 spa
13 Belmonte $379,000 pool/spa
Still in escrow is 44E Sutton Pl, a Plan 3 listed
at $395,000 with a pool/spa
As for Primrose,
there are now two homes available. Here's the list:
Aster 2247 SQ. FT.
NONE
Jasmine 2562 SQ.FT.
NONE
Wisteria 2646 SQ.FT.
NONE
Jonquil 3100 SQ.FT.
75545 Dempsey
41235 Carlotta
S339,000 pool/spa
$370,000 pool/spa
Closing escrow last month was 41975 Heming-
way, a Jasmine, listed @ 5299,990 with a pooUspa
and selling for 5299,000
In Regency Estates, there are now 2 homes for sale.
Noted by plan, address and asking price:
Countess
NONE (These were only built in the first phase.)
Duchess 2235 SQ.FT.
NONE
Princess 2639,2769' SQ. FT.
NONE
Empress 3050,3250' SQ.FT.
39032 Palace
Emperor 3915 SQ. FT.
39810 Cricket Cove (3630 sq. ft.)
Three houses are in escrow
$343,000 pool
$435,000 pool
this month, 76925
Coventry, a Princess with pool listed @ $345,000, 76909
Coventry Circle, an Empress with pool listed @
5375,000 and 39009 Palace, an Empress sold furnished
and upgraded asking $395,900. Closing escrow last month
was 76900 Coventry, an Emperor listed @ $465,000 sell-
ing for $445,000 and 39831 Cricket Cove, a Duchess
(2450 sq ft), selling @ $319,000.
As for the Regency Palms real estate news, there is one
home for sale in Regency Patens which fell out of escrow.
Noted by plan, address and asking price:
Countess 2015 SQ. FT.
NONE 7
Duchess 2128 SQ.FT. ( n,
NONE
Princess 2320 SQ. FT.
NONE
Empress 2793 SQ.FT.
76854 Castle $319,000 pool/spa
39760 Regency, a Duchess listed @ $269,900
pool/spa was still in escrow last month. Closing escrow
last month was 76839 Abby, an Duchess (2300 sq ft)
listed and selling @ $287,500 with a pool/spa
Now, the Sagewood real estate news. There is still only
one home listed for sale. Listing by plan:
Springwood 1712 SQ. FT.
NONE
Canyonwood 1840 SQ.FT.
NONE
Desertwood 2155 SQ.FT.
40365 Sagewood $199,500 pool
A new listing that entered escrow last month was
40333 Sagewood, a very nice Cottonwood listed at
$224,900. Selling last month were 40064 Sillctree, a
Springwood listed @ S215,000 selling for $210,000,
40312 Sagewood, a Canyonwood listed @ $219,900 sell-
ing for full price and 40088 Silktree, a Desertwood
(highly modified) listed @ $299,900 and selling for
$275,000.
Have a Happy Holiday season!!!
Note: All square footages are approximate.
All of my listings are in bold type.
Cb
72