Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitizen's Advsry Cmte PA4 - 10/18/2010No PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benford convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Fred Benford, Chairman Terry Archer, Member Russ Campbell, Member Ron Crisp, Member Jane Daugherty, Member Phyllis Harkins, Member Kelly Litecky, Member Douglas Luhring, Member Absent: Roberta Grubb, Vice Chair oiE 'L/BY RDA 0I,p,er 7Y, ON /a- -,9C, C, VERIFIED BY Original on file with City Clerk's Office Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development David Hermann, Management Analyst Shawn Kilpatrick, Code Compliance Officer Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Pedro Rodriguez, Senior Code Officer Catherine Walker, Senior Management Analyst Guests: Jean Benson, Councilmember Robert Spiegel, Councilmember Mari Schmidt, Planning Commissioner ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Member Archer communicated that he is on the board for the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners' Association. He mentioned that one of the members addressed the board that her dog was attacked by a neighbor's pit bull. The dog was bit by the pit bull, which was untethered and did not have a collar. He said that this dog has been I iq-sen f CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 allowed to run in the neighborhood more than one occasion. It does not belong one of the two girls that rent a home, but belongs to one of the boyfriends. Member Archer noted that the lady has had confrontations with these girls in the past. When the pit bull bit the lady's dog, the girls were across the street and mocked the lady and eventually the pit bull walked back to the girls. The lady called County animal control, and they told her they did not have any jurisdiction. She then called Palm Desert animal control and there seems to be some overlapping or underlapping of jurisdiction or how this matter should be handled. To the best of his knowledge, at that time nothing had been done so he requested that animal control be at the meeting today to give an update on the situation. Captain Betsy Ritchie, County Animal Services, explained that Ms. Dorothy Cleveland, was walking her dog and the pit bull attacked her dog. Her dog did suffer minor damage to his ear. She stated that their office was called and that they provide animal control contract services. She said that they work for Riverside County, but that the City of Palm Desert contracts them to provide animal services. They provide regular field service five days a week, and respond to priorities after-hours, weekends, and holidays. She noted that the incident occurred on a Saturday evening. It was mentioned that it occurred on a Saturday morning. Captain Ritchie continued to state that the incident occurred at a time when they do not have their regular field services. The after- hours emergency was called and the officer responded via telephone. She noted that the attacking dog was already confined and no longer at large. She mentioned that they respond to exigent circumstances. She explained an exigent circumstance is if a person or animal is going to be injured or sick, then an officer will respond. If there is no longer an exigent circumstance, it is not in their contract to respond after-hours. Officer Lisa Boughamer, County Animal Services, reported that there were minor injuries, and she went over to talk to the neighbors. Unfortunately, the dog and the owner of the dog do not live there. She was able to get a phone number and a name, and left a message with the dog owner. Now the phone number has been disconnected so they are limited on what they could do. Officer Boughamer stated that she let Ms. Cleveland know that she needs to call animal control when she sees dogs out like the pit bull. GArda\Monica Loredo\Word\PA No. 4\Minutes\2010\M1nutes 10-18-10.docx 2 CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 Member Archer asked what happens if it occurs on the weekend, and animal control will not respond. Captain Ritchie answered to make the call and the call will rollover to their after-hours answering service. They will investigate the next business day. Chairman Benford inquired if anyone is responsible or accountable for the dog. Officer Ritchie replied yes if they could find the owner. Member Campbell asked if there is a way to go back to the utilities and find out if anyone has a check coming. Captain Ritchie responded that owner of the dog does not live at the house. He is the boyfriend of one of the girls. Ms. Schmidt asked if the dog is still at the house or did it leave with the owner. Officer Boughamer replied that the dog is gone. It was asked if there is a phone number that someone can call in the event there is such a situation. Officer Boughamer answered the number is (760) 343-3644. She noted to be patient with the phone tag. Mr. McCarthy commented that a dog to dog attack is an animal services matter. He asked if a dog to person is a police matter. Captain Richie responded that it would still be an animal services matter. She explained that they have to quarantine an animal for ten days if it bites and draws blood to check if it has rabies, which is State law. Member Archer inquired if County Animal Services contract with other cities with similar services, and do any of the other cities have weekend full time services. Officer Ritchie responded that they do have contracts with other cities, but none of the cities have weekend service. Member Archer asked if weekend service is an option. Officer Ritchie replied yes. Councilman Spiegel interjected that it is only a matter of money. Officer Ritchie stated she wished they had more; they tried their best. Member Archer thanked them for coming to the meeting. GArda\Monica Loredo\Word\PA No. 4\Minutes\2010\Minutes 10-18-10.docx 3 CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 Member Harkins mentioned that the homeowners' association received a letter from Ms. Cleveland. Her concern that she raised is that she receives different opinions or information from animal control as opposed to the City people; Code Enforcement. Member Phyllis read the letter. "The City of Palm Desert has their own policies and procedures regarding animal regulations. Their policies differ from those of the County of Riverside. The County Animal Control Officer does not have as much authority in the City of PD to resolve, in the field, animal incidents as they do in the County areas, and also with the other contract cities: i.e. Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs. The policy in Palm Desert is that the County Animal Control Officer makes a report, then takes the report to the Animal Code Enforcement person in the City of PD. They then discuss the issue and a determination is made by the City of Palm Desert as to the disposition of the matter —the County Animal Control Officer then carries out whatever the City of PD decides. She said that it would depend on where the dog's owner lives on how she would be able to proceed. The County Animal Control Officer said that the City of PD is considering changing some of their policies and procedures to be more in line with the County policies and procedures. However, at this point in time, there have been no changes. / think this a perfect "pass the buck" situation, and the City needs to get on the ball, make the necessary changes to make it easier for the County Animal Control Officer to handle situations in the field when they happen. l also would like to see a member of our Association represent our PDCC area on this Committee, when (or if?) it is ever formed. l gave Lisa a copy of the "attack report" that / intend to submit to the Association Board Members this evening. Lisa, went next door to talk to the tenants to get the name and address of the dog owner. She Girda\Monica Loredo\Word\PA No. 4\Minutes\2010\Minutes 10-18-10.docx 4 CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 called me later and said that she went to the dog owner's residence; the owner was not there, but she was told that the information she requested would be available the next day, so she will return to the owners residence tomorrow-10/13110." Councilmember Spiegel asked if there are different requirements for the City and the County. Captain Ritchie responded that the City has its own ordinances, and the County has their ordinances. The County ordinances are a little different and maybe a little stronger in some ways. She also noted that the State also has ordinances. Councilmember Spiegel asked if the County ordinances are stronger than the State. Captain Ritchie replied yes. She explained that currently with City ordinances, they have a hearing first to declare the dog potentially dangerous before they are allowed to do anything. She stated that they might have found an interim step that may assist them and give them little more teeth against dogs that have a propensity to bite and maybe a threat to the public. Councilmember Spiegel asked if City staff could take a look at that, and bring the information back to the City Council with a recommendation. Ms. Aylaian replied that staff is currently reviewing the ordinance and will be proposing a recommendation. Member Luhring inquired if there would be anything wrong with allowing Ms. Cleveland or making sure she has the number to animal control in the event that the owner is back in town. Captain Ritchie responded that Ms. Cleveland has one-on-one contact with Officer Boughamer. Member Archer commented that the owner of the dog is the boyfriend of the resident, and it is more than likely that he would be there on weekends. He asked if Animal Control would be able to respond to a call on the weekend in this particular situation to catch this person. Captain Ritchie responded that the City contracts with the County for emergency services and priority calls on the weekend. She suggested that Ms. Cleveland be more cautious if that same dog is around. Mr. McCarthy inquired what is deemed an emergency. Captain Ritchie responded that you have to look at the exigent circumstances. Is a person or animal going to be injured or sick? She gave an example, a cow in the middle of the freeway. It does GArda\Monica Loredo\Word\PA No. 4\Minutes\2010\Minutes 10-18-10.docx 5 CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 not sound like an exigent circumstance, but damage can happen and people can get hurt. Another example is if a dog bit somebody and it is still aggressive, loose, and chasing. Mr. McCarthy stated that if a dog has attacked in the past and is loose once again is that not an exigent circumstance. Captain Ritchie responded only if the dog is aggressive, loose, and chasing. Member Harkins noted that Ms. Cleveland's home is a daycare center and that she did contact the State about her dog, which is permitted. She also told the State that about the other dog, granted that on the weekends there are no children in the daycare. Captain Ritchie stated that if Ms. Cleveland or anyone in the neighborhood sees the dog again to please give them a call right of way. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2010. Minutes of the meeting from August 16, 2010, were unanimously approved as submitted and carried by an 8-0 vote with Vice Chair Grubb ABSENT. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Vl. NEW BUSINESS None VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None Vlll. OLD BUSINESS None G:\rda\Monica Loredo\Word\PA No. 4\Minutes\2010\Minutes 10-18-10.docx 6 CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. UPDATE: PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB UNDERGROUNDING (Catherine Walker, Senior Management Analyst) Ms. Walker reported that the City began a series of outreach forums. Due to some residents being away during the summer, staff is waiting to schedule one more forum in an effort to allow everyone in the community to attend and receive as much information as possible. Staff is also waiting on a resolution on the Palm Desert County Club Golf Course issue. B. UPDATE: PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE (Shawn Kilpatrick, Code Compliance Officer and Catherine Walker, Senior Management Analyst) Mr. Kilpatrick communicated that the golf course has declined precipitously since September. He mentioned that Candyl Golf was not receiving timely payment from Wilshire Bank. After attempting to work with Wilshire Bank for several weeks, the decision was made by Candyl Golf to step off the course and withdrawal some of their equipment. He said the good news is that he met with Mr. Cary Lee with Candyl Golf, and an hour before their conversation, he had just received a Fed Ex with a check in it. So Candyl Golf would be back on the golf course. In other news, a couple of contacts that he had with Wilshire Bank are no longer working there. Member Harkins inquired on who is paying the water and electric bills. Ms. Walker responded Wilshire Bank is paying the bills. She explained that a hearing was held on September 29, and the trustees for the property moved that it come out of Chapter 7. The motion still needs to be finalized. What that allows the bank to do is receive a deed in lieu of foreclosure and the property could be sold. Ms. Walker mentioned that it has been represented to the City that the property is in some sort of escrow, but they do not know any other details. Member Harkins mentioned that she obtained a motion from the internet. She asked if it was related to the motion to dismiss held in advance until an appeal and reversal. Ms. Walker responded that one of the original PDCC's legal counsel flagged an objection that had to do more with their attorneys' fees and that was neutralized through the hearing itself. The judge has granted the motion, but has not yet been executed. Mr. Kilpatrick commented that the property is basically in escrow, and Mr. Eddy Awada is the purchaser of the note. GArda\Monica Loredo\Word\PA No. 4\Minutes\2010\M1nutes 10-18-10.docx 7 CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 Member Archer interjected that he received an email from the president of the Men's Club. He indicated that the deal has fallen out. Mr. Dave Simmons stated that he used to be the General Manager at the club. He mentioned that the motion was granted. He talked to the trustee, Mr. Chris Barclay, a week ago and Mr. Simmons stated that he thought it was a done deal. He asked Mr. Barclay what happens to the property if the motion is granted. Mr. Barclay responded the ownership goes back to the LLC, then it is up to the bank to either work through the foreclosure process or the owners could meet with the bank and sign the property over, but until that time they could not sell the property. Mr. Simmons mentioned that they were negotiating and fell through was a sale of the note. He understood that the gentleman made an offer to the bank without seeing the property. The gentleman finally saw the property last Saturday. The offer was at $4.2 million. He looked at the property and realized that he would have to pick up three years of back property taxes. They thought there was equipment, golf carts, and they did not know that they would have to build a maintenance facility. So they went to the bank with another offer and there was no level ground. Ms. Walker interjected that the City could not confirm or deny any assertions. Staff receives information from legal counsel. The last that staff had heard is that the property is in escrow, and they should hear something in a week or so. Chairman Benford asked who the owner is. Ms. Walker replied PDCC, LLC. Member Crisp inquired if there is any talk about overseeding. Mr. Kilpatrick answered no. Chairman Benford asked if the grass would eventually die. It was stated that it would go dormant. Ms. Walker stated that the bank reported a notice of default with an election to sell, which means as a result the bank is now liable under the City's Abandoned Property Ordinance to maintain the property. Mr. Kilpatrick added that ordinance that Ms. Walker is referring to is the ordinance where the City could assess $25,000 in administrative fines. Mr. Kilpatrick displayed pictures and gave a report on the golf course conditions. GArda\Monica Loredo\Word\PA No. 4\Minutes\2010\Minutes 10-18-10.docx 8 CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 Ms. Ruthie George, President of PDCC Women's Golf Association, clarified if the original owners still own the course and if the bank only holds the note. Can anything be done to move things along? Mr. Simmons mentioned that about three weeks ago, Mr. Larry Kosmont received foreclosure papers, and Mr. Randy Case has been in Korea for two months. The bank started the foreclosure process. Sooner or later the bank is going to have to obtain ownership of the golf course or they are going to have to sell the note. Ms. George interjected and asked what happens in the meantime. This has been going on since last spring. Mr. Kilpatrick responded that they have yet to use the administrative fine process. They have done abatements on the course and submitted invoices to the bank, and they have paid. Mr. McCarthy stated that it appears Wilshire Bank is interested in disposing this asset in one form or another. Mrs. Carol Benford, 42-880 Tennessee Avenue, communicated that Mr. Kilpatrick is the most amazing Code Compliance Officer. She mentioned that there is some graffiti on the back of some traffic signs on the corner of Colorado and Tennessee. She noted that the graffiti has been there for three weeks, and that the City is so quick at removing graffiti but it must be reported. She had hoped there would be more residents at the meeting. She encouraged everyone to report graffiti to the City. Member Crisp referred to previous minutes where there was discussion about Mrs. Benford taking a request to the City Council regarding the golf course. He asked if there is any information on what happened. Chairman Benford explained that Mrs. Benford was going to make a request to the City Council about the possibility of an assessment, but it looked like the course was going into a purchase. So the decision by Mrs. Benford was to hold off and see what was going to happen. Member Harkins mentioned that a representative of Mr. Eddy Awada presented a concept to the association to assess each homeowner to help pay for the golf course. She asked him about the other 300 homes that sit on the golf course that are not within the boundaries of the homeowners' association and all the other homes. She also understood that these people have not met with the City. G:\rda\Monica Loredo\Word\PA No. 4\MinutesV010\Minutes 10-18-10.docx 9 CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2010 Member Archer added that they wanted to assess the members $40 a month and wanted it in 30 days. Ms. Schmidt inquired if anyone knew the face amount on the note. Mr. Simmons replied $6.8 million dollars. Member Harkins commented that perhaps the administrative fines that the City could potentially put on the property will be the motivating factor. Member Daugherty mentioned that if somebody does buy the note that is no guaranty that anything is going to happen. Mr. McCarthy stated that if they buy the note, then they would have to foreclose to get control of the physical property. It does not necessarily mean that they would go into the golf course business. There was brief discussion on land use if not a golf course X. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON/MEMBERS B. AGENCY BOARD LIAISONS C. PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON D. STAFF XI. ADJOURNMENT Upon a unanimous motion by the Project Area No. 4 Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Monica Loredo, Recording Secretary GArda\Monica Loredo\Word\PA No. 4\Minutes\2010\Minutes 10-18-10.docx 10