Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrelim Minutes - City 05/26/2005PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M. Mayor Crites convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Mayor Pro Tem Jim Ferguson Councilman Richard S. Kelly Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Buford A. Crites Also Present: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Robert W. Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services/Acting City Clerk Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Mark D. Greenwood, City Engineer Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Duane K. Munson, Interim Director of Human Resources Michael J. Errante, Director of Public Works David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment & Housing Robert P. Kohn, Director of Special Programs Walt Holloway, Battalion Chief, Palm Desert/Riverside County Fire Dept. Mary P. Gates, Administrative Secretary III. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Request for Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 1) Property: 10 acres ±, NEC Country Club Drive/Desert Willow Drive Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Sanderson J. Ray/Desert Springs Partners Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 2) Property: 30-acre Site, NEC Portola Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Michael Marix/Cornerstone Developers, Inc. Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 3) Property: Lease Property - Parkview Professional Office Complex, 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite No. 201, Palm Desert Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Paul S. Gibson/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: City of Palm Desert Other Parties: Virginia Waring International Piano Competition Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 4) Property: NEC Tamarisk Row Drive/Country Club Drive (Freedom Park) Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: City of Palm Desert Other Parties: Sandra Schulz/Ice Empire Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b): Number of potential cases: 2 Upon motion by Kelly, second by Benson, and a 5-0 vote of the City Council, the following items were added to the Closed Session Agenda: Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): a) City of Palm Desert v. Van Alstine, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 035579 2 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 5) Property: Lease Property - Parkview Professional Office Complex, 73- 710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: City of Palm Desert Other Parties: Nestande Baxley LLC Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment Councilman Kelly moved to adjourn the meeting to Closed Session at 3:03 p.m. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. Mayor Crites reconvened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. IV. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. Mr. Hargreaves announced that the City Council, in Closed Session, authorized a lease with Nestande Baxley for a suite in the Parkview Professional Office Complex. With City Council concurrence, Mayor Crites suspended the remainder of the Agenda at this point in order to consider City Council Public Hearing "A". Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None (See Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item IX.) VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 12, 2005. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 232, 233, 237, and 240. Rec: Approve as presented. C. COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. 3 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 1. Art In Public Places Commission Meeting of March 16, 2005. 2. Public Safety Commission Meeting of April 13, 2005. 3. Youth Committee Meeting of April 5, 2005. Rec: Receive and file. D. REQUEST FOR ADOPTION of Resolutions Authorizing the Destruction of Paper Records from the Department of Building & Safety that Have Been Digitally Imaged. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt: 1) Resolution No. 05-36 for January 2005 Records; 2) Resolution No. 05-37 for February 2005 Records. E. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Landscape Architecture Construction Documents for Fred Waring Drive Widening Soundwall Between California Avenue and Elkhorn Trail (Contract No. C23670A, Project No. 654-01). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to David Volz Design, Fountain Valley, California, in the amount of $33,300 and authorize a 10% contingency for the project; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute said contract. F. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Accept Proposal for Annual Color for El Paseo Medians and Civic Center Park (Contract No. C23440, Project No. 930-XX). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the proposal from Colorama Wholesale Nursery, Azusa, California, to grow and provide annual color for Fall 2005 and Spring 2006 for the El Paseo Medians and Civic Center Park at a cost of $20,330 — funds are available in Account Nos. 110-4610-453-2190 and 110-4611-453-3370. G. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. C21140B — Construction of the Palma Village Neighborhood Park (James E. Simon Co., Indio, 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. 12 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 H. CONSIDERATION of the Library Promotion Committee's Recommendation for Installation of Internet Wireless "Hot Spot" Equipment for the Palm Desert Public Library. Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of the Library Promotion Committee to approve of the installation of Internet wireless "Hot Spot" equipment for the Palm Desert Public Library and authorize expenditure of funds for same in an amount not to exceed $25,000 from the FY 2004/05 Library Fund Budget, Account No. 452-4662-454-4001 —funds are available for this purpose and no additional appropriation is required. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Report on Building Height Exceptions Removed for separate consideration under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and action. 2. Update on Proposed New Sheriff's Facility Councilmember Benson removed Item 1-1 for separate consideration under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over. Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, the remainder of the Consent Calendar as approved as presented by a 5-0 vote. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Report on Building Height Exceptions CounciImember Benson said she was concerned with buildings in the City's North Sphere, and staff's listing of projects in that area showed that half had already received a height exception. She did not feel lowering a building, setting it back, and putting it next to a higher one was an architectural feature, and she hoped height exceptions would still receive Council consideration. She added that this report was not what she had in mind when she expressed her concerns previously. 5 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the report. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilmember Benson voting NO. VIII. RESOLUTIONS None IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None X. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR ALL OR PART OF THE COST OF THE INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PORTOLA AVENUE BRIDGE AT THE WHITEWATER CHANNEL (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Mayor/Chairman Crites noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets. Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Ferguson moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) City Council Resolution No. 05-35, approving payment by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency for all or part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Portola Avenue Bridge at the Whitewater Channel; 2) Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 501, approving payment by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency for all or part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Portola Avenue Bridge at the Whitewater Channel. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO LEVY AND COLLECT ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PALM DESERT CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005/06. n. PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 Mayor Crites noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets. PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) Resolution No 05-38, initiating proceedings for the levy and collection of annual assessments for the Palm Desert Consolidated Landscape and Lighting District, FY 2005/06-1 2) Resolution No. 05-39, declaring the intent to levy and collect annual assessments for the Palm Desert Consolidated Landscape and Lighting District, and granting preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for FY 2005/06. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. C. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE SHOPPING CARTS AND CONTRACTING FOR A MUNICIPAL RETRIEVAL SERVICE. The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting. Key BAC Buford A. Crites, Mayor JF Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem GR Gary Rosenblum, Risk Manager RSK Richard S. Kelly, Councilman CLO Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman MPG Mary P. Gates, Administrative Secretary BAC Item C - Consideration of an Ordinance to Regulate Shopping Carts. We have a staff report. Are there questions on this? JF Where are our hot spots, as you put it? GR Those are known by Code Compliance and Public Works. They've told me one of the hot spots would be near bus stops along Highway 111 near the Palms to Pines. It's a place where there are shopping carts and bus stops in close proximity, so that's one of them. It's usually a combination of the retail with the carts and apartments or other types of residential where you can walk the cart to, but they turn up all over the City apparently on an ongoing basis. BAC If I might follow up on Jim's question... my bet would be that a fairly high percentage of Palm Desert residents are shopping cart violators. The difference is that most of us only violate it to get to our car and leave them sit in the parking lot. If our cars weren't in the parking lot, the shopping carts would be wherever our cars were. Most people don't take them and put them in those little slots where we're supposed to leave them and all that stuff. So people, then, who don't have cars and go to the 0 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 bus stop leave them at the bus stop. So how are we going to fix the need for people to be able to get groceries from a grocery store to a bus stop? GR Well, one method... BAC I mean, they're not hauling these down the street just because they're pleasurable to drive around or walk around with. GR Right. The way the California State law on shopping carts currently exists, the shopping carts are the property... BAC I didn't ask that question. GR ...well, I'm getting to the answer... BAC Okay. GR ...are the property of the retailer. As long as the cart is on the retailer's property, the person hasn't broken the law, so they can place it anywhere on the property and still be legal. As soon as they leave the premises, they've now broken the law with the shopping cart unless the person has written permission from the retailer to take the cart. So one option for retailers who want to solve that problem would be to allow people to get written permission to take the cart off the property. BAC You did not answer my question. GR Well... BAC If we're going to find some way to make it more difficult for people with shopping carts to leave a shopping center with the shopping carts, then we are exacerbating the problem at the edge of the property for people to get groceries from there to wherever... I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have them next to bus stops. The point is, they appear there for a reason. How will we solve the reason? GR Well, that is one reason why shopping carts are abandoned throughout the City. The solution to that would reside with the retailer because they are the owners of the shopping carts. RSK May I ask the Mayor a question? BAC Yes. 0 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 RSK With this ordinance, aren't we making it so that the retailer has to provide away to make that happen? BAC I guess, although I noted one of the options in there was this program in Las Vegas or somewhere where it shoots off electricity or triggers alarms if they go off -site with them and all the rest of that. And I don't have a grumble in the world about trying to get rid of shopping carts. My point is there's people who use... RSK I see your point, but what I'm saying is the main thing that we're doing here, I felt like maybe I didn't read it carefully enough, was that we're allowing the people to do what they do, but we're making it so that the retailers are responsible to see that they get them back. BAC Right, and I don't have an objection to that, but one of the options was for the retailer to make sure they never get off the parking lot, and I have a concern for shoppers and citizens who actually need, whether it's at the mall or anywhere else, to get stuff away from the store, which is not an excuse to leave stuff littering our City. GR And you're saying that this would be for the individuals who don't have access to a vehicle, their own vehicle. BAC Yes. I mean, if you've got access to a vehicle, you're not leaving a shopping cart at the bus stop. JF I'll give you a good example. When we approved the 990 Store, which apparently has some very affordable groceries, folks will take the bus in to shop there, take the shopping cart back to your bus shelter in front of Baker's Square, leave the cart on the grass, and take their bus home. RSK I observed that particular location. In fact, that's the first one where I really observed them taking a shopping cart to a bus shelter. I was going to look into ... that bus shelter happens to be quite a ways from the 990 Store, but that's who's going there... JF Right. RSK ...and I was going to look into seeing if we didn't need a bus shelter closer to the 990 Store so there wouldn't be a need to take the shopping cart over there. I kind of read this that we're putting most of the responsibility on the retailer, and the 990 Store would be a good example that they should have somebody check that bus stop every couple hours or so. 10 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 GR That's actually the feasible solution is that the retailer would have the ... you know, exert the labor to go out and find the carts and bring them back. The difficulty comes when the retailer provides no resource to go out and bring them back, and they remain where they are for up to a week or so until our Public Works people get around to taking time out from the other things they do to pick up shopping carts and bring them back. BAC And I'm not trying to suggest that I differ from Richard at all in terms of what we intend. My only concern is that folks who have a car and drive to a parking lot obviously aren't impacted by this because we, "we" in the generic sense, tend to leave shopping carts all over parking lots, and they come and tidy them up. But don't want to make life more difficult for those people who aren't fortunate enough to have that ability. JF And the reason I asked you where the hot spots were was I didn't know ... this didn't appear to me to be an epidemic type problem, just a spotty one, and if we could work with the owners of the 990 Store and wherever the other spots might be ... we can always pass an ordinance, but maybe they can come into voluntary compliance, and if that doesn't work, we could take a look at an ordinance. GR Well, some retailers in the City have already contracted with a cart retrieval service, and they're making that effort. Those are usually done at a corporate or a regional level. A lot of retailers leave that up to the individual stores, and whether or not the manager at that store wishes to exert the resources, expend the resources, or not is up to them, and if they don't, the resources are spent by us instead. JF But have we made the effort to contact them and see if they would be willing to come into voluntary compliance? GR No, because we haven't had any... it's not a Code issue unless there's an ordinance that they're breaking. So right now we're just collecting and, you know, I was asked to go forward with ways that we could reduce the amount of carts in the City, and those lead to the recommendations. CLO Mr. Mayor, what staff is recommending, not the ultimate but that it be self -policing before they would come back with some more severe requirements. That's what read in the report. I mean, he talks about, you know, you could have various types of enforcement issues, but I think what staff is saying is that what they're recommending is something that would be self -policing initially. GR Yes, the ordinance... well, what I'm recommending here is that we consider developing an ordinance which would be something that would be performance oriented, that we don't specify exactly what the retailers must do, only that they 11 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 make the effort to keep the carts off the streets, and the proof of whether the plan is effective is whether or not the number of carts on the streets goes down. The second level of activity that we could do would be to hire a retrieval service to ensure that the carts that do get left out there get picked up in a timely manner and that the residents have a single phone number to call and the carts would get picked up right away. Right now, if they call the City, it may be a week before the City can get to it. And then the third element in the recommendation has to do with cost recovery for that service if we go that far. RAS If I'm reading this correctly, you (inaudible) GR Well, that was my recommendation. That's an option. It could be ... right now with our current rate of collection, the cart retrieval service that I talked to, which is the significant player in this field who contracts with several other, many dozens of other, cities around the State, they estimate $3 a cart. That's approximately between five and six thousand a year for us. RAS (inaudible) GR Right. But, you know, there's no reason we will be. JF Pardon me. The recommendation is to adopt an ordinance, but I didn't see an ordinance in the packet. GR Yes ... I'm trying to get a sense of the Council in terms of what type of ordinance you would prefer. A number of cities have very particular ordinances that state absolutely what has to be on the cart in terms of signage, the size of the sign, the type of lettering in terms of who owns the cart, signs that say it is against the law to remove the cart from the property. Some cities, like Las Vegas, require smart carts, which are electronic shopping carts. A lot of cities have gone through a lot of effort to have a lot of different kinds of ordinances with a lot of very specific regulations on the retailers. I felt that in our case, you would probably prefer to not be as specific in what you require of the retailers and let them come up with their own performance oriented plans. So I offered that as my recommendation. RAS I would move that we approve our Risk Manager's recommendation and try this for six months at our expense at approximately $3,000 and see where we stand. RSK And with the primary responsibility on the retailer? RAS Well, we could ask the retailer, yes. I don't know that you're going to get the guy from Von's to... 12 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 RSK But you've got to take a crack at it. RAS Well, yeah, sure, but it's not like there's nine million carts out there. That's my motion. RSK Second. BAC I would ... I think that's a good way to go at it and just note that most of the people at least who are using these shopping carts are using these shopping carts because they've just bought stuff in Palm Desert, so... RAS (inaudible) their home BAC That's a different issue. Okay, please vote. MPG Motion carries by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson voting NO. D. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES — CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AREA NO. 1 (CONTRACT NO. C23600, PROJECT NO. 901-XX). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of June 9, 2005. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. E. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES — CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AREA NO. 2 (CONTRACT NO. C23610, PROJECT NO. 902-XX). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of June 9, 2005. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. F. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES — CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AREA NO. 3 (CONTRACT NO. C23620, PROJECT NO. 903-XX). Mayor Crites noted the report and recommendation in the packets. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Reject bids as non -responsive from Pac West Land Care, Inc., Garza Landscaping, Inc., Kirkpatrick Landscaping Services, Inc., Liberty Landscaping, Inc., and Oasis Landscaping & Tree Service; 2) award 13 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 the subject contract to Steven Burt & Associates, Inc., Bermuda Dunes, California, in the amount of $96,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote. G. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES — CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AREA NO. 6 (CONTRACT NO. C23630, PROJECT NO. 906-XX). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of June 9, 2005. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. 14 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER FROM DESERT BREEZES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (Continued from the meeting of April 28, 2005). Public Works Director Michael Errante noted that the letter had been generated because of the wall in front of Desert Breezes which frontages Fred Waring Drive. There were two sections of the wall, east and west. On the west portion of the wall, the sound study identified mitigation requirements, but there were none identified on the east portion. Staff currently had authorization to build the west half only, and Desert Breezes was requesting that the entire length be built. He said he had met recently with Mayor Crites and Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson to discuss options, and he requested that this matter be continued to allow him additional time to research the various costs for these options. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mr. Errante responded that both east and west portions were evaluated in the sound study, and only the west portion was identified as requiring mitigation. Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of June 9, 2005. MS. CINDY FINERTY, 43592 Via Badalona, Palm Desert, stated that Desert Breezes was approached by the City and requested a meeting with the Board. Two of the Board members met with two representatives of WEC (the City's consultant) and two representatives of the City's Redevelopment Agency. She said they were shown a drawing at that time of a proposed wall that went from Warner Trail all the way to the commercial development just before Washington. There was discussion about the types of walls that would be offered, including split face, and the City was anxious to get into the back yards of all of the Desert Breezes homeowners the following week in order to take pictures and do a plant count, as Desert Breezes was told that any plantings within five feet of the wall could be damaged. Desert Breezes was provided with a "dear resident" letter signed by Mr. Errante, and sent to all of the residents, which stated that as part of the sound study and the widening of Fred Waring, a wall was being erected. Following that meeting, Laurie Walker from WEC met with all of the homeowners and brought a sample of the proposed wall, which was split face, with a rock design at the columns and a design at the top to coordinate with the existing monument sign. She said a sound study was done on May 30, 2003, for just 30 minutes, and homeowners had questioned such a short time, especially 15 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 since the study showed the east side was just one decibel away from requiring mitigation. Homeowners would very much like to have the wall and were willing to work with the City in any way necessary to make it happen. There were aesthetic concerns, which staff indicated would be slight; however, homeowners disagreed because the west side would have a ten - foot wall at the entrance to Desert Breezes on Fred Waring, while the east side wall would be approximately five feet high. She requested that Council give full consideration to what was represented to the homeowners. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel regarding the wall, she said homeowners were happy with what was presented to them. She said it was told to her that if they had a couple of residents opposed to the ten -foot wall, and those residents happened to be next to each other, they could step the wall down where those residents are to help with the view they were concerned with losing and then step the wall back up. Upon further question, she said the step down would be approximately one foot. She noted they were also amenable to an eight -foot wall. She said part of the issue was that homeowners were told the wall was as measured from the top of the curb, and it was difficult to imagine how a ten -foot wall would look with the footings. Councilman Spiegel asked how high the residents would like to see the five- foot wall, and Ms. Finerty responded that nine feet would be a good compromise. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson stated that at some point in the past, Council had approved a traffic signal in front of Desert Breezes. He said in studying the expansion of Fred Waring from Eldorado to Washington, and taking into account trying to get five thousand people from Palm Desert Country Club in and out of there, he was rethinking the wisdom of that signal. He was also very sympathetic to the homeowners' concerns relative to having a uniform wall on both sides. He asked if the homeowners would be willing to work with the City on the signal if the City was willing to work with the homeowners on the wall. MS. FINERTY responded that the homeowners would be very disappointed, as they had waited for a signal for a long time. When Southwest Community Church was approved by the County, a signal was conditioned; unfortunately, the County dropped the ball, and the signal was not put in. That area was annexed into Indian Wells, and she had provided Indian Wells with the condition for the signal. Additionally, the warrants indicated there was a need for a signal at that location. With the widening to six lanes, it was very unsafe for residents to get out onto Fred Waring Drive, and she believed the signal was needed for safety purposes. 16 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 Upon question by Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson, Mr. Greenwood responded that a signal at that location did meet warrants. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Errante responded that staff was currently working on the cost figures and should have something ready for the next Council meeting. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of June 9, 2005. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF BUILDING & SAFETY FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT FOR WATER HEATER REPLACEMENT PERMITS (Continued from the meeting of May 12, 2005). Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Senior Management Analyst Martin Alvarez responded that staff was requesting a continuance of this matter in order to bring back other options for Council consideration. Councilman Spiegel suggested that the fee for the water heater replacement permits be lowered to $25.00. Mr. Ortega stated that there must be rationale for the fee, based on State law and the study done by staff. He was concerned with arbitrarily assigning a dollar amount without a rationale. Mayor Crites responded that the rationale for lowering the fee was that the Council wants people to come in and take out permits so their water heaters can be inspected to be sure they are safe. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of June 9, 2005, and direct staff to bring back a recommendation with a reduced fee of $25.00. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PRECISE PLAN 04-11 TO CLARIFY FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Case No. PP 04-11 (Michael and Margaret Fincher, Applicants) (Continued from the meeting of May 12, 2005). Mayor Crites noted the faxed letter from the applicants dated May 24, 2005. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson asked whether staff's recommendation remained essentially the same, and Mr. Greenwood responded affirmatively. 17 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, revise the Conditions of Approval for Case No. PP 04-11 to include a provision for the City of Palm Desert to reimburse the Developer for 50% of the cost for design, construction, and inspection of the cul-de-sac, up to $25,000. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. XII. OLD BUSINESS None XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING A PARCEL MAP TO ESTABLISH A ONE -LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A CONDOMINIUM OVERLAY AT THE 191-SPACE INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED AT 49-305 HIGHWAY 74 (APN 652-120-007) Case No. PM 31862 (Indian Springs, Ltd., Applicant/Appellant) (Continued from the meetings of February 10, March 24, and May 12, 2005). The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Council meeting Key BAC Buford A. Crites, Mayor RH Robert Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager PS Paul Selzer, Attorney for the Applicant SL Sue Loftin, Attorney for the Applicant SS Sandy Symington, Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Resident DF Don Fair, Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Resident JK James Kerwin, Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Resident JT John Tessman, Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Resident CB Charles Burton, Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Resident ED Ed Dufani, Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Resident JCS J.C. Smith, Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Resident WR William Remeliva, Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Resident JF Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem RSK Richard S. Kelly, Councilman MPG Mary P. Gates, Administrative Secretary im PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 BAC It is a public hearing, and it is a consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission regarding a condominium overlay at a mobile home park known as Indian Springs on Highway 74. And this is a public hearing, and the public hearing has been continued and remains open, and we will begin ... for the record note that Councilwoman Benson is leaving the dais at this time, and we'll begin with a report from the Palm Desert City Attorney. RH For the benefit of the people that are here for the hearing, we'll let Mr. Smith go ahead and introduce the topic and then the ... I believe the City Council is going to want to continue this matter for a month and have ongoing settlement negotiations that we'd like to fully explore before we move forward on this item. We also want to have an opportunity to further discuss the various options with the residents before we commit to one or another path. But in any case, I think Mr. Smith should give some brief remarks just to couch why we're here today and then open it up for people that are here to speak. SS Good afternoon. As you noted, Mr. Mayor, this is the continuation of an appeal to the Planning Commission action which approved the requested conversion subject to conditions including the installation of the sewer system. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has stated that if the sewer is not installed that it will require installation of monitoring wells. If the monitoring wells were to find pollution, which the Water Quality Board staff expect, then the park will need to be connected to the public sewer system, and the ground water will need to be cleaned. In your packet this time, there is a new letter that was dated May 91h from a tenant in the park who, on March 11, experienced "an overflow of the septic tank in our carport area". Also in the packet is a new condition from the City Attorney which attempts to ensure that the conversion would be a bona fide homeowner conversion pursuant to a change in State law. That condition would require that "prior to the conversion, the subdivider shall demonstrate to the City that 50% of the residents support the conversion or, in the alternative, that the subdivider enter into an agreement with the City that the spaces shall be offered to residents at fair market value." Staff believes that either of the two prongs would be sufficient indication that the conversion is in fact bona fide. I think, with that, I would conclude, and if you have any questions, I'll refer them to the City Attorney. BAC Okay. Thank you, sir. And it is the City Attorney's opinion that you will ask on behalf of the City for this to continue for 30 days, both for continuing examination of current negotiations and conditions as well as potential other conditions... RH Yes. BAC ...which may be imposed. 19 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 RH Yes. BAC Thank you, sir. With that in mind, the public hearing is open, with the City Attorney's request being before us, but certainly this afternoon we would offer the opportunity for testimony from anyone who so desires. PS Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Paul Selzer. I'm an attorney, and I represent the applicant before you today. First let me say with respect to the request for ... the suggestion by the City Attorney that the matter be continued, we would respectfully request that the matter not be continued, and we will not consent to that continuance to the extent that that means anything to the Council. We've been at this since December. We would like to see it resolved and, if possible, resolved this evening. As the Council knows, the matter before it tonight is the question of a parcel map for the mobile home park which would allow the individual lots to be sold to the current residents of the park. We think we've amply demonstrated through testimony before you last time that there is no health and safety condition at the park right now that needs to be remedied. That being the case, we think it's pretty clear from Government Code Section 66428(d) that this Council does not have the power to condition the parcel map in the fashion that has been recommended by counsel. However, if despite our objection the Council believes that a condition is necessary, I think it's absolutely essential that everybody in this room understand where the burden ... where the bulk of the burden, a substantial portion of that burden, is going to fall, and that is it will fall upon the residents. As Mrs. Loftin will explain in a moment, we've offered compromises, we've attempted to reach agreement, and we remain open to do that. However, it cannot be denied that under any of the scenarios, under... whether any scenario other than the one which we've put before the Council, that is that it not be conditioned on the installation of sewer, the bulk of that burden will fall on the tenants. We would urge you tonight to approve the parcel map without those conditions and hope that we can resolve it quickly and without controversy this evening. Thank you very much. SL Good afternoon. Sue Loftin on behalf of the applicant. For the record, we would like to incorporate all correspondence, documents, and materials previously submitted in this matter at both the Planning Commission hearing and the prior and continued City Council hearings as well as the new materials that have been submitted, including without limitation Mr. Richard Close's from Gilchrist & Rutter's letter dated May 261h to the Council, Mr. Close's letter dated May... I'm sorry, May 261h to the Council, his letter dated May 251h and copied to the Clerk for the City Council to Mr. Springer. We, for the record again, object to condition 5, which is the sewer, for the specific reasons set forth again in Mr. Close's letter, and to reiterate for the record, it is contrary to HCD statutes and regulations, Government Code 66428.1, subsection D, Water Code 13360, and as it stands with the proposals that 20 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 we've been discussing, which is an issue that we will take up with the water authority, there is a prohibition against charging fees such as school fees, park fees, and we're hoping also hookup fees. Condition #7, which is a new condition that was proposed, we specifically oppose that for the reasons stated in Mr. Close's letter and for the record, the 50% approval is specifically contrary to the legislative history. As to the placing of a condition by this City Council regarding price, that is contrary to the various Government Code sections as well as represents a restrain on alienation. Having said the above, we are here this evening to request that you delete Condition #5 and Condition #7 and instead of those two conditions that you replace those with the May 41h proposal that was tendered to your City staff, with one exception, which is Item #10. Item #10 we had proposed that City staff be the supervisor of the sewer project. Staff has raised strong objection to that, and so the owner, who also objects to being the supervisor or responsible party, will agree to go in that stead. The May 41h letter provides, in pertinent part, in case ... for the audience, for not everyone who may have had the opportunity to read it, that the sewer system would be put in place, that the funding in the approximate amount of $4.2 million would be provided from the City's low and moderate housing fund, that as to the low income and moderate income residents, their pro rata share of the sewer cost represented from the City funds would be a grant to those persons. For the non -low income, it would be a ... the money would be rolled into a loan on the individual lots and assumed by the buyers. The terms of that loan is consistent with the ability to get financing. Unfortunately, the proposal we received late yesterday, paragraph 3 specifically, has financing terms in it which eliminates the possibility of getting conventional financing, and it says maybe the low income will be a grant, maybe not. So our request is two -fold. First, we request that approve the project without Condition 5 and Condition 7, or if you are going to want to include conditions, we request that you delete Condition 5, Condition 7, and replace those with the May 41h proposal with the one change that I made in Item #10. To reiterate what Mr. Selzer stated, the applicant does not consent to a continuance and would like a decision this evening. Thank you. BAC Thank you. Are there others in the audience who wish to offer comment before the City Council takes action? Seeing no ... yes, ma'am. (Inaudible) BAC That's it. That's what we're on. SS That's it. Okay. Well, I live in Indian Springs. My name is Sandy Symington, and I'm with the Conversion Committee that we have at the homeowners. And I am here today because of the City Council's consideration of an appeal from the owners of Indian Springs. This appeal is in the form of a proposal dated May 41h, and now there's another one that we just got an hour or two ago that's dated May 251h by the 21 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 Redevelopment Agency. This proposal is affecting a minimum of 191 homeowners over the age of 55. The people living at Indian Springs have a vested interest in any decision made regarding the future of their home, their lifestyle, and financial capabilities. Of course, we want ... would love to own our lots and do away with a septic system and upgrade the sewers. Therefore, on behalf of the majority of the residents at Indian Springs, we ask that if you accept the proposal that is before you, which I assume is still the May 41h, the following areas should be clarified. #3 of the May 41h proposal and, from what I see, I have #3 and #4 as questionable, and #7 and #2 seem to be #3 and #4. #3 and 4 on May 41h and 7 and 2 on May 251h. So #3 talks about not passing on the rent increases, and I think it should be defined to know how long the rent control would be in effect. It should be defined. The other one is #7... #4 is the one-time 90-day option, and on number.... May 241h, the same thing, the one-time 90-day option. 90 days from what? 90 days from the day we were informed how much a lot will cost or 90 days from the day the sewer installation is complete. Why is only 90 days allowed? What happens if during the 90 days the lot cannot be purchased by the homeowner? What are the consequences then? The proposal states this is a one-time 90-day option. If the homeowner cannot purchase the lot within 90 days of notification, can the lot be sold to someone else while the homeowner still lives there? I, therefore, recommend that the 90-day notice will be extended to a one-year option. This extension would give the homeowner a reasonable amount of time to apply for financing of the lot. Because of the cost of the lot and sewer is unknown, we are asking that reasonable solutions, as it looks like we're doing here, be found between you and the applicant to negotiate this project. Thank you for your time and interest. BAC Are there others in the audience who have not testified? DF Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Don Fair. I live at Indian Springs, #158, and hopefully this sewer thing will be resolved or dissolved. It seems like we've talked about that, and there are other items, and I think Sandy touched on some of these. But another item is the CC&R's. I have a copy of a letter that was sent to the Mayor, and it's never been made part of the public record, and I just want to make that letter a part of the public record so that it doesn't get lost in the crack someplace because there are 20 concerns attached to that letter that we had with the CC&R's that we'd like to see addressed at some time or another before this goes through and gets set in concrete. And after that, it takes an act of God almost to get those things changed, and so we'd like to see that addressed some place along the line. Hopefully the sewer thing will be resolved. I think in all of the meetings that we have ... I'm on the Board, also on the Conversion Committee, and I'm Treasurer of the Association, and we've had a lot of meetings, obviously, and in all of those meetings, it seems that the consensus in the park is that we want this thing to go ahead and be resolved so that we can get settled down because the 22 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 whole park is in an uproar because of this. And we'd like to get it settled one way or another and get on with our lives. Thank you very much. BAC Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else ... yes, sir. JK My name is James Kerwin. I'm a resident of the park, #160. I am not a lawyer or anything like that. We just heard there's anew document at the last minute. That seems to be a common occurrence to us at the park. We find last minute things, we get notices on our door, and things are changed. I was pleased to hear that maybe someone may want to do a little more consideration on this thing rather than rush it through. As far as the sewers, it seems ludicrous to argue that in this day and age that septic tanks are just fine and that sewer systems aren't recommended. I can't help think what an argument against electricity versus gas lights might have been a hundred years ago. You know, the owner of the park doesn't want to pay for the sewers, and that's understandable. And the City Council doesn't want to expend too much of the City's money for, you know, for the project. That's understandable. And we, the residents, don't want to have the burden of this sewer system. And I think that is a reasonable point. It seems to me that a compromise might be reached. I know that the consumer generally has to pay for everything. The manufacturer, in this case the manufacturer would be the owner of the sewer, it's always passed on to the consumer. I would hope that in your considerations, you would take into some sort of compromise where, when it is eventually passed on, and my own personal feeling is that it will be eventually passed on to us, it could be in the most painless manner... if it were a burden by the owner of the property, it would undoubtedly be attached to the cost of our lots. That would be ... require a more difficult problem getting loans if that's required. If it were attached... if the City were to help, that could possibly be extended over a longer period of time in the form of whatever reassessments that the City would attach. That would be more painless. We did receive a notice that the City is not prepared to allocate any redevelopment funds. I would request that maybe you would reconsider at least a portion of our burden be taken by the City, a portion by the owner, and we know that there's no free lunch, but we hope that you can make it at least a little more palatable for us. Thank you. BAC Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to offer comment at this time? Yes, sir. JT Mr. Council and members... my name is John Tessman... BAC You can pull that up a little bit to make it more comfortable for you. There you go. JT My name is John Tessman. I live at Indian Springs and really love the place up there. And speaking tonight about the sewer, I think, you know, I had to pay to put 23 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 my sewer in when I sold my house in Palm Desert just recently. I had to pay over $4,000 to do it. You know, I didn't get any benefit from it, I had to take it out of my proceeds from my sale, so why shouldn't we get the same benefit as owners in Indian Springs? Course, we could meet the owner part way, but this recent letter that they gave the City Council and, of course, the City Council, I guess, according... they didn't even consider it and pass it on to you. But they seem to be willing to pay $1.3 million in loans, take that out in loans, but according to my figures, and I don't know if they ever came up and gave you some solid figures on how much it was going to cost to put a sewer in. I figured it out, because I worked for a water company, and I've added it all up here. It's going to cost about $2.5 million, not $4.3 million to put a real good sewer system in. And if we do put a good sewer system in, the Coachella Valley Water will maintain it. That was another consideration that ... the scare tactics that they've been giving us all this time ... that, gee, if we abandon this perfectly good septic system, we're going to have to put out $100 per unit per month. That's crazy, you know, that's crazy talk to make people, you know, who are in their 50's, already concerned about, you know, how am going to afford this? Well, I wish they would get their act together and get a real estimate. Well, a real estimate is to have somebody from an engineering department that has a civil engineering degree to come out there and give them an estimate, not somebody that's maintaining the septic system. That's really all I have to say. If you do make us put a septic ... I mean, a sewer system in, which you should, please make sure it's a first-class system, and it would only cost us $2.5 million. Well, today, I listened to the radio ... well, guess what? Coachella's going to raise their sanitation capacity charges, which is the charge that they charge per unit, by $500. Why? Why did they wait so long? Gosh, it's another $500, that means probably another ninety, $95,000. The longer we wait on this, the longer we're going to be in for it. Thank you. BAC Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else? CB Good afternoon. My name is Charles Burton. I'm a resident of Indian Springs, Unit #110. I'm a new resident within the last four months. To me, the City is requiring the sewer hookup and closure of the septic system. Therefore, it's costing each resident, eventually, about $20,000 each. Most cities pay for the majority of the sewer connection to property. I request that the City of Palm Desert pay its fair share for this connection. It seems to me that the City should have required that 33 years ago. Now, I realize you guys weren't here 33 years ago, but you know sewer systems have been around for thousands of years in communities, and a little foresight would have hooked this up 33 years ago. I also request that when the sewer system is installed that the City, who has the experience of doing these projects, make the installation. Thank you very much. BAC Is there anyone else who wishes to offer comment? 24 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 ED My name is Ed Dufani. I'm in space 132 at Indian Springs. I bought my place ten years ago. In that time, the owner tried getting our whatever we pay each month raised. We're on rent control. When I moved in there, the place ... the streets were in disarray, the clubhouse was in disarray, and he tried charging a quarter of a million dollars back to us. I'm a very skeptical man of this person, very skeptical, and as I understand it, the State, on a sewer system, they say the owner should pay for it. And I understand that you people had the same law, and now we're trying to get something else going, and I ... can't you stick to your rules? It almost sounds like our government back in Washington, D.C. They can't make up their mind to get a bill passed back there. Let's get this done. This is about the 81h or 91h meeting I've been to in this hall. Thank you. JCS Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. I thank you for this opportunity to come before the Council. My name is J.C. Smith. I live in space 167 on Indian Springs Mobile Home Park. The first thing I'd like to state is it's a very beautiful park, and most of the residents in there are very happy to live there. Now they were very happy to live there when they moved in under the existing circumstances where they own their mobile home unit, and they rented the space beneath it. There are a lot of people in the park that are of an extreme elderly age, not like myself, and they really don't understand exactly what this means, but the main concern to you, the Council, and all the residents of Indian Springs and Palm Desert is the health and safety of the community. Now we have no idea what effect a leaky septic system has already had to the community. The City of Palm Desert made an ordinance several yeas ago that stated that any property sold that was on a septic would be converted to City sewer before the transaction went through. Now, this was a lawful ordinance, it was passed, and it should be enforced. If there are going to be any amendments to the ordinance, there should be an environmental impact study made on what will occur if it is not hooked up to the City sewer. Thank you. BAC Thank you, sir. Okay, there being no one else, Ms. Loftin ... oops, yes, sir. WR Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I've been in that park 26 years... BAC Could you identify yourself for the record? WR ...and when I went to that park, I paid $105 a month. Now I pay almost $500. That's to be expected. And they had a manager there had some feelings for people, not interested in just making money. So now people as a rule do not go into mobile home parks as very wealthy people, as a rule. So I've never been told yet how much it is except in today's paper, if you saw (unclear) the water district said how much it would be and someone within that system spoke about what it would be per unit, but it was kind of high for us up there. Also, we have a 25 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 president... I'm retired military ... who is interested in cutting down on our retirement money, already cuts down on all the bases, they lost our hospitals and all that. So, to come back and ask for that kind of money, it doesn't seem right for this country... we're worried about other countries more than we are the people in this country. And I'm not talking just for myself but what we have to think about... people in this country, especially the people who have served this country. So that's what feel. BAC Thank you, sir. Okay, there being no one else, Ms. Loftin, you apparently wanted to say something? SL Thank you. Following up just briefly what the last gentleman said, this has been going on for about six months. It is very distressful for the people in the park. We get letters, we send them out, I got a letter yesterday which one of the other persons talked about from City staff as part of negotiations and sent it to ... met this afternoon with some of the people and gave them copies, and we need to have this and all of us move forward. Talking... going back now to some of the issues that have been raised with regard to the May 41h letter, #3, which talks about... Item #3 which talks about no pass-throughs, the question was how long will rent control be in effect. The agreement to not pass through any cost was a permanent... would be a permanent agreement without regard to whether rent control was in effect or not in effect. For the audience, rent control... City rent control ceases on the date of conversion, which is the date of the first sale, and in its place goes State rent control. For the low income people who do not buy, their rent is fixed at CPI or the average of the previous four years, whichever is less, for as long as they live there, and there is a formula to increase to market for the non -low income. But the specific provision of no pass -through applies without regard to whether it's local rent control or State rent control. The next issue raised was the 90 days right of first refusal, and that is not clear in the letter. It's lawyers writing back and forth to each other. That's a statutory requirement where the resident has the absolute right to open escrow at a fixed price for 90 days. They do not have to close escrow. We have agreed that the low income people can keep an escrow open until all the funding is obtained. In Eldorado, that will actually end up being about two years before we're able to get all of the funding necessary to fund for all of the low income people in there. So that's why... it doesn't relate to the close of escrow, it only relates to when you have to open escrow. With regard to the price, the $4.2 million, that's an estimated price that independently the City and the developer came up with. It was not something that was just pulled out of the air. John Tessman also raised the issue of time equals cost, and that's true. The longer this goes on, the higher the cost for the residents and for the improvements. With regard to the issue raised on the City ordinance, we simply incorporate our other comments. We thank you for your patience and request a decision. Thank you. 26 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 BAC Thank you, ma'am. Mr. City Attorney. RH There again, I think the City and certainly the staff would like to reach a quick conclusion on this. One of the issues that we're grappling with is if we go forward tonight, then we'll inevitably be in litigation, which would likely postpone any kind of resolution. So what we'd like to do is have the opportunity to see if we can reach an agreement, which would be the way to wrap this up as expeditiously as possible. Also, there are suggestions by others that additional conditions may be appropriate. We'd like to explore those options also. And for that reason, we are requesting a 30-day continuance. BAC Okay. Comments from members of the Council. JF I'd move that we continue this matter for 30 days. And I'd also note for the ... for the residents and the owner, there's a reason why we have a sewer ordinance, and it is health and safety. And for me, not having sewers has never been an option. So don't think we're wavering on that point. Secondly, we have rent control for a reason, and it is to take care of folks like you and to make sure that owners don't overreach, and I use owners plural, not specific to any one particular owner. And I appreciate and understand that the owner has investment -backed expectations on his park, and there needs to be some reason. We've been told repeatedly, we've got a court reporter here and three attorneys sitting in the front row, that if we stick to our guns on this, we're going to get sued. I've been hopeful that, as one fellow said, this is a matter of just allocating the burden evenly and coming up with a way to pay for it for folks that have some cash flow concerns. But when you sell your home under our ordinance, and you do put in a sewer, you get an appreciated value on your asset. And theoretically, you'd get your investment back when you sell the parcel. Here we're dealing with the seller and the buyer, and so the allocation has become somewhat complex. I am hopeful still that we can resolve this matter within 30 days, but mindful of the fact that if we were to vote tonight, we'd probably wind up in litigation, I think it's our responsibility to protect your rights to the fullest extent possible, prepare the City for litigation if that's the route that we're heading in the event that settlement cannot be reached. I generally don't like to sue and settle at the same time, but it seems like we're getting down to that point. And I think that these next 30 days will be very productive. I know there's some turbulence at the park, but trust me when I tell you that if we do this the wrong way, the turbulence you have now will be nothing compared to what it will be if we don't do this right. BAC We have a motion... RSK Second. BAC There is a second. There being no further discussion, please cast a ballot. 27 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 MPG The motion carries by a 4-0 vote, with Councilmember Benson absent. BAC And we will take a five-minute recess. Note: Mayor Crites called for a recess at 4:55 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. XIV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. Mr. Ortega stated that, with regard to review of confidential information relative to franchise audits, the City had agreed the results would be kept confidential; however, in order to do that, it was necessary to appoint a committee to include two Councilmembers and staff. With Council concurrence, Councilman Spiegel and Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson were appointed to serve on this subcommittee to review the result of audits. 2. Westfield Palm Desert Parking Lot Lighting Retrofit Mr. Drell stated that as part of an energy conservation initiative by Southern California Edison, Westfield Palm Desert was proposing a parking lot lighting retrofit to replace the high pressure sodium lights with metal halide. He submitted information to the Council outlining the benefits of this change and indicating test areas, which Council could go and view (letter on file and of record in the City Clerk's office). He noted this would save approximately 141,000 kilowatts annually. He said they would also be changing out the lighting in the parking structure, replacing the kind that hang down with recessed fluorescent fixtures. He added that while the parking structure lighting change would not conflict with the City's ordinance, changing to metal halide in the parking lots ultimately would need amendment of the ordinance. B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Hargreaves asked that the Council consider adding an item to be considered in Closed Session as follows: Public Employee Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 Title of Position: City Manager Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson moved to add this item to Closed Session. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote. C. CITY CLERK 1. Reminderof Joint City Council, Redevelopment Agency, and Housing Authority Study Session to discuss the FY 2005/06 Budget, Tuesday, June 7, 2005, 9:00 a.m. D. PUBLIC SAFETY o Fire Department None o Police Department None E. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: 1. Mayor Crites distributed copies of a letter he had received from Thomas Noble (on file and of record in the City Clerk's office) relative to traffic flow on Dinah Shore Drive and requesting a Study Session prior to the Council meeting on June 9, 2005. With Council concurrence, a Study Session was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on June 9, 2005. 2. Mayor Crites asked that staff look at the issue of tree lighting on El Paseo, as many of the twinkling lights had burned out. 3. Mayor Crites noted that there had been a number of requests over the years from various Native American tribes to reconsider the name of a local canyon, now called Dead Indian Canyon. He said he could not find any record of how the canyon received that designation. He submitted a letter he had received from Dawn Wellman (on file and of record in the 29 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 City Clerk's office) indicating that Katherine Saubel, Cahuilla elder, had suggested changing the name to Cahuilla Canyon. He said unless there was any no objection, he would begin talking to the County and the National Board of Geographic Place Names about this. Council concurred. o City Council Committee Reports: None o City Council Comments: None XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C None 30 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 2005 XVI. ADJOURNMENT With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 5:50 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 6:25 p.m. and immediately adjourned the meeting with no action announced from Closed Session. ATTEST: BUFORD A. CRITES, MAYOR SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, ACTING CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 31