Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-23MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson convened the meeting at 4:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Ferguson Councilman Richard S. Kelly (arrived at 4:25 p.m.) Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Buford A. Crites (arrived at 4:29 p.m.) Also Present: Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, Acting Assistant City Manager Rachelle D. Klassen, Acting City Clerk Carlos L. Ortega, RDA Executive Director Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works Gary Bitterman, Director of Building and Safety Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 9, 2000. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 42, 43, and 42PD Office Complex. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. MINUTES of City Committee and Commission Meetings. 1. Citizens' Advisory Committee -Project Area No. 4 Meeting of January 24, 2000. 2. Golf Course Committee Meeting of February 7, 2000. 3. Housing Commission Meeting of February 9, 2000. 4. Library Promotion Committee Meeting of February 9, 2000. 5. Outside Agency Funding Committee Meeting of November 29, 1999. Rec: Receive and file. D-1.LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Robert Paul from the Civic Arts Committee. Rec: Receive with very sincere regret. D-2.LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Janis Laiacona from the Library Promotion Committee. Rec: Receive with very sincere regret. E-1. RESOLUTION NO. 00-27 - 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 & Safety that Have Been Microfilmed (November 1999). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. E-2. RESOLUTION NO. 00-28 - 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 & Safety that Have Been Microfilmed (December 1999). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. E-3. RESOLUTION NO. 00-29 - 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 & Safety that Have Been Microfilmed (January 2000). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. E-4. RESOLUTION NO. 00-30 - 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 & Safety that Have Been Microfilmed (February 2000). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * F-1. REOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for Citywide Palm Tree Trimming (Contract No. C17430, Project No. 587-00). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the subject project. F-2. REOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for the Civic Center Re -roofing Project (Contract No. C17440). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the subject project. G. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract No. C17450 for Consulting and Legal Services Relative to Negotiation of New Cable Television Franchise Agreement. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject contract with Richards, Watson & Gershon, Los Angeles, California, in an amount not to exceed $10,500 and authorize the Mayor to execute same -- funds are available in Account No. 110-4132-411-3090. H. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Santa Rosa Mountains Visitor Center/Bureau of Land Management Kiosk. Removed for separate discussion under Section IV, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. I. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Proposal for Preparation of a View Analysis Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Desert Willow Hotel Project (Contract No. C17470). Removed for separate discussion under Section IV, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. J. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract No. C17480 for Fireworks Display at the City's Year 2000 Independence Day Celebration on July 4, 2000. Removed for separate discussion under Section IV, Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. K. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Addendum to Agreement with SunLine Transit Agency for the Sale of SunLink Passes at the City of Palm Desert (Contract No. C14511). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve of the subject addendum and authorize the Mayor to execute same. 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * L. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Amendment to Agreement for Relocation Consultant Services Relative to Fred Waring Drive Improvements (Contract No. C16801). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve the subject amended agreement with Overland Resources, Palm Desert, California, in the amount of $44,900 for provision of services for an additional 28 residences located on Fred Waring Drive -- funds are available in the current budget; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute same M. REOUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. C15420 -- Civic Center East Wing Tenant Improvements (Gamut Construction Company, Inc.). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project. N. REOUEST FOR APPROPRIATION of Funds Relative to Approval of McCallum Theatre Institute "Open Call" 2000 Funding Request. Rec: By Minute Motion, appropriate $10,000 from the Unobligated General Fund to Account No. 110-4800-454-3879 to cover the subject request for funding approval granted at the Regular City Council Meeting of March 9, 2000. O. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 29067 (US Home Corporation, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-31, approving the final subdivision map of Tract No. 29067 and agreement relating thereto. P. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Parcel Map 29465 (PDH Associates, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-32, approving Parcel Map 29465. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 29579 (GHA Holdings, Inc., Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-33, approving the final subdivision map of Tract No. 29579 and agreement relating thereto. R. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out -of -State Travel for Equipment Operator I to Attend Traffic Signals II Certification. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject request for travel to Laughlin, Nevada, for the program to be held April 18-20, 2000. Q. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * S. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Refund for Business License No. 99-01194 (Terraces at the Vintage Club, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject request for refund in the amount of $45.00 for FY 1999/2000 and $45.00 for FY 1998/1999 -- total refund of $90.00. T. CONSIDERATION of Request by John Groner for Outside Agency Funding. Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of the Outside Agency Funding Committee and deny the subject request. U. REOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Expend Grant Funds -- Cal Cops 99-00. Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of the Public Safety Commission and authorize staff to expend the subject funds, totaling approximately $17,060.71, as outlined in the accompanying report. V. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Beer Concession for the Ladies Auxiliary of the Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert and the Palm Desert Rotary Club Barbecue. Rec: By Minute Motion, permit the sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic beverages on City -owned property in conjunction with the subject event to be held Saturday, April 29, 2000. Councilman Spiegel asked that Items H and J be removed for separate discussion under Section IV, Consent Items Held Over. Councilmember Benson asked that Item I also be removed for separate discussion. Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Benson, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by a 3-0 vote, with Councilman Kelly and Mayor Crites ABSENT. IV. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER H. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Santa Rosa Mountains Visitor Center/Bureau of Land Management Kiosk. Councilman Spiegel stated that he did not understand the need for a kiosk. Mrs. Gilligan stated that the program started in 1996 and involved the City, the BLM, and the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy. The groups had been trying to get together to get the kiosk designed in a fashion acceptable to all three organizations. She said it was initially agreed that the funding would be shared; however, because of the delay, funding from the Mountains Conservancy had been lost. She noted that when there is no one 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * working at the Visitor Center, there is no way of directing visitors and advising what is available in Palm Desert, and this kiosk would provide that information. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mrs. Gilligan responded that the BLM funding was still available for this use. She said the City would pay the entire cost of the kiosk and would then be reimbursed by the BLM for half the amount or $15,000. Councilmember Benson noted that since the Visitor Center was closed on Mondays and Tuesdays, there was no way for visitors to obtain information on those days. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson agreed with Councilman Spiegel and stated that he did not understand the need for this kiosk. He said he knew the Mayor was in favor of the kiosk, and he moved to defer this matter until such time as Mayor Crites can be present for discussion. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Councilman Kelly and Mayor Crites ABSENT. Following consideration of the Public Hearings, the subsequent discussion and action occurred for this item: Mayor Crites asked that this matter be continued. He said the BLM, Forestry Service, and the City had been working on an informational kiosk at that site for approximately five years. He said while he supported doing this, he had an uncomfortable feeling approving $25,000 for such a thing. He said he would like the opportunity to stand on the site and talk with the appropriate staff about this matter. Mayor Crites moved to continue this matter to the meeting of April 13, 2000. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. I. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Proposal for Preparation of a View Analysis Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Desert Willow Hotel Project (Contract No. C17470). Councilmember Benson asked why this was being done when the Council has not yet approved a hotel there. Mr. Drell responded that in order to process the potential application for the hotel, staff has to do a view analysis because the existing Environmental Impact Report did not provide one for a seven -story hotel. He said this would be part of the standard CEQA environmental review of a project, assuming an application is received. He said this was a requirement to fulfill the CEQA guidelines in order to process the hotel proposal. Councilmember Benson stated that this seemed to be "putting the cart before the horse." 6 6.0 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Drell stated that this would not be initiated until an application is received, and then the consultant will be analyzing the application and providing a view analysis to illustrate the view impacts of the application. Mr. Diaz asked if there would be a problem holding this until such time as an application is received and then bring the matter back to the Council. Mr. Drell responded that this would delay the initiation of the analysis for three weeks. He said it was his understanding that if a later item on the Agenda is approved at this meeting, an application would be received the following day, and this would allow the analysis of the impacts of that application to begin immediately as opposed to delaying it for three weeks. He said the Mayor would not be asked to execute the contract until an application is actually received as well as a deposit from the developer to pay for it. Councilman Spiegel stated that it had been known for some time that there were two pads set aside for hotels at Desert Willow. Two golf courses and a clubhouse had been built, and Intrawest timeshares were there in anticipation of revenue coming to the City. He said he felt it was a known thing that there will eventually be hotels at Desert Willow. Mr. Drell stated that there was an existing environmental document on the project which specified a five -story hotel, and because the potential application was different from the Environmental Impact Report, a supplemental EIR could be done to address the specific issue that was different. He said it was a requirement, as he understood the CEQA guidelines and the law, for the City to process this application, and it was a matter of timeliness as far as approving the view analysis at this time or waiting three weeks and delaying the project. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked if there would be a problem considering this item at such time as the contract is considered later in the meeting, and Mr. Drell responded that there would be no problem in doing that. Councilmember Benson expressed concern that when Desert Willow was approved, it was with no more than five stories for the hotel. She said she felt a seven -story hotel on that lot was a monstrosity, and it bothered her that the Council approved five stories and now the request was going to be for seven stories. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson moved to continue this matter until discussion of the DDA later in the meeting. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Councilman Kelly and Mayor Crites ABSENT. Following consideration of the Public Hearings, the subsequent discussion and action occurred for this item: 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Crites stated that he would ask that this matter be pulled because there is no reason to do this until we know what we're viewing. Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this matter to a time uncertain. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote. J. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract No. C17480 for Fireworks Display at the City's Year 2000 Independence Day Celebration on July 4, 2000. Councilman Spiegel asked whether the neighboring cities to the west and east had been asked to participate in this event. Community Affairs Specialist Pat Scully responded that the cities had been contacted, and Palm Desert's neighbor to the west had contributed $5,000 to date. She added that staff had not yet heard from the City of Indian Wells. She said the $25,000 was actually $20,000 because of the $5,000 check from the City of Rancho Mirage. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject contract with PyroSpectaculars, Rialto, California, in the amount of $25,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson. Councilmember Benson asked whether the City of La Quinta had been contacted relative to participating in this event as well, and Ms. Scully responded that this had not been done. Councilmember Benson stated she felt they should be asked to participate. Mrs. Gilligan stated that staff could ask La Quinta to participate in the funding of this event. Councilman Spiegel agreed to include in his motion direction to staff to contact the City of La Quinta for participation in funding the event. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Councilman Kelly and Mayor Crites ABSENT. V. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 00-34 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE PRINCIPLES AND SUPPORTING EARTH DAY 2000. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-34. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Councilman Kelly and Mayor Crites ABSENT. 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. RESOLUTION NO. 00-35 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING FUNCTIONAL STREET CLASSIFICATIONS. Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and stated that Transportation Engineer Mark Greenwood was available to answer any questions. Mr. Greenwood stated that this was the result of an item that had previously been before the Council relative to concerns in establishing and enforcing speed limits on residential streets. He said one of the problems was that if a street was functionally classified as anything above a local street, it was not enforceable with radar at 25 miles per hour. He said much of this proposal was to classify streets as local which at this point were classified otherwise as arterials or collectors. Also included was modification of classifications on several collector and arterial streets to match their usage; i.e., Monterey Avenue as classified as "other principal arterial" only from Highway 111 to Dinah Shore, leaving out the piece from Dinah Shore to the City limits. Councilmember Benson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-35. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Councilman Kelly and Mayor Crites ABSENT. VI. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None VII. BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION, DENYING A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL COPY ON AN EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN AT THE SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 42-335 WASHINGTON STREET Case No. SA 00-20 (Starlight Sign Installation Service, Applicant/Appellant) . Mr. Drell stated that was a request to add copy ("Open 24 Hours") to the existing monument sign. He showed renderings of both the existing sign and the proposed sign with the additional wording. He noted the Architectural Review Commission had determined that the designated purpose of monument signs was for business identification, did not feel it should set a precedent by allowing companies to list the hours of operation on signs, and 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * denied the request for the additional copy. He said there was currently "Open 24 Hours" signage on the existing Sav-on Drugs building, and the Commission felt the monument sign would be too cluttered if it had the hours of operation on it. Councilmember Benson said having this wording on the monument sign would make it appear that Albertson's is also open 24 hours. MR. TIM PITTS, 1500 South Sunkist Street, Anaheim, California 92806, spoke as the representative of Sav-on Drugs and stated that they were requesting the additional copy because of the major competition (Walgreens) across the street from this location. This competition was located within the County of Riverside, not the City of Palm Desert, and had signage close to the street indicating it was open 24 hours. In addition, there was a Rite -Aid store across the street next to Walgreens. He added that in driving around the City of Palm Desert, he had noted that on Highway 111 at Monterey was a brand-new Walgreens with a monument sign stating "Walgreens Pharmacy". He said Sav-on had been purchased by the Albertson's Corporation, and with the terrific amount of competition directly across the street, they wanted everyone to know that Sav-on is open 24 hours. He said he understood staff's concern with the monument sign being too cluttered with the words "Open 24 Hours", and they had subsequently done a new design with just the words "24 Hrs" in order to simplify the signage. He passed around a copy of the new design for Council's consideration. He said that although there was signage on the building itself, it was set far back from the street and was difficult for people driving up and down the street to see. Councilman Spiegel asked what the hours are for the Albertson's store. Mr. Pitts responded that he was not aware of the hours and that the supermarkets and drugstores were completely different chains. Upon further question by Councilman Spiegel, he stated that Albertson' s was not open 24 hours. NOTE: Councilman Kelly arrived at 4:25 p.m. Councilman Spiegel stated he felt the sign was misleading in that people might see the sign and think Albertson's and Sav-on are both open 24 hours. He said he would not have a problem with the sign if Albertson's was open 24 hours or was not on the sign at all. Councilmember Benson agreed and said that was her first thought as well; however, in looking at the new design, it might not be misleading since the lettering would all be in red. Councilman Kelly stated that he would abstain from voting on this matter since he had just arrived. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated he liked the new design Mr. Pitts had just circulated to the Council and felt it simplified the clutter on the sign. He asked Mr. Pitts if the only red on 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the sign would be the Sav-on and the wording "24 Hrs", with Albertson's in blue. Mr. Pitts agreed. Councilmember Benson stated she did not have a problem with the wording "24 Hrs" underneath Sav-on, as long as it stays all in red. She agreed the City of Palm Desert needed to help protect businesses in the City. Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, grant the appeal with the applicant's new proposal. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 2-1-1 vote, with Councilman Spiegel voting NO, Councilman Kelly ABSTAINING, and Mayor Crites ABSENT B. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL TO EQUIP CITY OFFICES WITH VOICE MAIL CAPABILITY. Mr. Ken Weller, Risk Manager, reviewed the staff report, noting that at present, the City has an answering machine for individuals to leave messages after hours. Because the outgoing message portion is only approximately 20 seconds long, the recording is done very fast in order to provide as much information to the caller as possible. In order for the callers to get all the numbers that are given on the recording, they sometimes have to call back, and this is very inconvenient. The Technology Committee looked at this issue at the request of Mayor Crites and voted 3-1 to approve the Voice Mail System and forward its recommendation to the City Council for approval. He said staff had researched the voice mail system with Fujitsu Corporation (from whom the original telephone system was purchased in 1992) and was advised that the phone system could be customized into any configuration the Council feels is appropriate. He noted that even with a voice mail system during regular business hours, the phone would be answered by the switchboard operator first and then transferred to the appropriate department to be answered by department personnel. Only at the request of the caller would the person be transferred to the voice mail system to leave a message. Councilmember Benson asked if the person answering the phone in the department would ask the caller if he or she wished to leave a message on voice mail. Mr. Weller responded that this would be done, and if the caller did not wish to leave a message on voice mail, the staff member would then take a handwritten note. Councilmember Benson stated she felt voice mail was necessary at this time, as long as there is an actual person initially answering the phone rather than the voice mail system. She added that she felt the messages left by the callers would be more accurate than having someone else write a note. Councilman Spiegel agreed. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that when he goes out to speak at various civic groups and organizations and asks people if they want the City of Palm Desert to have voice mail, the almost overwhelming response is negative. However, the response inside City Hall is 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * positive. He said while voice mail was more efficient internally, from a customer relations standpoint he felt it would put the City right into a category with the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles, etc. He said in talking to residents, he was not convinced that this is something they believe will help them to communicate with their local government; if it was, he would vote in favor, but at this point he could not do so- simply because it was advanced technology did not mean it was better for Palm Desert (i.e. televised Council meetings). NOTE: Mayor Crites arrived at 4:29 p.m. Councilman Kelly stated he felt voice mail was one of the most frustrating things in his life. Councilmember Benson stated she did not like when a machine answers the phone but did not have a problem as long as the purpose of voice mail was just to leave a message, and the phones will continue to be answered.by a live person rather than a machine. Councilman Spiegel asked how many staff members would have the ability to have messages left for them. Mr. Weller responded that the system would hold up to 100 mailboxes. He added that the system could also be set up for disaster preparedness use. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject proposal from Fujitsu Business Communication Systems, Anaheim, California, and appropriate $25,992 from the Unobligated General Fund to Account No. 110-4260-422-3090 for the purchase of a voice mail system, with the caveat that the Council approve the location of the available voice mail. Motion was seconded by Benson. The motion was DEFEATED by a 2-2-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly and Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson voting NO and Mayor Crites ABSTAINING because he had not heard the staff report. With Council consensus, the remainder of the Agenda was suspended at this point in order to consider Awards, Presentations, and Appointments. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. C. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY THE COACHELLA VALLEY SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (CVSPCA). Special Projects Administrator Pat Conlon stated that Mr. Robert Sandifer, President of the Coachella Valley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CVSPCA), would be making a presentation to the Council. In addition, Mr. George Miers, a designer of animal shelter facilities throughout the facility, was present. He said the topic of this discussion was a proposed Valley -wide animal shelter to service many different cities. He reviewed the history of this request, noting that it had begun in January, 2000, when a video was released to the press showing deplorable conditions at the existing California Animal Care facility on Perez Road in Cathedral City. He said this led him to do an investigation of the facility the last week of January along with Rick Klassen of Black Forest Kennels and the 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Cathedral City Police Department. He said they would be proceeding with recommendations on operational issues in April or May during discussions of next year's budget and California Animal Care' s contract. He noted that one of the items that had come up as a result of the investigation was the fact that the current shelter in Cathedral City was not designed for animals. The City of Cathedral City developed that industrial building as a shelter in 1992. Mr. Sandifer and California Animal Care took over the facility in 1994 and expanded it in 1996 with a second room and a second row of kennels. The investigation showed that this is a temporary facility and should always have been considered as temporary. It was time to start thinking about a permanent solution to the animal control problem. He noted that the City Council had given direction to the City Manager that Palm Desert should take the lead on this matter. He said he had met with Corky Larson and Aurora Kerr from CVAG in February to outline the process and begin the dialog with the other cities to be involved. Meetings were scheduled for the month of April, depending on the outcome of this City Council meeting, for presentation to the CVAG Technical Advisory Committee and the Human and Community Resources Committee. He said at this Council meeting, it was hoped a possible site could be identified for a Valley -wide shelter, and one proposal was in front of the Council at this time. He added that there was still a lot of work to be done before the project gets off the ground, and there were a lot of issues still to be discussed, including funding and oversight. He said a shelter location needed to be determined before the site planning and preliminary drawings can begin. Mayor Crites stated that the Council would welcome a report, and while this is not a Palm Desert issue, it is at least a multiple -community or a Valley -wide issue. He said it was a difficult issue and that a very broad array of people from a variety of groups and perspectives should be gathered to give their input. Appropriate deliberation can then proceed with a lot more data than is available this evening. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that there were probably a lot of people who felt as he does and wondered how the situation went from articles in the newspaper day after day about California Animal Care, with the Council receiving letter after letter week after week about the problems there, to now the City being asked to provide land for a new facility. He said he personally felt he needed a lot more information about the investigation that was done and the conclusions that were reached because of it and the financing behind the proposal to construct and operate the facility. He said he also felt the groups that have an interest in the proper treatment of animals needed to come together under one umbrella to do this on a regional basis. He said if all three of those prerequisites were met satisfactorily, then and only then did he feel the Council would be in a position to agree to help out. Councilman Spiegel said if what was reported in the newspaper and on television really does exist, and if the animals from Palm Desert were going to that facility, something needed to be done now to clean it up rather than going on until something happens six months down the road. 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Kelly stated he did not think anyone disagreed there was a need to take care of the present problem. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that the Council had not been advised as to whether or not the current problem had been taken care of. Councilmember Benson stated that her own initial reaction was that the Council did say it would go to CVAG to see if the other cities were interested in a Valley -wide shelter or perhaps a shelter to be run by three cities. She said there was land in Palm Desert that could perhaps be considered for such a facility. Mayor Crites noted for members of the audience that the Council was not in the process of making a decision at this time and was merely going to receive and review information and make sure these issues are inclusively discussed with interest groups. MR. ROBERT SANDIFER, President of the Coachella Valley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CVSPCA), addressed the Council and noted the Desert Sun had a question in the newspaper the previous day asking whether residents felt there was a need for a Valley -wide animal shelter to help with the care of the desert's abandoned pet population. Of 568 responses, 535 were in favor, and this amounted to 94%. While he said he agreed it was not the City of Palm Desert's responsibility to provide such a shelter, Palm Desert was in the middle of the Valley and had a piece of land which would be ideally suited for such a shelter. He said the CVSPCA had spent many years trying to develop a funding process whereby the shelter could be sustained for a long period of time. He said what they would be bringing to the project, together with the City's land, was money that would come in over a period of years virtually guaranteeing that the shelter would be sustained and would not fall apart as a result of not being able to get the proper contributions. He said all of the current shelters in the Valley were inadequate and were built many, many years ago, with no room to expand. He said virtually all shelters were owned by charities or by municipalities, and he was suggesting a partnership between a private charity and all of the governments in the Coachella Valley. He noted that this venture had been underway for five years, with it taking four years to get the funding to put the program in place and another year to sign up a thousand participants. He said all of the applications were in to the insurance company, with approximately 960 policies issued. He said they were approximately 40 policies short of being guaranteed, give or take $64 million over the next 60 years, and all of that money was under the auspices of an organization that has incorporated under the laws of the State of California for SPCAs. With regard to the situation at California Animal Care as reported in the media, he said they had chosen not to address those problems so far because the City of Cathedral City undertook to do a very thorough investigation, the results of which had just come out the previous day. He said he had attended their study session and was advised by Chief Stan Henry that copies of that report were being sent to the City of Palm Desert. He said two 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * things they were looking for were whether there was any violation of the law or if there was a violation of their contract, and the answer to both questions was no. He said with any facilities of this type, there is always some sort of oversight to make sure everything is handled the way it should be, money is spent the way it should be spent, and the animals are cared for the way they should be cared for. He said the real question was whether there was a need for this type of facility in the Coachella Valley, and he felt there was a very real need due to the growth of the Valley. Mr. Sandifer stated that he had engaged the services of George Miers & Associates, which had built a lot of shelters, had very advanced thinking, knew the laws, knew how to take care of the animals, and knew how to build the shelters to make them work. He said they had prepared a presentation for the Council relative to what they felt the Coachella Valley needed. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated he had a copy of the report from the City of Cathedral City and felt Mr. Sandifer might not be taking the gravity of this situation seriously enough. He said the report indicated there was discussed a lack of cleaning and described sick and injured animals being kept at the shelter who had received no veterinary care and also showed conditions inside the shelter in which it appeared animals were living in misery with no food or water and laying in urine and feces. The report also said the building was designed to house animals from Cathedral City and now housed animals from Cathedral City, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. He said Mr. Sandifer had said the report found he was honoring the terms of his contract with Cathedral City; however, as he read the report, it stated that Mr. Sandifer technically was in compliance but that they believed a more principled approach was appropriate. If the shelter was designed for one city and was serving four, he asked at what point Mr. Sandifer planned to come back to Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells and advise that he could no longer take their animals. Mr. Sandifer stated that one of the things not mentioned in the report but which was mentioned at the meeting the previous day was that the size of the shelter had been more than doubled. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked if Mr. Sandifer believed he could safely, humanely, and sanitarily operate his shelter until a regional shelter is built. Mr. Sandifer said he felt this could be done. He said his facility had been in operation for six years, and during that time thousands of people have gone through the shelter looking for their own animals, looking for animals to adopt, etc. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked Mr. Sandifer if he agreed with the Cathedral City Police Department report that said a more principled approach was appropriate for California Animal Care. 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Sandifer agreed and said he wished there had always been oversight by the cities, with representatives coming in on a regular basis. Councilman Spiegel stated that there were recommendations made by the Cathedral City Police Department to: 1) Establish proper record keeping systems for areas such as impounding of animals, adoption of animals, bite -related, cruelty investigation, general animal complaints, customer service feedback, and donations; 2) establish guidelines for sanitation and disease control within the animal shelter; 3) euthanasia guidelines; 4) budgeting and funding; 5) planning of a new animal shelter to serve the Valley. He said there were a lot of things that could be done now. Mr. Sandifer stated that most of those things were already being done. He said one of the cities had asked for a year's worth of records so they can review them, and it was just a matter of gathering the information and submitting it to the requesting agencies. He said all of the cities' contracts gave the cities the right to audit the books and to walk through the shelter. MR. GEORGE MIERS, George Miers & Associates, stated that he was an architect and had been a board member of the Oakland SPCA for the last five years. He said he was not familiar with the full background of the conditions of all the facilities in the Valley, but his firm had encountered situations not unlike that of California Animal Care. He said the facilities that his firm does has one goal and that is to design an appropriate facility that puts an end to the unwanted pet population. He made a presentation to the Council and showed types of facilities designed by his firm. Councilman Spiegel asked what the cost of the Oakland facility was, and Mr. Miers responded that it was approximately $150.00 per square foot. He said as a comparison, they had just received the bids for the new animal control facility in San Diego, and the cost was about $115.00 per square foot. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel relative to how many square feet would be required here in the Coachella Valley, Mr. Miers responded that it would depend on the programs. He said from what he had seen for all the cities, including the Indio shelter, and with an average holding time for the dogs of approximately 21 days, there should be about 200 runs. With the kind of functions and spaces to support that, the facility would need to be about 45,000 square feet, and that would include a spay/neuter clinic. He said if other functions, such as classrooms and boarding, were included, it could go beyond the 45,000 square feet. He added that it was his understanding that the site being discussed was approximately 20 acres. The size of most of these facilities, with adequate parking and grounds, was in the five- to six -acre range. He said there was room to build a state-of-the-art facility on this piece of land and probably have room on the site for other kinds of functions, either supportive or otherwise. Councilman Kelly expressed concern that having one Valley -wide facility might not really serve the people. He said it would add a lot to the traffic situation for people to have to 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * travel so far to get to this facility. He said care needed to be taken to be sure the facility is located where it would actually serve a purpose. Mayor Crites stated that while this was not a public hearing, it was the intent of the Council to allow comments regarding this matter. MR. HERB MONIZ, Save A Pet, Inc., P.O. Box 602, Desert Hot Springs. He said what he saw on the tapes regarding California Animal Care was deplorable, and this was not the first time he had seen inappropriate activities concerning animals at California Animal Care. He said the story in the media was a direct result of frustration by volunteers, not disgruntled employees. MR. PETE FREESTONE, formerly of 72-761 Tamarisk Street, Palm Desert, said he felt $115.00 per square foot for a facility to house animals was ridiculous. He said if a larger facility was needed, perhaps someone should look at the vacant Target store in Indio which he felt could be remodeled for a lot less than $115.00 per square foot. MS. MARILYN BAKER, Orphan Pet Oasis, 18-527 Indian Avenue, Palm Springs, disagreed with putting animals into a cement block building when the world's greatest climate was here in the desert. She did not feel it was necessary to build a new facility and stated that the Orphan Pet Oasis uses children's playhouses from ToysRUs which are made of insulated materials that drop the temperature inside no less than 20 degrees. She said with regard to whether Cathedral City had even tried to improve its operation, David Barry, when he was Mayor, had contacted Orphan Pet Oasis and asked them to look at the facility and make a report to the Council. She said they had gone to the facility unannounced and found conditions that were deplorable. She said this is when they also found that, without any approval from the City Council, the facility was killing all suspected pit bull puppies, even newborns, as soon as they came in. She said what is being considered was spending millions of dollars to kill homeless animals, and she asked if this was the message we want our young people to hear. She noted that there are currently two bills in the Assembly, one sponsored by Virginia Martin and the other by George House. These bills would change the State laws to allow any shelter to decide to kill any animal within three days of picking it up. It would also allow any shelter to decide to kill any animal that is old, and old is considered over five years of age. She asked that the Council visit her facility to see a civilized way to take care of homeless pets in the Valley. MS. SHIRLEY H. COLE, a retired attorney living in Palm Springs, said she was impressed with the way the City Council had handled this matter today. She said five years ago, Carol Engelhard was the Mayor of Cathedral City. The situation at the Cathedral City shelter was deplorable, and the Police Department had threatened to take it back. Mayor Engelhard did not want that to happen because she was instrumental in getting that facility and trying to improve the conditions for the animals. She said she had gone to the facility with several other people and cleaned up the shelter. They got a refrigerator to keep the serum for pet 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * inoculations, a washer and dryer, and a tub to bathe the animals. She said she called Mr. Sandifer numerous times asking him to come out to see what they had done, and he never showed up. Meetings were held, and she said Mr. Sandifer got so discouraged with them that he asked her to take over the contract, which she could not do at the time due to pending legal cases. She said at the time Mr. Hitchcock was brought in by Mr. Sandifer, the volunteers had the place cleaned up, animals were being adopted out as quickly as they came in, and papers were being checked for lost and found. After calling places where Mr. Hitchcock had been and hearing terrible things being said about him, she said she begged Mr. Sandifer not to hire him. He was hired anyway, but the volunteers could not work with them. He euthanized nine dogs the first night he was there, two of which were being picked up the next day. Dogs were put into cages together who were enemies, and he said letting them kill each other would mean less for the workers to do. Sick animals were not taken for timely veterinary care. She said this is now five years later, and the situation is the same as it was then. MS. PHYLLIS DEWEY, President of the Board of Directors of the Humane Society of the Desert Orphan Pet Oasis and a resident of Cathedral City, stated she received many telephone calls regarding the deplorable conditions at California Animal Care. She said if a Valley -wide shelter is going to be built, she would ask that it be a non -kill shelter. MS. BARBARA ALLEN, resident at Whitehawk in Palm Desert, said she was on the Board of the Humane Society in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for approximately six years. During that time, she helped raise approximately $400,000 to build a new shelter. She said she would encourage the Council to consider a new shelter that would encompass all of the Valley and provide good care. With Palm Desert located in the middle of the Valley, she felt this would be a good place for such a centralized shelter. She added that after the new shelter was built in Cedar Rapids, the killings went down and adoptions went up. She said it was also important to have someone qualified to run the shelter who knows what they are doing. In addition, it was important to have education programs and a good spay/neuter program. MS. TERESA LAGE, resident of Rancho Mirage, said she was a volunteer at California Animal Care for over five months. She said she was also the volunteer who took the video of the conditions which exposed the neglect and cruelty at the facility. She said she was against California Animal Care being in control of the new mega -shelter, although she felt such a shelter was a great idea and would be a dream come true. She said she felt the shelter needed an appropriate leader, and California Animal Care had failed in proving it is qualified to be animal care givers. She said one of the main points of the video was the lack of medical care for these animals who are sick and in pain. She noted that the video was not taken on just one afternoon or early in the morning before the cages were cleaned -- it was taken throughout hours of the day through the month of January. She said she filmed at 11:00 a.m., then again at 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., and the same cages were still dirty. She noted that most of the animals had gotten sick at the shelter, and a lot of them were put to sleep because they were sick. There was so much sickness and disease in that building that 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * it should never have been an animal shelter. She said she wished Mr. Sandifer had made changes to the shelter when he first took it over instead of continuing to run it with such deplorable conditions. She added that the staff at the shelter were very overworked and underpaid, and that had a lot to do with their performance as animal care givers. Although a lot of the workers had good hearts for these animals, they were very tired, and their hearts were aching because they hurt for the animals. A lot of the kennel technicians were unqualified because there was such a minimum wage to work for that they could not get anyone qualified in there to work. She said she felt all of the fault lies with Daryl Hitchcock and Mr. Sandifer who were responsible for what happened there and should have been supervising and overseeing everything that went on. She said she only wants what is best for the animals. MR. MIKE RUSSELL, resident of the City of Palm Springs, said one thing that is always missing in discussions about new shelters is the goal of the shelter, which most of the time is just the warehousing of the animals. He said if the State of California carries through its goal that no adoptable or treatable animal will be euthanized in the State of California, shelters will not be able to be built fast enough to house all of them. He expressed appreciation to the City Council for its efforts in continuing the discussion of this matter. MS. JACKIE STORY, resident of Rancho Mirage, stated she represented Lend A Paw and had taken care of animal spaying, neutering, and rescuing injured and abused animals for over 30 years. She said she had seen places like the ones shown by Mr. Miers and felt they were wonderful and did work well. However, she felt getting the Coachella Valley to work together was going to be a monumental problem. With regard to a remark made by an earlier speaker that there should be only one central facility, she disagreed, citing the fact that there are three hospitals to serve the Coachella Valley, one in Indio, one in Rancho Mirage, and one in Palm Springs. She said she did not think anyone in the animal lovers milieu was against having this mega -shelter -shelter here; however, they were opposed to Mr. Robert Sandifer having anything to do with the operation. With regard to Mr. Sandifer's comments relative to selling insurance policies, she said she had done some investigation earlier that day with her insurance agent. She was advised that selling a $275,000 insurance policy generates approximately $50,000 maximum for the charity. She said this issue was already before Congress, and they were trying to stop this type of insurance sales because they knew it was somewhat bordering on a scam. She said as far as she could see, this shelter was a warehouse for death, and she could not see that it was doing much more good than that from the things she had seen and the people she had spoken with. MRS. HARRY NUDD, resident of Palm Desert for 33 years and involved with animal organizations, asked why the City of Palm Desert doesn't just take care of its own animals. She said it had taken care of the youth and seniors, and now it was time to take care of the other part of the family — the animals. She suggested that the Council consider having its own shelter. 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Crites stated that the Council was not in the process of making a decision about the charges that were made and the concepts presented — it was simply in the process of allowing people to speak about their perceptions and their points of view. MR. SANDIFER asked that either City staff or CVAG staff take this matter beyond this point, determine if things are true or not and decide what would be best for the cities and the animals. He said if it wasn't best for the animals, he would not want it either. He said he would like to see a Valley -wide animal shelter happen. Mayor Crites stated that there was a lot of data the Council needed to sort through and give some thought to and then come back and make recommendations to staff. Councilmembers Kelly and Benson agreed. Councilman Spiegel agreed that was the way to pursue this matter. He said he felt the Council should take a strong look at what is happening so it is aware of how animals picked up in Palm Desert are treated. Councilman Kelly he felt the Council should make sure it does not create something that would be an inconvenience for people. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson thanked members of the audience for their input, letters, and telephone calls. Mayor Crites added his thanks to Mr. Miers and Mr. Sandifer for their comments and presentation. With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. for dinner and Closed Session. He reconvened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Following the Public Hearings and the two Consent Calendar items held over, Council concurred to direct staff to: 1) Work with CVAG for inclusion of an agenda item on its Executive Committee and/or Technical Advisory Committee for the potential Valley -wide animal shelter with cooperation by all the cities in its development and operation; 2) closely monitor the present California Animal Care operation, including unannounced visits once per week with follow-up report to be provided on same. THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS ADDED TO THE AGENDA AS A LATE ITEM: D. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF SB 2000/SB 1982 (LOCAL SALES AND USE TAXES). Mayor Crites stated staff was requesting consideration of this item at this time due to its urgency. 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilmember Benson moved to add this item to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote. Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report, noting that these were two pieces of legislation being introduced that could impact the City of Palm Desert as far as its revenue. He said staff would like direction to send letters of opposition to these two measures. He added that there would be a lot more of these types of measures coming down the road, and he would like Legislative Committee to have authorization to go ahead and send letters of opposition if similar legislation comes down the road at a later time. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the action taken by the Legislative Committee at its March 21, 2000, meeting to oppose SB 2000 and SB 1982. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, add to the Agenda the matter brought up by Mr. Diaz relative to authorization for the Legislative Committee to send letters of opposition on related legislation. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Legislative Committee to take action over Council action on legislative matters that have a potential effect on the City's sales tax revenue. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF ARTISTIC TREATMENT FOR FRED WARING DRIVE WELL SITE ENCLOSURE (Continued from the meetings of January 27, and February 24, 2000). Mr. Conlon stated that this would be a joint effort with a split -faced masonry wall. He said Community Arts Manager Carolyn Miller had the artwork selected for the enclosure in front of the wall. Councilman Spiegel asked how much the enclosure for the well site on San Pablo cost. Mr. Diaz responded that staff would have to come back with that information. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that it was very small, approximately $18,000. He asked if the $141,000 included the wall, and Mr. Conlon responded that it did. He asked how much of the $141,000 was attributable to art and how much for the wall. Ms. Miller stated that the artwork had been calculated to be approximately $108,000. She said it was an Allen Root treatment with three panels. She reviewed the staff report, noting that AIPP had approved a roadrunner design that would be attached to the wall, with the understanding that the cost would come back to them. The Council was being asked to look 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * at this project at this meeting because staff had been directed at the January 27th Council meeting to look at something more permanent being placed at the Fred Waring well site with implementation of art as part of the project. Councilman Spiegel asked what effect the widening of Fred Waring would have on the well site. Mr. Conlon responded that the wall that is on the north side of the property, adjacent to Fred Waring, would be demolished and moved back. He said there was a large pressure tank vessel that would be relocated once the property next to the well site is acquired. The total wall length was 150 feet, with approximately 55 feet of that on the Fred Waring side which would come down, be demolished, and then be moved back. The artwork was designed to be taken apart and reattached once the new wall is built and the ultimate width of Fred Waring is built. Councilmember Benson said she had a problem with the steel forms on the wall where all the kids are going to be walking by every day and be able to access it. She said she felt it was too much to put there. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, return this matter to staff for recommendation on a reduced -scope project. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. IX. OLD BUSINESS A. REOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND CALL FOR BIDS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT THE ENTRANCE TO COLLEGE OF THE DESERT FROM FRED WARING DRIVE (CONTRACT NO. C17500). Mr. Diaz noted the staff report in the packets. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the subject project. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote. NOTE: MR. ERWIN STATED THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY LEFT OFF THE AGENDA. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF LEFT TURN POCKET ON FRANK SINATRA DRIVE WEST OF COOK STREET, PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE RESIDENCE INN AND THE COURTYARD INN. Councilman Kelly moved to add this item to the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote. 22 1r MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report, noting that prior to development it was brought to the attention of the developer of the Residence Inn and the Courtyard Inn that a left turn pocket was needed on Frank Sinatra Drive to provide access to the proposed project. Due to costs associated with the development, the developer chose not to install the turn pocket. He was now asking that the City install the turn pocket at its own expense. The Landscape Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve installation of the turn pocket at City expense. He added that the intent would be to modify or hold off on the landscaping for this portion of the project and then proceed with the landscaping after the turn pocket has been installed. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Authorize staff to solicit bids (Contract No. C17510) for the construction of the subject turn pocket and defer landscaping on the portion of the median on Frank Sinatra Drive where this turn pocket will be installed; 2) appropriate the funds from the Unobligated Construction Tax Fund in the amount of $35,000 for same. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson voting NO. After reconsideration of this item and further discussion under Item B below, Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Authorize staff to solicit bids (Contract No. C17510) for the construction r'° of the subject turn pocket and defer landscaping on the portion of the median on Frank Sinatra Drive where this turn pocket will be installed; 2) appropriate the funds from the Unobligated Construction Tax Fund in the amount of $35,000 for same. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. rift ►r B. REOUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR MEDIAN LANDSCAPING ON FRANK SINATRA DRIVE FROM PORTOLA AVENUE TO COOK STREET (CONTRACT NO. C16990, PROJECT NO. 592-99). Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Erwin stated that Council's action on the above item was to defer the award of contract on the median landscaping until the turn pocket is installed. Mr. Folkers stated that was not his intention. Mayor Crites agreed and said it was only on that portion affected by the left turn pocket. Councilman Spiegel moved to reconsider this matter. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel relative to prior problems with Pink, Inc., Mr. Folkers stated that this firm had done the job on Cook Street with considerable supervision, and it turned out to be a very good job. He said it was staff's feeling that because of the cost differential and the problem of getting bids, staff would be willing to proceed with the extra supervision and have them do the project on Frank Sinatra. He said 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * his intent with the last Council action was that the Council approve the contract with Pink, Inc., with the portion that would be affected by the left turn pocket to be deferred until the turn pocket is completed. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, award the subject contract to Pink, Inc., Palm Desert, California, in the amount of $148,657.50 plus a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $14,865.75, project totaling $163,523.25 -- funds are available in Account No. 400-4614-433-4001, with staff directed to proceed with extra supervision of the contractor on the project and to defer the portion thereof that will be affected by the aforementioned item for installation of a left turn pocket on Frank Sinatra Drive west of Cook Street until it is completed. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. C. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF HIGHWAY 111/PANORAMA DRIVE UTILITY UNDERGROUND CONVERSION (CONTRACT NO. C17010). Mr. Diaz noted the staff report in the packets and stated that Mr. Conlon was available to answer any questions. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the proposal from System Electric, Palm Springs, California, in the amount of $63,700 for the installation of underground conduits, service equipment modifications, and a new street light (replacement) necessary for the underground conversion; 2) authorize the appropriation of $63,700 plus a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $6,370, totaling $70,070, from Unallocated Construction Tax Funds. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. D. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN OF HIGHWAY 111 AND HIGHWAY 74 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (CONTRACT NO. C12360, PROJECT NO. 626). Mr. Folkers reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve Change Order No. 2 to the subject contract with Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Palm Desert, California, in the amount of $56,200 for additional engineering design services — funds are available in the Project Account, No. 213-4387-433-4001. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. E. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDED CONDITIONS FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT'S BUS SHELTER ADVERTISING PROGRAM. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with staff, the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, and El Paseo Business Association and approve deletion of the condition restricting businesses not located in Palm Desert from advertising on Palm Desert bus shelters. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson ABSTAINING. 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies Business Support Manager Ruth Ann Moore noted her report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. 2. Progress Report on Desert Willow Clubhouse Facility None 3. Status Report Regarding Community Gardens Project on San Pablo Avenue Landscape Manager Spencer Knight reviewed his staff report, noting that the cost sheets included a standard flush type restroom facility at an additional cost of less than $20,000. He said the preliminary cost estimate for the facility was $370,368.63. Councilman Spiegel stated that the original estimate was over $500,000. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mr. Knight responded that the lighting had been removed. Councilman Spiegel moved to add this item to the Agenda for action. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, conceptually approve the project as proposed by staff in the amount of $337,000. Motion was seconded by Ferguson. Councilmember Benson stated that when this was discussed last time, direction was to come in with the cost to do the fencing along the street and then go in increments to see what goes behind the wall after it is done. She said she was still concerned that this is a lot of money for a community garden. She agreed that the wall should be done, but what goes behind that wall was supposed to be looked at after the wall is done. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson recommended authorizing that amount and having staff come back in stages for the construction process so that Council can look at it stage by stage. Councilmember Benson agreed. 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Knight stated that Exhibit G of the report was a cost analysis if the grading, infrastructure, irrigation, perimeter landscape, and the wall with only the demonstration garden, and leaving the other gardens without anything inside the wall. He said that total amount was $337,176.13, while the overall garden cost was approximately $370,000 with contingency included. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked how big the demonstration garden would be. Mr. Knight responded that it was the largest parcel at two half lots. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that for an additional $50,000, the entire garden could be done. Mayor Crites asked how much it would cost if raw dirt were left on the back side of the wall, and all that was done would be to do all that was necessary to beautify the wall with landscaping on the front, etc. Mr. Knight responded that it would be approximately $250,000 without anything in the gardens. Councilman Kelly stated that he did not have any strong feelings one way or the other about having a community garden; however, it was important to do some kind of landscaping there. Since some people would like to have the community garden, and it seemed to be a very popular thing to do, it seemed the best thing to do would be to do the entire project, and that was his motion. Councilman Spiegel seconded the motion with the comment that there was a major turnout on a Saturday with over 50 people who live in the area and would like a garden. He said if a community garden was put in and was successful, it would be just as advantageous to the residents of the City as the skateboard park is to the entire Valley. He said this would be used primarily by residents of Palm Desert, and if it is successful, he could envision community gardens in other locations within the City of Palm Desert. Mayor Crites stated that when he served as "Principal for the Day" at Washington Charter School and was out touring and looking at the area, the Principal made a comment that the one place they will not touch, by order of parents and students, was their small garden area. Councilmember Benson stated she was not against a community garden, she was against community gardens that looked like they belonged in Times Square. She said a community garden was a garden, it was not a landscaped statement of some kind. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that his understanding was that of the $337,000, $250,000 of that was what would have to be done whether there were any seeds planted or not, just to beautify that corridor. On top of that, there is a $20,000 restroom and a $25,000 shade structure. So the City is actually looking as spending $42,000 for a garden. He said from his bias, he would like to build the wall (which has to be done) 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * and get the gardens in, and if they are successful and there is a demand, add the shade structure and the restroom. He said he liked sequencing it but agreed with Councilman Spiegel that the Council should approve the entire project now and have the project coordinator come back to the Council with reports on the progress. Councilman Kelly stated that was his motion, to conceptually approve the project as proposed by staff, with direction that appropriate reporting on the progress of same is made to the Council. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember Benson voting NO. B. CITY MANAGER 1. Scheduling of City Council Bus Tour of City Property and Projects. Councilman Kelly stated that the Council was going to the canyon instead. 2. Mr. Diaz stated that he intended to send some staff members to the CDF training on how to spot red fire ant areas unless there was any objection. Council concurred that this should be done. C. CITY ATTORNEY 1) Reauest for Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1) Property: 118 acres at 75-500 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA Negotiating Parties: Agency: Phil Drell/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: John Morrisette Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 2) Property: 74-320 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-221-005 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Robert L. and Colleen C. McKay Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3) Property: 74-052 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-200-003 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Cory V. and Michelle K. Barbeau Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 4) Property: 74-072 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-200-004 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Richard N. and Melody D. Fuller Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 5) Property: 74-206 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-009 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Michael T./Judith A. Mandic Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 6) Property: 74-082 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-200-005 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Cloyce P. Mann Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 7) Property: 73-920 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 622-200-007 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Danilo Sipovac Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 8) Property: 73-880 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 622-200-009 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: John & Luann Neufeld & Thomas B. Weems Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 28 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9) Property: 73-860 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 622-200-010 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: James V. & Laura Kenley Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 10) Property: 73-830 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 622-200-013 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Hugo Villeda Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 11) Property: 73-820 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 622-200-014 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Francisco Y. Fong & Ramona Manjarrez Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 12) Property: 74-038 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-200-002 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Alberto A. & Consuelo Loza Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 13) Property: 74-096 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-200-006 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Sotello C. Leyva and Carlos A. & Lidia Leyva Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 14) Property: 74-110 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-200-007 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Kevin E. & Marguerite Olson Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 29 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15) Property: 74-130 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-001 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: East Valley Properties, Inc. Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 16) Property: 74-138 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-002 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Ascension A. &Bertha A. Diaz/Arturo Lara Rubio Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 17) Property: 74-144 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-003 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Deborah A. Burns Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 18) Property: 74-150 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-004 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Edward H. & Rosa G. Guerra Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 19) Property: 74-158 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-005 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Maria Valdez Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 20) Property: 74-166 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-006 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Dennis J. & Judith Ann Garvin Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 30 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21) Property: 74-170 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-007 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Charles D. & Linda L. Gayler Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 22) Property: 74-178 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-008 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Jean Pierre & Nelly J. Henrotaux Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 23) Property: 74-228 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-201-010 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Vilma C. Escher & George R. & Desserrie Cox Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 24) Property: 74-280 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-221-003 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Mildred R. & Thelma Reynolds & Kiyo Reynolds Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 25) Property: 74-296 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-221-004 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Duane L. Strohl & Josie Strohl Loza Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 26) Property: 74-340 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-221-006 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Cory V. and Michelle K. Barbeau Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 31 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 27) Property: 74-360 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-221-007 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Jesus Mendoza & Rosa Ramirez Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 28) Property: 74-380 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA APN 624-221-008 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Danny M. & Alejandra Leduc Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 29) Property: Lease Property - Parkview Professional Office Buildings, 73- 710-720 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Negotiating Parties: Agency: City of Palm Desert/Paul S. Gibson, Finance Director Property Owner: City of Palm Desert Other Parties: State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): a) Denise Oakley and Denise Weller v. City of Palm Desert, United States District Court - Central District of California, Case No. 99-07432MMM b) City of Palm Desert v. Mary English Lloyd and Juan M. Armenta, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 006499 c) City of Palm Desert v. Juan M. Armenta, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 014067 d) 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 to Government Code Section 54956.9(b): Number of potential cases: 2 32 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2) Report and Action on Items from Closed Session Made at This Meeting. None D. CITY CLERK Ms. Klassen reminded Council about the grand opening of the Clubhouse scheduled for Wednesday, March 29, 2000. She also asked if the Council would like to have the Informational Item dealing with the status of the Desert Willow Clubhouse facility removed from the Agenda since the Clubhouse is completed, and Council agreed. E. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: 1. Consideration of Request from St. Margaret's School (Mayor Pro-Tempore Jim Ferguson). Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated he had received a request from St. Margaret's School whose Odyssey of the Mind team participated in the Destination ImagiNation competition. He reviewed the letter received from the school, noting that seven students from the third, fourth, and fifth grade competed with all schools County -wide and finished in first place. He said the students were going to the finals in Sacramento and had asked the City's assistance in funding this trip in the amount of $2,000. He said this was similar to what the City approved for last year's first -place winner from Palm Desert Middle School. Councilmember Benson moved to add this item to the Agenda for consideration. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSTAINING. Upon question by Councilman Kelly relative to whether the City can give money to this school since it is affiliated with St. Margaret's Church. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson stated that the he had pulled the memorandum that is the basis of the City's policy for outside funding, and that policy arose from the Greek Orthodox Church golf tournament at Desert Willow. He said he had asked the City Attorney to review it, and he indicated that because it is a State - sponsored academic competition that had nothing to do with religion (it being incidental that the students happened to come from a parochial school), it was not furthering religion and did not run afoul of our separation of church and state policy. Mr. Erwin agreed. 33 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, approved funding request in the amount of $2,000 for the Odyssey of the Mind Team from the St. Margaret's School to travel to Sacramento for the State competition. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSTAINING. o City Council Committee Reports: 1. Report on Letters of Support Written for SunLine Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses (Mayor Buford A. Crites/Councilman Richard S. Kelly). Mayor Crites stated that these letters had been written and were well -received. 2. Councilman Kelly presented Mayor Crites with the 1999 first -place award given to City employees for ride sharing. 3. Councilman Kelly stated that there would be an open house from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on April 3rd at the Regional Airport in Thermal. 4. Mayor Crites stated that it was with pleasure, on behalf of the College of the Desert, to announce the Alumni Association selection of Councilman Spiegel as "Community Leader of the Year". He said Councilman Spiegel would be honored at a luncheon in early April and then at the annual Alumni dinner later in the Spring. 5. Mrs. Gilligan announced that Councilmember Benson was receiving a State award with Senator Kelley as "Distinguished Woman" of this area, and she would be in Sacramento on Monday to receive that award. XI. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION See specific items for Council discussion and action. XII. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE PALM DESERT DELEGATES IN THE 52ND ANNUAL CALIFORNIA YMCA YOUTH AND GOVERNMENT MODEL LEGISLATURE AND COURT HELD IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 17-21, 2000. Human Resources Manager Gloria Darling stated that she had attended the Youth and Government Day in Sacramento recently and was overwhelmed at the ability of the students to come in and really take on the positions to which they were assigned, including writing legislation. She noted that 40 Palm Desert students had attended this program as 34 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * representatives of the City of Palm Desert. She called them forward individually, and Mayor Crites presented each with an award in appreciation of their participation. B. PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING WINNERS OF THE FIRST ANNUAL GISBORNE- PALM DESERT SISTER CITIES MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE GOLF TOURNAMENT. This item was withdrawn. C. PRESENTATION OF "EVERYDAY HERO" AWARD TO CLYDE CARUTHERS. On behalf of the entire City Council and the Palm Desert Civic Arts Committee, Mayor Crites and Committee Member Maureen Thompson presented the award to Mr. Clyde Caruthers. Mayor Crites stated that Mr. Caruthers was the first recipient of this award. Mr. Caruthers expressed his appreciation to the City and said this made him feel like he was entering the "Hall of Fame of volunteering." D. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 27, 2000, AS "THE VALLEY'S PROMISE DAY" IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. This presentation was not made at this time, as the proclamation was to be picked up the day after the Council meeting. E. PRESENTATION TO THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL BY THE PALM DESERT HIGH SCHOOL GOLF TEAM. Mr. Joey Ramos and Mr. Sean Hanson addressed the Council as representatives of the Palm Desert High School Golf Team, noting that during the 1990s the team had won three C.I.F. championships and two Southern State championships as well as 11 straight League titles and almost 100 consecutive League dual matches. He said since 1990, more than 20 golfers had been sent to college with scholarships. Mr. Ramos stated that he would be attending the University of Washington the following year on a full scholarship, and Mr. Hanson would be attending USC. He noted that much of the team's success could be attributed to community support. Mr. Hanson stated that the team had been approached three years ago by the City and asked to make Desert Willow its home golf course. He applauded the City for building the most outstanding City -owned course in the country and said he felt the City's commitment to youth in the community was very commendable. On behalf of the team, he presented each Councilmember with a team shirt and Honorary Team Membership. 35 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Kelly stated that for many years he had been following and keeping track of this golf team and felt it was appropriate that Palm Desert has the best golf course in the Coachella Valley and the best high school golf team. He said the entire City was proud of this golf team. F. APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY PROMOTION COMMITTEE. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Barbara L. Rosenberg to the Library Promotion Committee to fulfill the vacancy created by the resignation of Janis Laiacona. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF MOBILE HOME LOT NO. 79 (APN 622-351-079-3) LOCATED AT 43-155 PORTOLA AVENUE (PORTOLA PALMS MOBILE HOME PARK) AT FAIR MARKET VALUE (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Mr. Diaz stated that this public hearing should be considered jointly with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. Housing Manager Teresa LaRocca reviewed the staff report, noting that the selling price for Lot #79 would be $24,500. She said this would make a total of 17 lots sold to date, with six still unsold but with tenants on them, and 17 vacant remaining lots. She offered to answer any questions. Mayor/Chairman Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman/Member Kelly moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 00-25, authorizing the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to sell mobile home lot number 79 (APN 622-351-079-3) located at 43-155 Portola Avenue (Portola Palms Mobile Home Park) at fair market value; 2) waive further reading and adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 389, making and finding that the sales price for the lot is not less than its fair market value in accordance with the highest and best use under the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1 Amended. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote. B. CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE HOTEL DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE DESERT WILLOW CONFERENCE CENTER PARTNERSHIP (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Mayor/Chairman Crites noted that this was a joint public hearing with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. 36 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report, noting that the purpose of the public hearing was to receive public comment on the agreement before the Council/Redevelopment Agency and the proposed sale of Redevelopment Agency land. He said the public hearing was advertised on March 8th and 15th, and the agreement and consultant's report had been available to the public since March 8th. He said this involved the sale of 16.8 acres by the Agency, which would be developed as a conference hotel. He noted the developer was available to answer any questions. The project would be a full -service hotel consisting of 250 hotel units and approximately 64,000 square feet of public spaces and meeting rooms, restaurants, and hotel retail. There would be approximately 28,000 square feet of meeting space, 405 parking spaces, and a three -level parking structure. He said one of the conditions of the agreement was that the plans and specifications be submitted to the City to obtain a conditional use permit. There were also requirements for the Agency to be able to review all the financing commitments and construction contract. He added that this was an agreement to agree and an agreement to close an escrow if certain conditions are met by the developer. The agreement provides the developer with one year from the date of execution of the agreement to provide all of those things. In addition, if the developer meets all of the condition and the escrow is closed for the transfer of the land, there are requirements that the project be built, and there are provisions for reversion if the project is not built within a specific period of time. There was also a penalty clause if the project is not completed within a specific period of time, and the developer would be charged a daily penalty amount. He noted that the agreement recommended that the sale of the parcel be for $1.00. In accordance with Redevelopment law, an analysis had been prepared that justified the sales price. Also in accordance with Redevelopment law, the property was required to be sold at fair market value (or fair reuse value if the terms and conditions and requirements placed for the development of the project could not justify the fair market value). Mayor/Chairman Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. MR. RALPH DAVIS, a resident of Montecito, stated that the residents of his community had concerns with the way this development would affect them due to its closeness to their homes. He said their concerns were primarily with the height of the buildings, placement of the buildings on the site, light pollution, noise pollution, and security. He questioned how the measurements were done and stated that the pads had been built up from the previous grading for the golf courses. He said from his home, it looked as if they had been built approximately 20 feet higher. MR. TIM SULLIVAN, resident of Deergrass Drive in Palm Desert, General Manager of Marriott's Desert Springs Resort, said he was also speaking on behalf of the Marriott Corporation as the lead Marriott executive in the Coachella Valley. He questioned the wisdom of a hotel development in Palm Desert in light of the current dismal hotel environment in the Coachella Valley. He noted that the aggregate occupancy of the major hotels was approximately 65 % and declining. He said he respected the free market. If someone wants 37 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * to come to the Valley and develop a hotel, he would wish them well and would treat them as a respectful competitor. However, he opposed the idea of the City selling 16 acres of beautiful land to a developer for $1.00. He said in his view and in the view of Marriott, that was nothing less than the City underwriting a direct competitor to Marriott. He said he also spoke for the 1,500 associates working at Marriott's Desert Springs and the 3,000 Marriott associates in the Coachella Valley. He said these are not great times in the hotel business, it continues to be a scramble in the hotel business, and selling this land for $1.00 would create a competitive imbalance, disrupt the existing competitive context, and provide anyone that comes into that site with an undue competitive advantage. He added that the reason people are not coming in and paying fair market value for land in the Coachella Valley to develop new hotels and resorts was because there is not the demand to fill these new hotels and resorts. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson asked Mr. Sullivan how he would define a competitor to the Marriott's Desert Springs. MR. SULLIVAN stated that Marriott competes both in the Valley and outside of the Valley. The competitors outside the Valley would be Scottsdale, San Diego, and Las Vegas. Within the Valley, the competitive set was defined as the La Quinta Resort, the Hyatt, Renaissance Esmeralda, Rancho Las Palmas, Westin Mission Hills, and the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Rancho Mirage. He said when he mentioned the aggregate occupancy of 65 %, this was the group of hotels to which he referred. MR. ROBERT SONNENBLICK addressed the Council/Agency Board as a partner in the company wishing to develop this property. He said members of his firm had the opportunity to meet with City staff and some of the local people, including residents of Montecito who would be the most closely affected. He said the conference center project was a two-story project. In terms of blocking views, the two-story conference center being proposed was virtually no different than the new clubhouse at Desert Willow. The conference center hotel had been intentionally moved to the side closest to the Montecito development so as to not block views. The design had been done in the same architectural motif as the new clubhouse as well so that everything would blend together. He said they had tried to be a good neighbor to the existing residents. With regard to comments by Mr. Sullivan, he said there were two things in the hotel business that needed to be looked at. One was occupancy, and the other was room rates with occupancy. He agreed with Mr. Sullivan as far as who the competing hotels are in the Coachella Valley. He noted that room rates at $175.00 per night average meant that during the high season, they had to be at approximately $225.00. He said Hilton was going to be the operator of the conference center, and if Hilton did not feel that the economics warranted doing what was proposed, there would not be $64 million put at risk in the deal. He said he wished to stress the difference between a resort hotel, such as the Marriott, and a conference center hotel which was geared toward groups of corporate travelers coming in for conferences and meetings. This project would not have the usual types of amenities such as tennis courts and three-story high lighting that would bother the neighbors. With regard to the security issue, he said security was a big issue to them as well, and one of 38 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the things they would do is to provide a security fence around the project. He offered to answer any questions. Upon question by Councilman/Member Spiegel, Mr. Sonnenblick confirmed that the plan was to have 250 hotel rooms at over $250,000 per room (based on the $64 million figure). MR. SONNENBLICK stated that with regard to the issue of the purchase price of the land, this hotel should generate approximately $2 million per year to the City of Palm Desert. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson asked where this hotel would be in Mr. Sullivan's competitive set. Mr. Sonnenblick stated they were projecting on the conference center to be toward the lower third of room rates in the competitive set mentioned by Mr. Sullivan. He said when people come in for a conference, they are not just looking at room rates — they also commit to a large food and beverage commitment as well, with several meals per day being catered on site. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson asked what the competitive set of the resort hotel across the way, and Mr. Sonnenblick responded that it was similar to Mr. Sullivan's list and included Marriott's Desert Springs, the Ritz Carlton, La Quinta Resort, Westin Mission Hills, Hyatt Grand Champions, Givenchy Spa, and the new Miramonte Hotel. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson stated that when Marriott came to the city to build its hotel facility, they did not ask for anything by way of land. Over $3 million in sales tax was generated per year by the Marriott, and the City did not give them anything. He said he felt it was necessary to come up with a public nexus of benefit to justify some $3 million in land. Mayor/Chairman Crites stated that Mr. Sullivan never said this would not be a good deal for the City. What Mr. Sullivan said was that it did not start both of these projects out with the same set of costs, and that is what Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson was talking about. MR. SONNENBLICK stated that in order to get financing in 1985, which was what the Marriott had to do to construct its facility and open in 1987, the world was very different than it is today. It was very easy for developers to go out and get 85 % to 90 % of cost financing, and they could then afford to have large land and building costs. However, today's financing was such that developers can only get 60% to 65% of project cost at the most. He said if he was able to borrow 90% of costs like he could in 1985, he would offer to pay full dollar for the land. With regard to the comment relative to employment, he said it was very hard for him to believe that opening a 250-room conference center hotel would put anyone out of work at the Marriott. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson stated that his point was that we have a very economic and productive partner in the Marriott, and the City gave them nothing. He said he believed the City could have the same thing with this new project. He said his hangup was not on the land per se, it was more on why this three -star project would take an upper third of the 39 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * four -star competitive set. He said the City had invested a considerable amount of money in Desert Willow and was looking at a four- or five-star property on the resort hotel pad. He said he wondered why this was being done in piecemeal fashion instead of stepping back and taking a look at both parcels and possibly some additional land to bring the height of the resort hotel down and master plan the entire site to make it a quality, homogeneous star type development throughout rather than having a five-star and a three -star sandwiched by a $6 million clubhouse. Councilmember/Member Benson asked Mr. Ortega what the land would be worth if the City were to sell it. Mr. Ortega responded that looking at the purchase price plus infrastructure, it would be approximately $1.3 million. He added that market value is what you are allowed to put on it given the restrictions and conditions. MR. REID SANFORD, 23 Taylor Avenue, Palm Desert, Montecito Development, echoed the comments of Mr. Davis and said he felt they were important issues. He said he took issue with Mr. Sonnenblick's comparison to the present clubhouse, which he felt was beautiful and did not impact the views of the neighbors. He said the reason it did not impact the views was because it is behind the large platform and mound on which the conference center was going to built. He said the original proposal for this site was a seven -story hotel, which really offended the adjacent residents. He noted that Finding #1 under the Real Estate Analysis Services Co. report stated that "The Property is currently completely unimproved, and the development of the Project will assist in the elimination of blight in the area." He said he felt the blight depended on what direction one looks, and there is a beautiful view from Montecito. MR. WILLIAM HARRIS, 40-640 Ventana Court, Palm Desert, asked if the residents would maintain tee times at the resort and if they would be guaranteed. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson stated that although he could not guarantee it in the future, this Council had discussed the issue and wanted the residents to be able to play both Desert Willow courses, even with the hotels. Mr. Harris asked where the work force would come from since there is already a shortage of hotel workers in the Valley. Mayor/Chairman Crites stated that when the Marriott was first built, they used to bus people from their resorts in the Los Angeles Basin so they had enough workers. He said the issue of coming up to speed from zero with workers is always an issue for any major development and would be for this development as well. MR. FRANK GARAHAN, Calliandra Street, Palm Desert, stated he would like to respond to some of the comments made by the developer regarding the type of customer they are attracting. He said he felt they were disingenuous in terms of the current reality. He said Mr. Sonnenblick characterized the type of customer being conference center customers and 40 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * corporate group customers unlike that of other hoteliers in the Valley. He said he was the General Manger of the Rancho Las Palmas resort in addition to being a resident of Palm Desert, and he assured the Council that the customers this resort is trying to attract would be precisely the same customers that all of the hotels in the competitive set are attracting at the same time of year. With no further testimony offered, Mayor/Chairman Crites declared the public hearing closed. Councilman/Member Kelly stated that the Marriott was one of the most favorite businesses in the Coachella Valley. He said the City must deal with what the economic climate is today if it wants to continue development as planned. He said if it were not for Mr. Bill Bone, the Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa would not be here in Palm Desert. He noted that just because someone asks the City for something does not necessarily mean they will get it. The City did not propose a seven -story hotel at this site, but the City's Master Plan shows a conference center hotel. Unless the City wants to junk the project and start all over again, it has to deal with what the realities are today. He said he felt the Council had a responsibility to follow the plan that it has had for the last three years. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson stated that he was delighted that Mr. Sonnenblick was going to be building whatever is decided upon because he knew Mr. Sonnenblick does first-rate work and would deliver a quality project. He said he was also mindful of the fact that the City had spent not just the last three years on hotels but the last 14 years master planning Desert Willow, a lot of it due to the vision of Councilman/Member Kelly and the rest of the Council at that time. He said it was always envisioned to have two golf courses, a conference center, and a resort hotel. He said he was not sure in the year 2000, given the current economic client and the hotel industry, whether the Council has to stick, line and verse, to that formula. His concern was not whether there will be a hotel (because there would be one), his concern was that it has taken 14 years so far and does not have to be decided at this meeting. He said he would rather it be done right, and several things alarmed him at this meeting. One was doing the project piecemeal. He did not want to do the conference center site, then the resort hotel site — he would rather do one integrated master plan. There is a Master Plan that has a five -story limit on its hotel, and the Council was asked at this meeting to approve a site study to go to a seven -story hotel. He said if there was a better way to do this, he was open to consider it. He did feel the City can get the quality product it wants, there is enough land to put it on without going over five stories, and the product he was looking for would not be in direct competition with the hotel competitive set as described. He said he was not prepared to vote on the matter at this meeting, and there are large policy issues left to be addressed. Councilmember/Member Benson agreed and said it worried her that it had taken almost 27 years for the City of Palm Desert to get where it is today, and she did not feel it was necessary to cover every piece of land in the City just because it is City -owned land. She said she felt the Council needed to look very carefully at what is put on that property and when. 41 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman/Member Spiegel thanked the Marriott Desert Springs and said the income from this facility was twice what the City receives from all the residences in the City in real estate taxes. He said a lot of the amenities in the City, such as the skateboard park, are directly related to the Marriott Hotel. He reiterated what Mr. Sonnenblick said relative to investments being a lot different in 1985 than they are today. He said limited partnerships were easy to come by because of the big tax writeoff. He said according to the report from the Redevelopment Agency, it was not unique in today's marketplace for cities to work with developers. He agreed with Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson that he would like to see the entire site at least planned, if not developed, at one time. He said he would like to see this matter continued so that the Council can get a better feeling on the plan. Mayor/Chairman Crites stated that the issues of grading, pad height, original height, placement, etc. were real and significant issues, but this meeting was not the time they would be addressed. He said they would be addressed when someone brings in an actual project with all the various and sundry components. He said those answers needed to be there when staff comes back to the Council with a report and recommendation for a project. He agreed with his colleagues that it was important to try and have a plan for both of those pads at the same time. It was also important to see if the height of the pad for the proposed seven -story hotel could be lowered. He agreed the world had changed since the early 1980s; however, when Marriott came in just a year or two ago with plans for The Courtyard and the Residence Inn, they paid money for hotel pads. He said it felt that as you go up the scale of luxury, you go down the scale of profit in terms of what people are willing to pay, and then cities are supposed to subsidize those at a higher rate. He said he was still looking for a more equitable way to reach fmancial arrangements on this. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson suggested that if this is continued, before it is brought back the Council might wish to consider asking several of its colleagues to sit down with Mr. Ortega and Mr. Sonnenblick to try and resolve issues brought up at this meeting. Mayor/Chairman Crites asked if the City Manager would be included in these discussions, and Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson agreed. Upon question by Mayor/Chairman Crites, Mr. Erwin noted that the public hearing had been closed. Mr. Ortega stated that with the Redevelopment Agency, there has to be a proposed agreement in order to call for a public hearing. Mr. Erwin stated that if the Council/Agency was going to continue with this matter as a public hearing, it needed to continue it to a specific date. Councilman/Member Spiegel stated he felt it would be best to re -advertise the public hearing. 42 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor/Chairman Crites reopened the public hearing. Councilman/Member Spiegel moved to continue this matter for 30 days, with two Councilmembers to be appointed to work with appropriate staff and the developer to resolve issues discussed at this meeting. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Councilman/Member Kelly suggested that Councilman/Member Spiegel and Mayor Pro- Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson be the appointees to work on this matter. Both agreed. With Council concurrence, Councilman/Member Spiegel and Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson were appointed to work with appropriate staff and the developer to resolve issues discussed at this meeting. C. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A NOTICE TO ABATE ISSUED FEBRUARY 18, 2000, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-800 HIGHWAY 111 (APN 627-184-001) (John J. & Judith F. Dee, Appellants). Code Compliance Supervisor Hart Ponder reviewed the staff report, noting the property in question was in violation of the City's ordinance for keeping a clean and orderly commercial district. He said the purpose of this public hearing was to make a determination that a public nuisance exists and make a fmding that the abatement described in the Notice to Abate is reasonable and necessary to comply with the law. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Determine that a public nuisance exists on the subject property; 2) make a fmding that the abatement described in said Notice to Abate is reasonable and necessary to comply with the law. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND PREZONING TO FACILITATE FUTURE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF 156.01 ACRES LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 5, T6S R6E (THE AREA SOUTH OF IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB); SAID PROPERTY TO BE DESIGNATED VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1-3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OPEN SPACE (O.S.) IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND PREZONED PR-1 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, ONE UNIT PER ACRE MAXIMUM) AND OPEN SPACE (O.S.) Case Nos. GPA 00-1 and C/Z 00-2 (SR Consultants, Inc., Applicant). Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report, noting that this was a request for annexation of land obtained by Ironwood Country Club when it had to buy its golf course back from the 43 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Coachella Valley Water District. He said part of the land was occupied by the golf course. Some of the land was protected by a dike, and there was also some acreage to the south not protected by the dike. Staff was proposing zoning of the developable area protected by the dike at PR-1 and general plan of very low density residential, with open space for those areas south of the dike. He said there were a few issues that needed to be resolved before proceeding on the annexation. One was that the area had been identified in the proposed Big Horn Sheep Recovery Plan, and it was suggested that the applicant prepare a tentative map for the developable portion and process it through the City so that the exact environmental issues of the development will be known. There were also some issues relative to possible trail easements through the property, which would probably be the subject of a preannexation agreement. Staff was recommending approval of the preannexation zoning at first reading, but the matter would not be brought back to Council for second reading until all of the remaining environmental and easement issues have been resolved and the tentative map has been filed. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel relative to development of a portion of the land where he does not see a road going into the area, Mr. Drell stated that the developable area is accessed by a road within Ironwood that would enter the area. He said the tentative map to be prepared would delineate how the area would be developed. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSED to this request. MR. LEONARD PALOWSKY, SR Consultants, stated he was available to answer any questions of an engineering nature. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Crites declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Benson moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 00-36, approving GPA 00-1; 2) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No.1,938 to second reading for Case No. C/Z 00-2. Motion was seconded by Spiegel. Councilman Kelly stated he would rather have a chance to go up to the site and look at it. Councilman Spiegel suggested that the Council could go up and look at the area between the first and second readings of the ordinance. Mayor Crites stated that staff's recommendation was to approve the General Plan Amendment and have first reading of the ordinance for the Change of Zone. Mr. Drell stated that if the Council wished, it could continue the entire matter. Mayor Crites asked if there was objection from the maker and seconder of the motion to continue this matter, and both agreed. 44 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Spiegel stated that if the City decided it did not want to annex this property, it would stay in the County of Riverside, and the County would be in charge of what happens to that piece of property. Councilman Benson withdrew her previous motion and moved to continue this matter for 30 days. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson asked Mr. Drell to set up a time for the Council to visit the area and look at both the open space proposed, the proposed development area, and the trail alignment. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XV. ADJOURNMENT With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. to Closed Session. He reconvened the meeting at 10:11 p.m. and immediately adjourned with no action announced from Closed Session. ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, ACTING CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 45