Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-08MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2015 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M. Mayor Weber convened the meeting at 3:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jan C. Harnik Councilman Sabby Jonathan Mayor Pro Tem Robert A. Spiegel Councilman Van G. Tanner Mayor Susan Marie Weber Also Present: John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Rudy P. Acosta, Assistant City Manager Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk Russell Grance, Director of Building & Safety Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Martin Alvarez, Director of Economic Development Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance Janet M. Moore, Director of Housing Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager Bill Sullivan, Asst. Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside Co. Sheriffs Department Grace L. Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A (CLOSED SESSION ITEMS) None MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 IV. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Reauest for Closed Session: A. Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1) Property: 42204 Verdin Lane (APN 624-440-007), Palm Desert Negotiating Parties: Agency: John M. Wohlmuth/Janet M. Moore/City of Palm Desert/ Palm Desert Housing Authority Property Owner: Graciela N. Mieryteran Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment B. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): 1) WNRA Palm Desert 103, LP, v. City of Palm Desert, et al., Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. PSC 1400549 C. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): Number of potential cases: 2 With City Council concurrence, Mayor Weber adjoumed the meeting to Closed Session at 3:02 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 3:01 p.m. V. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. None VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Mayor Pro Tem Robert A. Spiegel VII. INVOCATION - Councilmember Jan C. Harnik VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B The following individuals came forward at this meeting to express concern and displeasure about policies and general operations at the PALM DESERT AQUATIC CENTER, specifically the renting out of the facility to out -of -the -area 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 swim teams that displaced local swim teams who were very equally invested in their programs. The handling of this occurrence was disturbing, and these individuals asked the City to readdress how these matters are handled presently and will be in the future. Further, a Petition was submitted regarding the Palm Desert Aquatic Center and the YMCA of the Desert's Management Contract, which was received for the record and is now on file with the City Clerk's Office. Additionally, a copy of a congratulatory letter from the Education Director of U. S. Masters Swimming was presented, noting his nomination of the Desert Olympic Tritons Club for the January 2015 "USMS SwimOutlet Club of the Month" award. MR. GERRY FORMAN, Picasso Drive, Palm Desert, CA. MR. NORM VAN WIEREN, Vitria Lane, Palm Desert, CA. MR. CODY FRANK, Acacia Drive, Palm Desert, CA (presented Petition). MR. BEN HOBBINS, Ken Rosewall Lane, Palm Desert, CA (presented copy of letter from U.S. Masters Swimming) . MR. ROBERT KROM, Yucca Valley, CA. IX. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE CHRISTOPHER M. THOMAS FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND ITS PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION, 2009 - 2014. On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Weber presented the engraved crystal clock to Mr. Thomas for his years of service on the Parks & Recreation Commission and heartily thanked him for the time he provided the City in this endeavor. B. PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY QUEEN SCHEHERAZADE AND HER COURT AS AMBASSADORS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAIR AND NATIONAL DATE FESTIVAL, FEBRUARY 13 - 22, 2015. MS. CARLA CABRERA, Queen Scheherazade; MS. SHANNON SLANKARD, Princess Dunyazade; and MS. MORGAN LAWRENCE, Princess Jasmine, each greeted the City Council and provided background on themselves, and personally invited them and all present to visit and enjoy the upcoming Fair, February 13-22, highlighting the many events and activities to be held there this year. They thanked Councilmembers for the opportunity to make this presentation and offered to answer questions. 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING X. CONSENT CALENDAR JANUARY 8, 2015 A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meetings of December 11 and December 25, 2014. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 117, 133, 134, 139, 140, 142, 147, 148, and 149. Rec: Approve as presented. C. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Natalie Russo — Housing Commission. Rec: Receive with very sincere regret. D. REQUEST FOR DECLARATION of Vehicles, Equipment, and Miscellaneous Items as Surplus and Authorize Disposal, as Proposed. Rec: By Minute Motion, declare vehicles, equipment, and miscellaneous items listed on the accompanying staff report as surplus and authorize disposal, as proposed. E. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Reject All Bids for Contract No. C33890C — University Site Soil Stabilization — and Authorize City Clerk to Re -advertise the Project (Project No. 767-15). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Reject all bids received for Contract No. C33890C — University Site Soil Stabilization; 2) authorize City Clerk to re -advertise and call for bids for the project. F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of a Three-year Lease Agreement Between Desert Willow Golf Resort and UniFirst Corporation in the Amount of $28,879.28 for Clubhouse and Maintenance Department Uniform Services (Contract No. C34100). Removed for separate consideration under Section XI, Consent Items Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 G. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. C33700D — Construction and Installation of the Community Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Native Electric Construction, Ramona, CA). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project. Councilman Jonathan requested Item F be removed for separate action under Section XI, Consent Items Held Over. Upon a motion by Spiegel, second by Harnik, and 5-0 vote of the City Council, (AYES: Harnik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None), the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of a Three-year Lease Agreement Between Desert Willow Golf Resort and UniFirst Corporation in the Amount of $28,879.28 for Clubhouse and Maintenance Department Uniform Services (Contract No. C34100). Councilman Jonathan said UniFirst Corporation was selected, but the bid was only a few hundred dollars less than Prudential Overall, a local company, stating he believed there was a 5% preference to local companies. Therefore, he questioned why Prudential Overall wasn't selected for award of contract. Mr. Erwin explained this issue has been reviewed in the past, and there needs to be an exceptional circumstance in order to provide some consideration to locals that would off -set any other. He said Legal Counsel would be happy to check again, but he didn't believe the law had changed. Responding to question, Mr. Alvarez confirmed UniFirst is from out of the area, stating they are from Ontario, California. Councilman Jonathan said he didn't know if the Council needed to address the issue on this item, but in his mind, when a local company is $300 under the next lowest bidder, as a matter of informal policy, he would select the local company. He said it would be a good idea to spread the wealth locally, hoping companies will employ people locally with the local community benefitting. He hoped the Council would reconsider this item, but if not, he hoped this issue will be reconsidered in the future. Councilman Tanner moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a three-year Lease Agreement between Desert Willow Golf Resort and UniFirst Corporation, Ontario, 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 California, to provide Uniform Services for Desert Willow Golf Resort in the amount of $28,879.28 (includes tax) — funds are available in Golf Course Expenses Account No. 520-4195-495-8091. Motion was seconded by Harnik and carried by a 4-1 vote (AYES: Harnik, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: Jonathan). XII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - 01 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, VACATING VARIOUS EMERGENCY VEHICLE (FIRE) ACCESS EASEMENTS WITHIN AN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF MARRIOTT SHADOW RIDGE, UNDER PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9, PART 3, CHAPTER 4, OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., c/o RBF Consulting, Applicant). Mr. Greenwood stated as the Marriott Shadow Ridge continues to build out, they have identified some relatively minor changes they would like to make as they proceed. Some of the changes conflict with Emergency Vehicle Access Easements that were offered on the original map. The design hasn't proceeded thus far to identify where the replacement easements would be needed or offered, but current easements are not needed, which the Fire Marshal concurs and has signed off. Therefore, staff recommends Council approval. Responding to question, he confirmed other easements will be added when Marriott starts construction, if they are needed. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2015 - 01. Motion was seconded by Tanner and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Harnik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None). B. RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - 02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING EXISTING DEFINED CONTRIBUTION 457 PLAN WITH NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION AGREEMENT — LOAN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND PRoAccouNT-PLAN SPONSOR AGREEMENT. Mr. Gibson stated Nationwide Retirement Solutions, like with ICMA (International City/County Management Association), there was an employee who requested to be able to borrow from their 457 Plan. He said employees will be able to borrow from their own account for up to five years; therefore, staff recommended approval. Responding to question, he confirmed the City was not involved with the paperwork, and it would be handled by Nationwide. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel asked if other cities did the same. Mr. Gibson answered yes. 6 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Councilmember Harnik moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2015 -02. Motion was seconded by Tanner. Councilman Jonathan noticed a document in the staff report indicates the loans can be paid up to 15 years. Mr. Gibson replied Nationwide's document states that, but the actual loan agreement states five years specifically. Further responding, he agreed five years was the maximum, which is consistent with the law. Mayor Weber called for the vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Harnik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None). C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - 03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 2014-70, SALARY SCHEDULE, SALARY RANGES, AND ALLOCATED CLASSIFICATIONS — HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT. Human Resources Manager Lori Carney stated the City recently had a retirement of a Tong -term employee in the Human Resources Department, and it seems appropriate, at this time, to refill the position at an entry level. Therefore, the position will be downgraded. Councilman Tanner moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2015 - 03. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel asked if staff was interested in hiring someone with knowledge and experience. Ms. Carney replied there is a senior staff member as a Human Resources Technician, and looking forward, it would be appropriate to hire an entry level individual. Further responding, she said the duties will be sorted out so that the more complex duties stay with the senior staff member. Councilman Jonathan seconded the motion and it carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Harnik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None). XIII. ORDINANCES A. For Introduction: None 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING B. For Adoption: None XIV. NEW BUSINESS JANUARY 8, 2015 A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING A ONE- YEAR EXTENSION OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE 4' AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WVC RANCHO MIRAGE, INC., AS IT RELATES TO THE MINIMUM PROJECT AMENITY FEE FOR THE WESTIN DESERT WILLOW VILLAS TIMESHARE PROJECT. Mr. Alvarez stated the Starwood Vacation Ownership is a developer of the Westin Desert Willow Villas Timeshare Project located at Desert Willow Golf Resort and adjacent to the Desert Willow Golf Course. He said Starwood has currently developed 136 out of 300 units that have been approved for development. As part of the previously approved Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), Starwood pays a Project Amenity Fee (PAF) that is used to pay for maintenance of the transition areas and capital improvement projects at Desert Willow. In 2011, the former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) approved a 4th Amendment to the DDA, which set forth a payment of the PAF for units completed versus what was originally approved and scheduled fixed number of units per year based on an aggressive build -out schedule. Starwood recently requested a one-year extension of the agreement that would allow them to keep the PAF at the current rate, which is only for the units that have been built. If the request is approved, the PAF will remain the same for one more year, and later this year in 2015, they anticipate returning back to the Council to bring forward design changes and a schedule that will help provide a better understanding of the build -out process. He noted a representative from Starwood was present and available to answer questions. MS. EMILY HEMPHILL, Counsel for Starwood, thanked the Council for its consideration of their request. Councilmembers who have been on the Council for a long time know that Starwood came into this project and took over the unbuilt Intrawest portion of the timeshare development back in the days when everyone thought real estate was going to be fabulous forever. At that time, a schedule was presented that didn't seem aggressive, and the PAF payment schedule was based on that development schedule. In 2008 the market crashed and it affected timeshares severely, more so than it did regular real estate. As a result, the construction schedule has not kept pace with what was anticipated when it signed the original agreement. Unlike a lot of developers who disappeared back in 2008 and 2009, Starwood did not 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 do that, because it believed in Palm Desert and this project, but they have had to take it slower than anticipated. She said they have subsidized the maintenance of the project so that the owners there are getting the experience they anticipated, even though it didn't have the volume of units to support the maintenance fees. As a result, the project is nowhere near meeting its financial objectives; however, they believe in it and they want to keep moving forward. What they are asking today is a little bit of help from the City to continue going. She said the Project Amenity Fees (PAF) are being paid on all the units that are completed. In 2013 the PAF was more than $700,000, and in 2014 it will probably be around $750,000, stating that over the course of their ownership they have paid about $2.5 million in PAF, also generating $1.3 million in Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) since 2010 from rental units when owners are not using them. She said Starwood was an asset to the community and they have tried to be good neighbors to the golf course in working with them on several improvements to make the development mesh better with the course and its operation. She hoped the Council will consider this request reasonable given that the PAF was intended to compensate the impacts they would have on the golf course, stating they were only asking not to pay PAF on units that didn't exist. Councilman Jonathan asked if the proposal would not change the total PAF that is payable under the agreement pursuant to this project, but more of a postponement such as the timing of the payment coinciding with the build - out of the units themselves. Further, that by deferring the payment, the City was not incurring any kind of an expense that is unfunded by the deferral of the PAF. Mr. Alvarez answered yes. He pointed out a correction to the staff report, stating the agreement the City entered into was for a five-year period from 2010 to 2014. Councilman Tanner stated that with respect to the projections with the18 units for 2015, questioned if there was anything under construction at this point that would indicate there would be $897,000 of PAF. Mr. Alvarez said Starwood has completed 136 units, and they have started construction on one more build -out, stating it has been one building per year historically. Further responding, he confirmed approval would have no fiscal impact on the City. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve an Agreement with WVC Rancho Mirage, Inc. (Starwood Vacation Ownership), extending the terms and conditions of the 4' Amendment to the existing Disposition and Development Agreement as it relates to payment of the Project Amenity Fee; 2) authorize the Executive Director to 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 execute the Agreement. Motion was seconded by Tanner and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Harnik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None). B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES REFUND FOR VILLA PORTOFINO PROJECT (Comstock Homes, Applicant). Mr. Grance noted the staff report and offered to answer any questions. Councilman Tanner stated that per the agreement, the City is to refund the building permit fees. Mr. Grance agreed. Councilman Tanner moved to, Minute Motion, refund Building Permit Fees in the amount of $53,141.62 for Building Permit Nos. 13-60671, 13-60672, 13-60675, 13-60677, 14-63008, and 14-63009 for the Villa Portofino Project. Motion was seconded by Jonathan and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Harnik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None). C. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATIVE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF HEALTH AND RELATED INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR COUNCILMEMBERS. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel said he asked for this item to be placed on the agenda, stating a couple of years ago the Council had a committee consisting of members from the community to review Council's salary and health benefits. As a result, Council's salary was cut dramatically making the lowest paid council in the Coachella Valley. Additionally, the health benefits were also cut rating Palm Desert second worse in the Valley. He said Indian Wells councilmembers had no health benefits, but all the other cities in the Valley had better health benefits than Palm Desert, mainly because it cut benefits to its dependents. Therefore, it really didn't make sense to look for qualified people to be on the City Council and take -away health benefits for their dependents. He said Councilmembers spend a lot more time doing City business than just the two meetings every month, and for that reason, he recommended retuming the same health benefits the Council once had. Councilman Tanner asked if the suggestion was to consider the original payroll and health benefits. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel replied his suggestion was reconsideration of the health benefits only. Councilmember Jonathan asked if Scenario C, as outlined in the staff report, the one being proposed. 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Ms. Carney explained that Scenario B would be going back to what the Council had with everyone's status remaining the same, and the people that opted out will continue to opt out. Scenario C gives the Council an idea of the cost if those people currently opting out then selected to enroll in the City's insurance plan. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel stated his motion would then be for Scenario B. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, select Scenario B - Provide dependent coverage and adjust "opt -out" cash, with no changes in enrollment at an annual cost of $41,735.28. Mayor Weber asked if those currently opting out would then be treated similar to employees and go from $733 a month down to $150 a month. Councilman Jonathan seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Councilman Jonathan stated compensation shouldn't be so attractive that people would be motivated to run for public office to seek enrichment, but on the other hand, it shouldn't be so low making it unaffordable to serve in public office; therefore, the challenge was to strike a balance. While the proposed motion leaves the overall health benefit cost to the City the same, what he didn't like about it was the disparity, in that benefits to individual Councilmembers run a wide range between $1,800 a year to more than $20,000 per year, stating there was an inherent unfairness to it. If the Council was to make any changes, he would advocate a system similar to the City of Indio and others, where there is a flat amount allotted to each Councilmember, and it's the same amount. He said each Councilmember can then choose to use that amount toward individual, family coverage, or in lieu. If the amount needs to be adjusted to cover family coverage, the flat fee could be $1,250 a month, just to make sure that those that need family coverage can apply that amount toward it and not be out of pocket. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel said the comparison should be made with Rancho Mirage and Palm Springs, because they were more comparable cities. Councilman Jonathan replied he did, and the $1,250 a month he was proposing was an amount equal to the cost for family coverage, which was basically the same thing being proposed, but it equalized the benefits among Councilmembers. He said he wasn't opposed to making a change, but it needed to be equitable and reasonable, which is why he proposed a flat amount. Mayor Weber questioned if such a motion could be made this evening, because it would affect the budget. Additionally, such a motion would be 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 disrespectful of the group of people that spent their time discussing and reviewing this matter, and taking action without more discussion would seem inconsiderate. Councilmember Harnik pointed out that when the group was asked to review the issue, their decision was non -binding. She said those that had the spreadsheet in front of them would know how difficult a decision this was for her. However, she agreed people shouldn't run for office just for the compensation, but it should also not exclude people from the process, because there are many good community members, who at the current level, simply couldn't afford to take part or run for office, which she thought was wrong. Therefore, to apply a flat fee for health benefits as suggested, many would be excluded. She explained that the group that reviewed the salary and benefits came in with a non -binding result, and the Council needed to vote on it. However, she will go on record saying the City Council is under compensated. She said most people don't recognize the amount of time and effort put in every month, and agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel, people think Councilmembers just attend two meetings. However, there is a lot more meetings to attend and homework to be done. She acknowledged that this group was in an unenviable position to sit on the dais and state how the Council should be compensated, understanding it's what the State and other cities did. However, the moment one steps forward and states what they are worth, there are always those who disagreed and it becomes a very difficult position. Councilman Tanner asked if this matter can be revisited in the same motion to make it potentially more equitable. He agreed with the comments made and hopes to make the health benefit more reasonable but fair to all. Councilmember Hamik inquired as to how the City dealt with the disparity in the employees health benefits. Ms. Carney said she first would like to clarify that $1,200 would not cover the Family Plan. She said $1,200 is what the City of Indio offers its employees and council, and it doesn't cover the Family Plan. In the staff report she indicated Indio has a cost -sharing plan and depending on the family size, one may get cash back or pay the difference, which is applied the same for its employees and councilmembers. Responding to Councilmember Hamik's question, Palm Desert employees receive premium conversion where they can select any of the available plans up to PERS Choice, and the City pays the premium for single or family coverage. She agreed there is disparity because the cost for a single person is much less to the City than for a family. There are a wide variety of reasons why it has been negotiated that way, but the key issue here is not so much disparity between employees, the 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 key issue here is the difference between what the Council receives and what employees receive. Mr. Erwin added that the amount to the Council cannot be in excess to what an employee receives. Ms. Carney said she was referring solely to the benefit's package, stating Councilmembers may not receive a benefit package that is greater than that available to employees with regard to health insurance. Councilman Jonathan said he was suggesting that it not be approached from the standpoint of health insurance, but more like an addition to the basic compensation, giving each Councilmember a stipend like it received $40 for cell phone allowance. Therefore, the Council would get an additional allowance for whatever amount is decided and that allowance can be used toward health insurance or not. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel said he would like the Council to receive the same health insurance as City employees. Mayor Weber asked about the employees benefits, as an example Employee A could receive health benefits of $8,000 and Employee B that opted out, could receive a $150 stipend. Ms. Carney answered yes, stating that's the way the health package worked for Palm Desert employees. Mayor Weber said that didn't seem to be a fair system either. Ms. Carney explained the City has a negotiated process with its employees where it enters into a Memorandum of Understanding to determine the health package. Further responding, she said there are probably only three employees that have selected to opt out. Councilman Jonathan said that if the Council receives any kind of compensation formula that resulted with one member receiving $1,800 a year and another one receiving $21,000 a year, it would be inherently unfair and he would oppose it. He said he was open to whatever the Council came up with, but there had to be parity. Councilmember Harnik suggested taking this issue to community members again. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel indicated he was opposed to that idea. 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Mayor Weber called for the vote and the motion to approve Scenario "B" as presented in the staff report FAILED on a 11-44 vote. (AYES: Spiegel; NOES: Harnik, Jonathan, Tanner, and Weber). Councilman Jonathan said there was interest at the Council level to reexamine this issue to find an equitable adjustment that would bring Palm Desert into parity with the rest of the cities. He agreed with Councilmember Harnik that the Council can try to make this position affordable but not overly attractive. He said this issue can be revisited and perhaps in time for next year's budget. Councilmember Hamik asked if she can request for this matter to come back on the agenda with some of the items that Councilman Jonathan suggested. Mr. Wohlmuth answered yes. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROXIMATELY 113 ACRES, KNOWN AS A.P.N. 694-200-001 AND PORTION OF A.P.N. 694-160-003, FROM THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, PURSUANT TO THE LONG- RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Mr. Alvarez stated the City and former Redevelopment Agency, which is now the Successor Agency, and CaI State San Bemardino have a long-standing relationship by the establishment of CaI State University San Bemardino, Palm Desert Campus at the corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive. Staff has been working with CaI State to develop a Disposition and Development Agreement that would allow for the transfer of the remainder land owned by the Successor Agency to Cal State. What has transpired over the years is that in 2001 the former Redevelopment Agency transferred 55 acres to Cal State to develop CaI State University San Bemardino, Palm Desert Campus. To date, five buildings have been built and enrollment has grown to 1,100 students. With the Dissolution of Redevelopment, the Successor Agency now has to dispose those assets that were owned by the former Redevelopment Agency, one of which is now up for discussion and also listed on the Long-range Property Management Plan (LRPMP); this asset has been approved to be transferred to CaI State as the remainder land. Additionally, there is 2.67 acres near Gerald Ford Drive that has been identified with the ability to transfer to the City for a future fire station, which has also been approved by the Department of Finance (DOF). Additionally, 20 acres are identified as UC Regents, which has already been transferred 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 to University of California, Riverside for the Palm Desert Campus. The item before the Council this evening is a Disposition and Development Agreement that will allow the transfer of the remainder land to CaI State San Bernardino, which is identified in green in the map attached to the staff report. He said CaI State San Bernardino is in the process of a Master Plan, which will include the proposed acreage that will allow them to expand the University at a future date. The proposed Agreement includes the following provisions that give the City some ability and control: 1) CSU agrees that it shall use the Reserve Property strictly for educational purposes; 2) CSU agrees the words "Palm Desert" will be used on this campus for future name identification; 3) CSU shall not convey or sell the property without written consent from the Successor Agency and the City; 4) CSU will provide the City the opportunity to review future buildings, facility, and master planning along with other access points that will come about as part of the Master Plan process; 5) CSU shall provide the City with the opportunity to review landscaping so that there is consistency with sustainable principals and local water conservation efforts; 6) CSU will continue to work cooperatively with regional educational partners to advance higher leaming opportunities in the Coachella Valley. He said staff has worked diligently with Cal State and both Legal Counsels to develop the proposed Agreement. He introduced members of Cal State that were present as follows: Dr. Douglas Freer, Vice President for Administration and Finance; Dr. Sharon Brown -Welty, Dean of Cal State -San Bernardino, Palm Desert Campus; Dr. John Welty, President Emeritus, CSU-Fresno, and CSU Trustee Professor; and Mr. Hamid Azhand, Director of Capital Planning. Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Spiegel stated he wants staff to ensure the City didn't end up with a Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurant out there, which was his main concern. Mr. Alvarez replied there is language in the Agreement that allows Cal State to have food vendors and food restaurants for students just like a normal campus, but not a stand-alone facility that would be privately operated. Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Spiegel asked if Cal State was still working on a dormitory. Cal State representatives indicated they were. Councilmember/Director Harnik commented she was happy to see this moving along. Councilman/Director Jonathan said staff eluded that the property is to be used as an educational institution, however, Section 3.1 of the Agreement limits that condition to 25 years. He questioned what happens after the 25 years and would the City lose its control allowing the State to do what it wants. 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Mr. Alvarez agreed it was a provision that potentially could allow it to happen, stating the 25-year limit is language used in previous agreements. However, once the land is transferred, the City is holding them to use the property for educational purposes, but after 25 years the Successor Agency has gone away and those provisions fade off into the distance. He said it was a good question and it can be discussed with Cal State as well. Councilman/Director Jonathan stated 25 years often seems like a long time, but it feels like it's been 25 years since a few on the Council started the satellite campus at the College of the Desert grounds in trailers. Therefore, the 25-year provision concemed him because Cal State may not build out the whole thing and use part of the land to have a storage yard, etc. He has seen other agreements where there is a condition that if the use is something other than educational, ownership of the property reverts back to the City. Additionally, in Section 3.2 the word "Palm Desert" is required to appear in the name of the campus in some way, shape, or form. However, he had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Welty, who gave him the understanding that it was not an easy thing to just say it will be so because it wasn't that simple. He said the provision is soft in that there is an exception that states, "unless a different name is designated beyond CSU's control," and for what the City has given to this campus, including this land, he hoped that unconditionally the words "Palm Desert" will appear in the name of this campus. Councilmember/Director Hamik agreed, stating the language between Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 conflicted. She asked if the word "shall" can be included in both sections. Councilman/Director Jonathan suggested omitting the sentence that states "unless a different name is designated," under Section 3.2. He said maybe representatives from CSU may address this, but his preference was to not have a 25-year limit on the educational use, and if a limit needed to be included, the Agreement needs to indicate ownership reverts back to the City if it's ever used for something other than educational purposes. Mayor/Chair Weber and Councilmember/Director Hamik questioned if the language of the 25-year limit needed to be included in the agreement. Mr. Alvarez replied the 25-year limit language has been used in previous agreement in terms of life of agreements, specifically Disposition and Development Agreements (DDA). He agreed to bring the matter up and discuss it with Cal State. DR. DOUGLAS FREER, Vice President for Administration & Finance at Cal State, San Bernardino, explained that Cal State's restrictions would also 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 prevent them from turning some portion of the property over for some other use besides education. He said their agreement under its own Trustees required them to use the property for educational purposes for a period beyond 25 years, as long as it was still within the control of the University. Councilman/Director Jonathan stated that elimination of the 25-year provision in Section 3.1 should then not pose an issue. DR. FREER replied he didn't have an answer for sure, stating he would have to finish the consultation on the matter with their counsel. However, he reiterated Cal State is held to the same type of agreement that once they take the land for educational purposes, they have to commit to using it for that purpose. Councilman/Director Jonathan expressed concern that current players may not be around 25 years from now, and if the State wanted a waste station on 20 of those acres, they could do it after 25 years. Councilmember/Director Harnik asked if the language on the 25-year limit have anything to do with the State or Successor Agency. Mr. Alvarez answered no, stating it was just language used in previous agreements. DR. FREER said Cal State University is prepared to accept the name "Palm Desert" as the recommendation, but in all the naming of its campuses there is always the overwrite that can come from the Govemor. However, Cal State has to reasonably assume that once the Board of Trustees has adopted the name, that's the recommendation going forward. Mayor/Chair Weber asked for further clarification in that the Govemor could change the name of the campus once the property is transferred. DR. FREER said he didn't know for certain, but he would assume, if the campus was ever to be designated as an independent CSU campus, the conversation would be in front of the whole board about the naming of the campus. Councilmember/Director Harnik noted there was also the potential it could be named CSU-Coachella Valley, but she would certainly like to have the name "Palm Desert" included. DR. FREER said it was Cal State's intention to reiterate the importance of the Palm Desert name, and they plan to include it in this Agreement, and he saw no reason why someone would change it at some future date. 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Councilman/Director Tanner inquired about Cal State University Code 89046, which states "Cal State may lease or license the operation of retail, commercial, restaurant and service uses as defined by CSU's mission," asking if alcohol can be on the campus at this point. DR. FREER replied there was that possibility. He said most of their campuses have an overwhelming percentage of students that are not even 21 years of age, but most of their campuses have a small venue, obviously under significant control. The examples' one sees at a campus is never a stand-alone fast-food practice, but there is a food court, student union, or an athletic venue in the form of food stands as part of the general operations of the University. Mayor/Chair Weber shared that when she was at Cal State University in San Bemardino, there was alcohol served in the student union, asking if that meant there will be alcohol at the Palm Desert campus. Councilman/Director Tanner commented it was allowed under CaI State's Code. DR. FREER said there could be, but they haven't made any determination of the kind of venues that would be in any of the future buildings. Councilman/Director Tanner pointed out alcohol is being sold right across the street from the campus. Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Spiegel said the only real question was on the 25-year limit on the use of the property, but if the language can be changed to state 50 years, it may make everyone happy. Councilmember/Director Hamik inquired about Cal State's limit on the use of the property, stating that Dr. Freer had eluded it was longer. DR. FREER said their assumption is similar to other land acquisitions for any CSU campus that once CSU accepts property for that purpose, he has never seen a situation where portions of land ends up being used for another purpose. In many cases, the campus grows to the point where it will need additional property at some future date. Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Spiegel noted the Agreement didn't allow CaI State to use it for any other purpose. The Council/Board discussed the motion and agreed to striking language from Section 3.1 relating to the 25-year limit, and Section 3.2 in reference to the naming of the campus. 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 DR. FREER stated he and Dr. Brown -Welty were fine with what is being proposed, but they obviously had to run the details with their legal counsel before it went to the Board of Trustees at the end of the month. Councilmember/Director Harnik moved to, waive further reading and adopt Resolution Nos. 2015 - 04 and SA -RDA 040, approving the subject Disposition and Development Agreement and related actions, with DDA amended, as follows: Section No. 3.1 - Use of Reserve Property - with the first sentence to read "CSU agrees that it shall use the Reserve Property only for educational purposes as part of CSU mission and for no other purpose whatsoever, except as provided in this DDA," striking the phrase, " „ Section 3.2 - Name - Subsection (ii) to read, "if a separate campus of the CSU is built upon the Reserve Property, that the name of the CSU Campus shall be `California State University, Palm Desert'.', striking the phrase, `... ' " Motion was seconded by Jonathan and it carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Hamik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None). XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS None XVI. OLD BUSINESS None XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION, ACCEPTING AND REJECTING CERTAIN OFFERS OF DEDICATION WITHIN THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 13008 (THE SUMMIT) (Continued from the meeting of November 13, 2014). Mr. Greenwood stated this is a continued item from two months ago regarding drainage easements within The Summit development. The Summit is located east of Highway 74 straddling Mesa View Drive. A color representation of the map was displayed outlining three different types of easements as follows: 1) Streets shown in a heavy black line are Offers of Dedications for all of the streets within The Summit, and staff is recommending acceptance of those streets, which were inadvertently omitted years ago; 2) The six pale green lines on the map represent drainage easements. Five of the six easements identified drain from a street to another street in an open channel or somewhat covered channel, and staff 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 is recommending acceptance of the six drainage easements; 3) The easements identified in red, which bounds the southwest portion of the tract is an open concrete channel, and staff is recommending that they not be accepted by the City for maintenance. He displayed several photographs of the concrete channel that are located within the backyards, stating that over the years the channel has been compromised and has been obstructed with improvements to contain pets, children, or to keep people out of yards. He said those obstructions hinder the flow of water, if water was to flow in the channel. In one photograph one homeowner built a short wall, and others have debris and sand in the channel. In one case, the channel has been completely filled in and landscaped, therefore, serves no drainage purpose whatsoever. Another example is a fence that was installed to prohibit access to a pool in the backyard, because the pool must be secured, however, the fence obstructs the channel. He displayed a photograph of the only inlet staff is recommending to accept and perform the maintenance, because it provides access to the underground pipe, stating water flowed underground into a very flat pipe. However, this inlet has a fence in front that has chicken wire around the rail, which further added to the accumulation of debris. Additionally, it has potted plants or trees on top of the inlet, and this is where the City would start its maintenance; however, the fence/rail with chicken wire and any improvements that were not part of the original construction would have to be removed. The photos he displayed were taken two months ago and Code Enforcement staff went out recently on December 30 and saw no change. He recalled for the Council that the directive was to continue the item to give the homeowners a chance to clear the channel of all its obstructions and then Council was to consider accepting it in a cleared out state. However, there has been no progress whatsoever in clearing the channel. In fact, staff received correspondence from the Homeowners Association (HOA) that they understood they were to wait and not do anything. He understood there has been communication between the HOA and homeowners, but he didn't know the results of it. Responding to question in reference to the photograph with the palm tree and bougainvillaeas hanging over the wall from Big Horn's side, he said that has been part of the complaints in that Big Hom has allowed their vegetation to encroach into the channel. He said at the last meeting Council was presented with an 80-page packet from the HOA's attorney, which staff reviewed. Staff also searched its own records on The Summit and leamed that during the Planning Commission and City Council Hearings, there was indeed discussion of this concrete channel and easements being needed. However, there was no indication that those easements were to be to the City, stating it was quite common for there to be easements in tracts that went to the HOA or the property owner to do their maintenance. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that because those documents didn't state "easements to the City," it meant easements to the HOA so that the drainage facility could be maintained. Staff continues to recommend that it not accept this particular 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 channel, but do accept the mentioned six drains and Offers of Dedication for the streets within The Summit. Councilmember Harnik inquired about the home with the pool where there was a fence installed for security. Mr. Greenwood said a solution could be to build a wall along the entire length of the backyard, which a homeowner had the right to do so, because it was private property. He said the concrete flood channel is eight feet wide. Mayor Weber declared the public hearing re -opened and invited public testimony in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION. MR. JACK E. GARRISON, President of Palm Desert Summit Homeowners' Association, thanked the Council for the opportunity to address this matter. In response to Mr. Greenwood's comment, he said this was the first time he heard the easements might go to the homeowners association, which really surprised him. He noted HOA Attorney Christina DeJardin from Peters & Freedman was unable to attend this evening, stating she was the one that prepared a packet for the Council on November 13. One of the things Ms. DeJardin wished for him to reiterate was that there was no doubt the City accepted the dedicated easements over the channel, because the City required them to be granted in the Conditions of Approval. Once the plans were presented and approved, it was automatic, the easements were accepted. He said Ms. DeJardin had no doubt about this, because the dedicated easements existed then and still exist today. Further stating it was impossible to remove the easements because they were part of the plan. There were never any easements going to the HOA, stating the easements are on the plans and the City Engineer Ewald Lemcke, Director of Public Works Clyde Beebe, and City Clerk Sheila Gilligan all approved and signed off on the plans. He said they were also told that because the Canyons at Big Hom had gone in, The Summit channels were no longer needed. One of the things that is confusing are the holes in the wall, because they don't know who put them in and they don't show up in the original plan, but sand and dirt came through those holes in the heavy rain, even in the most recent rainfall. He said the palm tree hanging over the wall, displayed in an earlier photograph, was already cracking the wall. He and the Board have been over at Big Horn three times and they have walked the channel, taken pictures, and discussed the cracked wall, vegetation, and rats coming through the holes. He said part of the turf is coming through the Big Horn side and they are still in discussions trying to get it resolved. He went on to say the City has always had full access to these channels through the dedicated easements to do whatever it wanted, even causing the homeowners to take the fences out. He said the City has an Ordinance along with Municipal Code Section 28.02.040, which prohibits anyone from 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 diverting flood waters or constructing flood barriers, stating the same prohibition is in their CC&R's as well. He shared they have attempted to meet with all 22 homeowners, but unfortunately, four of them are still gone and two of them have serious illnesses and have not returned to the desert. Of the four homeowners with the gates, he met with two, and they were told that if the City accepted the easement dedications, they will assist the City in getting the fences out. The party who has the channel filled with dirt was informed it had to be removed, however, she claims it was already filled before she bought the house. He said if this was a budget issue for the City, he was very confused, because he believed the channel only had to be cleaned out quarterly requiring only two workers to do the work in a day, if there were no obstructions. He said homeowners have complained about having to pay their HOA fees, and the HOA has asked the City what obligation it had to maintain this HOA that's ungated. He pointed out they paid on average $75,000 a year to maintain the property at Mesa View and Highway 74, costing them $2,750,000 for the common areas, and they do a beautiful job and work hard to maintain it, yet the City couldn't have two workers drain the channel once every two or three months, stating "it was ridiculous." He said they are very conscientious about conserving water, and it was his number one concern. In fact, in the last three years they have removed 3,000 square feet of turf in the divider at Mesa View because water was running off. They have also installed water controllers and efficient sprinklers reducing their water usage for the common areas from 9 million gallons a year to 5 million gallons a year, which was a 40% reduction. At their HOA Board meeting today, they discussed removing more turf in order to save more water, because it was a serious concern. He reiterated he will work with staff and find out about the holes in the wall, and they will cooperate and do whatever it can, but they want to do what is fair. However, he couldn't understand how the City can remove dedicated easements, because once those plans were accepted, they were dedicated. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel asked if most of the homeowners at The Summit had gardeners, stating he had asked this question at the last meeting as well. MR. GARRISON answered yes. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel questioned why they couldn't keep the channel clean, because it should be part of the gardener's job. MR. GARRISON agreed. He said some of the gates were put up to keep children out of the pools, stating he personally would have a hard time living next to the channel, because one would lose eight feet of its yard, and with the gates, the backyards get very narrow. He agreed this was a problem and they are still worried about flooding. 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel asked if The Summit was in the flood zone. MR. GARRISON answered yes. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel noted he was originally on Bel Air where it was considered a flood zone, but that designation was removed. Councilman Tanner asked if Mr. Garrison was required to carry flood insurance on his property in The Summit. MR. GARRISON said he hadn't. Councilman Tanner replied that meant he wasn't in a flood zone, unless he paid cash for his home. MR. GARRISON explained there was a big difference in the south side of the Summit versus the north side. The uphill side residents had to worry initially about all the downhill water going to the undeveloped land. However, when Big Hom went in they did a good job of putting in a nice drainage system. Councilman Tanner noted the eight -foot wide concrete channel was in the property owners possession; therefore, he questioned why the gardeners weren't keeping the channel free and clear, which was a question he and Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel had previously asked. Therefore, his response is why would the City clean the channel if the gardeners would be cleaning it. Councilman Jonathan responding to Mr. Garrison's attorney interpretation that the City acquired easements for those channels, but Public Works Director Mark Greenwood opined it was not the case. Mr. Greenwood agreed, stating the easements were offered on the map and they were indeed signed by the City Clerk and City Engineer, but the required statement that the City accepted the easements was not on the map. Councilman Jonathan said easements have not been recorded, and normally an easement is recorded against the property, which would be reflected in the Title of any of these individual lots. MR. GARRISON replied the easements are on the plan and recorded on the plan. Councilman Jonathan said there is a difference of opinion here, which needs to be clarified, because he wasn't sure an easement can be recorded if it hasn't been accepted by the City. 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Mr. Erwin explained that in this instance the easements show on the map, but before giving anything to the City, there must be a formal acceptance and there wasn't. He said the City is not required to reject easements if the owner takes no action, and it does not become the property of the City or the responsibility of the City unless it is formally accepted. Typically, on a sub- division map there is a certificate which recites that the City has accepted the easements and they are labeled. If that statement is not there, and it's not on this map, the City has not accepted the easements. He said the easements had been offered for dedication, and that offer remains open until some action is taken; however, no action is necessarily required unless the City Council decides it wants to do so. MR. GARRISON said he was informed by a homeowner that every time one buys or sells, the easement shows up on the map. Mr. Erwin agreed, but if one checks the map, which is the final document in that type of instance, typically on sub -division maps there is a certificate where it shows the acceptance of streets, easements, etc., and this map did not contain it. MR. GARRISON said he was told and heard there was an error made by then City Clerk Sheila Gilligan who forgot to put that language on the map. Mr. Greenwood replied that was incorrect information, because it's not the City Clerk's responsibility, it is the Engineer of Records, the surveyor. He said it was the HOA's surveyor that made the error. MR. GARRISON replied it was then a technical error. Mr. Erwin said it was not a technical error but a substantive fact. He said as a govemment agency there must be a formal acceptance by the City and it has not occurred. MR. GARRISON made the comment that the City was okay legally, but morally it was not, and what he was hearing is that the HOA will continue to spend $75,000 to maintain all the common area. Mr. Erwin reiterated the easements belonged to the HOA when it acquired the property, and the title company should have shown whether or not the easements had been accepted by the City, stating policies of title insurance should reflect it. MS. DONNA MANDELSTAM, Spy Glass Lane, Palm Desert, stated that every home at The Summit has a tract map that shows they are protected by the City of Palm Desert easement for its entire drainage system under the 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 same criteria for the streets. She said 35 years ago the City decided to go ahead and do the streets and cover 80% of the drainage system, but never notified the homeowners in any way officially or unofficially that it wasn't doing the part behind those homes. The 22 homeowners that backed up to the channel have the same tract map she has, however, her home didn't back up to the channel. She said anyone who buys a home and sees the tract map with City Engineer, City Council, and City Clerk signing off, and checks with the County and the map states City of Palm Desert Drainage Easement, they won't know there was a technical error by some engineer 35 years ago. She further stated trained City professionals like clock work went in and cleaned the channel with the exception of 4 of the 22 houses that backed to the channel, stating it made absolutely no sense and it was totally misleading. The fact that City staff came out to clean the channel, is because over the years flooding kept reoccurring. In a letter she sent to the Council, which is attached to the staff report, she mentions City staff went out in an emergency situation to clean the channel. However, there never would have been flooding on those channels had they been protected in the exact same way that all the other residents in The Summit with respect to the drainage, which was a fact. Councilmember Harnik said the Council received an email from a homeowner in The Summit who purchased her property in 1995 and was told the water channel had been abandoned and she had never seen water flowing through the area. She said this owner was currently researching with Orange County Title Company to get an answer. However, another issue here is the finger pointing and disparaging remarks on people's character on whether someone is moral or immoral. She read out loud the following statements from The Summit's CC&R's: "Each owner covenants and agrees that he shall not obstruct or otherwise interfere with said drainage pattern of water from adjacent lots in the project over his lot or in the alternative, that in the event it is necessary and essential to alter said drainage patten for the protection and use of his lot, he will make adequate provision for proper drainage." MR. GARRISON pointed out the homeowner that moved in there in 1995 is the only homeowner who filled the entire backyard channel with cactus landscaping. MS. MANDELSAM said there were two pertinent facts in that the President of the HOA has already notified the homeowners of the need to remove the obstructions. Secondly, something that's never been discussed, is that if the City had been doing its job of monitoring, maintaining, and cleaning those channels for the past 30 years, workers would have been walking up and down the channel and not have allowed for obstructions to be built. 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Councilmember Harnik replied the Council couldn't work with comments based on assumptions. However, she did hear Mr. Garrison state he told the homeowners that "If the City adopts or accepts the channel, the HOA will help the homeowner clean the channel," stating it was contingent upon the City's acceptance. MS. MANDELSAM clarified the President said he notified every single homeowner and told them that when the City resumes its responsibility to provide maintenance, property owners will have to remove the obstacles. He was also saying the HOA will work with the City to make sure it happened. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Weber declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Tanner noted he spent time walking the channel in 2014, and as mentioned at the November meeting, if the City accepted the channel, it meant it accepted the liability for 20 to 22 single-family dwellings, which is something the City would not and could not do. He said if an individual fell and got hurt, it would be the property owners' issue not the City's. He didn't believe the City could legally enter into such an agreement, because it was private property and to be maintained by the homeowner. He said there was a solution at one time, which he thought would end all further debate, and it was for the City to clean out that one inlet. He explained this inlet had not been cleaned, because it wasn't something the City had initially done and wouldn't continue doing. He said if the maintenance is done on the channel by the individual homeowners that backed to it, the channel should never be filled up again. He said the City will clean out that one spot that has been clogged, but it will be a big process. Councilman Tanner moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2015-05 (formerly known as Resolution No. 2014-94), accepting and rejecting certain offers of dedication with the map of Tract No. 13008 (The Summit), with the further understanding that City will make a one-time clean -out of the identified problem area as described in this process. Motion was seconded by Jonathan. Councilman Jonathan said well -intention people, as adults, didn't always get their way, but people can still walk away without shaking their heads in respect for others. From his perspective, staff and Mr. Greenwood have done a very intensive job on this matter, and their interpretation is that the easements were offered and not accepted, which is also the opinion of legal counsel, and others. Therefore, the choice now before the Council is whether or not it wanted to accept the easements. He believed this matter had Tess to do with the cost of maintaining the channel than the legal liability the City would inherit without having control over the properties, and for this reason it made sense to accept staffs recommendation to decline certain 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 easements. However, the nice thing about this process is that finally everyone will have an understanding and know where this issue rests. Councilmember Harnik concurred, stating if the drainage channel is kept cleaned, there will no longer be an issue. She inquired as to the name of the development that is to the west of The Summit. Mr. Bagato said it was Indian Hills. Councilmember Harnik said being a good neighbor meant not dumping things into the channel, and if debris and sand is going into the channel through the holes in the wall, it needs to be addressed with Big Hom. She suggested the City facilitate discussions between The Summit, Indian Hills, and Big Hom, stating it would be worth it. Additionally, she believed landscapers/gardeners had a responsibility to take the trash with them. Mayor Weber called for the vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Harnik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None). B. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION RELATED TO A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 CHILDREN LOCATED AT 74085 FAIRWAY DRIVE — PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1, EXISTING FACILITIES) OF CEQA GUIDELINES, Large Family Dav Care Use Permit 14-188 (Samantha Clark, Applicant). Principal Planner Tony Bagato stated this item was for approval of a Large Family Day Care (LFDC). He said he would cover two laws, because there are separate types of permits that address day care at the residential level. The state defines a Small Family Day Care (SFDC) homes as accommodating eight (8) children or Tess, without any City regulation, which is what the Applicant is currently operating under. Then there is the Large Family Day Care that allows a homeowner to have nine (9) to fourteen (14) children. If this permit is approved, it will provide the Applicant an additional six (6) children. But in this circumstance, to have a LFDC the City has an Ordinance, which allows the City to look at certain provisions of the day care limited to traffic, parking, spacing concentration to other day care facilities, and potential noise. The property is located mid -block on Fairway Drive, it is the sixth home east of Portola Avenue and across the street from Hope Lutheran Church (HLC) and Washington Charter School (WCS). He said children are being cared for during school time at WCS as an after -school program. When the children are released from school around 3:00 p.m., they will be playing at HLC allowing for the traffic to die down from vehicles 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 leaving the school. Between 3:00 - 3:30 p.m., the children are having snacks and play time because there isn't backyard space at the homeowner's property. Then around 3:30 p.m., the Applicant walks the children to the day care. When staff first received this proposal, staff recognized the property was mid -block where there is no controlled intersection. He noted Lantana Avenue was to the east and then there was Black Rabbit Road where a stop sign was added to alleviate some of the speed concerns over the past 30 years. Although Fairway Drive is indicated as a residential street in the General Plan and not an arterial, it's very busy and is not considered a typical residential street, which was staffs concem when the Applicant applied. Staff met with the Applicant several times to go over the issues before he as the Zoning Administrator made a formal decision. Based on a traffic report conducted February 2013, there are 323 vehicles traveling around 3:30 p.m., which is one vehicle every 11 seconds. He said the video he will be presenting to Council shows gap times where the time span can be longer, but there is a scenario where 3 or 4 cars are passing back to back. Then at 5:00 p.m., when the day care will be releasing children, there are still 255 vehicles traveling, which is 1 vehicle every 14 seconds. Recently the speed limits were increased from 25 mph to 30 mph based on State mandated speed zones requiring the City to keep track of its speed limits. He explained it meant that when Fairway was surveyed, at least 80% of the people were driving 30 mph. Therefore, the speed limits were raised in order for the Police Department to use radar guns in their enforcement of traffic and speeding. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter in September 16, 2014, after the Zoning Administrator held a hearing with neighbors and the Applicant. The permit was denied at the staff level because of the traffic concern and lack of mitigation proposed. The proposal was just to continue to walk the children across the street using a hand-held stop sign; however, the Applicant later offered to improve the criteria by having kids wear safety vests that is green -yellowish color, as well as having the children hold a rope with the assistance of two teachers. The current proposal that is being reviewed would have one teacher go out first, and then the second teacher would cross with the children. The Planning Commission approved the Day Care Permit and overturned the Zoning Administrator's decision based on two conditions brought up at that meeting, one of which was brought up by the Applicant and the other by staff. The first condition was to modify the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., which was under State law. However, the Applicant indicated it was her intention to just do an after -school program; therefore the hours were modified and restricted from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The transportation of the children was a Planning Commission concern and in trying to mitigate this issue, the Applicant's representative verbally offered a solution, which was to have the children driven. However, because that mitigation was never submitted in writing from the Applicant, the request was denied. Therefore, as a proposal for the Planning Commission, he recommended the approval of the additional six children if they were 28 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 transported, because that would alleviate his traffic concern, and by law, he would have to approve the Application because the concern was mitigated. In summary, the concerts with respect to traffic control for crossing are as follows: Mid -block crossing is unsafe compared to controlled location where there can still be incidents; traffic is uncontrolled, because there is no striping, signalization, and drivers are not prepared to stop. He said even when there is striping, signals, or flashing pedestrian signs, mid -block incidents still occur; people are prohibited from stopping vehicles, stating that unless one is a police officer or a trained professional such as a crossing guard through the City, one is prohibited from stopping vehicles. Therefore, one condition was that they couldn't use a hand-held stop sign to stand in the street and stop traffic; people are not allowed to interrupt traffic flow. At this time, a video that was also shown at the Planning Commission was viewed. He said the video was taken at 3:30 p.m. Councilmember Harnik inquired as to the time of the meetings at Fellowship Hall. Mr. Bagato said he didn't know, but there are AA Meetings there that brought in traffic. The second part of the video showed the children crossing at 5:00 p.m., pointing out the glare drivers will encounter because of the rising or setting sun, which was a concern raised by Commissioner Stendell. The video showed how difficult it was to see the children because of the glare in the windshield. In November the Council and staff received letters from the Applicant's attorney, raising legal issues about the two conditions placed with respect to the hours of operations and the traffic control condition of transporting the children by van -ferry. In reviewing the letter, staff and Legal Counsel agree the hours of operation was outside of the regulation of the City, however, conditions were only posed because the Applicant agreed to them. Therefore, staff is recommending that this particular condition be overturned and return the hours to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and allow for summer day care as well, because it's allowed by the State and outside the City's purview. As for transporting children, staff continues to stand by the City Ordinance and the Health & Safety Code of the State of California that the City does have the ability to regulate traffic control, stating crossing children is a traffic control issue. Further, if mitigation is not properly placed there could be a liability factor to the City. He noted the Council received a letter from the City Attorney citing case law of cities being held liable where there were dangerous situations. The Applicant proposed one mid -block alternative in an email, which is attached to the staff report. The proposed alternative by the Applicant was to add an additional teacher so that they can split the 14 children into two groups for crossing the street. Again, staff did not support the alternative, because it was still mid -block crossing in an uncontrolled situation. Staff looked at another altemative and discussed it with the Applicant about the potential of adding a sidewalk in the area, even 29 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 though there is still the potential liability, because someone could get hit at the crosswalk. He said it was the only alternative that made sense other than driving the children over to the day care. Staff talked to the Applicant early on in the summer about the possibility for the need of a sidewalk, because there is a public right-of-way, even though there is landscaping, mailboxes, and other improvements that would impact three or four homes. He displayed an exhibit to highlight what would need to be done if a sidewalk was added, stating a sidewalk could be added through the right-of-way toward Lantana Avenue and adding a crosswalk, and moving stop signs from Black Rabbit Road to Lantana to accommodate the children crossing at a more controlled traffic location and then walking along the sidewalk. In reviewing this, there were concems with neighbors impact. First, it would place the stop sign and the landing right in front of a homeowner's driveway. Therefore, when vehicles are stopping, they will be able to look into the residents home and block any potential access from that resident. Additionally, putting in a sidewalk would require ADA and ramp improvements, estimating a cost of $20,000 to $30,000. There was also discussion about using Child Care Mitigation Funds for it, however, this altemative didn't benefit the overall neighborhood. Even though this altemative would help provide day care, it was only for six more children beyond the eight the Applicant can already do. One crucial thing brought up at the Zoning Hearing was that most of the children that live in that neighborhood are not traveling west on Portola Avenue when traveling south into the neighborhood, they are going toward Black Rabbit and Covered Wagon. Therefore, where the sidewalk is needed, is actually going the opposite direction, which would be a major impact to surrounding neighbors and a major cost to the community to bear. He spoke to the Public Works Director of the City of La Quinta, because they have a high school that has a major mid -block crossing, and the have spent more than $100,000 worth of improvement to address the volume of kids, but even in that situation, if someone gets hit, the concem is that they will be liable. He said the number one concem is safety of children and liability to the City. Staff believes the Applicant has the full intent of trying to be safe, but this was a matter that if something happens, and mid -block crossing is unsafe. In conclusion, staff is looking at approving the permit this evening and reversing the hours of operations with no restrictions, and with respect to Traffic Control, the number one option is to go with a van transportation of the children, which has the least liability and least impact to the neighborhood. He offered to answer any questions. Councilman Tanner said the staff report indicates it's unsafe to cross mid -block at an unprotected crossing, but questioned if it was illegal. Mr. Bagato replied the interpretation from the City Attorney and the way the law read, it's illegal, stating it was potentially jaywalking. 30 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Mr Erwin read Section 21955 of the Vehicle Code which states, "between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in the crosswalk." Councilman Jonathan said it was consistent with his understanding as a layperson, stating he heard about police officers giving tickets for jaywalking. In fact, his sister received one in Los Angeles. Councilman Tanner asked if there was the possibility of an approved 12-passenger shopper hopper that could be used as opposed to a licensed van, stating one would be cutting their cost substantially. He asked if staff would approve such a mode of transportation if was licensed. Mr. Bagato replied he would have to check the original condition, but he believed children had to be transported, but not necessarily that it had to be by a van. He pointed out that with a speed limit of 30 mph, a street legal golf cart could be used and Fairway was street legal. Councilman Tanner made the comment that it then provided another alternative other than a van. Mr. Bagato answered yes. Councilmember Harnik inquired about the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., because as a parent who had a child in daycare, she would prefer for it to be open until 6:00 p.m. Mr. Bagato explained that under the proposal submitted by the Applicant, aside from the after school program, the Applicant wanted the option of having a summer program, which is why staff included specific hours. Further responding, he said that under the Statement of Use section that was originally submitted, the Applicant indicated the day care hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., which is what he went by, but staff is flexible on the hours of operation. Councilmember Harnik said she wouldn't support jaywalking, because she drove up and down Fairway all the time and knew how fast and how much traffic is there, and crossing mid -block is not safe. For the Council to say it's a good idea, it would be exposing the City, and it wouldn't be the right thing to do for the City or children. In consideration of a sidewalk, there is a sidewalk all the way up to Portola Avenue and there is only one house that would prevent them from walking back on decomposed granite. She was looking for a solution, because she couldn't support mid -block crossing for 31 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 children and putting more people out there to assist were just more people jaywalking. Mayor Weber declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. STEVEN HECHT, Willow Street, Palm Desert, noted he brought his daughter Shana (sp?) who attends the Art House in support of the BDLC. He disagreed with many things brought up by staffs 15-minute presentation, and given that previous speakers were given more time to speak, he asked for the same consideration. He said he noticed staff and City Attorney didn't agree on whether crossing the children was jaywalking or not, and apparently everyone was in disagreement. However, he believed it was very safe to take this short walk in the middle of the street. Secondly, he questioned why would one place a school and church without symmetrical crossing streets, because when Lantana dead ends and Black Rabbit is two houses off set with no sidewalks, stating this was poor City planning. He said there are so many variables that can give you the results shown in the video with respect to the glare such as the time of day, sunlight filter, a bad camera angle, and one picture shouldn't say it all. Additionally, using the City's own video of two minutes and fifteen seconds of the kids letting vehicles go by and then crossing, he counted eight vehicles in two minutes, stating it was not the same frequency staff stated. He went on to say the Art House is extremely important to his almost six -year -old daughter's development, and the Applicant is doing everything possible to make it very safe. He said if the City is ultimately concerned about the speed and safety on this street, it needed to put in a few speed bumps, which will slow drivers. However, the City had to raise the speed limit from 25 to 30 mph, then it should put in speed bumps. He said if the children went to the comer of Portola Avenue and crossed Fairway Drive and walked down the street to the day care as mentioned, all the risks mentioned would still exist. Also, he felt it was heavy handed to require a day care center to buy a van to drive from one parking lot across the street. He asked the Council to be realistic, because he felt the current process was extremely safe, stating his daughter participated and he didn't believe it was a bad solution. MR. GREG FAINS, Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, stated he was the owner of the home on Fairway Drive where the City proposes to put a stop sign in front of his driveway, and there is nothing about it that he found fair or right. His first concern is that he will lose property value, because no one will want to buy a home with a stop sign and crosswalk in front of their home where vehicles are constantly stopping. He said his home was built in such a way that they have a beautiful courtyard with lots of seating and a big window in front, which they used a lot. Therefore, by putting a stop sign there will increase the noise level and he will lose his privacy. He said everyone was 32 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 clamoring about the current situation there, proposing stops signs, crosswalks, etc., but he has lived there for 13 years and was very familiar with drivers speeding and running Black Rabbit Road from time to time, stating the 30 mph was not adhered to, especially during the season. There is also the AA Center that has gone from being a small center to a huge one with traffic starting at 4:45 a.m. for meetings there, and now vans are transporting people into that center for some reason. Therefore, there are at least 1,000 people a day going in and out of that area. He said the current situation appears to work as there has not been an accident on Fairway Drive in the 13 years he has lived there. He explained that when vehicles came down Portola Avenue from the west to turn in to go to the school to drop their kids off on Lantana, traffic is stopped at Black Rabbit, giving people time to see that traffic has stopped to make a safe turn into Lantana Avenue, and it's also safe to tum off on Lantana, because Black Rabbit holds that traffic back. So by the City adding stop signs, it will clutter the area up and it will back up the traffic in front of his house. Additionally, parents will want to use the proposed sidewalk in front of his home as well with more kids crossing the street on Fairway Drive. Contrary to what the previous speaker said, there is a lot of glare from the sun and a lot of speeding cars that at times there are 15 or 20 vehicles going by. If a crosswalk is placed at the proposed location, there will be more children trying to cross the road, which was not right. He said the Applicant wants to increase her day care numbers to make a profit, because it has to make money to keep the facility open. However, everyone else shouldn't have to bear the burden for their business success, which was wrong on so many levels. He said the City has provided conditions and suggestions, but the Applicant didn't want to do the van -ferry, which would be a simple solution. Therefore, he was adamantly opposed and this matter shouldn't be forced on the people who have lived there for 13 years because they didn't ask for a daycare center. MR. JOHN TURNER, Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, said he knew the Applicant was allowed to have a day care center and he wasn't opposed to one, but in a residential area on Fairway Drive was a bad idea. He said his renter who helps support the mortgage payment, because he is retired now, will submit her notice if a stop sign is placed at their location. He couldn't believe an alternative couldn't be found at the Lutheran Church to hold the day care, stating it was a bad idea to place a stop sign in front of their home and thought a van to transport the children was a good solution. MS. WHITNEY ROSAM, Raphael Drive, Palm Desert, stated she was a teacher at WCS and her daughter is a kindergartner at WCS, stating she and her husband signed up their daughter at the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center because they both worked and it provides the necessary child care. When they found out about the Art House option, they were excited for the extra curricular activity in a safe environment where their daughter will get to 33 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 be creative, learn art, music, etc., under the wonderful care of Samantha Clark. Of course they are concerned for their daughter's safety, but they have been satisfied with the temporary solution that Samantha and BDLC have come up with to cross the students using safety gear and a hand-held stop sign. However, they would definitely prefer another solution that the City can create using crosswalks, stop signs, sidewalks, etc. She said BDLC is a well -established program in the Coachella Valley, and by them opening up a day care by WCS, many families can rest easy knowing that while mom and dad are working, kids are safely being taken care of. She reiterated BDLC has established a good reputation in the community and felt the City should help support them to grow in their business, stating they were providing a service. Additionally, it would be a good investment for the City to make for all the families, stating they will be very disappointed if they will no longer be allowed to take advantage of this program because of funding issues. Councilman Jonathan gave a quick shout out to Ms. Rosam whom he knew since she was a little girl, stating he couldn't believe she had a little girl of her own. He said it was good to see grown kids back in the Valley raising their own family. MS. DEBORAH CLARK-CREWS, Coordinator for the Riverside County Local Planning Child Development Council, stated she has been in this position for the past ten years. She said their funding came from the State Department of Education, which many years ago created a local planning council in every county in the State to help with issues such as this one. She believed this issue had a lot to do with people getting along as mentioned by Councilmember Hamik in a past item on the agenda. She said there is a great need for child care in Palm Desert, and there is a huge difference between child care centers and license chid care homes, but people use these terms interchangeably. A center has nothing to do with the requirements for a family child care home, stating that when one says a child care center, people think it involved these big pieces. However, this day care home has been licensed to care for a maximum of 14 children under the auspice of the Community Care Licensing of the Department of the Public Social Services in the State of Califomia, stating they have examined this house, reviewed Samantha's requirements, went with BDLC history, and the quality training provided. She said this was a quality program that is needed in Palm Desert, but she was happy to hear that everyone was concemed about thesel 4 children. She pointed out there is no crosswalk identified at any one of those comers on Lantana or Black Rabbit, they are open streets with no painted lines for children to cross safely anywhere in that area, which was concerning with or without a family childcare home. She personally has seen children crossing those streets, and as a parent, she would be very concemed that there are no sidewalks anywhere when there are vehicle 34 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 exceeding the speed limit, and a gravel edged road was unsafe for anybody. She found it ludicrous that one would think to transport 14 children would need to own a van. She believed there was some way the City and this program can come to a conclusion, because the program is needed in the community. She said these children need to have safe places to go after school, and the question for everyone is where do children go after school when parents work. If the City chose not to find a way to keep this program going, the City will possibly have 14 children walking home alone with no place to go for care, and as a citizen and Coordinator, it was a real concem. She said the Local Planning Council was available to the City to answer questions regarding licensing requirements, hours of operation, days of the week a child care can be operated, and what is and isn't allowed. MR. DAVID FLETCHER, Covered Wagon Trail, Palm Desert, stated he lived two blocks south of the day care, and he drove up and down Black Rabbit Road, Portola Avenue, and Fairway Drive, stating he has seen Ms. Clark cross the children, and he thought it was completely safe. He said he has known Ms. Clark and her family since before she was born, stating his kids went to Ms. Samantha Clark's mother school, the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center. He said he had to drive into Bermuda Dunes to find a place for his child, and it was great that they have opened here in Palm Desert. He assured the Council Ms. Clark/the BDLC would not be crossing the children across the street if they felt it was unsafe. Additionally, he thought it was inappropriate to ask them to buy a van to literally pick up kids to take them across the street. He said a huge number of kids that went to WCS are walking up and down Fairway Drive where there are no crosswalks or sidewalks. He said if this was an issue to the City, sidewalks ought to be placed up and down Fairway Drive for kids to walk about safely. MR. DANIEL E. OLIVIER, Attomey with Nethery/Mueller/Olivier, LLP, thanked the Council for taking the time to reconsider the conditions, noting he had send the City Attorney an email on these issues and their position as to why the imposition of the conditions are not proper. He focused on a few things set forth to address City Attorney Dave Erwin's memorandum, which was in today's agenda matter. The first question is jurisdiction, which really went to the heart of the matter as to whether the City had the jurisdiction to impose the Planning Commissions recommendation. In his letter he states the answer to that question is no, stating the exclusive jurisdiction for operational aspects of the day care facility is with the State Licensing Agency. The moving of children from one side of the street to the other is part of that operational aspect, and he didn't believe the City had the jurisdiction to regulate as it has been. He understood the Council and staff have a significant concem with the safety of the children, but so did the State and they have already reviewed and approved the license for this facility. The second question, is that the City has imposed conditions as if this were 35 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 a Conditional Use Permit, and he didn't believe the City had the ability to impose them. The way the law is written, the City has the ability to impose standards and requirements as part of its ordinances. If the City was concemed about traffic control, what it should have done was include the requirements in the ordinances. He said the City couldn't just point to safety precautions, which is what he thought the City Attorney and staff has done. He said State law allows the City to impose reasonable standards and conditions regarding traffic control so long as they are in the ordinance. However, the City has imposed conditions to address traffic control, but they are not really objective conditions that are in the City's ordinance. Thirdly, he didn't believe this issue was traffic control, because the City was regulating the movement or escort of children, which did not constitute traffic control by State law or City ordinances. The City Ordinance addresses circulation plans with regard to flow and direction of traffic, and congestion with vehicles coming in and out of the facility, which he didn't believe met that standard. Therefore, he believed that what has occurred thus far was beyond the jurisdiction of the City. Assuming for the moment it is within the jurisdiction of the City and it has the ability to regulate, it didn't have the ability to regulate the hours of operation; however, staff now concurs with that aspect. Additionally, assume the City had the ability to impose reasonable traffic control, a requirement of a 15-person van to go from one side of the street to the other didn't ring true and it is unreasonable. The alternative would presumably be to use a car or smaller van, but if a smaller vehicle is used it will require multiple trips, creating more traffic conditions. He said a crosswalk with a sidewalk is a reasonable resolution to this matter or the painting of two lines with three adults supervising to cross the street is something his client can accept. In terms of the question on whether or not crossing the street is a violation of the law, he believed what Mr. Erwin read talked about crossing between places where there are crosswalks. However, there are no crosswalks here, so it's impossible to get from one side of the street to the other without doing a mid -section cross. He believed what his client was currently doing was legal, and the proposal of painting the lines with adult supervision is also a legal way to cross that street. If Mr. Erwin is correct in the reading of the law, there is a bigger problem because everyone is crossing there illegally, but it should be addressed separately. Finally, he reviewed Mr. Erwin's memo where he quotes case law and frankly they are inapplicable. With all do respect, he didn't think those cases and the government code sections mentioned govemed this situation. He said there isn't a dangerous public property condition, because there isn't a dangerous public property facility. If the day care center was a public facility and it was positioned next to a busy street, then there could be liability. The cases cited all talked about public facilities. The best example provided was the bus stop that is publicly owned and maintained and next to a public roadway that is heavily trafficked. There they found that the publicly owned facility could be considered to be dangerous. However, in this case, there 36 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 is a private facility, so that whole government section provided by Mr. Erwin didn't apply. In another section relating to direct safety requirements with respect to a facility where the government didn't maintain the safety devices, then the City has liability. In conclusion, he believed Palm Desert wasn't being exposed to liability, but he understood Council had to consider its City Attorney's advice. However, the weight of the argument was on the other side in that the City didn't have that type of potential liability. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel said he liked to hear from the City Attorney with respect to liability. Mr. Erwin replied the street was a City street and it's City property. Clearly, the City couldn't do anything about the large family day care home, except for those things that are permitted for the City to consider such as traffic. In his opinion, activity on a public street is within traffic control, and he believed what the City was attempting to do is lessen to the fullest extend any liability that may be imposed upon the City. Mr. Olivier mentioned there is nothing that can be imposed on the day care because there are no crosswalks. However, the section he read, from the Vehicle Code or Streets & Highways Code, talked only about controlled intersections; it didn't say anything about crosswalks. Clearly, when there is a stop sign, it is a controlled intersection, and the Code states, "You shall not cross the street at any place except a crosswalk." To put a crosswalk mid -block, in his opinion, is an exposure to the City, because it is a public street. He said imposing a crosswalk in the middle of a street without other controls for traffic is really a risk the City shouldn't undertake, particularly when crossing children. He would like to find a way to have the day care center be there and operate, stating there was no disagreement with that aspect. He was only concerned about the risk to the City and the liability of a public street. He said the street was the property of the City, and it has certain particular requirement it needs to assure it has used its best effort to eliminate that liability. MR. ALLAN LEHMAN, Palace Drive, Palm Desert, stated he was the Principal of Washington Charter School and thanked the Council for the opportunity to address this matter. He said before and after school care is a challenge for WCS families. He's been at WCS for 17 years now, and as everyone has faced financial challenges, WSC was no different. When they began the school enrollment was 696 students and it is now more than 850. Through legislation there is now a transitional kindergarten program at WSC and elementary schools throughout Desert Sands and the State of California, which has increased the number of students in the kindergarten and transitional kindergarten from 120 to well over 160. Because it's a half -day program, many families need some type of childcare during the course of the day. Additionally, classes 1st through 5th grade have also grown and the need for after school care is greater. He welcomed Ms. Samantha Clark's 37 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 opening of the Art House and the possibility of quality child care options for 14 families. He knew Ms. Clark personally and professionally for 22+ years, stating she is caring, organized, and someone he considered being very safety conscious. He has observed the students under the care of Ms. Clark and others crossing the children on Fairway Drive legally or illegally, and she used the upmost safety and caution, much more so than other families at WCS use. At the end of the school day, it's a bit of free for all, with families crossing and jaywalking on Portola Avenue, which is a great concem. When discussing the moving of a stop sign and putting in a crosswalk, he heard the positives and negatives, but if the cost is about $20,000 for quality childcare for 14 students on an annual basis, it's a great retum on investment. However, he also knew there were dilemmas with residents within the community. He said they were no different from the City, in that whenever something happens in and around WCS, they will be named in litigation, it just went with the territory. MS. SAMANTHA CLARK, Applicant, thanked the Council for considering the Large Family Day Care and everyone who came out to watch them cross the street. She said she has done everything possible to follow the law and ensure safety. She said Health and Safety Code Section 1597.30-1597.621 was used by Mr. Bagato to say that what they were doing was unsafe. The Code states, "the program to be operated by the State should be cost effective, streamlined, and simple to administer in order to ensure adequate care for children placed in family day care home, while not placing undue burdens on the provider." She believes requiring her to purchase a van is placing an undue burden, stating she was granted a license by a State analyst and it's their job to determine what is safe and not, knowing they were crossing children across the street. However, if the Council didn't agree, perhaps Child Care Mitigation Fees can be used toward the solution the City comes up with whether it is the van, shopper hopper, or sidewalk, because she couldn't afford any of them. She said she loved her job and is trying to provide an enriching environment for the children, but still following State laws. She thanked the Council for placing the child care issue on today's agenda, stating she hopes to continue to be able to cross the street, possiblyl4 children with two groups of seven with three teachers assisting. Also, she is hoping to have the conditions removed or come up with another possible solution. She also thanked everyone who came in support, specifically Ms. Little Shana. MR. BRIAN MCGAFF (sp?), Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, stated he lives next door to the day care and has lived there for eight years. He said everything has been working well with no accidents or safety issues until this matter was brought up. He said he's never seen any kids from WCS crossing the street, stating they all crossed over on Lantana Avenue where there is a yellow crosswalk. Therefore, the children can be crossed at that crosswalk, walk 38 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 down to the stop sign and avoid problems with kids getting hit, because he agreed child safety was important here. He said he drove down the street every day, and he has to wait a couple of minutes to pull in or out the driveway due to heavy traffic. He said he had nothing against the day care, he just believed this was the wrong spot for it for many different reasons. He also agreed crossing the children is jaywalking, stating he had contacted the Palm Desert Police Department and they confirmed it. He wouldn't have purchased his home if he knew there would be a large day care next door, stating his 100% market value has dropped to about 20%. He said only people with a family may want to buy there where there are kids yelling and screaming, which is what happens, stating he couldn't take a nap during the day. Additionally, all the people that are okay with the day care didn't live in the area or knew what went on, like the speaker that lives on Wagon Trail. MR. ALLEN LEVIN, Bishop Place, Palm Desert, stated that if Ms. Clark hadn't applied for a large day care center, no one would be here having this conversation this evening, and she would have continued walking eight kids across the street every day. So the real issue was not kids walking across the street because that was already happening, and there is nothing jurisdictionally appropriate for the Council if it remained a small day care. He said now that the Council was considering a large day care, everyone is having a conversation about the six additional kids. MR. TOM WIENBERG (sp?) Villa Corona, Palm Desert, stated he was here along with Greg Fains and the rest of the neighbors on Fairway Drive, because he's a property owner there. In listening to everyone's arguments this evening, it was embarrassing for him to realize that all of this was about children's safety. Instead of arguing about the van, sidewalks, etc., make it simple by making sure those kids are protected. He said he had a grandchild and he would never let them cross Fairway Drive in the middle of the afternoon with all the traffic there, and Council's first concern should be child safety. MS. GAIL CLARK, Taylor Avenue, Palm Desert, stated everyone wanted a safe environment for children and everyone can debate what is safe and what is not. She said Samantha Clark didn't have to pick up kids at WCS and cross them, stating that legally kids can go home by themselves. She said kids walked home every day from elementary schools unattended, yet Samantha is providing a service and crossing the street two houses in from the intersection. She said S. Clark has such a safe procedure in place that parents would not enroll their children if they didn't think it was safe. She said traffic is not obstructed, because she doesn't cross the street until it's clear. In fact, the video shown by the City didn't show many cars going by. She said she received a phone call from a State advocate from Southem California today, because she couldn't attend. She informed the advocate 39 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 that the City felt they had jurisdiction over traffic control, and they are surprised with what is happening. She said the State analyst stated, "safety is exclusively governed by the State of California and not the City." Therefore, if the crossing of children is part of traffic control and the issue is obstruction of traffic, she disagreed, because Ms. Clark is not making people stop to wait for her to cross. She said S. Clark is licensed by the State and approved by their analyst who knew the kids would be crossing the street, and parents have signed permission slips knowing those children are being crossed. She said there are preschools and family day cares throughout Palm Desert where kids are taken on field trips and walking them, and they do not contact the City and ask permission, but they do need to be in compliance with State Licensing. She said S. Clark is offering a third person to come and assist with the crossing of the children. She asked the Council to reconsider and remove the conditions. Further, consider installing a crosswalk at the intersection of Lantana Avenue and Fairway Drive, which is 500 feet from WCS. She said the City has more than $1.5 million in Child Care Mitigation Funds, which was a compliment to Palm Desert as leaders, because it charged that fee to help provide future child care slots. She said the cost would be less than 1 % of the City's budget to install a crosswalk and sidewalk if the City truly felt it was unsafe. In conclusion, the day care met the guidelines of adequate parking, it was not obstructing traffic, the day care is under the noise level of the City's Ordinance, and the day care is not within 300 feet of another family daycare; therefore, the permit should have been issued back in July when Ms. Clark applied. Councilman Jonathan asked if a striped pedestrian crossing a legal option, without staff discussing the merits. Mr. Greenwood answered yes, however, he would not recommend it. Councilmember Harnik asked who suggested the van as an option, because it kept coming up. Mr. Bagato responded he went through the Planning Commission resolutions which stated the children had to be transported, and in conversation with attorneys the term van -ferry came up; therefore, he included the word van in the condition. However, in his opinion, it didn't have to be a van; the Planning Commission just stated the children needed to be transported. Again, transporting them by van was an offer given as a solution by Ms. Gayle Clark, because in the Ordinance it did state, "a transportation plan shall be designed to diminish traffic safety problems, and crossing children in his mind was a traffic safety problem. Ultimately, the Large Family Day Care application was denied by staff. At the Planning Commission, mitigation was proposed in order to give the Applicant an opportunity to add six children. He explained that under State law, if the concem is mitigated, 40 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 the permit would then have to be approved, which is when the solution of a van -ferry was offered by the Applicant's representative. He said it could be any mode of transportation, and it didn't have to be a van. Councilman Jonathan said this was an incredibly difficult matter and clearly no matter what is decided, everyone won't be happy. At the end of the day, for him it was about two things, which was promoting efforts to provide safe and quality child care and ensuring the safety of children in general, not just in crossing a street to access a facility. With regards to getting the children from the school to the home is challenging, because a part of him felt the City didn't create the problem. He said the Applicant bought a home with a vision for a day care, and whether through oversight or unexpectedly, this issue has come up. In some ways he felt it was not the City's role to solve it, but the problem exists. Whether the City had jurisdiction over traffic or not was immaterial to him. What he heard is that crossing there was jaywalking and illegal and it cannot be allowed. if there is illegal activity, the Sheriffs Department would be there daily ticketing and that makes it prohibited. If the Council looked at reasonable altematives to solving this issue, keeping the two objectives in mind, which are to promote child care and maintain safety, there are at least four alternatives as follows: 1) Leave as is, meaning allowing the kids to be crossed between the subject two intersections; 2) Allow for vehicular transportation, i.e., van, a street -legal golf cart, etc.; 3) Create a striped intersection at Lantana Avenue, moving it over from Black Rabbit Road over to Lantana Avenue, which would entail striping the intersection, putting a stop sign, and building sidewalks over existing easements. The City had the legal right to do so, but some homeowners object; 4) Create a striped pedestrian crosswalk as seen in other streets where they are between intersections. He said some crosswalks are fancy, stating there was one in Cathedral City where it lights up when someone presses a button, which was also cost prohibited. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion on the altemative that might make nearly everyone happy, which is a striped pedestrian crosswalk in front of the home. He noted he was impressed with the facility and his heart melted in seeing the kids with their little uniforms crossing the street, but if the City can enhance their safety by striping an intersection and putting up yellow pedestrian crossing signal, it may be a reasonable compromise that will achieve the two objectives, and it was not offensive to any of the homeowners. Councilmember Harnik agreed the two objectives were important, but the third objective is for homeowners and property owners to be able to enjoy their home. She said for many people owning a home is the greatest investment of their life, and they deserved to enjoy it. Therefore, placing a stop sign in front of someone's home didn't make sense. She said Fairway Drive did not have sidewalks, including her street in Palm Desert, but it did have an easement they walked on. Because she lived on the biggining part 41 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 of that back route, she was very familiar with the traffic, speeding, and glare on Fairway Drive, so people shouldn't pretend there isn't a problem with traffic there. The thought of something happening to a child is terrible and the City didn't need that. However, she couldn't understand why those children couldn't walk up Fairway Drive to Portola Avenue, cross where there is currently a crosswalk and walk back on the easement to the home, stating there was ample space for children to walk. She agreed asking for someone to go and get a van was unreasonable, because it didn't help the matter. She understood there was a need for day care, but to cross them mid -block on this street was dangerous. She didn't believe speed bumps were the answer, because it would slow down first responders in emergency vehicles. She said she raised a lot of children, so she disagreed that children will hold onto a rope and never break away or run, because they were children. If children knew what they were doing, they would be released to the wild upon birth, but they don't. Therefore, a better solution needed to be found to get them across the street. Councilman Tanner said he watched Ms. Clark cross the street with six children, and his immediate suggestion was to add another teacher and do a double crossing if there were 14 children involved. He said Councilman Jonathan came up with the idea of putting in a true crosswalk. As far as he was concemed, a crosswalk at Fairway Drive and Lantana Avenue made no sense, so he would be in favor of a crosswalk in the middle of the street with large yellow signs that said children/pedestrian crossing. There is an altemative of going down Fairway Drive to Portola Avenue and using the easement, but that would be extending and complicating the walk for 14 kids who would also have to pass five or six houses, impeding on individual homes and rights. He said putting a crosswalk mid -block and making sure everyone is notified early on, was an altemative that can be achieved and/or the City can buy a small cart acceptable to transport kids to the facility, although he didn't think it was any safer. He agreed there was a need to increase day care and this was a good site and well -run facility. Therefore, he was in favor of doing something similar to what has been proposed by Councilman Jonathan. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel said this was an easy fix, stating the children can walk south on Portola Avenue, cross on Fairway Drive and Portola Avenue, which was an easy crosswalk because there are stop signs around it. Also take an easement on the properties that won't allow people or kids to walk through to get to the home. Councilman Tanner asked how much of an easement was available and can it be made much better. 42 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Mr. Bagato said there was a 12-foot right-of-way where a sidewalk can be put in at a cost, because without a sidewalk kids would be crossing across the lawn, stating there was a fire hydrant on the Applicant's property. Councilmember Harnik said she didn't know what the City could do legally. Councilman Tanner stated this option would be disturbing and interrupting current residents that have lived there prior to the child care facility going in. He said it was an accident waiting to happen, because people would be walking down Fairway Drive going with traffic. He said he heard the resident's concems, stating he will try not to interrupt the residential attitude of that neighborhood. Mayor Weber commented she didn't think anyone doubted the City wanted the day care facility in Palm Desert. She asked for further clarification on whether the City could legally place a crosswalk in the middle of the street on Fairway Drive, and if it can also legally put up signs permitting people to cross, not necessarily just children. Mr. Greenwood replied the City can legally do it, but it was against his recommendation. Mayor Weber said that according to all the paperwork provided, the intention is to keep this simple and make it work, which is why she supports the suggestion of a crosswalk with the added direction to not cross more than six children at a time. She agreed with Councilmember Harnik that children didn't always stay in a line, but six children can reasonably be controlled. However, she understood the City may not be able to impose it as a condition, but it was her suggestion. Mr. Erwin stated the Council was certainly free to do whatever it wished, but it should not rely upon a legal opinion from him that it's permitted. Mayor Weber said she understands the City Attorney is stating it is not legal to put striping on the street. Mr. Erwin said he has not given the Council a legal opinion nor did he believe he will opine it is legal to place a crosswalk mid -block. Councilmember Harnik pointed out Director of Public Works Mark Greenwood was not wishy washy about his answer, stating he was adamant about his recommendation that perhaps the Council needed to learn more before overwriting someone who knew about speed limits and traffic. 43 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 Mr. Greenwood stated that given the opportunity, he would absolutely defer to the City Attorney as to the legality, because if had a question, he did too. Responding to question, he said there is a crosswalk at Fairway Drive and Portola Avenue. Councilman Jonathan stated that given that the Council was on the same page in terms of the goal for this community, and from the altematives he heard, including understanding and respecting staffs comments on this issue, because in an ideal situation he wouldn't put a pedestrian crossing between intersections. However, this was not an ideal situation. He said it was Council's responsibility to think for itself and come up with solutions that are most workable and most effective, and sometimes it meant making compromises, and he was prepared to do so. Councilman Jonathan moved to, by Minute Motion, install a pedestrian crosswalk with proper signage mid -block on Fairway Drive subject to verification by Legal Counsel that it is legal to do so. Councilman Jonathan said he hoped the legality can be determined by the next meeting, but he would be extremely surprised if it's not legal, because he had seen them in the Coachella Valley, certainly in Cathedral City. He said if it was legal in other places, it would be legal in Palm Desert. Councilman Tanner seconded the motion. He asked Lt. Sullivan to provide his opinion on traffic control. Councilmember Hamik stated that perhaps the Council needed to wait for a discussion to occur between Public Works, Sheriffs Department, and Legal Counsel, because traffic control was not a small issue. She said all kinds of variable needed to be dealt with such as traffic counts, speed, etc., stating it was not about the Council saying it wants and likes something because it sounded like a good idea. She said everything that had to be reviewed to determine the speed on a road, location of crosswalks, etc., was not within the City's purview, stating it required extending out to many entities to determine those factors. She suggested Council take its time to speak to the issue. Lt. Sullivan said he concurred with Director of Public Works 150%, adding it was a recipe for disaster. Councilman Jonathan said he understood, but sometimes compromises had to be made, and this may be one of those situations. On the other hand, he was absolutely open to other alternatives that are more workable than the one proposed. He would challenge and respectfully asked for such an alternative. The last thing he would want to do is stand in the way and be an 44 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 obstacle to quality child care in this community because it couldn't figure out how to get 14 kids across the street. He said finding a solution to this matter was the Council's responsibility, and he didn't want to continue the matter and have it tabled. Mayor Weber stated the motion was subject to whether or not it was legal by the City Attorney, and Councilmember Harnik would like Legal Counsel to work with Director of Public Works and make sure that everything has been clarified. Councilman Jonathan reiterated his motion, stating it was on the floor. Councilmember Hamik suggested a substitute motion, because determining legality was not enough. Councilman Jonathan was agreeable to the alternative motion. Councilmember Harnik offered a substitute motion to continued the matter to the meeting of January 22, 2015, with staff directed to research and be able to respond to the question of legality of a mid -block pedestrian crosswalk installation, with associated indicators and signage. Motion was seconded by Spiegel. Mr. Wohlmuth suggested re -opening the public hearing if the Council was to reconsider this in two weeks, otherwise it will be longer than two weeks, requiring another notice. Councilman Tanner asked that if the Council didn't come to a decision and finds out it's not legal to place a crosswalk in the middle of the street, did it close all discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel answered it didn't. Mayor Weber said the Council wants more facts. Councilmember Harnik said she would like to go for a site visit with Public Works. Mayor Weber re -opened the public hearing and called for the vote, and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Harnik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None). 45 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SALE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42050 GOLDEN EAGLE LANE (A.P.N. 624-431-001), PALM DESERT, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33433(c) (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY). Ms. Moore stated the Housing Authority owns the subject home, and whenever the Housing Authority proposes to sell one of its homes to a qualified family, it needs to hold a public hearing. Mayor/Chairman Weber declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. With no public testimony offered, she declared the public hearing closed. Councilman/Member Tanner moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. HA - 70, approving sale of the property pursuant to the attached draft Purchase and Sale Agreement for up to $225,000, depending upon terms of the negotiated sale; 2) By Minute Motion: a) Approve silent homebuyer assistance loan in an amount that does not exceed 40% of the sales price forthe homebuyer to ensure an affordable housing cost for a qualified low- or moderate -income household from any available funding source restricted for such purpose (BEGIN, Housing Mitigation, Agency/Housing Authority Program Income); b) authorize payment of the transaction costs from sale proceeds forthe purpose of repairs required for closing, fees customary to real estate transactions in Riverside County, including escrow, title, FHA fees, inspections, vermin eradication, commissions, and disclosures; c) authorize use of the Falcon Crest Sales Program and documents, including the restrictive covenant and loan documents for the applicable funding source, in their substantial form; d) authorize the Mayor, Authority Chairman, and/or Authority Executive Director, or his designee, to finalize and execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement and any ancillary documents necessary to effectuate the sale and actions taken herewith. Motion was seconded by Hamik and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Hamik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, and Weber; NOES: None). XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. City Manager Meeting Summaries for the Period of December 1-26, 2014. Mr. Wohlmuth called attention to the printed Meeting Summaries Report provided in the agenda packets and offered to answer questions. With City Council concurrence, the Meeting Summaries were received and filed. 46 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 2. City Council Benefits/Insurance Package Mr. Wohlmuth asked for clarification of whether or not Council intended to further consider their Benefits/Insurance Package during the 2015-2016 Budget process or before. With City Council concurrence, staff was directed to bring the matter back to Council in the very near future and not wait for the budget process. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. CITY CLERK Ms. Klassen noted that her office had just copied the current 21 active Committee/Commission applications on file and will be providing them and related information in a binder to Councilmembers tomorrow for their review and consideration of setting up interview appointments with selected applicants in the near future. D. PUBLIC SAFETY 1. Fire Department None 2. Police Department None E. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1. City Council Reauests for Action: a) City Council Assignments 2015. Mayor Weber said she worked with the City Clerk's Office to develop the Proposed List of Assignments appearing in today's agenda packet. Councilmember Harnik noted that it was discussed when the appointment to the Desert Willow President's Committee was made a few months ago (September 25, 2014), it would have been a rotating position for the Mayor but occurred just before 47 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 then -Mayor Tanner was going out of office so it was assigned to him for the time being. In thinking about the position, she suggested that it not be rotating. Since there was a lot of information to become familiar with, one year was not enough time to do so, then have that person leave and the next have to get educated. She felt it was not the best way to represent the City and should, therefore, permanently be a position that doesn't rotate. Mayor Weber confirmed that was brought up at the time then - Mayor Tanner was appointed, and it was acknowledged that he will then get about an 18-month term in that position before it's up for a new appointee. Councilman Tanner moved to, by Minute Motion, accept the City Council Proposed Assignments List as presented. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel. Councilman Jonathan commented that as the new person on the Council, he would take whatever was assigned and do his best at it. However, he was disappointed he wasn't assigned to any of the seven he'd expressed interest in and wondered why he was even asked for his preferences if that was going to be the case. That being said, he would happily serve where assigned but asked about a couple of openings he noticed. With regard to The Living Desert, he resigned from that Board on new legal advice, even after having been very, very active there, but had indicated that he would find a way to continue to be involved. He noted that Councilman Tanner was now being assigned to that position with the Mayor as alternate; if that position is important to Councilman Tanner, it's fine; but if it isn't, he'd be willing to serve. Further, there were a few positions where alternates were not listed, and he'd like to become more actively involved in CVAG (Coachella Valley Association of Govemments) and CVEP (Coachella Valley Economic Partnership), asking about being an altemate for CVEP's Board of Directors. Councilmember Harnik answered that currently, City Economic Development Manager Ruth Ann Moore is the alternate to the CVEP Board of Directors, and Ms. Klassen acknowledged that it was an oversight this was not indicated on the list and she would make the addition. After further discussion, it was agreed that Councilman Jonathan would serve as the Alternate Councilmember for the 48 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2015 CVEP Board, along with Economic Development Manager Ruth Ann Moore attending the meetings, because it was also important that she continue to be involved there. Upon inquiry about how The Living Desert position was determined, Ms. Klassen responded that at the time then - Councilman Crites left the Council in 2006, it was a position he'd held that was then decided as one to be assigned to the Mayor in an advisory capacity and has been that way since until now -Councilman Tanner asked to be permanently assigned. She pointed out that it was the Council's pleasure as to how the City was represented. Mayor Weber added that Councilman Tanner indicated that since he was already on that Board, he would be attending those meetings and would serve there for the City if his colleagues agreed. Councilman Tanner proposed having Councilman Jonathan as his alternate. Following some further discussion and review, Councilmembers requested a Study Session to take a closer look at all the assignments. With City Council concurrence, the Proposed List of City Council Assignments was accepted to be put in place until a Study Session is held on Thursday, January 22, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to take a further look at the list and make any recommendations for changes to then be put into place at the regular meeting of that date. b) Desert Willow President's Committee Councilmember Hamik asked that the Desert Willow President's Committee be given separate consideration as a liaison position that doesn't rotate. (See the request for Study Session, in item (a) above, that occurred during the discussion after this request was made.) 2. City Council Consideration of Travel Requests and Reports: None 49 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3. City Council Committee Reports: None 4. City Council Comments: JANUARY 8, 2015 a) Councilman Jonathan's Police Ride -along— Councilman Jonathan thanked Lt. Sullivan, Deputy Jeff Hammond, and the rest of the Palm Desert Police Force for their service and for accommodating him with a ride -along recently that was very educational for him. 5. Suggested Items for Future City Council Meeting Agendas: a) Drive -through Restaurants — Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel asked that an item to discuss drive -through, fast-food restaurants in the City be placed on the Council's next agenda. XIX. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Spiegel, second by Weber, and unanimous consent of the City Council, Mayor Weber adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m. ATTEST: RA HELLE D. KLASSEN, ITY CLERK) CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA {\A^-'L ws-/` SUSAN MARIE WEBER, MAYOR 50