Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-10MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2002 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kelly convened the meeting at 4:10 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Jim Ferguson III. INVOCATION - Mayor Richard S. Kelly IV. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Pro-Tempore Jean M. Benson Councilman Buford A. Crites Councilman Jim Ferguson Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Richard S. Kelly Also Present: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services/City Clerk Richard J. Folkers, ACM for Development Services Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Homer Croy, Director of Building & Safety Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Teresa La Rocca, Director of Housing Martin Pinon, Director of Human Resources David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment Rachelle D. Klassen, Deputy City Clerk V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 VI. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE MARK WEISMAN FOR HIS EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF THE PRESTIGE AT PALM DESERT NCAA GOLF TOURNAMENT, NOVEMBER 3-6, 2001 (Rescheduled from the meeting of December 13, 2001). On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Kelly presented an engraved platter to Mr. Weisman in appreciation for the tremendous effort he expended that resulted in the 2001 Prestige at Palm Desert NCAA Golf Tournament being an extremely successful event at the City's Desert Willow Golf Resort. The tournament consisted of teams from throughout the United States that were both top in the sport of golf and in the top 100 schools academically. Schools represented included Stanford, Yale, UCLA, Washington (which won this year's tournament), and Oregon. Mr. Weisman was already working on the tournament for 2002. B. PRESENTATION OF THE "2001 TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARD" TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT BY THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. MS. HOLLY TURNER, District Manager for the Automobile Club of Southern California, La Quinta District Office, reported that in 2001, cities from all over the nation were invited to participate in the AAA Community Traffic Safety Program. It was an awards and recognition program for communities that identify and seek to address their local traffic safety issues, with awards presented to participating communities based on their efforts and successes. She announced that the City of Palm Desert had earned an Honorable Mention Award from AAA of Southern California for its attention to such issues and congratulated Mayor Kelly and the City Council by presenting a plaque signifying the recognition and a job well done. C. PRESENTATION TO THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL BY QUEEN SCHEHERAZADE AND HER COURT AS AMBASSADORS OF THE 2002 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAIR AND NATIONAL DATE FESTIVAL. Diana Ramirez, Queen Scheherazade, Stephanie Gutierrez, Princess Jasmine, and Terri Neuenswander, Queen Mother, addressed the City Council, extending an invitation to all to enjoy the upcoming fair, February 15-24. 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meetings of December 13, and December 27, 2001; the Adjourned Joint Meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of December 13, 2001; and the Special City Council Meeting of December 31, 2001. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY, - Warrant Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 50PD Office Complex, and 53PD Office Complex. Rec: Approve as presented. C-1. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#463) by Slobodan Bosnich in the Amount of $1,600. Rec: By Minute Motion, reject the Claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. C-2. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#464) by Jennifer Cooper in an Unspecified Amount. Rec: By Minute Motion, reject the Claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. C-3. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#466) by Maribel Andrade in the Amount of $1,172.41. Rec: By Minute Motion, reject the Claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. D-1. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE, by Prestige Stations, Inc., for Arco AM/PM, Northwest Corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 D-2. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE, by C V Food Services, Inc., for La Spiga Ristorante Italiano, 73-405 El Paseo, Suite No. 33-D, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. D-3. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE. by Jensen's Complete Shopping, Inc., for Jensen's Minute Shoppe, 42-150 Cook Street, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. E. MINUTES of City Committee and Commission Meetings. 1. Civic Arts Committee Meetings of October8, and November 19, 2001. 2. Housing Commission Meeting of November 14, 2001. 3. Promotion Committee Meeting of November 20, 2001. 4. Public Safety Commission Meeting of November 14, 2001. Rec: Receive and file. F. AUDITED FINANCIAL REPORTS for the City of Palm Desert for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2001. Rec: Receive and file. G. AUDITED FINANCIAL REPORTS for the City of Palm Desert Measure "A" Fund for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2001. Rec: Receive and file. H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Records Transfer and Retention Schedule for the City Clerk's Office. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 02-1, approving the Records Transfer and Retention Schedule for the Office of the City Clerk. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Disbursement of Art In Public Places Funds for Property Located at 74-011 Highway 111 (Tim Bartlett, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Concur with the recommendation of the Art In Public Places (AIPP) Commission and approve disbursement of $1,808.58 from AIPP funds paid by Developer Tim Bartlett for compliance with placement of artwork. J. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Five -Year Master Plan for Future Art Placement. Removed for separate consideration. Please see discussion and action under Item VIII, Consent Items Held Over. K. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for the Fred Waring Drive Improvements from Highway 111 to Fairhaven Drive (Contract No. C19690, Project No. 651-99). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the subject project. L-1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C16822 — Consolidated Landscape Maintenance Area No. 5. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $225 to the subject contract with Enviable Greens, Palm Desert, California, and authorize the Mayor to execute same — funds are available in Account No. 110-4610-453-3371. L-2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C17871 — Monthly Sweeping of President's Plaza III Parking Lot. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Change Order No. 1 to the subject contract with Black & White Sweeping Services, Thousand Palms, California, for the addition of the President's Plaza III parking lot to the existing contract at a rate of $280 per month and authorize the Mayor to execute same. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 L-3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. C18740 — Construction of Public Parking Improvements for President's Plaza III. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $8,819.35 to the subject contract with Dateland Construction Company, Coachella, California, for additional work on the project and authorize the Mayor to execute same; 2) authorize the Director of Finance to transfer said funds from project contingency to base contract. NOTE: Mayor Ferguson abstained from the vote on Item L-3. L-4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C18980 — Landscape and Irrigation Design for Hovley Lane Medians from Portola Avenue to Cook Street (Project No. 589-98). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,300 to the subject contract with David Evans & Associates, Inc., Ontario, California, for additional design work and authorize the Mayor to execute same; 2) transfer $1,877 of funds from contingency to base for the subject project — additional funds for this work are available in Account No. 231-4391-433-4001. L-5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. C19570 — Storm Drain Improvements at Cook Street and 42nd Avenue (Project No. 641-98). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $3,915 to the subject contract with Dateland Construction Company, Coachella, California, and authorize the Mayor to execute same for additional excavation, removal, and replacement of an existing handicap ramp on the project — funds are available in Account No. 232-4541-433-4001. M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Purchase and Installation of 1,275 Lineal Feet of Guard Rail Along the Palm Valley Storm Channel Adjacent to Homme/Adams Park. Removed for separate consideration under Item VIII, Consent Items Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action. 6 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 N-1. REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Fees Associated with Desert Rose Society's Annual Pruning Exhibition. Rec: By Minute Motion, waive fees associated with the subject event scheduled to take place on Saturday, January 12, 2002, in the Rose Garden located at the Palm Desert Civic Center Park. N-2. REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Fees Associated with the Alzheimer's Association's Memory Walk. Rec: By Minute Motion, waive fees associated with the subject event scheduled to be held Saturday, February 9, 2002, in the Palm Desert Civic Center Park. N-3. REQUEST FOR WAVIER of Fees Associated with the American Diabetes Association's Tour de Cure Event. Rec: By Minute Motion, waive fees associated with the subject event scheduled to be held on Saturday, March 23, 2002, at the Palm Desert Civic Center Park. N-4. REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Fees Associated with the National Multiple Sclerosis Society's Walk-A-Thon. Rec: By Minute Motion, waive fees associated with the subject event scheduled to be held on Saturday, April 13, 2002, at the Palm Desert Civic Center Park. N-5. REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Fees Associated with the Arthritis Foundation's 5K Walk. Rec: By Minute Motion, waive fees associated with the subject event scheduled to be held on Saturday, May 4, 2002, at the Palm Desert Civic Center Park. O. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies None 2. Civic Center Energy Conservation Update MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 Councilman Ferguson requested Item M be held over, and Councilman Crites requested separate consideration of Item J. At this time, Councilman Ferguson also stated he would be abstaining from the vote on Item L-3. Upon a motion by Ferguson, second by Spiegel, and 5-0 vote of the City Council, with the exception of L-3, on which Councilman Ferguson ABSTAINED, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VIII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER J. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Five -Year Master Plan for Future Art Placement. Councilman Crites questioned the recommendation for artwork placement at the Monterey Avenue/I-10 interchange, in light of the Council's last meeting, where action was taken to discontinue work on the project previously designed for the location since it was learned that the interchange would likely be significantly altered within the next five years in order to accommodate increased traffic. Community Arts Manager Carolyn Miller responded that the Art In Public Places (AIPP) Commission determined that area was still very viable for doing something with art at that intersection. She acknowledged that it wasn't for the project previously considered but for a design of another sort. Responding further, Ms. Miller affirmed that funds would be solicited from the owners of property at the intersection of Fred Waring/Monterey; it was in the Master Plan. Additionally, she answered that projects had been listed in order of priority but noted that the recommendation also stated that projects would be initiated when appropriate in order to provide flexibility. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of the Art In Public Places Commission and approve the five-year Master Plan for Future Art Placement. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote. M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Purchase and Installation of 1,275 Lineal Feet of Guard Rail Along the Palm Valley Storm Channel Adjacent to Homme/Adams Park. MR. DAN McGEARY of Fred Sands Realty, 72-605 Highway 111, Palm Desert, said he listed and sold properties in the neighborhood of 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 Channel Drive at Thrush Street, as well as those on the streets off of Channel Drive. He believed it needed to be safer, more attractive, while providing a good first impression to visitors and newcomers. Presently, he felt it was at its worst— narrow, rough, and dusty; and it needed to be widened, smoothed out with a hard surface, and to provide a safe passageway for two vehicles. He believed that such improvements would add to the value of the properties in the neighborhood rather than taking away from them. He appealed to the City Council to do everything necessary to improve Channel Drive. MR. JAMES McBRIDE, 47-355 Southcliff, Palm Desert, concurred with the comments made by Mr. McGeary. He felt the road should be widened and noted that the bridge built there was concrete, 28 feet wide, which led him to assume that the street connecting to it would also be 28 feet wide. Right now, he believed traffic had been increased by the City's locating a park there, along with a parking lot. Whereas, all of the streets and roads within Palm Desert were basically 28 feet wide, he considered the subject roadway to be substandard and deficient to meet the needs of residents of the area. Additionally, he was concerned that there was no lighting, making it more critical to have a wider roadway at night. Therefore, he asked the City Council to consider those issues and the residents of the subject neighborhood. He added that even the bridge had a walkway of four feet, which he felt should be carried along the course of the roadway for bicyclists, joggers, or other activities. MR. CALVIN CREE, 47-400 Southcliff Road, Palm Desert, said about five years ago he'd spoken with a City official about improving the subject road, "Calle de Los Campensinos," and that official stated they wouldn't have a problem developing the road so long as it was done to City standards. Since the City had acquired the Homme/Adams property, he believed the City had, essentially, developed it — as a park. Therefore, it was the City's responsibility to develop the road along the Channel consistent with City standards for vehicular traffic and for City streets. He said since the park had been there, several situations had occurred where he narrowly missed pedestrians walking along the road at night. He believed the palm logs had created a visible delineation of where people should/shouldn't walk, and for some reason, people felt they should walk in the right-of-way. Further, he felt the park was not properly posted for people not to be there or access the area at night, and it certainly was a safety issue. He believed it amounted to a liability for the City; as long as the road was narrow and there was no place for pedestrians. He personally wanted to see the palm logs south of the Thrush Street Bridge be replaced with a sidewalk for pedestrians to walk. With regard to the 20-foot road, two -foot buffer on each side with a guard 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 rail, he didn't understand why Channel Drive north of Thrush Street Bridge was 32-feet wide (or wider) and why the part of Channel Road that had the most vehicular traffic was so narrow. He asked the City to be conscious that it was a public safety hazard and a liability, and he prayed that no one got hurt and that the City would do the right thing. Responding to Councilman Ferguson's question, Mr. Cree said he'd noticed the stakes. He went on to say that before the palm Togs were installed, there were stakes, as well, and for some reason the palm logs were placed in a different location. Upon inquiry, Mr. Folkers said the roadway had not yet been widened. Staff was awaiting confirmation from the contractor so that the project could proceed. Further, he answered that the aforementioned stakes were those placed originally for the extremely wide roadway that was previously proposed and that Council's last action approved a 20-foot-wide road with a two -foot buffer on each side. MR. CREE commented that just the other day on his way home, he came face to face with a Waste Management truck, and he had to pull into the temporary parking spot in order to allow it to pass. Inconvenience aside, he believed a 20-foot road with two -foot buffer on each side was inadequate and posed a safety issue to pedestrians who used the road day and night. He said for some reason, people who came to use the park and walk their pets used the road along the channel 99% of the time instead of using the park. He wished the original, extremely -wide road that was envisioned in the beginning would have been used. He hoped the City would reconsider its position while there was the chance to take responsible action. Councilman Ferguson stated that he'd asked the City's Traffic Engineer whether the dimensions proposed by Public Works, once the improvements had been made, were safe for the type of travel and volume of traffic on that road. He said the answer was that they were safe. MR. CREE was unsure of that analysis. He questioned whether the roadway had been walked either at night or in the day or if the vehicles traveling there had been observed. He felt that the City had certain standards for dimensions and widths of City streets, which had been derived after much thought, public safety being among the criteria evaluated; this road should be no different. He believed if a developer had gone in to develop a commercial or residential project on the property that had been acquired by the City for the public benefit, the developer would have been required to install a City street to the established standards for rights -of -way. He 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 acknowledged that while no expert on traffic studies, etc., he lived there and drove the road; it was an accident waiting to happen. Councilman Ferguson noted that the City had owned Cahuilla Park for many years, and no one had complained about the width of the road, with people driving it all the time. He said the property in front of Mr. Cree's family property had been there for as long as they had owned theirs, and it wasn't until the City purchased it that complaints were received. He acknowledged that the City was trying to come up with an accommodation that worked for residents there. Although some 27 were on Southcliff Road, he said there was only one road that bordered a 16-foot-deep channel; it was owned by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), and their permission was required. He commented that as a resident off of Haystack Road, he was well aware that the wider and straighter a road, the faster cars would travel. Therefore, he said the City thought about safety in both directions, and in the subject instance, perhaps not enough consideration had been given to pedestrian travel— perhaps they were encroaching in the right-of-way, and that could be looked at. However, he felt reasonable minds could try to do safe things yet come up with differing conclusions. MR. CREE reiterated that once the palm Togs were placed, there was a visible, conscious barrier that people could either walk their pets on one side of the palm logs or the other; they were walking on the side that was in the right-of-way. He believed a nice compromise would be to remove the palm logs and replace them with a sidewalk, making the place to walk visible to the pedestrians. MS. DORI CREE, 47-400 Southcliff Road, Palm Desert, said she appreciated what those before her had said; however, she didn't think they had the background knowledge of the matter. At last month's meeting, she thought the City Council more or less agreed that 20 feet was not adequate, which is what the road was now (18-20 feet wide, going south from the Thrush Bridge). Therefore, she was very surprised to read the Minutes of the December 13 Meeting, that the vote was for keeping the road 20 feet wide with a two -foot buffer on each side, when she thought the road was going to be made a little bit wider. She said the orange stakes that both Councilman Ferguson and Mr. Folkers referred to earlier were placed only six feet wider than where the palm logs were right now. It would not interfere with the trees growing there, and all that she was requesting was that the palm logs be moved to the location of the orange stakes. She said in a 20-foot roadway, each vehicle only had a 10-foot space when meeting the other; it was fine in a car but very uncomfortable when you met a truck. She would appreciate having the palm logs moved, offering that she'd accept a 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 25-foot wide road. She pointed out that earlier Mr. McBride stated the bridge was 28 feet wide, which was incorrect. The passageway on the bridge was actually 24 feet, with a four -foot sidewalk. She asked if the City could even give a 24-foot roadway with two -foot buffer on each side and maybe some walking area for pedestrians, realizing that a sidewalk was out of the question, but perhaps some sort of gravel path could be made. She understood the park would have all kinds of walkways but felt that when people used that area, they would still go up and down the Channel. Again, she requested City Council reconsider the 20-foot wide road. In response to question, Mr. Folkers affirmed that a 20-foot roadway with two -foot buffer on each side amounted to a 24-foot road. MS. CREE clarified that she was requesting a 24-foot roadway with two -foot buffer on each side that would provide more room to maneuver. She believed there was plenty of room in which to make the road, the area was already graded from Bighorn's installation of water pipes. She wondered why it was so difficult to get two or three more feet added to the road. Mayor Kelly stated that the road width issue would mean a vote for reconsideration, since the item on this Agenda was only for the guard rail. Mr. Erwin stated that pursuant to the Council's own rules, the ability to reconsider an item was only available at the same meeting. Therefore, the issue would need to be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting and changed at that time. Councilman Spiegel commented that since three or four people have addressed the Council about their unhappiness with the previous decision, he wondered if it would be appropriate to take action on the guard rail issue at this meeting followed by discussing the road width issue between residents and staff, with a resulting recommendation being forwarded to the Council. Councilman Ferguson said he was bothered by the repeated references that the City was doing a sub -par project with this road. He personally felt the guard rail was sub -par, and since the Mayor agreed at the last meeting that the City should do what it would require of any other developer, he was unsure of the proposed guard rail if another developer were doing it. Therefore, if the matter was coming back to the Council, he wanted Public Works to explain an engineering scale solution for the road: 1) Something for pedestrians and vehicles; 2) surface; 3) width; 4) whether sidewalk, curb, or gutters would be included, which he felt wouldn't since 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 there was no sewer. He thought that could put a close to the issue once and for all after two years. In answer to question, Mr. Folkers stated staff could meet with the people and follow with a report. Mayor Kelly commented that the City had met with the people many times, he wanted staffs report and recommendation. Councilman Spiegel moved to continue the subject matter to the meeting of January 24, 2002. Motion was seconded by Councilman Ferguson and carried by 5-0 vote. IX. RESOLUTIONS None X. ORDINANCES For Introduction: — A. ORDINANCE NO. 993 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND DELETING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.87 (MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT AND MASSAGISTS) (AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 870), AND ADDING CHAPTER 5.90 (MASSAGISTS) TO THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING ISSUING PERMITS FOR MASSAGISTS (Ordinance first appeared on the Agenda for the Adjourned Meeting of July 19, 2001). Mr. Ortega noted the staff report, adding that the ordinance had returned from review by the Public Safety Commission, and those comments were included in that being presented. Responding to Councilman Spiegel, Business Support Manager Ruth Ann Moore confirmed that CVAG had informed staff that cities of La Quinta, Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City, and Coachella had already agreed to the proposed ordinance. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 993 to second reading. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by 5-0 vote. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 B. ORDINANCE NO. 1009 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.12 AND 3.14 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO CLAIMS AND DEMANDS FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES. Mr. Ortega commented that the subject ordinance amounted to a housekeeping matter; the City Attorney and Director of Finance were present to answer questions. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1009 to second reading. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by 5-0 vote. For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 1008 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.88 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING ADULT ENTERTAINERS. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1008. Councilman Ferguson noticed that the subject ordinance required the adult entertainer be currently licensed by the City, and he couldn't find the requirements for being a bona fide adult entertainer. Mr. Erwin offered to get that information and provide it to Councilman Ferguson. Councilman Ferguson asked that the subject ordinance be continued until later in the meeting, and he would familiarize himself with the requirements in the meantime. Councilman Spiegel's motion died for lack of a second. With City Council concurrence, Mayor Kelly continued the matter until consideration later in this meeting. Prior to adjournment, Councilman Ferguson reported that he'd not had a chance to review the information on adult entertainers, and he requested the matter be continued to the next meeting. 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 Upon a motion by Ferguson, second by Spiegel, and 5-0 vote of the City Council, consideration of the adoption of Ordinance No. 1008 was continued to the meeting of January 24, 2002. XI. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE CORPORATION YARD EXPANSION (CONTRACT NO. C19700, PROJECT NO. 715-00). Councilman Ferguson was concerned about the subject request for services at $125 per hour for two months of work, in the amount of $85,000, on the Corporation Yard expansion, which he felt was modest in comparison to the upcoming 12-acre site project, the 40-acre apartment complex project, and at some point, the Civic Center. He could then only imagine the costs for their administration. Further, he thought that the City had set itself up to have in-house project administrators with the proper credentials, licensing, and ability to perform such work. He wondered if the City should hire another person rather than piecemeal contracts like the one proposed, which he noted wasn't put out to bid when there were many project managers in Palm Desert. Mr. Folkers said there was a certain amount of urgency involved, as the City was under the gun from the water agencies. He said in Palm Desert there was a tremendous amount of over -watering; both the contracted SunLine street sweepers and the City's own often carried loads containing 80% water. Currently, the City didn't have the capability to handle it. He said staff had been working with the State, trying to keep them at bay; however, if the City made no progress, it could be faced with as much as a $10,000 per day fine. Therefore, it was felt that obtaining Mr. Levin's services would accelerate the program, and staff didn't intend to expend the full $85,000, only if absolutely necessary. He noted that some of the City's ongoing projects were quite involved and not moving along as fast as originally planned. The subject instance was critical. Recruitment of a new staff person would probably take three months, and while some salary savings could be realized, the water quality sword remained over the City's head. Councilman Ferguson felt that there was a staff person in the City Manager's Office who was managing projects (solar panels, carports, etc.), and it might be more prudent to have that person set aside Tess critical projects in order to address an emergency situation. He felt perhaps the long-term need for construction management services could then be looked at later. He 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 suggested perhaps the architect could be asked to handle contract administration so that the City didn't have to do the paperwork, working with Building & Safety and City project staff to make the project more economical. Mr. Folkers explained that staff believed obtaining an outside contractor to oversee the project seemed to be the most prudent at this time. He reiterated the seriousness of the problem with sweeper waste and a proper means of disposal, offering to further examine what other alternatives existed, but that it was important to get moving on the project. Councilman Crites believed contracting for services that could be handled in-house had become an expensive way to administer projects. Councilman Spiegel and Mayor Kelly agreed with Councilman Ferguson's comments. Mayor Kelly said he didn't read in the staff report the urgency of the need. Councilmember Benson commented that if it was truly an emergency, she felt it needed to be done. However, she felt that it was also something that needed to be watched for in the future with the upcoming 12-acre site project, others, so that they weren't done in a piecemeal fashion. She agreed that if another staff person needed to be taken on, that should be proposed. Responding to question whether all the City's internal resources had been polled to find out whether or not someone in-house was capable of performing the requested services, Mr. Folkers answered that based on what he was told, he felt the proposed was the best way to go. He hadn't gone into a precise review of all the City's resources. Upon inquiry as to whether there were currently staff members who were project managers and could do the project, Mr. Ortega stated there were. However, in looking at the present staff of project managers, he explained that they were involved in current projects (e.g. Fred Waring Drive Widening, etc.), and it was possible that this project could be held until one of those project managers was able to take it on. But he said Mr. Folkers was concerned that the street sweeping waste brought to the Corporation Yard contained a lot of water, the Water Quality Control Board was exerting pressure to resolve that issue, and the subject request to was a way to do so. Councilman Ferguson reiterated his position that while the carport issue was something he voted in favor of and was a worthwhile project, he was 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 concerned that it was moving forward while a $10,000 problem was being addressed with an $85,000 consultant, when perhaps the carport installation could be delayed and a City employee could be assigned. Upon inquiry about whether or not the $10,000 per day fine was imminent, Mr. Ortega said he wasn't entirely sure, but what he did understand was that the consultant would coordinate the design and construction management and ensure its completion. Otherwise, he said if Council directed in-house staff to oversee the project, it could be done; however, it would have to wait until other current projects were completed. When asked what the ramifications would be if this matter were continued for two weeks, Mr. Folkers answered that a sub -consultant was working right now on possible solutions for the clarifier, etc., so a two -week delay would allow staff to obtain more answers that may satisfy the City Manager and Council. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this item to the Council's Meeting of January 24, 2002. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tempore Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote. B. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT SUBSTATION LOCATED AT 42-305 #E WASHINGTON STREET. Mr. Ortega noted the contents of the staff report for this item, including that it was recommended by the Public Safety Commission. Councilman Spiegel commented he felt it would be an excellent addition to the City and moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the agreement with HOMA, LLC., for office space at 42-305 #E Washington Street in an amount not to exceed $3,000 per month for five years (Contract No. C19710); 2) authorize the Mayor to execute same; 3) direct staff to proceed with the renovation of the office space at a cost of $75,000 to accommodate the needs of the Palm Desert Police Department Substation; 4) appropriate $75,000 from the Unobligated General Fund for this purpose. Mayor Pro-Tempore Benson agreed, adding that it had been a long time coming, and she seconded Councilman Spiegel's motion. It carried by a 5-0 vote. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 XII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. PRESENTATION OF UPDATE REPORT ON REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITY (Continued from the meeting of December 13, 2001). Mr. Ortega explained that staff needed to ask for a continuance on this item. He said some of the paperwork would be changed as a result of some of the County's requests. Mayor Pro-Tempore Benson added that this was something in the works for the last two years, and it was now felt that the County had come up with a viable funding method. She said the CVAG Human and Community Resources Committee would be meeting next week with a subgroup to list items that the County would incorporate into a schedule, including an indication of commitments by the various cities, to return to the Committee. She believed it would please all concerned and probably would be available for the Council's next meeting. No action was required nor was taken on this item. XIII. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK AND WALL ON EL PASEO AT SANDPIPER (CONTRACT NO. C19260, PROJECT NO. 698-99). Mr. Ortega noted that the subject project was one long in coming, and staff had finally gotten it out to bid. Councilman Spiegel recalled agreeing to the sidewalk, removal of the oleanders, etc., from Highway 74 to Town Center Way; however, he didn't recall that the project would be continued all the way to Painter's Path. Mr. Folkers responded that the project would go all the way along El Paseo but not down Painter's Path. Councilman Ferguson remembered that there was debate on the matter, and he also recalled being on the 12-Acre Committee, which favored a sidewalk that went all the way to the City's property to encourage pedestrian traffic. He was unsure how that eventually came out. Mayor Kelly commented thatwhateverthe outcome, the discussion had been held, and staff was now making its recommendation. 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 Mr. Folkers noted that the City's internal project managers had been meeting on this project for some two and a half years, and the Sandpiper officials would be working with this contractor or perhaps another to install a wall. The city would install the pony wall, or wherever there was a grade differential where a small wall was needed, and the sidewalk, and the Sandpiper was doing the remainder. He went on to say the City would also be removing the oleanders and eventually would be getting into the landscaping for them. Mayor Kelly believed it was logical for the City's sidewalk program; however, he asked if it was General Fund money being utilized. Mr. Folkers answered that it was from the Sidewalk Fund, which was part of the General Fund. He added that in an effort to get the most out of the City's and Agency's money, it was felt that the Agency's money was better spent on the project at Cook Street and Frank Sinatra; therefore, the Agency funds originally set aside for this project had been reallocated. Mayor Pro-Tempore Benson felt that since the subject site was one of the gateways to the City, it should be done. Councilman Ferguson followed up on Mayor Kelly's question, asking if it was possible sometime in the future to augment the Sidewalk Fund with a matching amount of Redevelopment Agency money once it became available. Mr. Ortega offered that in the future a resolution could be brought forward that would authorize the Agency to reimburse the City. In answer to the question whether such direction could be included in a motion, Mr. Erwin affirmed it was possible. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, award the subject contract to Contreras Construction Company, Indio, California, in the amount of $163,343.75, authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $16,334.38 — project total $179,678.13 — and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract, with additional direction that the funds for this project from the City's Sidewalk Fund be reimbursed from Redevelopment funds as they become available in the future. Motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote. 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 B. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CIVIC CENTER PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM (CONTRACT NO. C19590). Mr. Ortega noted the report for the item, adding that the rest of the project had already been approved. This was adding the photovoltaic system to the top of the structures. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to D & G Electric Company, Banning, California, in the amount of $68,777; 2) authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate said funds plus a 10% contingency ($6,877) — project total $75,654 — from Unallocated Fund 400 Reserves. Motion was seconded by Councilman Crites and carried by 5-0 vote. XIV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF MOBILE HOME LOT NOS. 9, 22, 32, 73, 82, AND 131, LOCATED AT 43-155 PORTOLA AVENUE (PORTOLA PALMS MOBILE HOME PARK), AT FAIR MARKET VALUE (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Mr. Ortega noted that the matter was a joint public hearing with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. He said it involved a continuing sale of the lots and that Director of Housing Terre La Rocca was available to answer questions. Mayor/Chairman Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING the subject request. No public testimony was offered; therefore, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman/Member Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 02-2, authorizing the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to sell mobile home lot numbers 9 (APN 622-351-009), 22 (APN 622-351-022), 32 (APN 622-351-032), 73 (APN 622-351-073), 82 (APN 622-351-082), and 131 (APN 622-351-131), 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. 430, making a finding that the sales price for the Tots is not less than their fair market value in accordance with the highest and best use under the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1 Amended; 3) by Minute Motion, authorize Agency staff to offer low interest loans to those tenants who qualify as low income to assist in the purchase of their lot. Motion was seconded by Councilman/Member Ferguson and carried by 5-0 vote. 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. Update on Betty Ford Center/Daisy Lane. The following is a verbatim transcript of the subject item. RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor CLO Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney MN Martin Nethery, Legal Counsel for The Betty Ford Center SM Scott McClanahan, representing owner of property immediately north of Daisy Lane. SB Sue Ballantyne, licensed child psychotherapist RA Russell Abeyratne, resident of College View Circle JF Jim Ferguson, Councilman TG Tim Graham, resident of College View CB Chadwick Bradbury, attorney representing homeowners on College View Circle JP Jeff Paige, resident of College View Circle BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman DP Dora Paige, resident of College View Circle SW Stacy Wensel, resident of College View Circle DL David Lamb, developer SMC Sylvia McArthur, resident of College View Circle CO Chris O'Malley, resident of College View Circle RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro-Tempore RSK Reports and Remarks. City Manager: Update on Betty Ford Center/Daisy Lane. CLO Mr. Mayor, last time you had requested that the City get involved in some discussions between the Betty Ford Center and residents out in the area. I'd like to report that we did meet last month with several residents of the area; Betty Ford representatives were there. In addition, I know that our Legal Counsel has met with both Betty Ford and its people out there. In addition to that, we did hold a meeting here at City Hall this week, and as a result of those meetings, the City Attorney is prepared to present an agreement between the Betty Ford Center and the City, and I'd like for him to detail what that agreement would encompass. 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 DJE Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the proposed agreement is an agreement between the City of Palm Desert, the Susan A. Eliason Trust, of which Wells Fargo Bank is the trustee, that is the underlying land owner of the 14 units on Daisy Lane, and the Betty Ford Center at Eisenhower, which is a separate, non-profit entity at Eisenhower. You have copies of the proposed draft agreement. It does have some recitals in the agreement. The agreement, substantively, says the following: That the three parties agree that the Betty Ford tenancy on Daisy Lane Homes will be terminated, and possession of those homes will be vacated and relinquished back to the Trust on or before December 31, 2003. It's a little less than two years from now. The provisions of this section are provided as to additional parties as third party beneficiaries so long as this agreement is in full force and effect. Those third party beneficiaries, who would have the ability to enforce that time deadline, include the owners of residential real property located north of Frank Sinatra Drive and within one -quarter mile of Daisy Lane. And the property owners will be deemed to have standing to enforce those provisions as third party beneficiaries. That agreement, as I stated, is effective so long as this agreement is effective and has not been revoked or terminated or otherwise invalidated by accord or otherwise. The Betty Ford Center has agreed in this process to provide some milestones of dates within which they will report to the City regarding the leasing of residential housing in an alternate area or the construction of a separate housing facility. That is June 1, 2002. On or before September 1 of 2002, the Betty Ford Center would certify that a final site selection has been made and steps have been completed to acquire control of that site, and the process for approval and the obtaining of any required permits would be initiated, and that the construction has commenced on or before March 1, 2003. There is a permissive provision, which says the City would allow the Trust to construct a wall and a vehicle entry gate, restricting the access to Daisy Lane, and we have agreed that our normal processes for a private gate entry may not be appropriate on this residential street, such as stacking lanes and those sorts of things, and we would not insist upon them. We would, however, work together with the Trust to design and to approve such a gate. If requested by the Trust, we would initiate and carry out a potential vacation proceeding of Daisy Lane that, potentially, could make that a private street as opposed to a public street. During the period of time that they are in the Daisy Lane homes, we would not attempt to impose any other land -use, zoning, or other regulations regarding the Trust's leasing of those premises or the occupancy. With regard to potential disturbances, we have agreed or proposed to agree that the City would actively cooperate with the Betty Ford Center to prevent any unlawful disturbance or harassment to their patients or the Betty Ford Center employees during their tenancy. And if those patients are subjected to a significant harassment or disturbance, Betty Ford Center may give notice to the City and the Trust of their desire to end this agreement, but we do and have imposed in this a 60-day period within which we could, hopefully, work with anyone who might be causing the disturbance to attempt to alleviate their concerns, in effect, a cooling -off period to 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 see if we can't, in some manner, solve that so that the Betty Ford Center could continue in these units uninterrupted for the period of time specified, until December of 2003. The future use of the Daisy Lane homes, the Trust has agreed, proposed to agree that in any agreement in which they convey any tenancy or title, that they would disclose that any future occupant would be required to comply with all land use and zoning statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations of the State and the City, proposing that they would at least be required to come to the City to find out what those might be in the future. This is recited to be a compromise of a dispute. Nobody is admitting that they are at fault or do not have the right to do exactly what they're doing, and there are some other types of general provisions governing it by the State of California. It is our proposal, and staff would recommend this, myself and the City Manager, recommend that the Council consider and approve this in substance, with the ability of the appropriate City officials to execute the final agreement when it is worked out, should there be any minor changes in the terms of it, so long as the direction is in the general direction of the agreement itself. My understanding, after having gone through this, and we have provided copies of this to representatives of the Betty Ford Center, their counsel, to the land owners immediately to the north, who are attempting to start sales of their units, my understanding is that the Betty Ford Center and the Trust are generally agreeable to the terms of this agreement, that the land owner to the immediate north, I'm understanding is also in agreement with the terms of the agreement. And Mr. Bradbury advised me during the meeting that he's had some discussions with the property owners on College View, which are the residents that are affected there, and generally, they are in agreement with the two-year terms, which is something that I was not aware of earlier this afternoon. With that, I would be prepared to answer any questions that the Council might have. RSK Council have any questions? This is not a public hearing, but as usual, we encourage those to speak on items that they choose, and I have several blue cards. I'II start through, and the first is Martin Nethery. MN I'm really here as counsel for The Betty Ford Center...(unclear)just to answer questions, if you have any, about the agreement and just to let you know that The Betty Ford Center has agreed with the agreement that was outlined by Mr. Erwin, and I've been authorized to let you know that the representatives of the Trust also agree. There will be one change that I learned today, that sometime within the next week or two weeks, perhaps, the trustee will change; it won't be Wells Fargo. I don't know the identify of the new trustee, but we'll have to make that change in terms of the execution of the final document. RSK Thank you. Scott McClanahan. 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 SM Scott McClanahan, 74-075 El Paseo, I represent the owners of the property which is immediately north of the Daisy Lane project. City Council has stated, and we've interviewed most of the people, we've talked, we've assessed it, we think the proposal that they're putting forth is the best part of a bad situation that has developed. And we come from the standpoint that we're about ready to break ground on 16 new homes, so we're more impacted than the people who are further away, yet we do believe that Betty Ford Center has worked very hard, given up a lot to come to what we believe is a prudent and reasonable conclusion, and we do recommend it to the Council. RSK Thank you. Sue Ballantyne. SB I represent for myself, as a child psychotherapist, licensed in Palm Desert, and it was brought to my attention by some friends and colleagues that there were children picketing in regards to a Daisy Lane project. And I'm not very knowledgeable of the issues, my concern was that there's exploitation of children being involved, inappropriate age of coming in and expressing their opinions that they were picketing outside there, and I'd just like as a community of Palm Desert to be aware of this, and that I hope that children won't be brought into issues like this that are age inappropriate. RSK Thank you. Russell Abeyratne. DJE Mr. Mayor? RA Good enough. Yes, my name is Russell Abeyratne, resident of College View. Irrespective of how we got here, first of all, I just want to make it clear that as far as the mission of Betty Ford, and I'd like to read their mission statement, "We provide effective alcohol and other drug dependency treatment services to help women, men, and families begin the process of recovery," every member of our neighborhood is totally in support of that. There is no question about is this a good program or any of that. I suppose that some of the business tactics that have been used to get here, as an example, when we talked to Mr. Ferguson, he had no idea 48 hours prior to people moving in that there was a 91-, or 90-bed purpose-built development in the heart of our City that was going to be bussing in anywhere between 12 and 2,000, whatever the number is, recovering addicts each and every year into a residential neighborhood. So I'm not sure if the City got caught sleeping at the wheel on this; it's just beyond me that no one in the City knew that there was a hospital going to be coming into a residential neighborhood. From what I understand, Rancho Mirage has already said no to this kind of proposal, so they came into Palm Desert. But here's essentially where we are, I suppose, judging, 1 was part of the negotiation here a couple of days ago, we are now redesigning what a residential neighborhood is. A residential neighborhood, I suppose, now 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 can be brought down to transients that have their own regular home but are recovering and are being bussed into a residential neighborhood, and they're a family for six days, or they're a family of six people for 27 days, and then they can be bussed out again. Then the point was brought up, well, there's some condominium properties where people just live in two or three months and leave. That's true, but while these people are in condominium properties, that is their home, they don't have another place to go to. So I think we're redefining what residential actually means. So here's the can of worms that we're opening up. The can of worms is this, myself and all my fellow people that are up here protesting this, we could take the complete opposite and say, you know what, we support everything that's going on here. So let's form a limited partnership, which we will within 48 hours of this, and we have contacted other treatment facilities. Now here's the way the numbers run down, these houses can be leased for $3,000 per month; we can build these houses and completely debt service them for around $2,000 per month, which means there's $1,000 a month positive cash flow on every house with zero money down. We can do a hundred houses like this, which is $100,000 a month; now, the providers, the hospitals are going to love this. Why? Because they have no commercial, they have nothing in the way of rules, or laws, or anything like that governing them because they're in a residential neighborhood. They only have to pay $17 per night per bed. Now, $17 per night per bed, there's even some places in Los Angeles that would be very hard pressed to find to stay, so the profits are enormous. So I'm saying, hey, if this is the can of worms we're going to be opening up, I suggest we all do a limited partnership, and let's go and find 20 or 30 acres, and let's build 100 homes. Let's bring in people from all over the country, and let's follow the vision here. Maybe Palm Desert can now become the capital of the United States of this great cause of bringing in people. Because now what we're saying is, you can have a hospital in a residential neighborhood with no permits, no business licenses, really no constraints on it. So this is, as far as I'm concerned, a can of worms that we're opening up, is the City of Palm Desert willing to go ahead and go ahead and do this? You know, I'm not really sure, or are they going to say, you know what, let's go ahead and get the Betty Ford Center in, let's grandfather in, let's lock the door up real quick so nobody else can come in afterwards. Now, we don't know what the business tactics are, but we do know this, that if they're allowed to do this, and that's fine, then we should be allowed to do it as well. And we will do 100-, and 200-unit houses with the same, under the same guidelines that they've had to go under, and we will bring in people from all over the country, and we are not going to be prejudicial, because we've been reading in the newspapers that the Betty Ford will only bring in, I guess it's doctors and lawyers, or whatever. We're not going to be prejudicial; we're going to open this up to everybody from drug dealers to prostitutes, to anybody else. RSK In fairness to everybody, I didn't ... 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 JF Mr. Mayor? RSK ...give you a time limit, but... RA Okay. Well, anyway, I'm done with my time, and if this does go through, I'm going to quit buying lottery tickets because I think with this new limited partnership, that we could get an early retirement program from the huge profits. Thank you. RSK Thank you for your comments. (Applause from the audience.) RSK Tim Graham. TG I'd like to pass my time onto our attorney...(unclear). CB Chadwick Bradbury, Mr. Mayor. RSK We need your name and address. CB Chadwick Bradbury, 76-784 Ascot Circle, in the City of Palm Desert. I'm an attorney. I represent a number of homeowners on College View Circle, and the talk I planned to give tonight has changed due to the proposed settlement agreement, which we are in agreement with. And I'd like to applaud the efforts of the City Manager and the City Attorney, and to Council for addressing a very difficult and emotional situation. It is not the ideal resolution that the homeowners had in mind, but, nevertheless, given all the issues, we think it's satisfactory at this time. RSK Thank you for your comment. JF Mr. Mayor? RSK Yes. JF Can I ask their attorney a question? RSK Sure. Okay. JF Mr. Bradbury? First of all, I want to thank Russell, who I spoke with just before I left on vacation, and all of the neighbors and residents in this area, because I saw the emotions, we all did, before we left, and I haven't heard anything since I've been back, which is about a week. But it appears that things have been calm there and the January 10th date was honored, and nothing happened on either side of this 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 issue. In the meantime, we didn't have wandering alcoholics, nor did we have — children picketing, and I understand that we hit a crescendo right before Christmas that, fortunately, cooler heads prevailed on all sides, and we're at the point now where we do have an agreement. So thank you for at least keeping your word with me, Russell, to work towards keeping the peace. And I think that I just got this agreement probably as recently as you did and had a chance to review it. My concern is, my comment, I think, to you before I left was, typically, in these situations where the residents think one thing is going to happen, and the applicant, or the developer, and perhaps State law might back them on this, think another thing will happen (i.e. there'll be problems or there won't be problems), we try and come up with a solution that says let's wait and see. And if there's any hint of a problem, we can attack it; and if there is no problem, then there's really no reason to sort of be protesting or running these folks out. This agreement appears to do that. My only concern is if we have an incident, and maybe I'II open this up to you and Mr. Nethery, if there is an incident, and it appears there's going to be a problem, what remedies are there? And if there is no incident for two years, there's absolutely no problem, the developer next to you sells all his lots, all you guys amortize your property up, is there still a necessity to kick Betty Ford out? (From Audience, collectively.) Yes. JF Okay. Let me start with the answer to the first question. What do you do if there's an incident in the two-year period? CB Well, we'll pursue the terms of whatever legal rights... (Background conversation from audience.) JF Pardon me. I am talking to your attorney, and I hope he represents the majority of the homeowners, which is what we had asked for. (From Audience, several, individually.) No. JF Okay. Then of those that he does represent, can I hear your answer? CB Well we will honor the spirit of the agreement and whatever legal remedies or ramifications come out of that agreement, we'll abide by. JF Okay. And at the end of the two-year period, the third party beneficiary is a legal term, but anybody that lives within a quarter of a mile north of Frank Sinatra from this subdivision, any individual person can enforce that right to eliminate Betty Ford. Is that your understanding of the third party beneficiary clause? MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 CB My understanding is it's an intended third party beneficiary, and whatever legal rights that my clients, as third party beneficiaries, have, that is what we will do. It is our intention to honor the spirit of the agreement, and I would like to applaud the efforts of Mr. Nethery and the Betty Ford Center to try to remedy the situation, although it was created by Betty Ford. Nevertheless, they have come to the table and tried to make the best of a bad situation. JF So in your opinion as an attorney representing some homeowners, this agreement accomplishes that result? CB Well I will say that my clients are not completely happy with the agreement. I can't endorse the agreement either, I think it's the best under the circumstances at this time. But if you're asking for a wholehearted endorsement of the agreement, I simply cannot give it, because I think that the interpretation of the statute, the preemptive statute on which the Betty Ford is operating is a complete misreading of the statute and the intent of the statute. So...(unclear) RSK Are you saying that you're not going to advise your clients to enter into this agreement? CB We're not a party to the agreement. My, as I spoke to the City Attorney, I said we will abide by that agreement as an acceptable compromise based on the circumstances. By stating "acceptable compromise" am I saying that everyone is happy about the outcome? Absolutely not. Nevertheless, we would still abide by the spirit of the agreement. RSK Then if you concur with the agreement, is there a problem with somebody signing the agreement? CB No. That's what I'm telling you, Mr. Mayor. If the City enters into this agreement as it's been proposed, then my clients have instructed me to give our approval; but it is a half-hearted approval. RSK You're saying that you are not completely satisfied, which, in a mediation probably both, neither party's ever satisfied, but you're saying you will concur with the agreement? CB Yes. RSK That's, I guess, what we needed to know. CB And if I've made that unclear, I apologize. But that is... 28 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 JF No, I mean as a lawyer, you know if neither side to a settlement are happy, it's usually a sign that you struck the middle somewhere; nobody is wild about it, but at least it's a resolution. I guess my question for the homeowners that aren't represented by you or happen to disagree with this, and what I'm going to be deciding on tonight is, either do you, would you like the City to enter into this agreement as a resolution, or would you like us to stay out and you pursue your civil remedies against Betty Ford independently? (From audience) Stay out. JF Well you'll have your chance to talk. I'm just throwing out the question, because I don't want to spend all night coming up with an agreement that none of you want. CB Well I cannot speak for all the homeowners only those... JF I understand. CB ...that I represent. I represent 15 homeowners on College View Circle. There's, obviously, many more homeowners affected than I represent, and I can't speak for everyone, nor would I try to. JF But for 15 of them you can? CB Yes. JF Okay. (From audience) For 14. RSK Okay. Thank you. Jeff Paige. JP Hi, Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council, my name is Jeff Paige. I live on College View Circle. This is my wife, Dora Paige. We recently bought a home in College View Circle, and, you know, we knew nothing about the fact that there was going to be a drug and alcohol facility opening in our community. You know, we were parents, we started off very young, we had children very young, at a very young age, and we have struggled throughout our lives. We started off in a one -bedroom apartment, we have struggled throughout our lives to work our way in to what we thought we were buying into a family -orientated community. You know, when we bought in the City of Palm Desert, we were overwhelmed with joy, and then 45 days later, after we close escrow, we find out that there's a drug and alcohol facility opening down the street from us. I mean our dreams have been shot down here, you know, it's not right, it's immoral, it's unethical, you know, and we 29 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 have heard this talk, we heard, you know, and Mr. Ferguson, I had a very long, intense conversation with you on the phone one afternoon. Mr. Ortega, I've talked with you, the City Attorney, I've spoken with him, and you know, in the negotiation meetings the other day, we heard, I heard somebody say, "Well, we're not saying that we do agree with it, we're not saying it's right or it's wrong, what we're saying is it is the law." Now, past history shows, I mean, as far as laws go, it wasn't so long ago that it was also the law that you could own a Negro as a slave. Or when we walk through the park out here at the Holocaust Memorial, we see that it was the law in another country where you could exterminate people of the Jewish community. Or how long ago was it the law where women or Negroes couldn't vote. Now, we're not arguing about the fact of the law, we're arguing is it right or is wrong? It's wrong. It's wrong for our neighborhood, it's wrong for a community, and it's wrong for my children. Sir, Mr. Nethery, Mr. Erwin, Mr. Ortega, you personally witnessed my wife burst into tears and say, "Look, my children are scared. You're scaring my children." My wife cries at nighttime because her dreams are being shattered, you know. This is a big issue to me as the sole provider, the head of the household, am I going to sit back and watch this happen? Absolutely not. Because, you know why? I feel that our civil rights are being violated here. My family has the civil right to be secure. We have the civil right to have a stable atmosphere within our community, and maybe, the lady... RSK You need to just... JP ...the child psychologist would like to speak with my children and see that they're being traumatized by this whole issue. Now, I am going to fight this to the Supreme Court all the way to the end, and I'm asking the City, the City officials, you, Mr. Mayor, all of you to stand behind your residents, back us on this issue. Limit the amount of homes they can do on Daisy Lane. We're not saying push them out. We acknowledge the drug and alcohol rehabilitation is a very noble thing, you know, and that is why this is such a complex issue, because they have forced their way into our neighborhood. We never knew nothing about this, you know. If it is such a noble thing, why not tell the community? Why not follow City procedures, follow the proper channels, get the permits needed; that way, that's why we have, these City procedures are set up like this, so people are made aware of this. There's public hearings regarding this, and then a determination could be made. This was not the attitude of the Betty Ford Center. Let me tell you the attitude of the Betty Ford Center. Accept it. Shut up or we'll sue ya'. Is that not the case here? With the City of Palm Desert, also? We will hit you with a Fair Equal Housing... RSK That's not right. JF Mr. Paige? Can I ask you a quick question, because this is really what I struggle with, and I appreciate the concern for your children, I'm a parent myself. If the 30 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 figure is accurate, and I think it is, that one in three Americans have a problem with alcohol or substance abuse, why is it you're worried about the people who are trying to rid themselves of that problem and not the neighbor to your right or your left, if statistics are accurate, that has that problem? JP Well first off, because, you know, the fact that there are 15 homes with this, this is a concentrated level. I mean the entire street. When I have asked people regarding this law, their own people, and I've stated this before, Charlene Majors, who is head of Business Development, okay, this is her job title, and she's currently living on that street, by the way, which, like I said, her job title, Head of Business Development, in a residential neighborhood. I asked her, "Why do you think this law was written?" And her response to me was this, because recoverees are more likely to recover based, you know, put in, surrounding, with surrounding families that are healthy— healthy surrounding family atmosphere. That's not the case here. There are no other families on Daisy Lane; it is strictly recoverees. They're defeating the purpose of the applicability of this law, you know. And, you know, when I bought in this neighborhood, I thought I was buying, first off, we struggled to buy a $300,000 home; we're working class people, you know. When I bought into this neighborhood, I thought I was going to be walking up and down the street, and I was going to say, "Hi, Russ. How are you doing? This is my neighbor. Hi, Mr. Deardon. How are you doing?" People that I know, these people on my street. I will never be able to walk up and down Daisy Lane and know 1,500 people, or whatever the numbers are, per year. It's not in the interest of our community and the family atmosphere to have this amount of people in and out of our community and say, look, it's residential. Residential area, family -orientated communities is about where you know your neighbors, about where you get to know people, not about where there's guards standing out, not about where they're going to build the wall higher, not about where it's going to become a compound. I mean, who's in disagreement with this, you know? And Mr. Nethery, he might stand up here and say, well what about the civil rights of our clients? RSK Well your speaking should be directed to the Council. JP Okay. All right. Mr. Councilor. RSK Mr. Nethery's not... JP Their representation is going to stand, possibly stand up here and say, well what about the civil rights of the Betty Ford's clients? You know, we did not go, we did not all wake up one morning and say, hey, look, let's go picket the Betty Ford Center. Quite the contrary, we woke up one morning and found out that this whole street is being utilized as a drug and alcohol... 31 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 RSK I think you've made the same point several times. JP Absolutely. And what I'm asking, sir, is for the City to stand behind its residents. Our numbers are growing huge, and there might be 13 people who are willing to go along with...I'm not willing to sit back and watch my wife cry, watch my son be traumatized for the next two years and say live with it. I can't do that. RSK Okay. You've told us that three times already. So time is... JP Okay. And I certainly am also asking that they do follow procedure and get a conditional use permit, at minimal. And, of course, this is after the fact that the place is being utilized. We are going to picket, we are going to, we're going to speak with the media, we're going to go all the way with this. RSK Okay. You know, you have to do what you're going to do, but it doesn't do any good to harangue us. JP I understand that, sir, but when is the City going to come forth and state their position on who they're going to back. We keep hearing "Well, we're doing studies, we're doing this..." RSK I don't think you can say that we haven't spent a lot of time on this, that we're not coming forward. We've spent a lot of time on it. And we'll make a decision, and then when we make a decision, you'll have to do what you have to do. JP Absolutely. And one last question, sir. RSK And we'll do what we have to do. JP Does the Mayor of the City of Palm Desert feel that this is in the best interest, and the City Councilmembers, of our community? You're setting a precedence here. RSK I happen to think that agreement is in the best interest of everybody concerned to answer that question. JP But, sir, you don't have children on College View Circle. RSK Whether I do or not, that's not the issue here. JP You know... BAC Mr. Mayor? 32 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 RSK Yes. BAC We should allow everyone to have a chance to speak. JP I understand that. BAC Sir...you have made your comments, we know your point of view, whether people agree with them or not will certainly be ascertained as this goes along, but other people do also have the right to make a comment, and... JP Absolutely. Well if my time's up, I understand. I mean...thank you. RSK Thank you. (Applause from audience.) DP May I speak? RSK Yes. But, hopefully, you have something new or different to... DP I do as the picture I passed around, sir, and if you read that, that says "affordable living." When we went...before...Iet me just tell you, before we even put our $10,000 down to purchase this home, which is our dream home, may I add, we went to the City, and we looked at what the dynamics were going to be around the home, and we wanted to make sure that it was all residential and families around our property. Now that's false signage, first of all, sir. Second of all, before we closed escrow, we went to the City four more times, mind you, four more times to find out and make sure that this was still the area that we wanted to purchase, and we wanted to put our hard-earned blood and sweat money in. No one ever, ever told us about this, or we wouldn't have boughten. We never had that choice. We bought it, we bought it, and just like my husband said, and I don't want to go over it, but I just want to show you the fact of that's false signage, first of all. Second of all, as the lady said, and for the children, how does she feel the fact that my son every night, and he's 11 years old, mind you, every night asks me since they've moved in, "Have you set the alarm, have you set the alarm, Mom?" Third of all, if this was your...may I please finish, please, sir? If this was in your neighborhood, would you feel okay with it? And also, it might be the law, but it doesn't make it right. And I would hope that any fair and honest decision -making people for the people would choose for the right and on the right side. And I do believe that just for those issues in itself are in its right, otherwise, we could have that choice whether to move there or not, but we were deceived all the way, all the way. And then people that didn't have a problem with it could have moved in and been happy, and everybody would have been happy because they could've lived there for as long as they wanted, and the people that purchased those homes under the 33 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 knowledge of that place being there would be happy also. I feel like I have been totally deceived, and I was so proud to be a resident of Palm Desert, and, you know, and I feel like, I...me and my dreams and my family's dreams, and a lot of our neighbors' have just been...it's just been tooken, it's been tooken away and violated over financial gain. RSK All right. I think you've made your point. (Applause from audience.) RSK Stacy Wensel. SW I am...l was the only one that spoke that night right before we broke for vacation and stuff. And I'm not represented by the attorney, so, Mr. Ferguson, your question as far as agreeing to, my understanding this agreement you guys are looking at isn't between the residents, the third parties, it's between the City and the Betty Ford Center. Am I correct? When you asked about the people signing, do I have to sign? Or is it between Betty Ford and the City of Palm Desert. JF Well if you're addressing the question to me... SW Yeah. JF ...and by the way, I'm not advocating the agreement, I just got handed it, and I've reviewed it. SW Okay. I'm just...that's the understanding I thought. It's just between you guys and the third party; I have a right to enact what's in there. JF Right. SW Okay. JF But my comment, which I think you're reacting to, is we could spend three hours hammering out an agreement that 13 people agree with and 100 people don't. And I'm not interested in wasting three hours of time. SW Okay. My concern with that agreement, then, you want my point with that agreement? JF Sure. 34 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 SW If you're going to sign it, it may be an equitable situation, and again, my neighbors — may not agree with me and stuff, but it may be the only equitable thing we can do at this point. My concern is that there is, and you brought this up, that there's something in that agreement that states if there's problems in those two years, what will the Betty Ford Center do to remedy them, or me, myself as a third party, can I step in and say you're out of here now? I mean if you get so many police calls or so many, I mean, I believe that agreement needs to be a step further and have some stipulations involved. Now I don't know, I haven't seen the agreement myself, I don't know if there are stipulations in there, so many calls, so many occurrences, so many problems, whatever, I believe that needs to be in there before it's signed. The other thing I ask the City to do is that we don't want this to happen again, whether it's in my neighborhood or somebody else, and I hope that the City is taking this as an example and a lesson. I don't mean to be up here telling you what to do, but as a lesson to put some parameters within ordinances, or programs, or projects, or what you do, whether it's in the Planning Department when a trust comes in, or when somebody comes in, is there a next step or a question you ask, you know, what is your purpose of this facility? Residential, what? I just hope that we're not back here again. And it has nothing to do with the Betty Ford Center, I don't care if it's a battered women's center or whatever, it's a transient -type of a situation in a residential property, and that's my concern with so many people in and out. And I don't think that's what that neighborhood was set up for; I don't think that's what R-1 is set up for. So my concern is if this is an agreement you have to get in, I will back that agreement, but as a third party and being able to fulfill it and enforce it, I believe you better have some other stipulations in there that they have to be...abide by and live by because I don't want to go two years and have police calls and sirens and the whole bit, and I'm not saying that there's going to be, but if there is... RSK I think you made a good point there. 1... SW ...I think you need something that within two years, they're out quicker. I don't want to go 24 months with problems in my backyard. RSK I think that's a good point, and we got it. SW Okay. Thank you. RSK Thank you. (Applause from audience.) RSK I went through here. Did I get Dan?... 35 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 (From audience) No, Mr. Mayor, but I deferred...(inaudible) RSK That's all the blue cards that I have so I guess I'II ask... BAC Ask if there are others who wish to comment. RSK I left that off on purpose. BAC I know. RSK I appreciate your help, but I don't really need it. BAC Nor want it. RSK In deference to my colleague, who thinks I should have asked that, I will ask it. Does anyone else want to speak to this issue? He has a blue card, it didn't get turned in. Thanks for your help. BAC My pleasure, sir. RSK I'II try to reciprocate some day. DL My name is David Lamb. I live at 39600 Elna Way, Cathedral City. I'm a developer and homeowner. I also agree that there should have been some indication of what the use of that property was going to be other than residential in our commonly understanded circumstances. I'd also like to know who knew, when they knew it, and if that could be some kind of a report, if some kind of report could be generated and handed out. And if this is a business, I would like to have some disclosures as to the profitability of it; that would be an interesting thing. And after two years, what will happen with this property? Will it be then required to be residential? Is it going to be sold as a residence, or could it be turned into a hotel? Or what can happen there? After two years, is the furniture going to be sold? Who does the furniture belong to? Is it the owner of the house or the Betty Ford Center? We could find out some of those circumstances. What circumstances on this proposed agreement would...make this agreement null and void? If somebody protested a long period of time, would then Betty Ford say, all right, we're not going to abide by this agreement, we're going to continue to lease this for 10-20 years— that a circumstance that could happen. If, and there was a situation where we had night after night of sirens and people jumping over the fence and running over and stealing the marijuana out of these other people's houses...would Betty Ford indemnify that? The best thing we can do is resolve this and move on. If there are no problems from the Betty Ford side and the side of the residents, then this could be a good thing. There are a lot of people that need and want this help, but it 36 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 should also be disclosed up front so everyone knows what, and when, and why — we're dealing with this. That's all I have to say. RSK Thank you. We'II make sure that everyone that wants to speak will get a chance. The idea is to, if you want to speak, to make out a blue card and turn it in to the City Clerk. (Unknown) I'm an emotional -type person. RSK Give your name and address for the City Clerk... SMC Yes, my name is Sylvia McArthur, and I did not come here to speak; however, I recently purchased a house on College Circle, College View Circle. Three days before Christmas I was to close escrow. I was about to sign my loan documents when the six o'clock news came on that evening, flashing the street, etc., etc. I'm bound into a 1031 exchange, so I cannot back out or I'm hit very hard by the government. I bought the house for rental purposes. 1 bought many other in Palm Desert here that I've been very successful with brand new houses. There was no disclosure to me from the builder, nor from the City of Palm Desert as I inquired on other properties that are purchased here. No one made me aware, and I guess I was too busy before the few days before Christmas to have picked up on this happening. So I don't know...I've had two or three people wanting to rent it; however, it's because their children were going to be bussed to Palm Springs, which is another issue which has caused me not to be able to rent it to these people. It happens to be almost 2,400 square feet, four and a family room. I've knocked my price down about...this very house rents in Cathedral City for $2,800 a month. I'm now down to 26, and people are trying to get me to accept two, force me to rent it at two, and I feel very uncomfortable about this since I have other houses that are not as nice as this one and the similar location of Kaufman and Broad that I'm renting for higher prices. So my comment is the disclosure. I would like it presented, or something to me in writing as to when the builder knew and the details as to why I wasn't told before I was forced to purchase this house and now be in this dilemma of... I called Betty Ford Center, by the way, to see if they would rent it for me to some of their administration -type people, or whatever, and they said no, we're only going to rent our own homes. So they turned me down coldly, blankly, get -lost -lady attitude. Thank you. RSK Thank you. Anyone else would like to... (Applause from audience.) RSK Chris O'Malley. 37 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 CO Good evening. My name is Chris O'Malley, I am a resident of College View Circle. My husband and I just relocated from Savannah. He works for a major corporation in Mexicali, and we chose Palm Desert, you know, as the place to raise our kids while we're here. Now, granted, unlike a lot of these people, we aren't going to be here long term, the next promotion means another city for us. My question is, yes, I feel very deceived. Do I agree with the agreement? Absolutely not at all. The Betty Ford will have employees on site on Daisy Lane. That is a business. My question to you is why are we here? That is a business in a residential area. How can you even let this go on? You should be on our side, I know they're a big company, they've got lots of money, they're a big corporation, they could sue us and everybody `til there's no tomorrow. That doesn't make it right. It is a business in a residential neighborhood. I mean, it's R-1. How can they be there? I just don't understand it. That's the answer I'd like to know. RSK Thank you. (Applause from audience.) RSK Anyone else? Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Seeing none, and with Councilman Crites' approval, I'll move on. What's Council's direction? RAS As I understand it, this was an information item this evening? From the City Manager. DJE It is an update and a report based upon my understanding of the instruction at the last Council Meeting, which was to see if there was the ability to come to some resolution. This is the staff report of where we think it is, which is potentially for the Council to act or not act. RSK Would...may I ask a question also? Don't want to interrupt you. RAS It's all right. Go ahead. RSK Does...what kind of position does that put us in, in relationship to some of the threats that were made about suing and... DJE Anybody, basically, can file a lawsuit against the City that may wish to do so. It is our belief that the City is in a reasonably good position with regard to the action we have taken. We've attempted to resolve the dispute. The potential question that is presented, which is, "Should the City require a conditional use permit of the Betty Ford Center or not?", is one that we have somewhat left open, and we have done it for the reason that our belief was a solution that would have the Betty Ford Center removed from this area at some earlier date was better than the potential of going 38 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 through a conditional use permit, in which case we could not set a time limit on them. We have no ability, under the typical land use and zoning laws, to, once we grant a conditional use permit, assuming that were the decision, we don't have the ability to impose a time limit on it. And it appeared that a solution that, though obviously not palatable, that was better than that was to attempt to resolve something at this level with the occupants and the owner of the premises, that was the Betty Ford Center and the Trust that owned it. Can somebody file a lawsuit and insist that the City start through the conditional use permit process? Certainly. That could occur; it could occur today or tomorrow. If the court decides that we go through the conditional use permit, then we go through that, and we're subject to our normal rules, laws, and regulations. And if Council will recall, and Planning Commission will recall, in most instances, the conditional use permits process is there to allow for hearings and to impose conditions on a particular use that may otherwise be provided for. Those conditions, basically, are generally stated to be limited to those that affect the physical characteristics of the use that's granted. In this instance, those homes are built. What could be considered in a conditional use permit process? Well, perhaps there's some traffic regulation that could be considered. Perhaps we might consider a gate. Some of those things are potentially possible; higher walls, different things like that, that may, because of the physical condition, the traffic conditions, could be imposed. But we don't have and didn't have the ability to say you must be out in a certain period of time, and if you — remember, the use, once granted, basically, continues with that land. And that could continue for a long period of time. That is really one of the major reasons that we have started in this direction, with the Betty Ford Center attempting to come to some conclusion that would let this use go away from that neighborhood. Can somebody...your question was can somebody file a lawsuit against us? Certainly. And the court may say go back and go through a conditional use permit. That is the remedy if somebody wished to file a lawsuit against us. I don't think...I think the City is in a reasonable position with regard to that, but as the Council is well aware, we have no assurances of what a court might do. I believe we're on the correct side of the issue, but I've been wrong before...not often, but... RSK What's the Council's pleasure? JF Well...this agreement is by no means a perfect solution. A perfect solution, depending on which side of the argument you're on, is either black or it's white. Either we run the rascal Betty Ford folks out of town, or we completely disregard the concerns of our residents. And, like most things, there are no black and whites, there's usually shades of gray, and those are determined by reason, by logic, and by objective evidence. And, from my point of view, the objective evidence of a rational fear for your children, Mr. Page, I don't see it. I've never seen it. Having said that, that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the possibility that it might exist. You have beautiful children. I saw a Boy Scout here, who's 11 years old, watch 39 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 some of this debate. I hope they and he weren't traumatized by these discussions. I certainly hope and sincerely doubt that no patient of Betty Ford, no staff member of Betty Ford, nor any representative of Betty Ford has ever spoken to your children or attempted to traumatize them or hurt them in any way. I think that's perhaps the point, maybe, the counselor was trying to make. This agreement, if I can just use shorthand, if you file a lawsuit, and you're welcome to, the court can require us to do a conditional use permit if you prevail, and the odds of that are not altogether certain, we will go through a public hearing process, like tonight, through our Planning Commission, through our City Council, and in all likelihood, we'd come up with conditions of use similar to this. The law says we can't ban what they're doing. It's unequivocally clear, which means that some body in Sacramento, body meaning a panel of legislators with lawyers and with researchers and with objectively verifiable evidence, has determined that these people ought not to be stigmatized, that cities ought not to be able to discriminate against them, and they ought to have a fair chance at recovery. Now I mentioned one in three Americans having an alcohol or substance abuse problem. That does mean that one of your neighbors, if the statistics hold true, probably has a problem that's going unaddressed. I live in a neighborhood, and I took advantage of Megan's Law and went in and looked at it, that has a disproportionately high number of sex offenders, child sex offenders, people with a high propensity for molesting my children. They live closer to my children's school, which means when I drop them off in the morning, am I comfortable with them walking in? I didn't choose to go picket their streets with my kids. The law made an ascertainment that these people had served a penalty, by no means does that guarantee they've been rehabilitated, and that their anonymity needed to be protected, and they ought to have a fair chance at assimilating back into society, and God forbid, I don't agree with that law, but they determined that they ought to be in families and neighborhoods and areas where they can be, quote "normalized people." These are sex offenders, they aren't people with mild substance abuse problems, and I'm quite convinced if it were anything more than mild, they wouldn't be in the professional degree program, they'd probably be hospitalized at the Center itself. My point is we all take risks as parents. We all provide for the safeguards of our children. In configuring the resolution to this dispute, we've tried to weigh the concerns of the property owners as supported by objectively verifiable evidence, and where we thought there might be a possibility of potential harm to you, your family, or your children, there have been safeguards put in place. You are talking about people who are dry, who are not under the influence of alcohol or medications, who are supervised by professional, medically trained staff, who have to go to AA meetings at night, go to Betty Ford meetings during the day, and are here on a temporary basis. I told both sides at the beginning of this that we ought to take a wait and see approach, and I mean that. The one deficiency I see in this agreement is if there is a problem with harassment by the neighbors, Betty Ford has a right to opt out. There ought to be a reciprocal provision in there that says if there's a problem with the homes, Betty Ford ought 40 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 to be relocated from that facility within the same time frame. I think that provides parity and fairness. I'm not going to substitute my judgment, and I firmly believe that you'll go through two years without problems here, but I'm not going to substitute my judgment for practical reality. And that reality says they ought to have a chance to try and treat these people free from harassment in a supervised setting with conditions of approval much like you would get if there was a lawsuit, and if there is a problem, it gets addressed, whether the problem is with the neighbors harassing Betty Ford, or whether the problem is with a Betty Ford patient who falls back out of recovery and presents a threat to your children. Now, with that latter point, if that were to occur, I'm not altogether certain it would be, 1 still believe the chances of that happening are Tess than your chances of being hit by a drunk driver in your neighborhood by one of your one in three neighbors that probably has this problem that's going unaddressed. So given the law, and given the policy, and given the fairness of this, I'm willing to take a look at this agreement and try and come up with one that guarantees both sides' rights are protected, and if there's a problem, we jump on it immediately. But in the absence of a problem, I don't think it's fair to allocate the burden entirely to Betty Ford, nor do I think it's fair to allocate the burden entirely to the residents. We have a time certain agreement here that apparently goes two years. Even if there is no problem after two years, apparently, any one of you can enforce the right to kick Betty Ford out, and it seems to me, although emotions are strong, admittedly, on both sides, the one gentlemen who came up here and spoke and who, obviously, hadn't read the agreement, was probably made the best statement that I've heard all night, which is, basically, we ought to give this a chance. We ought to be reasonable. Russell, I again thank you for having cooler heads prevail over the Christmas holiday season. I don't think we had a problem; I don't think we will have a problem, and if we're able to put the provisions in there and the safeguards that this young lady addressed, together with the reciprocity of you folks being able to call a halt to this agreement if there's a problem on Betty Ford's side, I'm prepared to take a look at it and enter into it, or at least vote to enter into it on behalf of the City of Palm Desert. That's my comment. (Applause from the audience.) RSK Any other comments? BAC Quickly, to make the comment that we're now in the process of trying to give you our comments, agree with them or not. Personally, as one Councilmember, I think probably that it would have been neighborly appropriate for the Betty Ford to have, when they so decided to rent from the Trust these homes for "x" period of time, to have so said. Having said that, my interpretation, correct or not, of the law says they don't have a legal obligation to do that, and they don't have a legal obligation to come to the City ahead of time, which they also did not do. I think if the 41 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 homeowners wish to take this to court, during the five years or four years that this goes through the court, we will have this issue in front of us, and I suspect at the end of those four or five years, there will be a permit for the Betty Ford to stay there for the next 50 years or some...or beyond if they so choose. I think this agreement is a reasonable one. I agree with my colleague that I honestly believe that 15 homes, with the kind of supervision and everything else that are there, probably pose less potential threats to neighbors than 15 homes of people, which does not say that we will all agree with that. But certainly people can also create trauma for their own neighbors, and I know sometimes I can get so involved in a problem that I create my own problem. Sometimes I need to walk away from it for a little while and think about it in order to be rational and thoughtful about my family. I believe that this is a reasonable compromise, and if it's one that the neighbors will live with, I think it's one that the Betty Ford will live with. If not, we will let those legal dice be played, and I think, personally, that the end result will be that the Betty Ford will legally, whether we morally like it or anything else, will legally be granted that status at the end of this process. RAS The question was asked when did the Council find out about it. I found out about it in the Desert Sun, same way, I think, most people found out about it. And that's unfortunate, but it happens to be the facts. I did not know about it. To build a home, you're not required to get a conditional use permit. When you bought your home, that didn't come before the Council. You went in, and the developer built the home, and you agreed to the price, etc., etc. That said, and I'm not an attorney, I don't have a legal background, but as I understand it, there's a law on the books in the State of California that supersedes everything that we decide in here that says that any single family home can have up to six patients, be they be Alzheimer's, be they be elderly, be they be... RSK Child care. RAS ...child care without a conditional use permit. That's a State law, as I understand it. All right. Well, now what's the difference between this and that? The difference in this and that is there's 15 homes, or 14 homes versus one home. Would the State say, well they've got to get out because there's 15 or 14 homes rather than one home? I don't know that. But if you did decide to sue, as was suggested, that could go on five, six years. The situation is not a good one. But I don't personally feel I have the ability to throw Betty Ford out. The law doesn't say that I can. I know one of the major concerns, and it really hasn't been discussed tonight, is property value. What is it doing to my property value? Well, in two years, they'll be single family homes again. I've lived in the same house in Palm Desert for 18. Hope you're able to enjoy yours as long as that. So the situation as it exists, because as was said, there's white, and there's black, but the white and black will 42 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 never get together; you've got to figure out a gray— it's one of the best grays I've seen. My comment. JMB Yes. My comment would be that I agree with my colleague, Buford, on this that it would have been nice had we known. We went through the CUP process on an Alzheimer's center that I would like to have seen on the corner of Hovley and Monterey. I was the only one for it because everybody was scared about naked people. I had a family situation with a very dear loved one that had Alzheimer's, and by the same token, we didn't get it because the neighbors said "No, we don't want those naked people looking over our fence." Alzheimer's people deserve just the same treatment as people from the Betty Ford Center, and to say in all the letters we got that the City Council knew this is an absolute untruth. Because we did not know it. First thing we did was have our Community Development Director check when he came in to get the license to build 15 single-family homes, what date was it? And, as the one gentleman eluded, you have to question people. We have single-family homes in multiples of 6, 8, 10, 12 all over the City. If every developer that came in, we said are you going to have any alcoholics in there? Are you going to sell to people that drink? What are you going to do with the houses? He's going to say "I'm building 15, 16 single-family homes." You can't put restrictions on people and say, okay, that's fine, but don't let anybody in there that drinks, don't let anybody in there that's a drug addict; God forbid any of the kids had any problems over the years, don't let them in there. It's just...we do the best we can; we take a developer's word for what he's saying and what he's doing. But to accuse us of knowing and not telling you is a direct affront to our integrity in representing you in the community, and I have been a Councilmember here for 19 years, and I have never lied to a constituent yet. And we did not know that those homes were going to be used for that facility. And whether you want to believe us or whether you don't, but you're really insulting our integrity when you say we knew it. RSK Okay. Well...I feel like that we have a good agreement that's worked out. Both sides have spent a lot of time with it, and I think we're down to that position where none of us would like to be, but without the agreement, they may be there five years or forever. So I think it's in everybody's best interest to concur with that agreement. Now I don't know what actually the Council's action needs to be to move on and... DJE My request... RSK ...find out if... DJE ...request, Mr. Mayor, is that the Council approve, in substance, the agreement, subject to some potential further modifications, particularly the recent discussion about the other item that has been mentioned. 43 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 RSK Yeah, there was a good one made there about the number of incidents that might happen... DJE Yes, about the reciprocal... JF Right. DJE We need to discuss that. RSK ...but that was the only new thing I saw tonight. DJE I would ask the Council's approval of it with some direction to us to explore that further, and to the extent the City Manager and I agree on changes, that the appropriate City official be authorized to execute the final agreement. RA Let me ask one question, please. At the end of two years, what's the provision in, can they flip to a charter hospital or other facility? RSK You know, I remember when that came up, and, you know, we do...development happens every Council Meeting, there's several developments on there. And so, you know, you have entrusted us and elected us, and we're making those decisions every single Council Meeting. And surely, you don't expect us in this case, when the two years are up, to do something drastically different than we've been doing for 19 years. RA (Inaudible) BAC Mr. Mayor, the "future use" says, "...they're required to comply with all land use, zoning statutes, ordinances, regulations of the State of California and the City." There is nothing else you can require someone to do but to obey the law. Period. There is nothing beyond that, that I would have, at least as one person, (unclear)... RSK I think you made a good point there. BAC ....interest to do. That is exactly what it says, and that is exactly what we will so require. RSK I don't like to keep somebody from asking a question, if you have a question, but you do need to let us get on it to make a decision. DP (Inaudible) RSK You might as well do...go to the microphone so we can hear. 44 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 DP I was just hoping that if you allow their street to be private where we're not allowed to walk on their street, will our streets, therefore, then be private where they're not allowed to walk on our streets? RSK I would think that if the residents would prefer that it was open and you could walk on the streets, I don't think the Betty Ford Center's going to have trouble with that because they're very objective is to have people in the community where they can associate and intermix with normal families. DP So that means no, right? RSK Whichever, you know... DP I was just curious on that. JF I didn't see anywhere in this agreement where their street is private. RSK We're going to try to do what... DP Well I thought Mr. ...the City Attorney said that they were going to try and see if they can make that a private road. Am I incorrect on that, sir? DJE Basically, what the agreement says is if the Trust requests that we consider the vacation of that as a public street to a private street, that we will go through that process. We have not agreed that we will do anything other than go through the process. DP Okay. RSK You'd all get another crack at it. DP Okay. Well also I do, actually, really want to sneak one in real quick. Also can you put something in there also where their guards don't harass our children when they're riding their scooters that they got for Christmas? RAS That was part of the discussion earlier, that was already mentioned. DP Was it? Oh, okay. I must have missed it. JF Yup, yup, yup. (From Audience) Mayor Kelly, are they obeying the law now? 45 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 BAC What? RSK I can't hear your question. (From Audience) I'm sorry. Is the Betty Ford obeying the law now? (Inaudible) RSK That's the law, and... (From Audience) But are they obeying all laws right now, sir? RSK According to the State law, they're allowed to have that kind of facility in a residential neighborhood. JF Right. JP One other question. RSK One last question. JP Also was there a provision in there about when they do vacate the premises in two years what is to prevent them from making this into...(inaudible) RSK Hopefully, you've realized that we've learned a lesson and are going to be more careful when somebody does a development. You know, we've been through other things; assessment districts used to slip through the crack, and we got those solved, and, hopefully, that this is a learning experience for us so we're going to be more careful and do something so that we won't get this surprise. DP (Inaudible) RSK We'll do our best, and I'm sure that the staff is all...and the City Manager is...doesn't want it to happen again either. JF Mr. Mayor, can I make a motion that we adopt this agreement in principle, subject to additional safeguards being added, such as were discussed by the lady, and I'm sorry, I've missed your name... SW Wensel. JF ...Wensel, with regard to reciprocity in terms of the safeguards, and that it be, when it's satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Manager, be executed by the Mayor. BAC So seconded. 46 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 RSK Is there any other discussion? All in favor say "Aye." (Councilmembers, collectively.) AYE. RSK Opposed? It's unanimous. Thank you all for taking your time tonight. For purposes of clarification, following is the recorded action for the Update on Betty Ford Center/Daisy Lane item: Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, approved the proposed agreement in principle, subject to the addition of certain, appropriate safeguards; including, but not limited to, reciprocity of the safeguards, and to the satisfaction of both the City Attorney and City Manager, with the Mayor authorized to execute same thereafter. Motion was seconded by Councilman Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote. B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Erwin stated he had no reports on any of the items listed on the Agenda for Closed Session; therefore, none was needed for City items. 1) Reauest for Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): a) Eddie Ahmad Babai v. City of Palm Desert, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 013297 b) Eddie Ahmad Babai v. City of Palm Desert, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 025112 c) Renee Capela v. City of Palm Desert, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 021720 d) Betty L. Szymanski v. City of Palm Desert, United States District Court - Central District of California Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b): Number of potential cases: 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 2) Report and Action from Closed Session Made at This Meeting. None C. CITY CLERK Mrs. Klassen reminded Councilmembers to provide their requests for interviews of Committee/Commission Applicants to either Mayor Kelly or Mayor Pro Tem Benson as soon as possible in order to schedule interviews, which have been proposed for Wednesday, January 30. Councilmembers asked that they be provided with a list of the names of applicants selected by for interviews by Mayor Kelly and Mayor Pro Tem Benson so as to avoid any duplications. D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: 1. Consideration of Request from the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership for Sponsorship/Participation in the 2002 International Trade and Economic Outlook Conference, April 28-30 (Councilman Jim Ferguson). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request for sponsorship in the amount of $5,000. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Benson and carried by 5-0 vote. 2. Reauest for Report from Director of Building & Safety (Councilman Buford A. Crites). Councilman Crites asked that at the next City Council Meeting, the Director of Building & Safety provide a report on some of the new programs that he has been instrumental in undertaking. He went on to say he felt Mr. Croy had been doing an excellent job on technical issues and had been working along with other building officials in addressing Valley -wide codes that would reflect recent State Code updates. With Council concurrence, Director of Building & Safety Homer Croy was asked to provide a report on the new activities being undertaken by him and the Department. 48 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 2002 3. Request for Administrative Appointment to the Pinyon Community Council's Highway 74 Committee (Councilman Buford A. Crites). Councilman Crites stated that the Pinyon Community Councils had put together a Highway 74 Committee, which was looking at the roadway from Palm Desert to the Anza turnoff and working with Caltrans in the process. He suggested Engineering Manager Mark Greenwood be named, but whomever the City Manager chose believed it would be appropriate for Palm Desert to be represented on that Committee. With Council concurrence, the City Manager was requested to make an appropriate appointment of a City staff member to the Highway 74 Committee. o City Council Committee Reports: 1. Update o n Energy Issues (Councilman Buford A. Crites). Councilman Crites reported that the Energy Study was moving forward; the Committee would meet again on Monday. XVI. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Councilman Spiegel, second by Councilman Crites, and 5-0 vote of the City Council, Mayor Kelly adjourned the meeting at 6:22 p.m. AT 1 ST: SHEILA IGA ITY CLERK , CITY OF PALM DE E T, CALIFORNIA 49 RICHARD S. KELLY, M/(YOR