Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-11MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2000 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Crites convened the meeting at 4:03 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Present: Member Jean M. Benson Vice Chairman Jim Ferguson Member Richard S. Kelly Member Robert A. Spiegel Chairman Buford A. Crites Also Present: Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, Acting Assistant City Manager Rachelle D. Klassen, Acting City Clerk Carlos L. Ortega, RDA Executive Director Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works Gary Bitterman, Director of Building & Safety Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer 111. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of April 27, 2000, and the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of May 3, 2000. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE AGENCY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 49RDA, 5ORDA, 49-Housing, and 50-Housing. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. AGENCY INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY for the Month Ending March 31, 2000. Rec: Receive and file. Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Benson, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote. IV. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None V. RESOLUTIONS None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. PRESENTATION OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION REPORT. Chairman Crites noted the informational report in the packets. Upon question by Member Crites, Housing Manager Terre LaRocca noted that staff had video- conferenced in at the May 4th meeting of SCAG at CVAG. She said at that meeting, they accepted the recommendations of the CEHD Committee. The next step is that on May 11, 2000, they will be sending out a certified letter to all appellant cities advising they have 30 days to submit their appeal. After that period has passed, June 12, 2000, will be the deadline for submittal of requests for a public hearing. She said cities that are appealing the rejection of their initial appeals are given a second opportunity to once again appeal to the same committee that rejected their appeals in the first place. Member Kelly stated it was his understanding that SCAG appealed the entire thing to the State. He said from the report he received from a member, the SCAG Regional Council took the position that it was opposed to the whole thing and sent it back to the State. He suggested that Ms. LaRocca acquire the minutes of the Regional Council meeting. Ms. LaRocca responded that she would obtain those minutes as soon as possible. No Agency Board action was required or taken on this matter. VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VIII.OLD BUSINESS None IX. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Ortega noted the items listed on the Agenda for Closed Session. He stated that some of these items would be held in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert. B. AGENCY COUNSEL Reauest for Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1) Property: Land located in Section 4 - Desert Willow - Palm Desert, CA Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega Property Owner: Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 2) Property: Southwest corner of Highway 111 /E1 Paseo - Palm Desert, CA APN 640-090-011-6 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega Property Owner: Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 3) Property: Property located along the north side of Country Club Drive, east of Tamarisk Row - Palm Desert, CA Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: American Beauty Development Co. Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY None X. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, and unanimous vote, Chairman Crites adjourned the meeting at 4:57 p.m. for dinner and Closed Session. He reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE HOTEL DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE DESERT WILLOW CONFERENCE CENTER PARTNERSHIP (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL) (Continued from the meetings of March 23, and April 27, 2000). With Council/Agency Board concurrence, Public Hearings A and B were considered at the same time. Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff reports, noting that the agreement for Public Hearing A had been before the City Council/Agency Board in March and April and would approve the sale of land for the purpose of building a conference hotel consisting of 250 hotel units and approximately 64,000 square feet of public spaces (meeting rooms, restaurants, hotel retail and related facilities). He said the 250 hotel units would be distributed between 16 two-story villas, and the conference center would include approximately 28,000 square feet of meeting space and 405 parking spaces in a three -level structure. He said the agreement contained the conditions that must be met by the developer, including the sale of the property by the Agency to the developer, and all the conditions that must be met before escrow closes on the property. He noted there was also a time -line within which the project must be built and operational, and there were provisions for monetary obligations on behalf of the developer if it is not completed in a timely manner. He stated that Public Hearing B was a new public hearing which was advertised April 16 and May 3, 2000, in the Desert Sun. He said the recommended agreement had been made available for public inspection since April 26`s. He noted that Mr. Jim Grayson of the law firm Richards, Watson & Gershon, representing the Redevelopment Agency, was available to answer any questions. He stated that the agreement included the sale of property for a resort hotel as a full - service hotel consisting of420 hotel units and approximately 30,000 square feet ofmeeting rooms and ballroom facilities, restaurants, hotel retail and related facilities, and a 30,000 square foot health spa. Additionally, there would be 580 parking spaces in a three -level structure. He said staff's recommendation was that, as with Public Hearing A, the property be sold to the developer at a cost of $1, with the City/Agency to provide the utilities necessary to construct and operate the hotel on the property. He noted that the agreement contained conditions that the developer must comply with before the land is turned over, including monetary consequences to the developer for failing to complete the project as outlined in the schedule of performance. He offered to answer any questions. Mayor Crites declared the public hearings open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to these projects. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MR. TIM SULLIVAN, Deergrass Drive, spoke as a resident of Palm Desert and General Manager of Marriott's Desert Springs Resort & Spa, directly across the street from the two proposed projects. He said there were five points he would like to make to summarize his concerns and opposition to the projects as proposed as well as the concerns and opposition of Marriott. He said they did not oppose competition and believed competition helped them to improve. He said his address was not in any way to be construed as an opposition to the development of hotels across the street from Marriott's Desert Springs on the Desert Willow project. They did feel a competitive set that is underwritten and subsidized was an unfair competitive set, and they opposed that. He said they believed a tax payer -based subsidy of $3 to $6 million for this project, on top of the two existing golf courses and the conversation and proposal around a third golf course, would give this developer and these hotel operators an unfair competitive advantage. He stated that golf courses are expensive to design, develop, and build, so in addition to the $3 to $6 million worth of land that would be turned over to the developer and the operators, there is the ancillary golf courses and the discussed third golf course which would further enable these hotels to succeed. In terms of hotel segmentation/stratification of markets, the two hotels as being discussed would directly compete with Marriott's Desert Springs. He said the market could not be cut in such fine a way that these would bring in a whole new set of customers and a whole new market of customers; in fact, these hotels would be designed to compete with and to go after Marriott's customers. He said that would be okay as long as the rules are the same for everyone, but he felt the subsidization would give these new hotels an unfair advantage which would result in an unfair pricing advantage. — He said since its opening, Marriott's Desert Springs had collected $42 million in occupancy tax for the City and had paid more than $20 million in real estate taxes. He assumed some of those taxes had found their way into the Redevelopment funds, and some of the taxes collected and paid would be subsidizing a project that would be a direct competitor. He said they did not philosophically oppose the notion of redevelopment and the public/private partnership being discussed and, in fact, in many cases Marriott has embraced that sort of partnership and has been proud to be affiliated with those partnerships. He said Marriott had developed hotels in some really tough areas and been a full participant in the renovation of those areas, including the New York Marriott Marquis in Times Square approximately 20 years ago when Times Square was desolate. In addition, a hotel was developed in downtown Philadelphia in a neighborhood that was desolate, and they believed the hotel helped to bring these 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * neighborhoods back, provided jobs, enhanced real estate values, and truly addressed the issue of blight in these neighborhoods. MR. SULLIVAN summarized his comments by stating that if anyone wants to come in and build a hotel or resort across the street from Marriott's Desert Springs, they would be welcomed. He said they would ask that the developers do it on the same economic terms that Marriott was asked to do it on and that the redevelopment financing address areas that are truly blighted. He said he did not agree that this area of 15 acres between two wonderful golf courses at Desert Willow was a blighted area. He thanked the Council for the amount of time and attention that had been paid to this matter during the week. He said this was a friendly skirmish, and he and the Marriott remained enormous fans of the City of Palm Desert and hoped the end result would leave both parties feeling they had won and as though the relationship had been enhanced. MR. ROBERT SONNENBLICK, a principal in the development company proposing these hotels, stated he wished to address two points brought up by Mr. Sullivan. He said with regard to subsidies and for the record, Marriott Corporation, as a specific example, was moving forward on a brand-new luxury resort project in Phoenix. In order to move forward with that project, Marriott received several million dollars from the City of Phoenix. He said the majority of new projects being done around the United States were in some form receiving subsidies from the various cities where they are located. He expressed appreciation to the City Council and staff for the time and effort put into analyzing this project. He stated for the record that they had greatly downscaled the size and height of the project to meet the concerns of the people of Palm Desert and to conform with the Environmental Impact Report. MR. SULLIVAN stated that he did not have a general opposition to subsidies and to redevelopment money being used for the development of businesses to help a city survive and to thrive. He said he had commented to several of the Councilmembers that he felt the idea of the City participating in the renovation of the facades in many of the restaurants and stores in Palm Desert was a spectacular initiative and one of those kinds of things he felt truly embodies how public and private partnerships can work. With regard to the project in Phoenix, which he said there was nothing yet signed or official, he said it was in an area in Phoenix that was in need of some development and jobs and was not comparable to these 15 acres being discussed in Palm Desert. He said he would freely admit that Marriott has accepted redevelopment money and worked on projects throughout the country, and it has helped to revitalize neighborhoods. He said that money had been used truly in the spirit of redevelopment money, not simply within the letter of redevelopment money. MS. SHEPPA OLICLAY(sp), spoke as a business owner on El Paseo and stated that she had come to the United States 20 years ago from the Netherlands because this is a free enterprise country, and she disagreed with government telling people what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. With no further testimony offered, Mayor/Chairman Crites declared the public hearing closed. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilmember/Member Benson stated that she had been involved in City government for 25 years, and everything the City has done has been done on a slow and easy course. She said she voted against the second golf course because she did not feel it was the City's business to be in competition with other golf courses. She voted against the Intrawest condominiums in that area because she did not feel the City should be in the development business. She said she did not think the City should be putting up hotels at this time. In addition, she said she had been involved with the Convention and Visitors' Bureau for the last ten years and in the travel business for 20 years and had a hard time believing the developers' estimates of 75-85% year-round occupancy for the hotels because of our location here in the desert. She said she would probably believe there was a need for more hotels if the current hoteliers asked the Council to build additional hotels because there was not enough room to put all the people; however, she had not heard that in this valley. She said the City Councils took their time the first 25 years as far as development, and she did not think the City should rush the next 25 years to get every piece of land filled. She added that she felt the City of Palm Desert deserved better than that. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson disagreed. He said Palm Desert was incorporated in 1973. Three years thereafter, it was devastated by a flood that absolutely ruined its economy and washed outmost of the City. Shortly thereafter, in 1978, Proposition 13 passed. Palm Desert did not have any property tax money to speak of and really had no way to finance itself. Two years later, in 1980, the State Legislature passed the Redevelopment law, and it did use the word "blight", but not in the commonly understood sense of the word. He said it was a way to give local government jurisdictions tax money back from the County to invest into areas that otherwise would not develop with private dollars. Palm Desert took advantage of that, had a large bond offering, built the Whitewater Storm Channel to make sure there is never another flood in Palm Desert again, and slowly started building this community as the retail center of the Valley. He said the only other way Palm Desert got revenue was from sales tax, and the City receives 1 % of all sales tax dollars that come back to the community. He said about ten to fifteen years ago, the City Council had the wisdom to understand and foresee that Sacramento controlled the sales tax dollars. He noted that he had gone to Sacramento two weeks ago with the City Manager and helped to substantially modify three bills that would have taken Palm Desert's sales tax away. He said back in the late 1980's, the City Council realized the need to diversify its revenue stream and not rely solely on sales tax. Thanks in part to the Marriott and the transient occupancy tax it generated, the Council saw a new revenue source with a 9% transient occupancy tax. Desert Willow, which was then known as Section 4, was master planned approximately ten years ago, and it was always designed to have two hotels. The purpose was to give Palm Desert more transient occupancy tax so it would be less dependent on sales tax. The City has spent $81 million on public infrastructure, land acquisition costs, and development ofthe golf courses, solely to bring hotels to those sites. The two proposals from this developer totaled over $200 million. The consultant hired to help the City attract hotels indicated that public participation was not uncommon. He noted the Gardens on El Paseo, a $50 million development, had $5 million of public participation in building one of the first truly shaded parking structures in the City; this represented roughly a 10% investment against what private dollars are being put in. The Palm Desert Town Center had recently been sold, and Councilman Spiegel was working with the new owners of the mall on an approximately $70 million renovation project, expanding the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * anchors and improving the theaters, and the City had been asked and had agreed to put an approximately $10 million covered parking structure at the back of that facility; this represented an almost 15% investment against what private dollars are being put in. He said what the Council was being asked to do with these two proposed hotels was to put in between $2 million and $6 million against a $200 million investment, or a one to three percent investment. He said the proforma on those hotel properties would generate over $300 million to the City of Palm Desert over a 30-year period, and that would make sure residents would never pay a tax in Palm Desert like they do now. He said they would never pay property tax, and the City would never have to assess taxes against its citizens. He said it was easy for the Councilmembers to be hailed for their forethought and forward thinking, etc.; however, with that comes responsibility to make very difficult decisions, particularly decisions that might adversely affect one of the City's best corporate residents, the Marriott. He noted that he had met with Mr. Sullivan and the Mayor earlier this week to discuss all of the different reasons why this project made sense for the City of Palm Desert, and they left that meeting agreeing to disagree on what might be the best for the future of Palm Desert. He noted parenthetically that the last time this came up and Mr. Sullivan spoke, the next morning the Indian Wells Tennis Gardens contacted Mr. Sonnenblick to see if he might be interested in putting a hotel in its community. Indio Hills shortly thereafter contacted him and said if it didn't work out in Palm Desert, they would like it in their community. He said the issue was not really one of competition or the competitive set. The hotels will be here, but the question is where and who will benefit. He said he would want to make sure they are built in Palm Desert. He said it was unfortunate it was located across the street from the Marriott; however, he and the other Councilmembers had listened to many complaints several years ago relative to allowing timeshares at Frank Sinatra and Monterey Avenue and had had to explain to affected residents that this was part of the growing pains of development, and the project was considered to be good for Palm Desert. He said he would be voting in favor of this proposal and firmly believed it was best for the City of Palm Desert. Councilman/Member Kelly agreed with Mayor Pro-Tem Ferguson. He said times have changed, and developments have changed. He noted that the timeshares for the Marriott were approved without mitigation fees; however, across the street in the Desert Willow, the timeshares approved there had mitigation fees of $3,500 per year per unit forever. He said this might be felt to be a terrible disadvantage to Intrawest compared to the timeshares across the street. He said if the hotels do not go at this location, they will be built in some other city. He said no one knows what the Coachella Valley will look like five or ten years from now because of the changes such as with Indian gaming and the economy. Palm Desert has put together a plan which has been working very well, and to make a decision not to approve this agreement would be like dumping the entire plan. Councilman/Member Spiegel stated that at a meeting Mr. Sullivan attended, he had indicated to the audience that the Marriott hotel annually provides the City of Palm Desert with twice as many dollars as do all the real estate taxes of all residents in Palm Desert. He said the Marriott was a really good neighbor. He agreed with Councilman Kelly that times have changed. He said the Marriott hotel, in and of itself, was and is still primarily owned by limited partners. That was the way deals were put together when Marriott Desert Springs was built. The only problem is that 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the United States government decided to change the rules, and all the nice tax write-offs that investors had went away. He said the Council had an obligation to the citizens of Palm Desert to make the community safe, friendly, and useful, and the money must be spent wisely. He noted that the City does more than just try to raise funds for the citizens; it also gives funds for the Valley. He said the City of Palm Desert donated 200 acres to Cal State San Bernardino to begin construction of a four-year college in the Valley because if the Valley is to grow with the right kinds of jobs, etc., there needs to be an educational process provided to the citizens. He said he did not consider this particular project to have an unfair advantage Mayor/Chairman Crites said he understood the corporate position that must be taken by Mr. Sullivan, and if he was the General Manager of the Marriott he would ask for his employees' support of that position; however, he found it somewhat disingenuous that it is not a consistent corporate position. When the City of Palm Desert went to invest $5 million of redevelopment funds on El Paseo, Marriott did not oppose the project. He said he felt Marriott and the rest of the City's business community were very happy that the City invested those funds because it provided a shopping experience for people at Marriott's Desert Springs that is not duplicated anywhere else in the Coachella Valley. When the Redevelopment Agency went to spend money on building those golf courses initially, Marriott was not there to object to the use of redevelopment funds, and it provided a place for surplus golf, for people from the Marriott hotel to play golf. When Marriott was invited to develop the timeshare units at Desert Willow across the street, Marriott did not say no to the development of those timeshares because there was a subsidy through the process of redevelopment — they said no because they were afraid they could not get rid of the ones they had, and it turned out to be probably a decision Marriott wishes it could undo over time. He said when the City of Palm Desert proposed to put $10 million into the refurbishing of the Palm Desert Town Center, Marriott was not opposed to that use of redevelopment funds, again because it would benefit from that use. He said with regard to the comment made by Mr. Sullivan relative to Marriott's funds being used to subsidize a competitor, this was not Marriott's corporate position, it was Marriott trying a way to make sure it does not have what it perceives to be competition. He said it reminded him somewhat of a situation approximately five years ago when the City's current trash hauler requested a time extension, and another company came in and said the City should never give people time extensions on their contract when at the same time that very same company was negotiating time extensions for themselves in seven other cities in southern California at the same time. He said most corporations consistently look out for the corporation's good rather than some philosophical good that stretches across all communities. He agreed with Councilman Kelly's comments regarding times and rules not being the same and the fact that the Marriott Corporation ended up not having to pay an enormous number of fees and ongoing costs for its timeshares, and if the rules were the same then as they are now, Marriott would be paying those fees and costs. He said Marriott achieved its building approval process in a time envelope that was simply unheard of in the year 2000; in addition, if the Desert Springs project came to the Council today, there would be enormous traffic mitigation fees to be paid as well as child care fees, Art In Public Places fees, and other fees that Marriott did not have to pay when the Desert Springs project was approved approximately 15 years ago. He noted that projects almost exactly like that of Desert Springs had come before the City Council, including a 1,000-room hotel project in the same market as 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Marriott; there was a lot of enthusiasm for the developer building the project, but the City Council turned it down. The only reason these two hotels are there is because by expert economic analysis, they are not in the same exact market niche as the Marriott; instead, one is a five-star hotel, and the other is boutique/conferences. He said he was reminded that when buildings on El Paseo were being constructed, the Palm Desert Town Center people were very much opposed, and when the Palm Desert Town Center was built, people on El Paseo were opposed. Both groups felt they would be put out of business by the other group, but the end result of El Paseo, the Palm Desert Town Center, and the College of the Desert Street Fair was that all three of the groups had ended up being more profitable. Given that, he said he sincerely did not believe this would provide a long-term disincentive to the Marriott Corporation, and he would vote to approve this project. Councilman/Member Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 00-26, approving the sale by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to Desert Willow Conference Center Partnership of approximately 16.8 acres of real property north of Country Club Drive, west of Cook Street, and east of Portola Avenue; 2) waive further reading and adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 390, approving the sale to Desert Willow Conference Center Partnership of approximately 16.8 acres of real property north of Country Club Drive, west of Cook Street, and east of Portola Avenue. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember/Member Benson voting NO. B. CONSIDERATION OF RESORT HOTEL DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE DESERT WILLOW RESORT PARTNERSHIP (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL). This matter was discussed in conjunction with Public Hearing A. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council/Agency Board discussion. Councilman/Member Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 00-54, approving the sale by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to Desert Willow Resort Partnership of approximately 17.68 acres of real property north of Country Club Drive, west of Cook Street, and east of Portola Avenue; 2) waive further reading and adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 393, authorizing the sale to the Desert Willow Resort Partnership of approximately 17.68 acres of real property north of Country Club Drive, west of Cook Street, and east of Portola Avenue. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember/Member Benson voting NO. With Council concurrence, Chairman Crites called a five-minute recess at 7:46 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 7:51 p.m. XII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MAY 11, 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Erwin announced for the record that the City Council had placed City Manager Ray Diaz on administrative leave, and Mr. Ortega had been appointed as Acting City Manager. With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 7:55 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and immediately adjourned with no action announced. ATTEST: BUFORVA. C TES, MAYOR RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, ACTING CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 11