[0:03] Council, you ready?

[0:07] I call the order of the July 26th, 2017 meeting of the Palm Springs City Council, would all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:17] Please place your hand over your heart and repeat with me.

[0:31] Thank you, you may be seated,

[0:36] City Clerk, would you please do the roll call.

[0:39] Council Member Cours, Council Member Mills, Council Member Roberts,

[0:44] Mayor Pro Temphote, Mayor Moon, all present.

[0:48] Thank you.

[0:50] Next item, presentations.

[0:52] Dr. Reddy, do you have any presentations for this evening?

[0:56] Thank you, Mayor.

[0:56] I just would like to call your attention to.

[1:01] Kel trans had a press conference this week on pedestrian safety and they're having a campaign

[1:06] that they are proceeding with to help educate the public about being careful with pedestrians.

[1:12] and people being hit. And here's a picture of the press conference that they had at City Hall obviously and

[1:21] obviously there's some council members of Chief is there. And if we could look at the next couple of slides.

[1:25] The next slide please. There's billboards that are going up. You can see the next slide please.

[1:46] Suffice it to say they were billboards. Maybe you've seen them. The billboards are there there there.

[1:50] So, we've got a couple of them basically bicycles don't come with bumpers, pedestrians don't come with airbags, and there's a series of these billboards that are around

[1:59] the city, basically, Alpscane drivers to be extra careful with pedestrians.

[2:05] And I thought that was important to highlight Mayor and members of the council that were at that press conference may want to make a comment as well.

[2:12] Thank you.

[2:13] Okay, thank you, Dr. Reddy.

[2:15] The next item is acceptance the agenda.

[2:17] The city council at this time will discuss the order of the agenda to amend the order

[2:20] at urgency items.

[2:22] Notable extensions or no votes on consent calendar items and request consent calendar items.

[2:26] But you're moving from discussion.

[2:27] I would like to entertain a motion for acceptance the agenda.

[2:29] Are there any items in the council member would like to remove from the consent.

[2:32] I would like to know what was amended.

[2:34] So we can decide with the motion.

[2:38] No, I know, but what was it amended?

[2:40] City Clerk, do you want to summarize the amendments to the agenda?

[2:48] Yes, sir. What was amended was under item 3b. We changed the language under item

[2:56] number 2, adding a resolution.

[3:01] Previously, we had asked that $30,000 be allocated from

[3:07] fund balance to the election account.

[3:10] We now have a resolution addressing that.

[3:14] 3C, same thing.

[3:20] The next amendment was the addition of item 4A, update from the City Council budget and finance

[3:26] standing committee, subcommittee,

[3:34] plus the addition of item 3D.

[3:37] Establishing procedures for filing written arguments regarding two city measures at the November

[3:43] 7th, 2017 General Municipal Election,

[3:53] that concludes the addition slash amendments to the agenda.

[3:59] And Mayor, I also would like to note that item 5B, I'm requesting to be removed from

[4:05] the agenda this evening, there's some additional information that Council members had asked

[4:09] and the consultant who had done the study, the report on that needed to make some modifications.

[4:15] And so we'll bring that back get a future council meeting.

[4:18] Okay, thank you.

[4:19] I'm going to slide them five.

[4:21] Yeah, that was five B.

[4:22] Five B is the most.

[4:25] Okay, that's on the Virgin Hotel.

[4:27] Correct.

[4:31] Okay.

[4:32] Yes.

[4:33] I'd like that call.

[4:36] I'm going to read that paragraph.

[4:37] What's that?

[4:38] Chinese tells me that.

[4:39] I don't read that yet.

[4:40] Oh, we have.

[4:40] Yeah, I want to know what.

[4:42] Okay.

[4:43] Okay.

[4:43] I'd like to entertain a motion for acceptance of the agenda.

[4:45] Are there any items any council member would like to remove from the consent calendar for

[4:49] for discussion and or vote now yes yes or now one one f and one i

[4:55] fills one f and one i

[4:58] because

[4:58] paper

[4:59] And I...

[5:00] We'll be abstaining on one eve.

[5:08] Mayor Protempo to do you mean the record to reflect that you're

[5:11] refusing on that item or abstaining? We're accusing based on a conflict of interest.

[5:16] Yes. And the nature is a real estate interest. Is that correct? Correct. I'm sorry.

[5:20] Thank you very much.

[5:23] Thank you.

[5:23] Governor, of course, any items?

[5:28] Got some rubbers? No, Mayor, the agenda looks perfect.

[5:31] Great. Thank you.

[5:37] Do we have a motion to accept the agenda as amended with the following

[5:39] items pooled from the consent calendar item 1-HEP and some moved 1-I and Mayor Potem will be

[5:46] recusing yourself an item 1-E.

[5:47] Motion has been made by Council Member Robert.

[5:49] Second, we have a second.

[5:50] Second of by Council Member Cores.

[5:52] All in favour?

[5:54] Aye.

[5:55] Any opposed?

[5:56] Seeing none opposed, the agenda is accepted.

[6:01] As amended.

[6:02] Next item is Public testimony.

[6:04] Non-Public hearing agenda items only.

[6:07] I'm sorry, skip down.

[6:11] So, the attorney report of closed session.

[6:13] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[6:14] Members of the Council.

[6:16] The Council did meet in convene in closed session at 4 p.m.

[6:20] Prior to adjourning to closed session.

[6:21] The Council did vote.

[6:23] Presumed to government code section five five five four nine five four

[6:27] point two subdivision B subsection two to add a single

[6:31] matter to the closed session agenda.

[6:34] A closed session item was in fact considered.

[6:37] On Riverside County Superior Court case, PSC-160-2065, the name of that case, is City of Palm Springs versus Desert Wellness.

[6:50] That is, of course, a pending existing litigation pursuant to five, four, nine, five, six, point, nine, sub-d sub-one.

[6:58] I learned today of information from our litigating attorney on that case regarding negotiations that have been underway

[7:05] of the necessity for Council direction to our litigators.

[7:10] We did consider that matter along with the other matters reflected on the agenda.

[7:15] And there's no reportable action that took place in close session on any item.

[7:20] I would note for the public that the Council did not consider the two cases of initiation of litigation

[7:26] or exposure to litigation reflected on the agenda.

[7:30] That concludes my report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[7:34] next item is public testimony. Two minutes will be assigned to each speaker. Reminder

[7:38] this is non public hearing agenda items only. Test the money for public hearing so only

[7:42] be taken at the time of the hearing. Also general public comments and items that are not

[7:46] on the agenda will be held later in the meeting. So with that we will open to public testimony.

[7:55] Anyone who wishes to speak if you haven't turned a card into the city clerk please do so.

[7:58] Our first speaker is off top.off, followed by Stacey Lewis, then Andrew Hirsch.

[8:07] Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

[8:09] My name is off top.data and I'm at the Hill to the Palm Springs.

[8:14] I'm here this evening on behalf of supporting the signage for the H&M store that is going to be the key anchor store with 15,000 square feet in the new downtown center.

[8:30] So here is what I'm proposing, it is critically important that today's business establish

[8:36] and maintain their own brand, their own image, and their own signage.

[8:43] The simple marketing strategy guides us at the Hilton, just as it guides decisions made

[8:51] the leaders of retailers at H&M. H&M is a worldwide retailer with over 3,700 stores in 62

[9:03] countries and has been in operations for the last 70 years. Gross sales for 2016 amounted

[9:13] 22 billion plus, with 148,000 employees.

[9:19] Branding consulting firm, Interbrand, ranked H&M as the 20th most global brand,

[9:29] and the highest rated retailer.

[9:34] H&M store downtown must be allowed to establish store front sign

[9:40] with the background lighting.

[9:42] The brand consistency is important in a community such as Farms Springs, where we attract so many visitors who may be looking for a familiar brand.

[9:54] I would not be surprised if blocking H&M from using its branded lit.

[10:00] Sign, pushes this leading retailer to change this mind about joining a local business community.

[10:08] The reality is that H&M did not grow to be a leading retailer by changing its brand in

[10:17] Thank you.

[10:18] Thank you very much.

[10:19] Our next speaker will be Stacey Lewis, followed by Andrew Hirsch.

[10:32] Good evening.

[10:32] I'm Stacey Lewis, I'm the owner of Stacey's at Mel Rose Bar in Phoenix.

[10:37] I really enjoy coming upon springs last year.

[10:40] I decided to want to have a second bar and a second home here.

[10:45] In the over 20 weeks in a row that I've been coming upon springs, I've been doing my homework.

[10:51] I've spoken with many of the locals as well as local bar and restaurant owners about what's missing in the downtown Palm Springs area.

[11:00] I've come to realize that the need for an upscale quiet piano bar is there.

[11:06] This has been missed by the locals since the rainbow cactus closed four to five years ago.

[11:12] I would really like to preserve this type of single-long piano bar that is rapidly disappearing everywhere.

[11:18] Everyone tells me they're very excited to bring something like this back to the community.

[11:24] And I'm really excited to be part of Palm Springs.

[11:27] Thank you all very much.

[11:29] Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

[11:30] Next is Andrew Hirsch, followed by Sarah Frith.

[11:38] Good evening.

[11:39] My name is Andrew Hirsch, and I'm a longtime resident of Palm Springs.

[11:43] I urge you not to pass the second reading of the leaf,

[11:47] lower ordinance and return it to staff for a much-meated environmental review.

[11:54] You will be, as a matter of law, changing energy source of hundreds of pieces of equipment

[11:59] and requiring the use of massive quantities of water for that's the only technology I know of

[12:06] that can prevent debris from crossing the property line.

[12:10] Remember, electricity is not a zero emission source, it's a remote emission source.

[12:17] Any first year engineering student can tell you that the most effective use of energy

[12:23] is at its primary purpose, in this case the hand held leaf blowers.

[12:29] I stood here last month and told you that your endorsement of the Paris climate change agreement

[12:35] was utterly meaningless with this action you are increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

[12:42] Thank you for proving that I am correct.

[12:45] There is nothing administrative about this as your staff report says.

[12:50] As I said, you're changing the energy source of a large, large number of pieces of equipment.

[12:58] I would thought that a green city would bend over backwards to comply with California's primary

[13:05] environmental law called SQL.

[13:08] If you do not return it to staff for an environmental view review, I fully expect that you

[13:14] will be taken to court on a SQL violation even if I have to do that myself.

[13:21] Thank you.

[13:22] Thank you Mr. Hirsch, next speaker is Sarah Friff, followed by Robert Van Rue.

[13:26] Good

[13:29] evening. I came to speak about item.

[13:32] Can you bring the microphone down please?

[13:33] I came to speak about item 1.0.

[13:37] But I think it was removed from the agenda, so can I still speak?

[13:41] Which item?

[13:42] Item 1.1750.

[13:46] I'm just making an appeal, having read the staff report,

[13:51] and finding myself very confused by the terms of reference back to review this project

[13:56] the new to take a broad approach and not try to cut it in corner it into a limited review

[14:04] that doesn't allow us to know us, the public to know what grounds we can expect going forward

[14:11] because trying to say that you can only look at height, setbacks and parking when the city

[14:19] actually did raise the last meeting about it issues of noise and there are also issues of safety

[14:26] from them and the project basically will have to be substantially redesigned to meet the height

[14:34] requirements and reading the staff report which also seemed to limit what we could do on the

[14:39] secret. It just made no sense to me and I think that it's in danger by trying to clip it to

[14:46] to make it impossible for us to all know where we stand and what we can do going forward.

[14:51] So please make a broad and I'd like to see the historic preservation board review it as well because that's the main thing.

[15:00] Thank you for the residents. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Ms. Frith. Next item, next speaker is Robert van Rue, followed by Tom

[15:08] Adomel. Good evening, Mayor and council. My name is Robert van Rue and President and co-founder of Palm Springs, safe access. First off, I'd like to congratulate the city staff and subcommittee for medical cannabis for being

[15:21] so diligent and working in forward thinking in regards to our cannabis regulations.

[15:27] We've been all running a marathon here and you deserve the next month off, but we've

[15:32] got a number of issues on tonight's agenda regarding cannabis and all of them are forward

[15:38] thinking and in alignment with the state law and I think that each one of you should support

[15:43] it.

[15:44] The main item 3A and is an urgency ordinance which requires a four-fifths vote.

[15:49] It puts us in alignment with other desert cities and really requires all of your support.

[15:56] I just again want to thank you to the new city attorney, the experts, the city is hired

[16:00] and to our subcommittee for all their diligent work. Thank you.

[16:04] Thank you Mr. Van Rue, next speaker is Tom Adomo, followed by at least the middle ten.

[16:10] Good evening Mayor, council, staff.

[16:19] As the owner of the Fishman Marketing Grill in Palm Springs,

[16:23] I know the importance of signage and consistent signage for a business.

[16:30] There are five fishermen market and grill throughout the region established and they rely

[16:38] independently on recognizable signage to communicate for customers.

[16:45] When the city exercise eminent domain on putting up the parking

[16:50] structure on the Risto and Indian, it totally blocked the

[16:56] Fission of Marketing Group.

[16:58] I'm just letting you know, I'm speaking from experience, it really does

[17:01] hurt a business, so I'm asking that you really consider when people are

[17:08] asking for signage that you cooperate and help, I know that you do work with

[17:13] business people at the city. It has been very cooperative with many of the businesses.

[17:18] And I know how important you know it is for the city to really help the business people.

[17:24] So please don't take away H&M's consistent branding. That's a new business that's

[17:31] what's come into town. And I'm just letting you know that they could use all the help

[17:36] that they can get from you people. And I thank you very much for the job you're doing.

[17:40] Thank you.

[17:40] Thank you, Mr. Dalmo. Next speaker is Lisa Middleton, who will be followed by Jim Cross.

[17:47] Mr. Mayor, City Council. My name is Lisa Middleton. I'm speaking on items 3a through 3d.

[17:54] I support asking the voters to approve the half-sense sales checks and the proposed marijuana-related taxes.

[18:02] The half-cent sales tax replaces an expiring county, half-cent tax.

[18:09] But instead of the revenue going to the county as it now does, if approved by the voters, the revenue will go to the city.

[18:17] If we do not act, there is every reason to believe the county will act and the revenue will be lost to the city.

[18:25] Numerous studies have documented that nearly 70% of sales taxes in Palm Springs are paid by people who do not live in Palm Springs.

[18:35] It is only fair that the visitors to our city pay for the cost of the city services that they receive.

[18:43] The proposed marijuana taxes also pass the fairness test.

[18:49] Recreational marijuana will be subject to the same taxes as medical marijuana.

[18:54] The marijuana grows in our city will be taxed at rates consistent with what grows in other cities are taxed.

[19:03] Lastly, over the last few weeks I have spent time in the firehouses and on patrol with our firefighters and our police officers.

[19:13] We have no higher obligation than to ensure that they have the resources that they need to do the job

[19:21] protecting us and our citizens.

[19:24] Thank you.

[19:25] Thank you, Ms. Middleton.

[19:26] Next speaker is Jim Cross, so we fall by Robert Stone.

[19:38] Good evening Mayor and City Council.

[19:43] My comments at this time are in regard to an item that will come before you later this evening with

[19:47] downtown developments block B and C signage.

[19:51] I hope each of you would opportunity to read the report that has brought us here before

[19:55] you tonight.

[19:57] It is our understanding that is within the power of this council to hear it.

[20:00] So, in a few agree, change the condition of approval. Your report includes a plea from H&M corporate. But please note, even though

[20:09] H&M has been the most vocal, this is not solely an H&M position. It is a concern not only for tenants that are already signed up, but for future tenants as well.

[20:18] The condition of reverse channel letters only came as a result of a single commissioner making the statement that he preferred reverse or halo lit letters.

[20:26] They voted in within minutes the motion carried and approved without discussion.

[20:32] I ask you to please imagine for a moment that we're talking about restaurants.

[20:36] We are proposing high-end establishments and asking the city to allow French, Italian, south-of-border, Mediterranean.

[20:42] You get the picture.

[20:43] But during approval, someone says, I really prefer Italian.

[20:47] I think we should only approve Italian.

[20:49] I know it sounds silly, but it's truly not far from what happened here three weeks ago.

[20:54] The point is there is no logic or rationale to this condition, none, other than that it was born out of it being a preferred type of letter.

[21:03] In closing, I'd like to state what is in the appeal documents. These are a few bullet items.

[21:09] This condition does not appear within the approvals of Block A and B, nor does it exist in the retail or restaurant components of the row into the West.

[21:19] Many, if not all of the tenants that have taken space in Block C have already designed their

[21:23] facades, Starbucks, Mac, H&M, Tommy Bahamas, all have patterned their designs to what

[21:28] was approved in Block A and B and the Rowan.

[21:32] Block C, if held to reverse channel letters, this condition gives an unfair advantage to its

[21:37] neighbors who have not been held to this condition in any direction of downtown.

[21:42] There's also an issue.

[21:43] I'm sorry. I was listening. You're not watching the clock. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[21:50] Next speaker is Robert Stone followed by Tim Irkins. Before Robert starts, could could staff notice that we don't have any water up here? Could we get some water? Thank you.

[22:01] Mayor Moon, council members. My name is Robert Stone. I'm here to speak on item 5c. I would be speaking on item 5c, but my remarks pertain to both equally.

[22:10] These are the hotel common agreements in which the city is agreeing to give back 75% of the

[22:16] TOT revenue to the developer for 30 years.

[22:19] We need to call these what they are.

[22:21] These are kickbacks to a developer.

[22:24] No other municipality in the state of California gives up 75% of its transient occupancy taxes

[22:31] for 30 years for any project.

[22:34] If you would think just like an investor, if an investor were looking at this proposal,

[22:39] and an investor-star project that could not stand on its own feet without an infusion of

[22:45] $50 million of city funds, it's quite likely that that is a project that maybe shouldn't

[22:50] be built.

[22:52] I'm a big fan of the Orchetry project.

[22:54] I would like to see it built, but this give away of TOT taxes to developers has to stop.

[23:01] It is fiscally irresponsible.

[23:03] You are right now tonight going to look at finding new ways of generating revenue because

[23:08] we have a financial crisis.

[23:11] Well, the arc of these covenants is bankruptcy.

[23:15] This morning, I filed my papers.

[23:16] I'm the first candidate to file their official papers at City Hall

[23:20] for the November 7th election facility council.

[23:23] Nothing more perfectly encapsulates why I'm running for City Council

[23:27] than these wrong-headed transient occupies tax rebates for 30 years.

[23:33] Thank you.

[23:34] Thank you, Mr. Stone.

[23:35] Next speaker is Tim Erkin's fall by Robert Brugaman.

[23:39] Thank you. I'm definitely going to go right off of Robert and start off on 5b and 5c that was, thanks.

[23:51] That was just pulled 5b. Regarding the TOT and that I'm still conflicted.

[24:01] I've talked about this in all three times and if you would love to go into detail on this so that the rest of us know it,

[24:09] are new on council, and we're not part of this,

[24:12] while two of you were looking at the numbers

[24:15] on quarantine them.

[24:17] They kept in 153 rooms, 50 million, 30 years.

[24:21] That was 326,798 per room.

[24:26] The new church, which I do want built,

[24:29] 59 rooms, 50 million, again.

[24:31] That's $847,000 per room.

[24:34] We're looking at for 30 years.

[24:35] 750 lasts that I know that we're not on discussion on that's 39 rooms 50 million 30 years

[24:42] So that was 1.28 million dollars that would have been per room.

[24:47] We can't do this we have a pension problem and we're looking for other ways to keep our money in and be economically responsible.

[24:56] One thing I would say is can we reinstate parking?

[25:00] We're talking about the buzz and making a charging people, but I would like to look at the buzz is great.

[25:07] But I think that it's time that again, we're so great. We can charge for parking, and the one thank you for having the one done right behind

[25:14] Samy G's. It looks like it's come along nicely after sitting and being really bad, but I can't justify us, given away 30 years and 50 million, 50 million, 50 million and just keep going on this.

[25:27] We need to stop and we are bleeding and that's my last words.

[25:31] Thank you.

[25:32] Thank you, Mr. Orkun.

[25:33] The next speaker is Robert Rubimann, followed by Judy Dirtrak.

[25:43] Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council.

[25:45] I'm here tonight to talk about what I believe was just some confusion and some wrong-headed

[25:50] decisions by the Planning Commission.

[25:52] I urge you in the strongest possible terms like you did with Canyon View, very wisely

[25:57] in my regard, to overturn the signage plan for Block C.

[26:02] If you watched the video, which I did live, I was kind of appalled at the punitive, arbitrary,

[26:10] petulant tone of the dialogue by certain commissioners, they basically said, well, we don't really care why your logo doesn't look like that.

[26:18] We want it to look like that. That's not an appropriate welcoming thing for an open place like Palm Springs to say.

[26:24] What should have happened is there should have been a discussion or a tabling of the measure to learn about the parameters of

[26:32] design and how a logo works and how important a logo is to a retailer.

[26:37] H&M is a tenant.

[26:39] I'm not going to say the W word because all the W vendetta freaks are here tonight to talk about the TOT.

[26:46] But the issue is don't penalize H&M don't be inconsistent about block A, B, and C.

[26:53] The important point here is that the H&M logo is on buildings globally worldwide and for us to say in our town we want you to redesign it is simply

[27:06] Not bright or reasonable or ethical or moral or even good design. It's a terrible idea

[27:14] Those buildings A, B and C are meant to be consistent in terms of design in terms of signage.

[27:19] Very briefly, I do also want to advocate for the renewal and the extension of the two TOT developments.

[27:26] This has been exhaustively argued in front of this council and all five of you voted unanimously for both of these projects.

[27:34] There is no reason to give them another not to give them another year to do so.

[27:39] You have this council and our planning commission has approved extensions repeatedly.

[27:44] sometimes six, seven or eight of them for projects and doing so only once.

[27:49] Mr. Romney, please.

[27:50] Thank you very much.

[27:52] Next speaker is Judy Deer, track followed by Frank Tyson.

[27:59] My name is Judy Deer, track.

[28:00] I'm a candidate for City Council.

[28:03] I'm here on three items, but on the two minute limitation, I'm only going to cover two.

[28:09] One is 750 lofts and thank you for calling that back up.

[28:12] I did want to say on the neighborhood commercial designation.

[28:16] that 95% of that district there in the Bank of America area is built out at neighborhood

[28:22] commercial, which does not allow hotels. I hope when you remand this back that's taken

[28:28] into consideration. I also ask you not to put limitations on the level of review and allow

[28:35] it to be opened up in full. More importantly on the Virgin Hotel, and I agree with Mr.

[28:42] stone that we have a project that is under indictment with the developer charge with a

[28:50] government code to 90 violation which would deprive him of all of the proceedings and the

[28:57] benefits of the project. The change of name on that corporate entity does not solve the problem.

[29:04] And more importantly, I did a study of the level at which the city has used your, what

[29:15] what he called the subsidy program since 2007.

[29:21] And I found that there were close to 18 projects where you were rebading either 50% or 75%

[29:29] 18 hotels and I did I picked up a study by the city of Los Angeles by PKG and that

[29:39] particular study of there were over 20 municipalities in the state of California.

[29:46] Palm Springs is the only city to be giving out these rebates to 22 somewhere between

[29:54] 18 to 22 entities, but your other cities only give them out to one hotel.

[30:00] And that is very telling. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Treck. And I speak to Frank Tyson. I would ask, I would like to ask public speakers, you know, that we did change the agenda and the item on the version hotel is no longer on the agenda. So the, the one on the,

[30:21] so I would ask you not to address the version hotel directly in these comments, but address that later, because it's not an agenda item.

[30:29] more. If you're talking about the other TOT project, that's fine. If you want to

[30:35] tie TOT into it, please do not address the Virgin directly. Thank you.

[30:39] Mr. Tyson, welcome.

[30:39] Of course, we did not know you were going to cancel it. So that's how we came here. Some

[30:43] people came all the way from LA. Anyway, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars, while

[30:52] the city is facing bankruptcy to meet pension obligations, 100 billion dollars on TOT, as

[30:59] heard there are almost 18 to 25 hotels. Now, whereas my hotel

[31:05] subsidy, and that of the other 80 small hotels, we face unfair

[31:10] competition. Many of the hotels are down 20 percent. We have double

[31:15] hotel rooms in town to the vacation rentals because it's about

[31:24] 3,000 hotel rooms in essence that we have added. I can't speak about

[31:30] virtual hotel, but I personally don't like to see any more hotels downtown.

[31:36] We already have a very, it's already very dense and certainly we don't need to put more

[31:42] money in the Department of the Developer.

[31:45] Now, the Orca Tree may be a legitimate exception,

[31:51] because it basically is a rehabilitation project.

[31:54] It's not, it's a blighted block including a church

[31:59] that the developer is going to complete if he do.

[32:02] So I think we might have a slightly different orientation there.

[32:10] It's been blighted for two decades and if this is not going

[32:14] to be restored by somebody who is sensitive,

[32:17] we're going to be having that big gaping hole

[32:19] in the tennis club in a city forever practically.

[32:22] On a different subject, I just want to mention that the people that are talking about the

[32:29] sign they have never been to any other quality, town like Santa Barbara, that I'm taking

[32:33] a look at Santa Barbara.

[32:34] There are all kinds of national concerns that have very tasteful sign, it's that fits

[32:39] in the Santa Barbara, and we want things to fit in with the fumps rings.

[32:43] Thank you.

[32:44] Your time is up.

[32:45] Thank you very much.

[32:45] Next, Marina Rossi, Rossi, and then followed by Philippe Castaneda.

[32:54] Good evening, Mayor Council.

[32:56] Thank you for your time.

[32:58] My name is Marina Rossi.

[32:59] I do own a small hotel in the tennis club district.

[33:03] Very close to downtown, as well as the architri.

[33:07] My concerns lie with this issue of these TOT tax abatements.

[33:12] I believe they skew demand in the eyes of the developer.

[33:15] They may make poor decisions based on the abatements rather than the true financials of the project.

[33:22] That's very concerning when you're building hundreds of additional hotel rooms.

[33:28] What that's going to do when the supply comes online.

[33:31] It's going to depress the market for everybody.

[33:34] Just simply adding hotel rooms doesn't bring a tourist to town to spend money.

[33:38] empty rooms don't do that.

[33:40] That is my concern and that goes across the board.

[33:43] I don't think anybody should receive those TOT tax abatements.

[33:46] Orchetry, Virgin, excuse me, I should say any hotel.

[33:51] I believe Judy mentioned almost 25 or 22 different hotels

[33:56] are receiving these.

[33:57] That's way out of line.

[33:59] This is not a blighted city.

[34:01] We don't need all these hotel rooms.

[34:02] I do believe that there is a demand for some hotel rooms,

[34:05] but this is ridiculous.

[34:07] And I have a concern over that.

[34:09] Although I'd love to see Orchetry built,

[34:11] I have various properties in the immediate vicinity within one or two blocks.

[34:16] I still don't believe they should receive that.

[34:18] If they can't make the project work on its own, they shouldn't do the project.

[34:23] And that's my, that's my feelings.

[34:25] Thank you for your time.

[34:26] Thank you, Mr. Rossi.

[34:27] And next speaker is Philippe Castaneda.

[34:30] And that will be followed by our last speaker, Joy Brown, Meredith.

[34:36] Good evening.

[34:38] My name is Philippe Castaneda.

[34:39] Los Árvoles, and El Mitasol Hotel in Pansprings.

[34:46] Is it possible that in consideration that the majority of the issues with 750 loves are related to...

[35:00] The guidelines of the Pants, Pants, Pants, Pants, Historic Site Preservation Board, is a possible that this board be considered in any kind of discussions in the future of this project.

[35:29] considering that according to what we've been hearing from the last meetings, the project

[35:37] doesn't exist anymore because of the decayed of the PDDs.

[35:44] So my question again, Ken, is it possible that the historic site preservation board be included

[35:53] and consider for future discussions about this project.

[36:02] Thank you.

[36:04] Thank you, Mr. Castaneta. Next is Joy Brown,

[36:06] Mara, followed by Jeff Kalspire.

[36:16] Good evening, City Council, City staff,

[36:19] citizens of Palm Springs.

[36:21] There's so much on the agenda tonight that's super important.

[36:24] So in two minutes it's hard to get much of that done.

[36:28] So I'm going to be super brief about them.

[36:30] I did want to give a lot of things to the City Council

[36:34] subcommittee and city staff that worked,

[36:37] pulling together what you have tonight for three A and three B

[36:41] regarding the canvas ordinances and the tax.

[36:46] Having the stakeholder meeting that you provided for us,

[36:49] really gave us the opportunity and any you're doing a great job there.

[36:53] Thank you, sir.

[36:55] The having that meeting like that and allowing us all

[36:57] to be able to talk and give our input was really great for us.

[37:02] And it really helped us all be able to let our opinion out

[37:05] and have an open discussion.

[37:07] And I am very, very thankful for that.

[37:11] So I am here tonight because I would like to support 3A and 3B.

[37:16] And then regarding 3C, which is the half percent sales tax,

[37:20] I'm only here tonight representing myself as owner of Crystal Fantasy and President of Joy of

[37:26] Life Well in the Center, both businesses, which will be paying the additional sales tax.

[37:31] And just to say that at this time, I would definitely say that I do not oppose this tax.

[37:37] Now after you have your discussion tonight, and we know exactly what it is, we're going to

[37:40] bring this through Main Street and to all the merchants to get our feedback on it.

[37:44] But we really felt it was a little bit premature to try to do that when there's still discussions

[37:50] going on about it. So we're going to wait until you make your decisions tonight, but as it stands

[37:55] right now, I think that most people are in favor of it because we always want to support our

[38:01] police and fire and all of these other things. So I just want to let you know that I support those

[38:08] three, and I thank you all for all of your work, and Dr. Reddy, as well. Thank you very much.

[38:13] Thank you, Ms. Meredith. Next speaker is Jeff Kelchheimer, followed by Jake Jessen.

[38:22] Mr. Justin, we'll be our last speaker, any more cards?

[38:26] So you're correct, okay.

[38:27] Thank you.

[38:29] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council, and City staff.

[38:32] My name is Jeff Kellsheimer, I'm president with Palm Springs Firefighters Association.

[38:38] And tonight, I just wanted to ask for Council to consider placing this at least onto the ballot

[38:43] for November.

[38:45] I know there's still a lot of things to talk about and discuss,

[38:50] and there's a few things

[38:51] it we know for sure. We've had lots of discussions over the last couple of years about increasing

[38:56] staffing on both the fire department and the department side. You guys have been very open

[39:01] with us and we've got some great conversations. But at the end of the day we're still trying

[39:07] to figure out this budget constraints and issues. We also know there's been issues with the increase

[39:15] and employee contributions. We have the calipers and we're trying to work through that with you

[39:19] as well. And at the end of the day, I hope we can look at getting this past and we got to convince

[39:27] our community to do that. It's ultimately up to them. I just don't want to see us have to

[39:34] go through cuts again, having been through and live through the fire department, seeing stations

[39:39] close, losing police officers. I just don't want to go back down that route. And we appreciate

[39:44] you guys in reaching out to us and having some conversations. I know you guys are doing

[39:49] best. And so we definitely appreciate that. So for us to get behind this measure, and I know

[39:57] people have issues in concerns.

[40:00] About where this money will actually go, and we've had these discussions with you. And if we can ultimately increase firefighters to the streets, increase officers to the streets, which is also going to allow us to get some other departments, because we know our other departments in the city are hurting as well. Everyone's kind of running a little thin right now. We're trying to recover back. So I think for us, it's very easy to get behind this because ultimately that's going to benefit our community, it's going to benefit our citizens.

[40:30] and ultimately want what's best for them.

[40:33] And thank you, Mr. Kilshimer.

[40:34] That's up.

[40:35] Thank you very much.

[40:37] Our last speaker will be Jake Jessen.

[40:48] I feel that it's speaker card to address item 5C,

[40:50] but I can wait until that item comes up.

[40:53] It wasn't for the town for public comment.

[40:56] I was just here fulfilling an incumbent card

[40:58] to address the council we needed for that item

[41:02] on behalf of the applicant.

[41:05] OK.

[41:06] All right.

[41:06] Well, thank you.

[41:07] If we have any questions for you, we'll know you're in the audience.

[41:10] Have any, no other speakers?

[41:12] City Clerk?

[41:13] Seeing none, we will close this portion of the public testimony.

[41:18] The next item is City Council, City Council,

[41:21] Subcommittee and City Manager's comments and reports.

[41:24] Doug, are you ready?

[41:24] Do you have any comments?

[41:27] Not at this time.

[41:28] Thank you, Mayor.

[41:29] Any other comments?

[41:30] Councillor Roberts?

[41:33] Mayor, bear with me.

[41:34] I have two subcommittee reports.

[41:36] and a few comments.

[41:38] First, I want to say that the downtown landscape

[41:43] and downtown construction subcommittee

[41:45] met and we continue to look at different elements

[41:50] of what's going in for landscape and fencing

[41:55] and all sorts of things on that.

[41:57] But the thing of note is that the developer has

[42:01] ask to work directly with our downtown park architect on filling in the empty lock that's

[42:13] actually a pit that's almost the same size as the park just to the south of it. And this is

[42:21] great because we will have some continuity between these two parcels and so it couldn't it couldn't

[42:29] any better for that. I've put in a call to the, to Mark Rios, who is our landscape architect

[42:36] for that, to start to put that together, but that will be a great thing for us in the city

[42:41] to have the developer working, obviously, with the same architect that we're working with

[42:46] in our downtown park. The Indian Canyon 2-way plan, subcommittee, Matt, and I just wanted

[42:55] to tell you and express to the community that our engineering department has done a fantastic

[43:01] job of coming up with some ideas of making Indian Canyon a two-way street all the way and

[43:07] we will be bringing that back to the council I believe is early as

[43:14] September 6.

[43:16] Okay well, no actually it'll probably be the second meeting in September but as quickly as

[43:21] the second week in September so we can get that rolling.

[43:27] And I think that it's going to be a really interesting thing, because one of the major things that we were looking at was how do we transform Indian into two way?

[43:41] It's okay until you get to where Indian and Palm Canyon meet at the south end.

[43:48] And that we thought was going to be a real issue for us.

[43:52] And the staff has come up with a great idea that I think that the public will really

[43:59] like on a kind of a roundabout by the Sun Center.

[44:06] And so I think that was one of the most exciting things that came out of the meeting for me.

[44:11] So stay tuned for that because that will make a whole change in our traffic patterns.

[44:17] And also, J.R. and I feel that it will also make a difference in the development of Indian as a commercial street.

[44:28] Thank you, Mayor Boatim.

[44:29] We'll be bringing that back in the second week of September.

[44:34] I now want to make just a few quick comments.

[44:37] We have some speakers coming up, spreading some very, well, unfortunately misinformation about things.

[44:43] I want to clarify first that the city is not facing bankruptcy.

[44:47] That was kind of shocking.

[44:49] And the second thing that came up was that we had a speaker to say that no other cities in California are doing incentive programs for hotels, which is absolutely...

[45:00] True, the city of Los Angeles is not only doing an incentive programs for hotels, but the city offers up to a hundred percent.

[45:08] The city of Los Angeles can offer up to a hundred percent of TOT rebates as well as allowing for the hotel itself to benefit from the massive signage programs that they can do in terms of renting space on their buildings.

[45:23] So I just wanted to clarify those two things.

[45:26] And the other thing I wanted to say is,

[45:28] although the Virgin Hotel isn't before us tonight,

[45:32] and we've asked for that to come back with more information.

[45:35] I just want to say for the record,

[45:37] that I fully support the Virgin Hotel coming to Palm Springs.

[45:41] We need that brand.

[45:43] We need that quality.

[45:44] As we continue to be an international brand,

[45:47] we need to have the quality of an international brand.

[45:51] People want to beat up the incentive program.

[45:53] One of the other pieces of misinformation is that the incentive program still exists.

[45:59] It does not.

[46:00] The incentive program for the hotels is gone.

[46:04] It ended.

[46:05] Prior to the incentive program being enacted,

[46:08] the City of Palm Springs had not seen a new start in a hotel in over 30 years.

[46:14] The incentive program was created to stimulate new hotel building in Palm Springs.

[46:21] we were in the pits of an economic hole.

[46:25] We are out of it.

[46:26] It is true.

[46:27] We no longer need incentives to build new hotels,

[46:30] but without that incentive, we would not have gotten

[46:33] any of these new hotels.

[46:35] Again, for 30 years, nobody was coming with a proposal.

[46:39] So all we are looking at when we are now talking again

[46:42] about the incentives is simply extending the time period

[46:47] to start, though, to tell for those that have already applied and been given and allowed to use

[46:55] the incentive.

[46:56] We're not opening up or giving anybody new incentives.

[47:00] We're simply not taking it away from those that applied for it and received it.

[47:05] So, I'm sorry to be so strong about this, but the misinformation starts to drive me crazy

[47:11] after a while, and people come up here in our area of fabric about it and I do feel it's

[47:16] do these sometimes to correct that. So, may I, I'm, I'm done. Okay, may I, I'm a

[47:22] council, council member of course? No, where to start? I have a couple of

[47:26] comments on that, so I'll start there and just two other short things. I do want to

[47:32] follow up on one point, which is, with the exception of four or five of the

[47:36] hotels, they're not new hotels. They're renovations. And so it's important

[47:41] people understand how this works. If a hotel uses its own money to renovate an upgrade.

[47:49] Only in that situation, no, city dollars. And as a result, they're able to charge more.

[47:55] And they get more TOT than what they were giving before. We then split the additional TOT with

[48:01] them. So they get some of their investment back through that money that wouldn't have existed

[48:06] otherwise, and we get 50% of the increase, money, which wouldn't have existed, otherwise.

[48:12] That's how it helps our budget.

[48:14] Not to mention, refurbishing our hotel stock, which wasn't happening, getting more

[48:19] tourists here, which spend more money, which generates sales tax and helps all of our

[48:22] local businesses.

[48:23] So to say that those are somehow giveaways, well, that money wouldn't exist.

[48:29] We would not be getting anything on those renovations.

[48:31] So that's a win, a win, a win, and that one I just don't understand.

[48:38] As far as the, for New Hotel incentives, we're not doing that anymore.

[48:44] The question is, unexisting projects who did a little more time.

[48:50] And the reason, and I, one of the people who requested that we didn't look at the virgin

[48:56] tonight is I think we need a much different or additional economic study before we make that

[49:04] decision.

[49:04] I think the public needs to understand what the economic pros or cons might be and we need

[49:09] to understand it.

[49:11] And I want to make the decision on such an important project because it's part of the downtown

[49:15] project that is a public-private partnership, I think we need that data.

[49:20] That said, I'm really hopeful that we get this virgin bill.

[49:24] Virgin would be a great brand for our city.

[49:27] It's going to be a great thing to have, but I want to make sure we have the necessary

[49:30] data to make the appropriate findings to make this move forward and that's the reason we're

[49:37] not doing it tonight.

[49:39] Two other things I just want to touch on quickly is on September of last year, I brought forward

[49:47] resolution we did to celebrate Native American Day. And we talked about wanting to do a celebration.

[49:53] And I've been working with a tribe and a member of the School of Word. And we have been meeting and meeting.

[50:00] And really thrilled that on November 18th, we're going to have our first annual Native American learning day with a tribe.

[50:07] And it's going to be a joint project of the tribe, the city, and the Palm Springs Unified School District.

[50:11] It'll be on the grounds of the high school. They'll be culture and demonstrations and movies and shopping.

[50:16] And we'll have more about that later, but I just wanted to let people know the date ahead of time.

[50:20] And it's a real great opportunity for us to work with a tribe and share the culture of our community and the children and our community, where they live.

[50:27] The second thing I just wanted to comment on is, a month or two ago, with a lot of public testimony,

[50:34] we designated a home on Marito, historic.

[50:38] And we heard a lot about how it's just going to fall apart and rot.

[50:42] In part, because it was designated historic, it is sold, it is closed to a couple who is so

[50:47] excited to renovate the historic home, appreciative that they get a tax break for doing it.

[50:54] And after being on the market for a long time and not selling, it's sold.

[50:57] So I just want to share I think some good news is a result of a decision we made that turned into a win-win for everyone

[51:03] So thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Mayor Potem. Yeah

[51:08] I just want to I I'm glad you did all that I are because I made myself a whole page and notes here people come up to this mic and and and it's it's so unfair to the citizens of this

[51:20] city when people come up and make blanket statements that have no basis in fact, because the

[51:27] people sitting at home don't necessarily know that there's no basis in fact.

[51:31] We are not a city that's in bankruptcy, we are not a blighted city, we have a balanced

[51:39] budget, we have huge amounts in our reserves, and what we're trying to do is we're trying

[51:47] pay off a state debt, a debt that the state created for this city, not a debt that this

[51:54] city created and that's who our pensions. And so people have to understand that that the

[52:01] city is financially sound and well-run. And in our, we used to lose, and when Mr. Mills and I

[52:09] before, long before this council, when we first did the incentive program, we had a hotel next

[52:15] to the Convention Center, that if you checked into that hotel, you'd have to be afraid that

[52:19] the bathroom upstairs didn't leak into your room.

[52:22] It was a terrible, blighted hotel, and so we lost all sorts of conventions.

[52:28] Now, today, because of this, we have a brand new basic hotel, basically a brand new hotel,

[52:36] next to the Convention Center, that is improved our convention business, the rehabilitation

[52:44] of the hotels in this city, through this plan has made not only our current stock, each

[52:52] look at each other and say, I need to upgrade my hotel, and it's some of the smaller hotels

[52:58] that need to look at that, because a lot of the hotels upgraded without this plan, but

[53:04] because these were such large hotels, they needed some assistance.

[53:09] And so we are making more money because of what we did not make less money and it's

[53:16] amazing to me that people don't understand that and put out all of that misinformation.

[53:23] So usually it's at this time we give reports on subcommittees and outside committees that

[53:30] we belong to that's a report on all the work that we do and on the commission and the things

[53:38] that we belong to. We belong to council members all go to CVEC committees, county committees,

[53:45] commissions, state committees, and about 40 or 50 other council committees. I've sat on

[53:51] this council for 14 years and I estimate that during that 14 years I have probably attended

[53:58] well over 1600 meetings on behalf of the city. Anyone who believes that this public service position

[54:06] is glamorous and part-time and easy to make judgments from the floor just has to look at

[54:13] our schedules or look at these books that take up our entire weekend studying and our

[54:20] weeks reviewing and our weeks trying to get more information or talk to our spouses about

[54:29] the law's weekends and the dinners studying these books.

[54:34] And so, after much consultation, after much thought and consultation with Pamela, my spouse

[54:44] of 30 years, overcoming the arguments of those who have been so loyal and offered encouragement

[54:52] throughout my tenure on the Council, I am made the decision not to seek another term on

[54:58] Council. I look back.

[55:00] Back, and these 14 years with pride, a definite sense of accomplishment and, of course, with some sadness.

[55:09] I take pride in my accomplishments, while I will talk about nauseating detail at the December

[55:16] meeting, which will be the end of my term. I'll talk about the great things that you and

[55:28] anxiousness that I feel as there is so much yet to do and I'm leaving it all on the shoulders

[55:34] of my fellow council members. And I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that in all

[55:41] of the 14 years on this council have been the only woman. Although I have great respect for my fellow

[55:48] male council members, I have served with and not just this council, but the other councils. There's

[55:55] no denying that many times a woman's point of view is a different point of view and I think

[56:02] you've seen that all.

[56:04] So I want everyone to know that I will be doing everything in my power between now and November

[56:11] to make sure a woman gets elected to this council in November.

[56:15] I said that because there are first time I've seen this incredibly qualified women who have

[56:22] clear their candidacy that I know will do an excellent work on the council.

[56:27] As a matter of fact tomorrow, I'll be endorsing two of those women, one of them is here tonight.

[56:34] And I'm very proud to do that.

[56:37] I know that there are some qualified candidates of the other gender running,

[56:42] but it's important to me as a lone woman that there be women on this council.

[56:48] prior to my being on this council, they were two women on this council.

[56:54] And I think that the loss of having a woman's point of view would be tremendous for the city.

[57:01] And with that, I look forward to continuing as a productive member of this council until December.

[57:07] And after that, as an involved citizen.

[57:10] So thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[57:11] My fellow council members for indulging me on this.

[57:17] Mayor Perkown, I think you forgot one order of business.

[57:21] No, not yet.

[57:22] I hope we got it.

[57:23] Councilor Mills?

[57:26] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[57:27] First, I'd also like to voice my support for the for on the Virgin hotel.

[57:40] It was a, I see it as an amazing part of what our downtown is going to be in the next few years and an integral part.

[57:55] I think you've heard from the other council members of how important it is and how important that specific brand is.

[58:04] But so I truly support that as well, and look forward to it coming back to us when it comes back.

[58:13] I'd like to add that when that product comes back to us, that project comes back to us,

[58:20] that we have a development agreement in place with the, with the, with the,

[58:33] the process of that hotel going forward.

[58:42] The other thing that I'd like to mention,

[58:44] and you've heard different opinions

[58:47] and voices about what the hotel incentive program

[58:52] has done for this city.

[58:55] And Ms. Ford, Mr. Coors, Mr. Roberts,

[58:58] spelled it out very, very well.

[59:00] The thing that spells it out most for me is that in 2007, the TOT, this city was $9 million.

[59:13] This past year, 10 years later, the TOT is $29 million.

[59:19] That is what the hotel and senate program is about.

[59:23] That's what is done.

[59:24] That's what the goal was from the very start.

[59:27] along with improving our stock and allowing and assisting new hotels to be built in our city

[59:34] when nowhere else in the state where new hotels being built.

[59:40] So it bothers me as much as it does everyone else to have to sit up here, meeting after meeting

[59:47] and here that amazingly successful program be little by people who don't understand it or don't

[59:56] one, I don't understand it.

[59:59] Second.

[1:00:00] Of all, I've set here for 16 years and 10 years prior to that on plan and commission and nine years prior to that on architectural review and various other blue ribbon committees and such over the over the years and an eye along with Ms. Folk will not be seeking reelection in November.

[1:00:30] It is not an easy decision, it is, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, but it's, um, um, it's the,

[1:00:51] it's the, it's the

[1:01:01] I've been very, very happy with the, with the, with the 16 years that I have, have, have

[1:01:07] spanned here.

[1:01:08] Ms. Foten, I have become very good friends over the years, and before we wouldn't

[1:01:13] say next to each other, so, but, but, but I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I certainly,

[1:01:26] I certainly,

[1:01:27] I'm going to miss service to the city and the current way I have done it.

[1:01:33] There are other ways to do it.

[1:01:34] And I had a discussion earlier about about a possibility.

[1:01:42] But it is, I think, it's important that in order to move your city forward, you know,

[1:01:50] you need to know where has been in the past.

[1:01:52] And unfortunately, I'm kind of the past.

[1:01:57] So, again, as Ms. Faust stated, that she will have a long little discussion in the first

[1:02:08] weekend December, I also will have that.

[1:02:11] And so, for warning you ahead of time, you may not want to attend that meeting, but,

[1:02:21] but,

[1:02:21] able to serve the city of Palm Springs for the four years that I had four terms that I had

[1:02:28] had sat here and along with that, and probably a real important part of that to me and

[1:02:41] I'm thankful for and appreciate is that for all four of the terms that I ran,

[1:02:56] I was endorsed

[1:02:57] by police, fire, and city employees and I think that is, excuse me, I'm really emotional

[1:03:09] there.

[1:03:10] It's tough when you get old and I get emotional.

[1:03:13] But that has been very important to me and I want to thank all those employees for those

[1:03:22] endorsements over the years and you're going to have to pick somebody else's time.

[1:03:29] Thank you.

[1:03:30] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:03:34] I usually save my comments to last and let my other council member speak first of it.

[1:03:40] This is why this is a hard act.

[1:03:41] This is a hard to follow.

[1:03:42] I just, one thing, Councilman Recourse said, and he and I are on the Finance Committee together, and as people throughout this council have said, the city is in good financial shape, and one thing that the Finance Committee recommended to the council, which we are doing, is we know this challenge is coming down the road on the pension, so instead of waiting until it's down that we're down the road, we are putting money away every year. That's why we're making cuts. We're not making cuts this year and next year, because we can't pay that year's bills.

[1:04:12] We're putting money into a savings account so we can pay what we know is coming down the road.

[1:04:16] So I think we're showing pretty good fiscal responsibility on doing that and not just waiting until it's too late.

[1:04:24] I also wanted to add, which I wasn't expecting to say that I'm really personally stepping into this seat as

[1:04:30] and one of the new kids on the block was tough.

[1:04:33] And I remember, you know, I've watched these two council members for years and I have so much respect for them.

[1:04:39] I so appreciate the guidance they've given me numerous times in City Hall they've told me hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, they've given me course corrections show we say and although I've always agreed with them and everything I was tremendous respect and admiration and appreciation for both of them and I know miss vote particularly I remember 15 years ago

[1:05:00] campaign manager invited me to her, one of her first fundraisers and I, she was the first candidate, 15 years ago that I ever wrote a thousand-dollar check to her campaign.

[1:05:09] So I think that was a very good investment. So thank you both for, no, it's not bad.

[1:05:14] But thank you very much to both of you for all the, and also if you remember back a year and a half ago when I was sitting up here the first few meetings in Jenny was next to me, I was constantly going to, Jenny, Jenny, what do I do now?

[1:05:25] So, thank you for all the help you've given sitting next to me over the last year and a half.

[1:05:31] I did forget one very important thing.

[1:05:33] Besides the fact that I also want to see the Virgin very badly in this town, but I also wanted to let everyone know.

[1:05:42] And I can't start this because I don't have that ability, but whoever has that ability if we have anyone in the audience who has a singing ability.

[1:05:51] I really would like us to sing happy birthday to our city manager, so if somebody could start that for me

[1:05:59] I would really appreciate that because you don't want me to start it, but maybe cheap rails could come in and start that for us

[1:06:08] Okay, I'll leave it ready one two three happy birthday to you happy birthday

[1:06:29] And that's a happy birthday to a city manager who is delivered balanced budgets for the last 17 years.

[1:06:37] Thank you, sir.

[1:06:42] Okay, well moving right along.

[1:06:44] I will entertain a motion to accept the consent calendar without items one F and one I and Mayor Protemp.

[1:06:52] Vote will be recusing yourself on item one E.

[1:06:55] So moved.

[1:06:58] Motion's been made in second and all in favor.

[1:07:00] Any opposed?

[1:07:01] Seeing none opposed?

[1:07:02] The motion passes.

[1:07:04] Okay.

[1:07:05] I had a first item.

[1:07:06] I had that was pulled.

[1:07:08] Item one.

[1:07:11] Second reading and adoption of ordinance number 1932.

[1:07:13] Adding and amending the Palm Springs Municipal Code regarding loud, unusual noises

[1:07:17] and landscape related businesses prohibiting gasoline power,

[1:07:29] I would like to ask to have this pulled for a separate vote, and then also to ask the majority of the council if they would, if they would think of

[1:07:49] excluding golf courses from that ordinance.

[1:07:55] It's a bit of an unfair advantage in that.

[1:08:00] Some golf courses in the city will will be using leaf

[1:08:04] lower, no matter what this ordinance reflects.

[1:08:09] And that for the limited disturbances, and et cetera,

[1:08:17] from that could be created by that,

[1:08:19] I think it would be, and we heard that when we heard it before, we heard some requests for

[1:08:26] that abstention.

[1:08:27] But I know Mr. Mayor asked him information as well that he'd like to share on that.

[1:08:33] I'm checked in.

[1:08:35] I know Indian Wells is band leaf blowers, but they do allow the gasoline-parleaf blowers

[1:08:39] on their golf courses, because of the golf courses there's a large and they're out there

[1:08:44] and it's hard for them to slip around the batteries, and they certainly aren't going

[1:08:48] on the power cord. So I believe that there is precedent for

[1:08:53] exempting the golf courses and also is Mayor, because

[1:08:56] Councillor Miller-Milson, some of the golf courses that are owned by the tribe would

[1:09:01] be exempt from this and our city golf courses and probably own golf courses that are not

[1:09:07] on tribal land would be required to do it. So it makes us somewhat of an uneven playing field.

[1:09:11] Mr. Mayor, I apologize for interjecting during Council discussion of Council Member Mills,

[1:09:18] I'd like to apprise you that since this would be a substantive change to the ordinance as it was introduced you're perfectly welcome to accept that motion to make that amendment

[1:09:29] But that will make this a first reading another reintroduction and we will come back and we will

[1:09:35] Actually adopt this ordinance at your first meeting in September the reason that may not be a big deal is that it's not effective till January of 2019 anyway

[1:09:44] The problem is you have the exchange that's scheduled for August 11th and I see that

[1:09:51] Council Member Cores was ready to depart on that because that is a big deal for the

[1:09:56] various providers of landscaping services in the kitchen.

[1:10:00] So, I apologize that I don't have the capacity to let you make that amendment and have it be a second reading.

[1:10:09] I recognize that, however, I don't think if we were to have a second, if we were to alter this, change it and then may have a second reading when we come back.

[1:10:17] That would not stop people from going and going ahead and doing the transition.

[1:10:20] What I'd prefer for you to do if you're inclined to take this action is to direct staff to come back with an exemption in September,

[1:10:28] rather than doing it at this juncture, and we can certainly oblige that, and again, I don't think that will impact any of the golf courses because the ban is not going to go into effect immediately, so that would be my recommended course of action.

[1:10:42] That's fine if people would think about it over the break, and then we could address it again in the fall, yes?

[1:10:49] If you're going to bring something back on that,

[1:10:52] maybe we can get a little more information on other cities,

[1:10:56] as well, since we didn't get the stuff from the golf course

[1:10:59] associations till sort of that night,

[1:11:02] if you're going to bring it back,

[1:11:04] I'd be interested in getting information.

[1:11:07] We certainly wouldn't present it to you without some background,

[1:11:09] and your points taken, and it's in my night.

[1:11:12] We'll bring back some stuff on that night.

[1:11:13] I appreciate the enforceability on tribal land,

[1:11:18] But if that was sort of a criteria, we wouldn't do anything.

[1:11:21] No, I'm just saying that with law forces is not quite fair.

[1:11:24] Well, I would just like to say,

[1:11:27] there's a follow-up of Councilman Coors,

[1:11:30] beyond what other cities are doing.

[1:11:31] I'd like to know how many golf courses we have in the city

[1:11:37] that would be exempt.

[1:11:39] So essentially, I'd like to get a real quantity or quantify

[1:11:43] what that means.

[1:11:44] How many blowers are we going to keep working?

[1:11:47] And I guess we would probably define that through how many golf courses we have, what is considered

[1:11:53] golf course and what isn't, I think there's going to be a lot of definition in that.

[1:11:58] I don't, Dr. Radice Stacey isn't here at a night issue.

[1:12:02] So, I know there's been exhaustive research done in this and Stacey might already have a lot

[1:12:07] of this information, but I understand your request, councilman Mills, but I think for me it

[1:12:16] depends on what kind of a loophole this is going to end up really being. Are we going to

[1:12:21] really make any difference in doing this, if we let those through. So I'm willing to look

[1:12:26] at it, but I too want more information. May I put my preference would be to vote and pass

[1:12:34] this this evening. And then if there is further information, we can then amend this ordinance.

[1:12:40] And so I, when we get to this, I would, I would, I would, I would, I would, I would, I would, I would, I would, I would, I would, I would move, I would move the item.

[1:12:52] I'll second.

[1:12:53] Oh, yeah.

[1:12:54] I have no, I have no objection to addressing it in September to you, Councilman Mills.

[1:12:57] And that's fine.

[1:12:58] You have to people time to think about it.

[1:13:00] Okay.

[1:13:01] Would you do a voice vote, please?

[1:13:03] I'm a city clerk?

[1:13:03] Yes, sir.

[1:13:04] Council member, of course.

[1:13:06] Council member Mills.

[1:13:08] Council member Roberts?

[1:13:09] Yes.

[1:13:09] Mayor Pro Temphote. Yes. Mayor Moon. No. This was adopted with a 3-2 vote.

[1:13:19] Council number Mills and Mayor Moon, voting no. Okay, thank you very much. Next item item one eye.

[1:13:25] A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California acknowledging compliance with

[1:13:30] RIT of mandate regarding planned development district, PDD 374, the 750 loss project, located

[1:13:36] at 715 North Palm Canyon Drive and ordering reconsideration

[1:13:39] by the Architectural Advisory Committee

[1:13:40] in the Planning Commission case number 5.1350PDD,

[1:13:44] et cetera, et cetera, to address three project issues,

[1:13:46] including parking, building height, and setback.

[1:13:50] Mayor, Councillor Miller Mills.

[1:13:52] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I pulled it strictly for separate vote.

[1:13:58] I was going to pull it, but here we did.

[1:14:00] I did have a question.

[1:14:02] In referring it back to Planning AC,

[1:14:05] And we sort of discussed the issues.

[1:14:07] One of the things we discussed was, and it might not have been in the motion.

[1:14:11] So I want to raise it now, as this is in a historic district.

[1:14:14] And so we had conditions from HSPB.

[1:14:17] So those that the city prior to the council had reversed.

[1:14:22] So those part of what goes back to planning AC or not.

[1:14:25] Because if not, I would want HSPB to look at any new project

[1:14:28] in the historic district.

[1:14:30] I assume any significant changes would need to go back to HSPB automatically.

[1:14:34] The status of the project is exactly what it is, which is to say the Council voted to rescind the PDD,

[1:14:42] the Council voted to rescind the conditional use permits to them and the major architectural.

[1:14:50] The direction was to send it back to planning and AAC for purposes of height and setback and the parking issue vis-à-vis the event space.

[1:14:59] if you would

[1:15:00] We should go back to HSPB. It certainly can. That's not inappropriate. And the council can give that direction. This is just a resolution. And I can make that amendment to the resolution at the direction of a council majority.

[1:15:16] What I think should happen is if it doesn't meet the criteria HSPB, if it's set for the project, then it should go back. If it doesn't meet it, it shouldn't.

[1:15:25] The Council is getting a different, it'll be a different project, right?

[1:15:29] Well, the Council's conditions ultimately approved in the PDD were stricken, so those are gone.

[1:15:37] Those are gone to the extent that HSPB conditions were integrated in that document, those are gone.

[1:15:43] Same would apply for CUP and I apologize.

[1:15:46] I'd be a liar if I told you I had every condition of every one of those approvals memorized, committed to memory, or otherwise.

[1:15:51] It would be appropriate and reasonable if you're concerned about the HSPB conditions to refer

[1:15:58] to HSPB because absent that referral, there will be only the HSPB conditions that came out

[1:16:06] of HSPB.

[1:16:07] I will also state if this project actually moves forward and if this project actually proceeds

[1:16:13] through planning and AAC, the Council would have the discretion to add back those conditions

[1:16:18] if it wanted to, regardless of whether HSPB hears it or not.

[1:16:21] So you haven't lost any of your power with respect to this project, and if it makes its

[1:16:27] way back to the council at some point in time, you can add those if you're concerned about

[1:16:32] having lost them.

[1:16:33] If you think further HSPB consideration would assist the council, you can certainly refer

[1:16:37] it there.

[1:16:39] I think that was a yes.

[1:16:40] For me, but go ahead.

[1:16:41] Well, you know, we rescinded it.

[1:16:45] We killed it.

[1:16:45] Right.

[1:16:46] It's no longer hotel, it's back to a bank that looks like it fell in Mosul.

[1:16:53] So what I would want to suggest is we have no reason yet to believe that it needs to go to HSPD.

[1:17:01] HSPD has a very specific charge and right now we have zero project.

[1:17:07] So what I would like it to do is go through once they bring back a new project and it goes through AC and planning,

[1:17:14] And we can then determine if it needs to go through HSBB, but right now we don't have anything

[1:17:18] to send.

[1:17:21] We know it will have to go through planning as a new project, it will have to go through

[1:17:25] AC and Blany Commission, but we don't know about anything else.

[1:17:29] So you know, let's work, my take on this is, let's not worry about it until, you know, let's

[1:17:35] not worry about something that hasn't happened yet.

[1:17:37] Let's see the project that comes forward first.

[1:17:40] It may not have any need whatsoever to go before HSBBB.

[1:17:43] that may not even be a hotel anymore.

[1:17:46] But whether or not it's a hotel,

[1:17:49] whatever any new project that would be built

[1:17:51] in the historic district would have to go

[1:17:53] to HSPP, correct?

[1:17:57] If it was a new project coming forward.

[1:17:59] And that's what this is, isn't it?

[1:18:00] Absolutely, well, no, it's not.

[1:18:04] Realistically speaking, the council has the full benefit

[1:18:07] of an HSPP proceeding.

[1:18:09] HSPP did, in fact, address and approve conditions of approval

[1:18:13] to the extent that those conditions related to the height, the setback, or the parking

[1:18:19] issue for the event space, they would be moved to the extent that there anything else

[1:18:24] they would still remain valid for the Council's consideration and imposition if, again,

[1:18:28] this project makes its way back to the Council and the hypothetical sense.

[1:18:33] So, I would just head developer to go through a whole process with planning and AAC and

[1:18:40] So to hold a bunch of money, bring it back to us

[1:18:42] without direction regarding the fact

[1:18:47] that's in a historic district.

[1:18:48] And if there are three of you who

[1:18:49] want to go to HSPB, it's certainly shell.

[1:18:52] So that would be what my motion would be

[1:18:54] that it goes back to HSPB a

[1:19:01] second.

[1:19:02] Now, I'll second it.

[1:19:04] I think actually, HSPB should look at it again.

[1:19:07] And better to go ahead and improve it now

[1:19:08] than wait till later and have to revamp the whole thing.

[1:19:12] But that's sort of a theoretical point right now.

[1:19:15] but was covered with the theoretical?

[1:19:18] I will add it to the resolution.

[1:19:20] There's no problem if that's the majority.

[1:19:22] We haven't voted yet.

[1:19:24] So your motion is to approve this with that amendment.

[1:19:32] I'd like to note for the record before you take a vote that

[1:19:35] because some documents were inadvertently not included

[1:19:38] in the mayor's pro-tams agenda packet.

[1:19:42] She's asked me what's the appropriate course of action.

[1:19:45] this happens to be one of the one H and one I were not in her agenda packet so she's going to be

[1:19:52] abstaining on this vote with respect to one I and I would encourage and direct the city clerk to change

[1:20:00] Each her vote on one h as it was taken with the rest of the consent calendar to an abstention, not a no vote, but an abstention, because, again, she didn't have the benefit of the staff report being in her packet.

[1:20:12] Okay, city clerk, can you so note, please?

[1:20:14] Yes. I think she's got it. I know where she works.

[1:20:18] Okay, measure one eye is on the floor of the first and a second.

[1:20:23] I'm sorry,

[1:20:29] I'm sorry.

[1:20:29] I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[1:20:29] I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[1:20:29] to be voting to modify the resolution.

[1:20:32] So this is votes for the modifying the resolution

[1:20:34] to include HSVB.

[1:20:36] Yes, sir.

[1:20:38] OK.

[1:20:40] Senator Clerk, please do a roll call vote.

[1:20:43] Yes, sir.

[1:20:44] Council member, of course.

[1:20:46] Council member Mills?

[1:20:48] Council member Roberts?

[1:20:50] No.

[1:20:52] Council member, I'm excuse me.

[1:20:54] Mayor, Prote him, vote.

[1:20:56] Thank you.

[1:20:57] Mayor Moon?

[1:20:57] Yes.

[1:20:59] Approved.

[1:21:01] No, there's a two vote the motion does not pass it does not prevail if the council wishes to take action on the resolution as it's stated that would be an appropriate motion at this time.

[1:21:12] Okay, I'll make a motion for the rest of the we vote on resolution as it's printed right here.

[1:21:18] We have a first all second.

[1:21:20] Questions been made in seconded.

[1:21:22] Council member, city clerk please do a roll call vote.

[1:21:28] Council member, of course.

[1:21:34] It'll come back and we'll get a staff report to Mayor Protemphote.

[1:21:38] Let's go back in September.

[1:21:41] Excuse me.

[1:21:41] I do have a question on this because aren't we now voting on exactly what was in our packet the last time?

[1:21:48] You're voting to formalize the direction that you gave to the council for all the reasons we stated it last time.

[1:21:54] Right. And so that I did study and that I did vote on. So if there's, if there's, you know, if this is not a new direction, then there was no new direction within the staff report, then I certainly feel like I could vote on that.

[1:22:11] Well, there was no changes.

[1:22:13] That's essentially true. This document and this agenda item were not placed before you with the intention of doing anything new,

[1:22:21] strictly to formalize the council direction.

[1:22:24] And it's a resolution, basically following through on the direction you gave last time.

[1:22:29] That's exactly what this is.

[1:22:31] If you feel comfortable voting on the matter, I've had.

[1:22:33] And there was no changes that I would have had to study from what I saw the last time.

[1:22:39] That's certainly accurate.

[1:22:41] So let me ask the question then, on the last item, which I raised,

[1:22:47] was new, so whether she had an or packet or not several of it.

[1:22:51] So she is able to vote on that.

[1:22:53] If she feels comfortable, if she feels comfortable participating in the matter, the appropriate

[1:22:58] parliamentary procedure at this point in time would be for one of the motion makers or

[1:23:03] seconders to make a motion for reconsideration of the matter in light of this.

[1:23:09] But that's totally new.

[1:23:10] So there was nothing that she would have known ahead of time or any of us.

[1:23:14] I didn't even know I was going to do this.

[1:23:16] Mr. Coerce.

[1:23:17] Yes.

[1:23:18] No.

[1:23:18] Okay.

[1:23:21] Mr. Mayor, there's, I think there's a motion in a second on that.

[1:23:25] Yeah, one last question, and the problem is the last question, at least my last question.

[1:23:31] We really need to do this, this has already been sent back to the court.

[1:23:34] It has.

[1:23:35] We've filed our return and purred the terms of the return.

[1:23:40] We have 180 days to take action before we go back to court and tell the court, well, this

[1:23:45] is what's happened in the interim.

[1:23:47] Okay.

[1:23:48] All right, motion is on the floor, I'm going to say the clerk.

[1:23:52] The motion on the floor is to approve the resolution as presented.

[1:23:57] As presented, yes.

[1:23:59] Council member Courses.

[1:24:03] Yes.

[1:24:04] Council member Mills.

[1:24:07] Council member Roberts.

[1:24:09] Let me think about this.

[1:24:12] Mayor Potempho.

[1:24:14] Yes.

[1:24:15] Mayor Moon.

[1:24:16] Yes.

[1:24:17] approved, four, one, zero, noting the no vote of Councilmember Mills.

[1:24:24] Okay, thank you very much for-

[1:24:26] Mr. Mayor, for a perfectly clear record.

[1:24:28] Mayor Protem's votes abstention on one-H will remain.

[1:24:34] Right, and she is accused on item one-E.

[1:24:36] Correct again.

[1:24:37] Okay, next item, ready to move on?

[1:24:39] I'm going to burn.

[1:24:40] Everybody ready to move on?

[1:24:42] Okay, public hearings.

[1:24:43] Item two, a request for Councilmember,

[1:24:44] Council Member review pursuant to Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.10.00 of an action by the planning commission to approve a request by Woodbridge specific group on behalf of our EFDC camera on for an amendment to allow minor changes to design color materials.

[1:25:00] Reduction of massing in heights in certain units of the previously approved final PDD plans for the camera on project located at 850990 cell palm canyon drive. Do we have a staff report on this please?

[1:25:13] Yes, Mr. Mayor and Council. Thank you. I'll be brief. On June 28, the planning commission reviewed and approved an amendment to a final plan development district for the camera and project.

[1:25:25] as noted on page two of your staff report, that minor amendment addressed reduction of

[1:25:30] massing a selected units, reduction of heights in certain units, change of building materials,

[1:25:36] a new color palette, and new garage door treatments. The planning commission did approve

[1:25:41] that minor amendment to the final PD, and in accordance with the city's codes for council

[1:25:49] call up Council Member Cores requested that the item be brought to you tonight for your consideration.

[1:25:55] Thus the Planning Commission's action has been set aside pending your action tonight.

[1:26:01] This is a public hearing.

[1:26:03] It was a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and so this item will be considered

[1:26:07] a public hearing.

[1:26:08] We'd recommend that you open the public hearing and take testimony, and then at the wishes

[1:26:14] of the Council take action as you deem appropriate.

[1:26:17] In your yellow folder, there is a PowerPoint presentation which gives an overview of the

[1:26:25] amended final PD that was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as well as

[1:26:29] in your packet or the full architectural drawings for those changes.

[1:26:33] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:26:34] Thank you, Mr. Four.

[1:26:35] Now, any questions or staff before we open the public hearing?

[1:26:38] Yes, I do.

[1:26:41] Some markets.

[1:26:41] Can you just briefly explain how the gates work on this project and also why this is still

[1:26:47] valid given the timelines.

[1:26:50] I now have that information, so I understand it.

[1:26:52] I have heard from several members in the community.

[1:26:55] So if you can explain that, that would be appreciated.

[1:26:58] Certainly.

[1:27:02] In your yellow folder, the PowerPoint presentation,

[1:27:06] if I could have the PowerPoints brought up,

[1:27:20] if you have your printout on page 1, 2, 3, 4,

[1:27:26] There's a site plan that identifies the locations of the gates.

[1:27:36] There's one emergency gate off of random road.

[1:27:40] Thank you, and there's the slide.

[1:27:42] And then there's two main access gates.

[1:27:45] And the point of the, in the context of this project,

[1:27:49] the point of the gates was to separate the commercial portion

[1:27:53] of the project from the residential project.

[1:27:56] And so, that's the layout of the site, the approved site plan with the gated entrances.

[1:28:04] We also did provide in your yellow packet the timeline for this project, which is included.

[1:28:13] And this was one of those projects that was approved originally in 2006 and in the depths

[1:28:19] of the recession.

[1:28:20] the tentative map was automatically extended, concurrent with that though the planned development

[1:28:27] district needed to be extended by separate actions of the city, which did occur from 2008

[1:28:34] through 2015.

[1:28:38] Throughout that time, the original entitlements in the original project as it was approved

[1:28:43] remain valid. Most recently in December of 2015 there was a prior amendment to the project

[1:28:53] that added roof decks to some of the residential units and then most recently last month

[1:28:59] was the latest amendment.

[1:29:02] Great, thank you.

[1:29:04] Or any other questions or staff, or we open public comments? Okay, seeing none, we will open

[1:29:10] public comments. It's time. The applicant has the applicant has up to five minutes

[1:29:15] to present their case and if requested we'll have two minutes available at the end of

[1:29:18] 40 buttle. Members of the public are invited to speak. This public caring for up to two

[1:29:23] minutes. With that, applicant, they have five minutes.

[1:29:28] Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank Mayor Protam and Councilman, member, Chris Mills

[1:29:36] on their service. We've been involved in the city for four years working on projects and then

[1:29:41] anticipate being involved in more to come and I've always found you to be fair and very

[1:29:49] constructive and going forward with our projects and making recommendations. So I can graduate

[1:29:55] like you, we're making a decision and I say congratulations because I assume it's it's

[1:30:00] That's best for you.

[1:30:03] This project, as Marcus explained, was approved in 2006.

[1:30:12] It changed ownership.

[1:30:17] And we recently, at Woodbridge Pacific Group, have been brought in to replace a prior developer to manage the project for the current owner, which is

[1:30:26] capital, and we are proceeding down that path, and we are proceeding to get ready to do the

[1:30:33] improvements on Palm Canyon. We're in Mesquite and as part of getting the project started,

[1:30:40] we wanted to go back through and change some of the architectural elements, predominantly color,

[1:30:46] some floor plan issues, some massing issues, and through that process actually reduced the height

[1:30:51] some of the buildings,

[1:30:54] the color palettes are light, fresh.

[1:30:58] You know, we did several focus groups as part of our sky project on the offer

[1:31:05] alone, and out of those focus groups that became apparent that the market really

[1:31:10] preferred a lighter palette, a wider palette, and our project that we designed

[1:31:14] over there is very light and fresh looking, and then when we got involved in this project,

[1:31:19] We looked at the kind of the heavy green and mustard yellow and other

[1:31:23] some of the other colors that were currently involved.

[1:31:26] As part of this project, and said we need to change that and bring it up to speed.

[1:31:31] Since it's about 11 years old, when that was done.

[1:31:34] So we did that and we took it through AC and planning commission.

[1:31:37] We got glowing reviews.

[1:31:39] We got unanimous decisions in favor of the changes.

[1:31:43] And we're very happy with the outcome of that process.

[1:31:49] My understanding now is that this was brought up predominantly because of the gates that are involved within the project.

[1:31:57] And this project is a little bit different than a normal project.

[1:32:00] And as Mark has said, there's a commercial element along South Palm Canyon.

[1:32:06] And there's a main street that comes in off of Palm Canyon and Swing South and goes down to Mesquite.

[1:32:12] And with that comes a certain amount of traffic and outside traffic and cars and people that are coming to the commercial center and then you've got two access points into the residential portion, which is a townhouse project, and that those access points go into what I'll call an alleyway where you go down the road to the alleyway and you've got garages.

[1:32:41] on either side and it's a fairly tight condition and I think it's important for the

[1:32:47] people that own those homes that there's not traffic from the commercial area, whether

[1:32:53] it would be a vehicular traffic in particular that goes back into those areas and causes

[1:32:59] congestion and looking for additional parking and that type of thing.

[1:33:04] So the gates are there to separate the commercial from the residential.

[1:33:08] There is pedestrian access into the community, but the gates are specifically for to keep

[1:33:15] the commercial traffic from seeking parking or other, you know, why are there reason they

[1:33:22] want to drive down an alley of garages? I don't know why, but so that's the point of the gates.

[1:33:29] This project has over $1.8 million of money invested in it. In infrastructure, sewer, water, storm

[1:33:36] and grading, curbing gutter on reliance of the project that's there, which does include

[1:33:42] gates.

[1:33:45] And if it is the pleasure of the council that they would approve the architectural changes

[1:33:54] or made, which were unanimously approved by PC and AAC, but then maybe want to remove

[1:34:01] of the gates, then I know the ownership would want to step back and think about that.

[1:34:10] And so we may, after this discussion, want to continue this so that we have some better

[1:34:19] understanding as to what the impact of possible losing the gates or revert back to the architecture

[1:34:26] that's already approved and withdraw the request for the amendment.

[1:34:35] I don't think I have anything else to say and I'd be certainly willing to speak after the public testimony.

[1:34:40] Thank you.

[1:34:40] Thank you very much.

[1:34:41] You will have two minutes at the end for we but all few wish and also thank you for being available for questions.

[1:34:47] We will now take public speakers.

[1:34:49] One person is requested to speak.

[1:34:51] Judy, do you track?

[1:35:05] And I apologize, is this on Woodbridge? I just walked in.

[1:35:10] Yes. First of all, my name is Judy Deer Track. I am a candidate for city council.

[1:35:17] And I want to make a comment on the rebuttal that was given on earlier testimony by the city council.

[1:35:23] I think it's deeply, I'm sorry, I'm, yeah.

[1:35:30] When we get up and speak at this podium, I think anybody tested for me.

[1:35:35] They'll be a period later on when you can speak on anything you'd like.

[1:35:38] This is very much on subject because I don't want it to happen at the end of what I say right now.

[1:35:44] So this is part of my two-minute testimony.

[1:35:48] It's just asking the basic respect that when we get up and talk to you for two minutes,

[1:35:52] that that is respected for what it is.

[1:35:55] I think it's very wrong and I would never do it to another person.

[1:35:59] And I'm asking with respect to the end of my wood.

[1:36:02] I'm sorry.

[1:36:03] I know you're resisting me on this, but you have got to only address this public hearing item or please sit down.

[1:36:11] Thank you.

[1:36:11] You're more than welcome to address anything you wish and the comments.

[1:36:15] I'm sorry, but you're speaking through my time.

[1:36:20] Well, you're wasting our time by speaking on a subject, which is not on the floor right now.

[1:36:25] You have 52, 51 seconds left.

[1:36:27] You'd like to go.

[1:36:28] I don't think it would do any good to be truthful.

[1:36:31] I think it's gotten to a point, but I wouldn't.

[1:36:32] But I will say for the general public, that on the Woodbridge project, and this

[1:36:38] is has to do with the general plan, that project was reserved as a mixed-use district for

[1:36:44] that community, for the neighborhood around it, and the tourism that is going to occur at

[1:36:49] the end of the CV link.

[1:36:51] And it was converted to single-family residential and your town homes instead.

[1:36:58] We just had a recent study where I found out that about 85% of the planning decisions

[1:37:03] made over the last 10 to 12 years are not either following a general plan, a specific plan

[1:37:09] or the ordinances, and this is another instance of it.

[1:37:12] Thank you very much.

[1:37:14] Thank you Mr. Trek.

[1:37:15] Next speaker will be Frank Tyson.

[1:37:24] Can you hear me?

[1:37:25] Yes.

[1:37:26] Okay.

[1:37:26] I want to make it clear that I'm not against the woodwitch development.

[1:37:33] I actually testified on the behalf and it is a sky project, but I've been very much concerned

[1:37:38] about maintaining the character of Palm Springs and what concerns me about this project

[1:37:43] that it's 11 year old PDD, which, of course, is all the pitfalls of the PDD and very

[1:37:55] this point that we should start also looking, and this may be the time to do it, at Bill

[1:38:04] overbuilding residential.

[1:38:05] We have in the last six months approved something like $6,000 to $2,000 residential units.

[1:38:13] And, you know, many years ago, half a century ago, I was chairman of the Landris Committee

[1:38:17] of the State Environmental Quality Study Council pointed by Governor Reagan and we looked

[1:38:21] that is, and it was very clear that houses don't help the financial safety of this financial

[1:38:29] viability of the city, because the property taxes, unless the places are very expensive,

[1:38:36] do not cover the cost, and if we are concerned about our economic viability, we need to

[1:38:41] really do a study on this.

[1:38:43] So I think this is very important that we just don't really know the approved projects just

[1:38:49] have more houses because they don't help to help the city.

[1:38:53] There's one thing I also like to say about an answer to Mr. Roberts.

[1:39:00] He educated me that too many high rises downtown were not good for the city that would

[1:39:07] black to mountains and now he's changed his mind like he often does and also a one

[1:39:13] comment on his vote.

[1:39:14] She also is the one that mentioned the word bankrupt arms, not I, and I think that we need this the voter need to know

[1:39:21] Frank are you still talking about the wood ridge project? No, no, okay, then please stop

[1:39:26] But that's the voters know what thank you Mr. Christ you're trying to do this

[1:39:29] Well

[1:39:34] actually when you're talking and they're talking I'm trying to listen to you. I can't hear what they're saying

[1:39:37] So

[1:39:40] Okay, well, it's it's stopped now. It's stopped now. Does it is the applicant wish to speak on rebuttal?

[1:39:48] Mr. Dyson, you're out of order, please.

[1:39:55] There was a comment about the project being 100% residential.

[1:39:58] This project is a mixed use.

[1:40:00] Project has commercial has residential bills, so I'm not sure where that came from. I will tell you, I saw a study about talking about housing in Palm Springs.

[1:40:10] Eight out of the ten of the active selling new home projects and Palm Springs will probably be sold out within a year. The demand is good, houses are selling. There is a need for housing in the city.

[1:40:23] I'm looking for some guidance on this gate issue as to whether I need to

[1:40:29] continue to ask for a continuous on this, or we can go forward, so I'm not sure what to do

[1:40:37] here.

[1:40:38] Thank you.

[1:40:38] We'll be discussing this in the opinion of the Council members has questions.

[1:40:41] As a question for you, we know you're right there and you can answer them for us.

[1:40:45] I was advised by the City Attorney once the public here in the case closed, I cannot ask

[1:40:51] or it continues.

[1:40:53] I did tell you about it.

[1:40:54] Mr. Mayor, I did tell the developer that it wasn't his right to resume the podium to make

[1:41:00] a formal request after the public hearing was concluded, and I think if I understand him correctly,

[1:41:06] he's simply trying to understand where the council members are coming from.

[1:41:09] If you'll indulge the developer and it's an if, it's up to the council with whatever questions

[1:41:14] you have after debate, I think that'll satisfy the developer.

[1:41:18] Okay.

[1:41:19] Thank you.

[1:41:19] Thank you, Mr. Codkin. Okay, questions of the developer.

[1:41:23] Okay, comment.

[1:41:24] Mr. Roberts?

[1:41:26] I don't have a question of the developer. I'm very familiar with this project. I just want to say for the benefit of the council.

[1:41:32] The reason that, originally, the gates were approved for this project was because this project actually met a very important part of the, of the PDD requirement.

[1:41:44] and that is it is a mixed use project and again contrary to the misinformation that comes

[1:41:49] from the public this is a mixed use project with a full retail component even though

[1:41:55] the general plan says that we want housing developments without gates we make allowances

[1:42:01] occasionally when we realize that the housing development is going to have big problems

[1:42:07] without them and the concern with this project was that when you have a retail component

[1:42:12] in front of a housing project that you then know and if you don't have any at least car gates you're going to have problems with traffic and parking and there's no real way to police that well so in this particular case it actually made sense to have drive gates on this project and also contrary to what people are saying publicly

[1:42:35] How's this benefit people is who they benefit?

[1:42:38] Maybe they don't necessarily benefit the city,

[1:42:40] but they benefit people, and we're actually here,

[1:42:42] to serve the people, and the truth of the matter is

[1:42:45] on housing is these guys can't build them fast enough.

[1:42:50] The project this man is scanning before us,

[1:42:52] the other project that he's completing

[1:42:53] is selling before it's built.

[1:42:56] The second phase or third phase of it,

[1:42:58] so we do need the housing, and just because some people are here

[1:43:03] don't feel we should allow anybody else in, the reality is we need housing for other people

[1:43:08] who might want to move here and they're standing in line to get this housing. So I'm grateful

[1:43:15] of this project is coming through. I'm grateful that you picked it up because I know it pretty

[1:43:21] much crashed and burned after it was approved and you have proven to be a developer of great

[1:43:27] and sensitivity to the community, so thank you.

[1:43:30] Thank you.

[1:43:31] Of course.

[1:43:32] Hopefully we can make this quick.

[1:43:35] I called it up.

[1:43:36] I wasn't on the planning commission or the council when this came through.

[1:43:40] And I asked plan director, unfortunately, or for him, probably, is fortunately

[1:43:44] on vacation.

[1:43:45] Because I heard some things about the gates, and I wanted an explanation of why there

[1:43:50] are gates in this project.

[1:43:52] The developer, the applicant, I emailed each other.

[1:43:55] I'm very satisfied with the response and I'm prepared to move the item.

[1:44:00] Okay, since we're still in asking the developer questions, I'll freeze it in that way.

[1:44:06] There was some comments made about being a stale PDD, still architecture, however,

[1:44:11] I watched this go through the planning commission and this previous council and you discussed the gates and I think it was a very good discussion on the gates.

[1:44:18] Has anything changed since then?

[1:44:20] But you I did also watch the recent where you talked about the update upgrade and you changed the heights around and you changed the colors

[1:44:28] And so the arc you feel obviously you know what you're doing because sky has been tremendously successful

[1:44:33] You feel that the architecture is contemporary with 2017 and on yes

[1:44:37] Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Mayor Potem. Yeah, I I also voted in favor of this project when it first came through and I think the

[1:44:47] I think there's been some great improvements actually in the architecture, so I wanted to complement you on that.

[1:44:55] And I also want to make sure that still in this architecture and I guess on...

[1:45:00] I don't remember what is page 72 or something like that.

[1:45:05] There's a letter from Bill Post, who's been involved with the Takut's Creek Plan page 72, since it started

[1:45:17] and also that's part of the CB link is.

[1:45:22] And so I just want to assurance from you that that landscaping of that area is still going

[1:45:31] to be included as was mentioned in Mr. Post's letter.

[1:45:36] Yes, landscaping along the trail in the creek.

[1:45:39] And there's also a trailhead park at South Pump Canyon that will all be included with the development

[1:45:45] of the project.

[1:45:46] Okay, I'm really pleased because I, this, I mean, just as we said earlier, people come up here and say things that aren't right, and this has been a mixed use project since the beginning, and I'm so glad that you're moving on it, because the project that is current form has been a disaster for the neighborhood behind.

[1:46:07] I know that the triangle in, which is right behind this project, has had thousands of dollars worth of damage from blowing sand and dirt and everything else in their pools and so I'm just really pleased with this project moving forward.

[1:46:25] Thank you.

[1:46:26] Councillor Miller Mills.

[1:46:28] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:46:34] It's in the change in the color certainly under standable.

[1:46:40] I get a kick out of in the staff report on page 14, in reference to why you're doing

[1:46:48] these.

[1:46:49] It says today's housing market preference for colors and materials.

[1:46:53] or lighter color palette and timeless.

[1:46:57] Well, at the time before, I think,

[1:46:59] was that it was timeless.

[1:47:00] So I always get a kick out of the word timeless

[1:47:03] is to use a few times to hear it.

[1:47:05] I don't know if that was the staff's work

[1:47:08] or your work, I don't know.

[1:47:11] I'll tell you, it's not mine, I'm not sure where it came from.

[1:47:13] I've been in our architect though.

[1:47:16] Okay, just to tell you know, this staff.

[1:47:18] I went through in detail and you can see

[1:47:21] my little blue tabs here. What I came away with was, there's some things I think made it a better

[1:47:31] project, there's some things that didn't make it a better project, but congratulations and get this

[1:47:36] thing built. Okay, before we, any other questions of the applicant? Before we close the public hearing,

[1:47:44] did you want to, I know, as I said before, I closed it. Before I, no, no, no, no, no,

[1:47:48] We were asking questions of the applicant, and then he was going to decide whether he wanted

[1:47:54] to continue answer not before we close the public hearing.

[1:47:57] I do not.

[1:47:59] Okay.

[1:47:59] Thank you.

[1:48:00] Okay.

[1:48:01] That will close our public hearing.

[1:48:03] I'll second.

[1:48:05] Motion's been made in seconded.

[1:48:06] No further discussion?

[1:48:08] I'd say no further discussion.

[1:48:09] The motion is on the floor.

[1:48:11] City Clerk.

[1:48:12] Council Member Cours.

[1:48:13] Yes.

[1:48:14] Council Member Mills.

[1:48:15] Council Member Roberts.

[1:48:16] Let me think about this.

[1:48:20] Okay.

[1:48:20] Mayor Pro Temphote.

[1:48:22] Mayor Moon.

[1:48:23] Yes.

[1:48:23] Approved.

[1:48:24] Five zero.

[1:48:25] Okay.

[1:48:26] Thank you.

[1:48:28] That moves us into legislative.

[1:48:30] Item three A.

[1:48:33] An interim urgency ordinance regarding medical cannabis related businesses and activities.

[1:48:37] is pursuant to chapter 5.45 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code to be undertaken by medical

[1:48:42] cannabis cooperatives and collectors permitted pursuant to chapter 5.35 of the code.

[1:48:47] Note that this requires a fourth-fifth vote of the City Council.

[1:48:51] We have a staff report.

[1:48:53] Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council.

[1:48:56] I will be brief.

[1:48:57] The City of Palm Springs tonight approved and adopted on second reading.

[1:49:03] It's new cannabis ordinances with respect to commercial medical cannabis and adult use with respect to adult use.

[1:49:11] That's not going to be available for people who wish to engage in that business until January 1.

[1:49:16] But the applications can start to roll in quite soon and probably will.

[1:49:21] In terms of our existing cooperatives and collectives, they've been doing business here in the city for a few years now.

[1:49:29] and they've been paying their taxes, and they've been sort of playing, if you will, with one arm tied behind their back, I think that those of us.

[1:49:39] Those of those of the group that are here in the chamber could probably come up with some more colorful examples of limitations that they've endured in order to comply with our existing ordinance.

[1:49:50] And what the Council's done tonight is its move forward based on changes in the law in a very aggressive, as it's always been very aggressive.

[1:49:58] manner with respect.

[1:50:00] The cannabis and these commercial medical uses. What the interim urgency ordinance would do is it would allow our existing collectives cooperatives to do business in a slightly different manner, to allow them to venture forth beyond their membership and venture forth beyond the limitations of our existing ordinance that is still the only effective cannabis ordinance we have, the one that's ineffective, I should say, as of right now, 30 days from now, the others will be in effect.

[1:50:28] But because of the terms of those ordinances, they are not going to be available.

[1:50:34] That is to say permits won't issue until and unless a tax initiative that is contemplated

[1:50:40] and also on tonight's agenda is approved.

[1:50:43] This interim urgency ordinance would allow our existing collectives and cooperatives to operate

[1:50:49] under the parameters of the new chapter 5.45 once it becomes effective.

[1:50:55] they will remain effectively concurrently permitted in the city in order to maintain their current

[1:51:02] subject status to the existing tax, they will continue to pay the existing tax notwithstanding

[1:51:08] this concurrent permit status, and I'm here to answer any questions if you have them.

[1:51:15] Thank you Mr. Cuckins for questions or staff?

[1:51:18] No, I've come in. Do you want to come in first?

[1:51:19] I'm coming first.

[1:51:22] Councilman, of course.

[1:51:23] Yeah, just maybe to make this as simple as possible for our existing six collectives cooperatives.

[1:51:32] This will allow them to sell product, which are allowed to do under state law, we're allowing

[1:51:40] them to sell product beyond just their members.

[1:51:42] That's correct, and it's consistent with the earlier comment that other cities have been

[1:51:47] allowing this activity to go wild.

[1:51:48] So that's all this does, it doesn't allow anyone else to open business, it doesn't do anything else.

[1:51:53] So real benefit, both to them in the city, if they can sell more, they bring in more taxes.

[1:52:00] If given other cities or allowing it, and their dispensaries are building their brand statewide,

[1:52:07] we want ours to have the same opportunity because the more they build their brands, the more taxes they're going to bring in,

[1:52:12] moving forward, so it's really in the welfare of our city to enable them to have this opportunity

[1:52:21] during this period until the ballot measure happens.

[1:52:24] I think, and I, to further clarify, because this gets so confusing, is, and I'll use an example

[1:52:31] of Mr. Van Rue's business, if his medical facility ran out of product, he could then go to

[1:52:42] another facility like Joyce or a joelys and byproduct from them. Currently we don't allow

[1:52:52] that. It does not allow them to sell to just anyone. It would have to be the other medical

[1:53:00] cannabis providers. And so right now they can only grow and use what they grow. They can't

[1:53:10] or cell to each other and they certainly can't

[1:53:14] sell to any other medical collective.

[1:53:18] And so this will be the law in, it is the law now.

[1:53:24] And in January, that will be the law also for both

[1:53:30] recreational adult cannabis and medical cannabis.

[1:53:34] And so we're just trying to give our own collective

[1:53:39] that we'll then now have the opportunity.

[1:53:43] We don't do it unselfishly because they sell more.

[1:53:46] We get more taxes.

[1:53:48] And so that's our side of it.

[1:53:52] But it's also good for them because, as Council Member Corps says,

[1:53:57] they can then start building their brand

[1:53:59] and letting everyone know that they have a good product for sale.

[1:54:05] Any other questions or of staff or comments?

[1:54:08] I move approval is presented a little second.

[1:54:11] Motion's been made and seconded.

[1:54:13] And of course I'd like to point out, you know, we're really, it's good that we're getting

[1:54:17] ahead of the curve on this and leading on this.

[1:54:21] But as we learn how this process works, we can always tweak these ordinances as we need to,

[1:54:26] just like vacation rentals.

[1:54:28] So this is something that can be changed as we learn and we move down the road.

[1:54:34] Yeah, well, the point, you know what the analogy is.

[1:54:37] Okay, the motions were made in the second motion on the floor, City Clerk.

[1:54:41] That's a member, of course.

[1:54:43] Council Member Mills.

[1:54:45] Council Member Roberts.

[1:54:46] Mayor Pro Temphote.

[1:54:48] Mayor Moon.

[1:54:49] Yes.

[1:54:51] Approved as presented.

[1:54:53] An interim urgency ordinance of the City of Palm Springs, California, regarding medical cannabis

[1:54:57] related businesses and activities.

[1:55:00] Resolute to chapter 5.45 of Palm Springs Municipal Code to be undertaken by medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives, permitted pursuant to chapter 5.35 of the code.

[1:55:18] Okay, thank you, City Clerk. We're going to go ahead and address item 3B and then we'll take a short break before we go to the next item, which is on the transactions and use tax.

[1:55:28] So item 3B, resolution ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the city, a measure

[1:55:34] of proving an and implementing a gross receipt stacks on kind of this, this is activity

[1:55:39] in a cultivation tax on commercial kind of as cultivators at the November 7th, 2017 General

[1:55:44] Municipal Election.

[1:55:45] Stafford, please.

[1:55:47] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:55:48] Members of the Council.

[1:55:49] So this item presents the city council with a tax that if approved by the qualified voters

[1:56:01] of the city will, in fact, update the existing tax that we have on our existing cooperatives

[1:56:09] collectives by effectively expanding it under Chapter 5.45 and Chapter 5.55 to commercial

[1:56:19] medical cannabis businesses and also to adult use cannabis businesses. The revenue that

[1:56:28] will come in will be greater than the revenue we're currently proceeding or receiving.

[1:56:37] And

[1:56:38] loss of that revenue, which is to say, the action you just took, placing our existing

[1:56:44] collectives and cooperatives under 5.45, they're still subject to the 5.35 tax.

[1:56:49] You're not giving up the existing revenue stream that you have.

[1:56:53] You're potentially enlarging the revenue stream by a significant amount to the extent that

[1:56:58] the voters decide by a vote in this case because it is a general tax.

[1:57:06] it's going to be 50% of the voters plus one voter, majority rule, so to speak.

[1:57:12] You'd be enlarging the revenue stream to coincide with the number of cannabis businesses

[1:57:17] that come in.

[1:57:18] This will be applicable to both cannabis on a commercial medical level and to adult use.

[1:57:25] It is effectively, as I say, an update of the existing tax, because the rate is going to effectively

[1:57:30] remain the same. It's up to 15 percent, which is what our current

[1:57:34] ordinance is as approved by the people. The rate that the council will impose

[1:57:39] the tax at and levied the tax at can be considerably lower. In fact, right now,

[1:57:45] the existing tax is at 10 percent. And I don't think there's any reason to

[1:57:49] presume the council is going to raise or lower the new tax if this initiative

[1:57:53] is approved. Maybe the council members wish to speak to that themselves. I know the

[1:57:57] committee has a lot of input with respect to this matter.

[1:58:01] They've given a huge amount of direction and support to my office and to the staff in

[1:58:06] the development of this ordinance.

[1:58:08] I want to end my comments by simply saying that with respect to the amount of revenue that

[1:58:15] it's going to bring, that's going to depend on how attractive a business environment the city

[1:58:20] of Palm Springs is deemed to be by the cannabis world.

[1:58:24] If we build that they will come is certainly one way of thinking about this and talking about this and I would

[1:58:31] Be above and beyond and outside my role as city attorney in getting into that, but I think your council subcommittee may have some comments and that would conclude my report

[1:58:39] Just okay, who was to speak first before we get into comments. I just want the council and I presume we have copies for the public

[1:58:45] There's some slight changes to the language then we're in our packets

[1:58:50] So the people are looking at the right language

[1:58:54] or in our yellow packets.

[1:58:57] We have it.

[1:59:00] You want me to read it?

[1:59:02] The title is Palm Springs Cannabis Business Taxation, and it reads as follows.

[1:59:07] Shall Palm Springs update the existing gross receipts tax on medical cannabis collectives

[1:59:12] and cooperatives to apply to all medical and adult use cannabis businesses, apart from cultivation businesses,

[1:59:18] which will be taxed at a rate of a rate of up to $10 per square foot,

[1:59:22] with all revenue used in Palm Springs to maintain and improve essential city services, including

[1:59:27] public safety and youth career prevention and education, requiring annual independent

[1:59:31] audits and public oversight.

[1:59:35] And sort of the one change of most note is we talk about the youth education and that was

[1:59:40] a request from the school district, which they're doing with all the cities and Palm Springs

[1:59:44] Unified Cathedral City.

[1:59:46] as a hot swing wrench and a large set,

[1:59:48] some money from the tax, help educate youth about drug prevention.

[1:59:52] And we thought that was a really good idea to do that.

[1:59:57] So that's really the main change, I think, from...

[2:00:00] That's correct, and Council Member Cores, and pointing that language out, is indicating where the change would occur in your resolution, placing this matter on the ballot. There's a nifty little box in the body of the resolution. This new language that Council Member Cores just read, which is available to the public, would be the new language inside the box that will be on the actual ballot.

[2:00:21] And then I have some minor edits to some of the boards.

[2:00:27] Yeah, and I just want to go because this has been Council Member Mills and I mean Council

[2:00:33] Member Coors and I have spent hours on this, along with City staff and City Attorney.

[2:00:42] And it's a very complicated issue because we're working without the final regulations from

[2:00:50] state so we tried to do, as best we could, with the outline of the regulations that they

[2:00:56] have.

[2:00:57] And in no way in here, and it's something that the subcommittee has not addressed yet,

[2:01:03] and that is the retail portion of this only deals with the taxation on the businesses.

[2:01:11] The taxes will not change on what's happening with the, with the, with our medical facility, our medical retail facilities, but what we had to do was include what is coming up, which will be the recreational adult use, we had to make a vehicle in order to be able to charge that also.

[2:01:36] We also will, in the past, the change that will happen is that our city will be hopefully a place where people will come and want to just have cultivation facilities, which is grows and the best place for that is out in the hinterland to speak, but out in the areas that are away from the city.

[2:02:06] And so in the past you could not do that under our current laws, you had to be in order to have a grow or in order to manufacture anything, you had to be connected to a license facility.

[2:02:22] So what this does is this allows us to tax any of the businesses coming in.

[2:02:31] We did not deal as a subcommittee yet, and this is important that we did not talk about yet where if any additional retail spaces would be, and that is an important part of what's going to be coming up is that is that particular part of it is that next thing, but this has nothing to do with that.

[2:02:56] This just has to make sure that the grows, if you're manufacturing, or if you're opening a,

[2:03:05] or if you're going to sell, just adult use cannabis that you will be paying tax to the city.

[2:03:13] I'd like to add one more thing.

[2:03:16] Mayor Perten, votes, comments about the cultivation.

[2:03:20] The subcommittee gave us direction to tax cultivation in a slightly different fashion.

[2:03:24] the language you read specifically, covered that.

[2:03:27] This is going to be a tax on gross receipts

[2:03:30] with regard to all cannabis businesses,

[2:03:33] with the sole and single exception of the cultivation

[2:03:35] part of the cannabis industry,

[2:03:38] which will be subject to a per square foot tax

[2:03:40] on an annual basis.

[2:03:43] It's clear?

[2:03:44] Yeah.

[2:03:46] I mean, basically, all we're doing is leveling the playing field.

[2:03:49] So our existing medical dispensaries currently pay a tax

[2:03:53] and any new businesses, whether medical or recreational,

[2:03:56] should have to pay it to.

[2:03:57] That's pretty much all this does,

[2:03:58] but we have to take it to the ballot to do it.

[2:04:01] A couple of minor things, Mr. Cotkin,

[2:04:04] that I noticed and sorry to late to perfectly

[2:04:08] all right, that's why I've got my iPad here.

[2:04:11] Mention.

[2:04:15] So in the purpose on page two of a staff report,

[2:04:19] so staff analysis, it's only a staff report,

[2:04:22] but just one point out, you go down a little bit

[2:04:25] It says, with the exception of cultivation, which would be subject to an annual cultivation,

[2:04:32] calculated the rate of, well, of calculated to the rate of $10 for square foot, it should

[2:04:37] be up to, so I want to be clear. We're not saying it's, that's the max, right? You're in

[2:04:45] 3.42010. Well, I was in your staff analysis, so it doesn't really matter there, but we have it

[2:04:50] and whereas on page 4 in the resolution,

[2:04:58] you have up to 50.

[2:05:00] Auditions of State, solicitation, reading censor, in prayer, PMF, and ambulance, service, and

[2:05:03] the public hearing, seats and pollutions. And the co-attention tax of $10 per square foot.

[2:05:08] Not up to-and to the $10 per square foot, right? Should be up to.

[2:05:12] And I can make that change in both locations.

[2:05:20] And easy change to make. Thank you.

[2:05:24] But probably should read actually to any-when you say 15 cents per $1 for

[2:05:29] needs on any sponsoring kind of business with the exception of cultivation, which will be at the

[2:05:36] rate of $10 per square foot because we're not double taxing them, right?

[2:05:40] That's correct.

[2:05:41] With the exception of cultivation businesses.

[2:05:48] And then on page seven, which is the ordinance in purpose, you have the purpose, tied to the

[2:05:57] Gross receipts, but you don't mention the cultivation, so we should add that there as well.

[2:06:04] And you're in the ordinance now,

[2:06:09] the cannabis business.

[2:06:10] Sorry, pay seven in the purpose?

[2:06:12] Yes, I see that.

[2:06:13] Right.

[2:06:13] The definition of cannabis business does in fact include cultivation, but I can certainly add that language if you wish.

[2:06:20] Right, but then cultivation isn't it 15 cents of every dollar, so we should probably make sure we're clear on that.

[2:06:31] Right? Yes, I can add the reference to 3.42.010 and a tax of $10 per square foot on cultivation activities up to, up to, up to, up to, yes.

[2:06:50] And you're saying cultivation is included under cannabis business, correct?

[2:06:55] The definition of cannabis business under the ordinance includes cultivation, yes.

[2:07:00] So do we need to then clarify that on page 9, 3.4, 2.0, 3, 0,

[2:07:06] cross receipts tax in A, we have the same thing, kind of as business,

[2:07:12] all kind of as businesses are taxed across receipts, which is an accurate.

[2:07:16] So as you probably say, with the exception of cultivation, which is then handled in section D.

[2:07:22] So there's no confusion.

[2:07:23] And I think that was addressed in 3.4.040, but I will definitely agree with you that it

[2:07:32] should be internally consistent and comprehensive.

[2:07:34] Great.

[2:07:35] Thank you.

[2:07:35] We'll add that.

[2:07:36] That's all I have.

[2:07:37] I really appreciate the turnaround on this.

[2:07:40] The two, three in the morning e-mails from you.

[2:07:43] The last two weeks.

[2:07:45] Our noticed and we really appreciate how quickly you have gotten so much work done.

[2:07:49] I have locked you on my e-mail.

[2:07:54] I know we're venturing into new territory, so this has been a lot of work, and thank you for the subcommittee for all the great work you did on this, but I just have one question of the subcommittee on page 16 paragraph D when they took under the section on enforcement.

[2:08:09] When I read this, I thought it sounded fine, except there's here. I noticed that if someone violates, we're just talking about taxes and some of these taxes could be somewhat substantial amounts.

[2:08:18] And it says if someone violates this ordinance, they'll be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor

[2:08:23] unless the city attorney in his or her discretion elect to prosecute it as an infraction.

[2:08:28] Did you feel that that was a strong enough teeth in this ordinance, or should it have some more defined fines

[2:08:34] that we do in the vacation room ordinance?

[2:08:39] Do we have, I thought we had a 25% search charge for people who, or do my attention to see that?

[2:08:47] We do we do we do have surcharges, but there could be administrative citations as well

[2:08:53] If you pay your tax

[2:08:55] You go to page 14 there fail you to pay timely

[2:09:00] There's a 25% of the tax or fee

[2:09:06] I'm surcharge. I'm not opposed to doing this differently by any means, but well you could have a belt and suspenders

[2:09:12] You could have that exact language and you could add an

[2:09:15] administrative citation or administrative fine process that, again, within the discretion of the city attorney could be levied in this, in the instance of a tax violation.

[2:09:28] I think that may make sense because I want to make sure that if we have to spend staff time or attorney time to collect taxes,

[2:09:36] that that's not coming out of our taxpayers because someone paid their taxes late.

[2:09:41] Right, so maybe attorneys fees, a fine, an attorneys fees or something?

[2:09:48] On the fly as we're sitting here.

[2:09:50] Well, I ask a, I'm not entirely on the fly, the mayor, and I'm not about this.

[2:09:54] Okay.

[2:09:55] Okay.

[2:10:00] Well, what I was going to do with your permission, I think you said you're going to take a break. I was going to actually draft the language over the break, read it to you after you came back from the break. And perhaps you can just defer the vote to the left of the break. The administrative citation language is very easy to write. It's just effectively if the council wishes to have it. I'll write it for a bit. I'll read it for a bit. And we'll simply add it as 3.42.125.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0

[2:10:30] I'd like to clarify two things, one, if we're going to give this on the ballot, we have to pass it tonight.

[2:10:35] If you're getting it on the ballot, you have to pass it tonight.

[2:10:38] And two, we have to be very careful because unlike the other ordinances, this one's going to a vote, so therefore we cannot tweak it all the tweaking has to be tonight.

[2:10:46] That's exactly right, and that's another reason I was going to ask to have the luxury of the break to incorporate these changes,

[2:10:51] because as good a typist as I might be, as competent a listener, I want to make sure that the

[2:10:59] verbiage is very clear because this will be going to the electorate.

[2:11:03] You won't have the opportunity to change it once the electorate if they so choose approve it.

[2:11:08] Well, this is not substantial changes.

[2:11:11] No, we're moving, we're moving where you forgot to put in to how quickly we did this.

[2:11:18] You forgot to put in something you put in the first paragraph, you forgot that that's accepted in the second paragraph, so it's not it's not substantial. You're just going to make it so that it all matches.

[2:11:29] That's absolutely no new information.

[2:11:31] So what's what you do that, and we'll take a short break.

[2:11:33] Well 10 minutes for you enough, you have 15.

[2:11:35] I'd like 15 if it's not too much trouble.

[2:11:37] Okay, take a 15 minute break, it's now 820.

[2:11:40] We'll break until 835.

[2:11:43] We're assessed.

[2:11:44] This is one of the important things that I can borrow.

[2:34:42] We reconvene. Okay, Mr. Cotton, do you want to review where we are on the, yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the council.

[2:34:52] I pursued to the comments. I'd added in the, whereas, plus, the recital, that is the third recital of the resolution.

[2:35:00] To which this ballot, measure will be placed on the ballot, if the council votes in that accord.

[2:35:05] Page 4 of the agenda item down at the bottom page 1 of 3 of the resolution.

[2:35:12] We will be inserting the words up to $10 on the second line of that recital clause in lieu of the word of.

[2:35:23] The next item is that in ordinance statute 3.42.010, where it says of this code, we will add with the exception of cannabis cultivation businesses, which will be subject to attacks not to exceed $10 per square foot of cannabis cultivation area.

[2:35:42] Section 3.4, 2.0, 2.0, after where it says, after 15% of gross receipts, we're going to insert

[2:35:50] the sole exception to this tax upon gross receipts.

[2:35:54] She'll be cannabis cultivation businesses comma, which are subject to the tax defined

[2:35:59] in Section 3.4, 2.0, 4.0, which is, of course, the cultivation tax.

[2:36:04] Finally, the enforcement measure that you pointed out, Mr. Mayor, it's going to read

[2:36:08] follows. In addition to the penalty imposed for a failure to timely pay any tax or fee imposed

[2:36:15] by this chapter, imposed pursuant to Section 3.42.110, the City Attorney shall have the

[2:36:23] discretion to issue an administrative citation with respect to said failure, and impose an administrative

[2:36:29] fine in the amount of $5,000 for each month that any payment of tax is overdue period.

[2:36:36] Each cannabis business subject to any such administrative citation and fine,

[2:36:41] shall have the opportunity to appeal same pursuant to chapter 2.50 of this code.

[2:36:47] Then the subsequent section pursuant to the subcommittees direction, 3.42.125 subdivision F,

[2:36:55] in the event that any appeal as to an administrative citation and fine pursuant to this section 3.42.

[2:37:01] But one, two, five, or any other action in relation there to takes place, the city shall be entitled to recover its attorney's fees and administrative costs incurred unless the appeal in question is granted, or the cannabis business initiating any other action is the prevailing party.

[2:37:20] Period. That would constitute the sum of total of the changes.

[2:37:24] Move the item.

[2:37:25] Second.

[2:37:30] Second.

[2:37:30] and I should note before you all vote,

[2:37:32] there will also be an eye of politics,

[2:37:34] this is terrible.

[2:37:35] I have to do this, I have to call it an eye of politics.

[2:37:37] We are changing the resolution language,

[2:37:39] specifying the ballot language in a court with the language

[2:37:42] that is in the council packets as a digital material,

[2:37:47] which council member courts did read into the record.

[2:37:51] Thank you, Mr. Kalkin.

[2:37:53] So anyone, any other motions were made in a second

[2:37:55] at any other comments before we go to a vote?

[2:37:57] Council member Mills.

[2:37:59] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:37:59] Just I want to, Jeff, if you initiated the modification to the wording, I had an issue with the way it was before, so this is definitely fine, I agree with that.

[2:38:13] And just basically, this money is going into the general point.

[2:38:22] And for purposes of the motion, Mr. Mayor, that would be to introduce you to me.

[2:38:28] Adopt the ordinance, it would also be to pass or adopt the resolution, and the second

[2:38:34] resolution added by the city clerk to your packet of materials with respect to the appropriation

[2:38:41] with respect to funding the election.

[2:38:44] Thank you.

[2:38:45] Thank you.

[2:38:49] Okay, um, City Clerk. Council member Cours. Yes. Council member Mills. Council member Roberts. Yes.

[2:38:57] Mayor Potemphote. Yes. Mayor Moon. Yes. Approved 5000.

[2:39:03] We'll have the clerk read the title of the ordinance at this point.

[2:39:23] And ordinance of the city of Palm Springs imposing a tax on cannabis business activity.

[2:39:30] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank you very much.

[2:39:32] Moving right along, item 3C, introduction of an ordinance imposing a general transactions and use

[2:39:39] tax and adoption of a resolution submitting a general tax measure to the electorate.

[2:39:43] At the November 7th, 2017 general municipal election with the alternative of Introduction

[2:39:48] an ordinance imposing a special transactions and use tax and adoption of a resolution submitting a special

[2:39:55] tax measure to the electorate at the November 7th, 2017 general municipal election staff report.

[2:39:59] Thanks for watching, and don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to our channel.

[2:40:00] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council and the interest of brevity, I'll simply highlight a major choice

[2:40:04] that the council has to make because of the way that the item is presented. It is presented as an option for the city council

[2:40:11] to place before the voters, the qualified voters of the city, either a general tax or a special tax. I'll be happy to explain the difference if you wish.

[2:40:21] The second item I'd like to note by way of a staff report is that with respect to the action that the council takes tonight, whatever that action may be,

[2:40:29] I want to highlight the legal context in which you're decision about this tax will be taking place.

[2:40:35] If you raise the transaction and use tax pursuant to a ballot measure, that will raise the city of Palm Springs effectively sales tax as it's known in the vernacular by one half a cent with respect to every dollar.

[2:40:50] I want to state that there is a cap that everyone should understand exists with respect to local taxation on transactions and use.

[2:41:00] That cap is a $2 cap.

[2:41:02] There's been a reference to the county.

[2:41:05] Terrence transaction in use.

[2:41:06] That's in effect being rolled back.

[2:41:08] You mean a two percent.

[2:41:09] A two percent.

[2:41:10] A two percent cap.

[2:41:12] You said dollar.

[2:41:13] Two percent cap on a local part.

[2:41:15] Yes, that's the local share.

[2:41:16] And the portion of the local share can be no more than two cents.

[2:41:22] We have the legal authority pursuant to all of the states laws applicable to these types

[2:41:28] of revenue measures to increase this tax.

[2:41:30] And I want to make it very clear to you that if we don't do this, the county can and perhaps

[2:41:36] will.

[2:41:37] I know that members of the subcommittee may want to speak to that in terms of their expertise

[2:41:43] and their observations in that regard.

[2:41:45] I don't want to try to even come close to making those comments.

[2:41:49] What I did want to do is, at Monash, you all, that if you don't do this, you may lose

[2:41:54] your opportunity to have these types of tax dollars spent locally in Palm Springs,

[2:42:00] because if the county does this first, you won't be able to do it down the road.

[2:42:05] I'd like to also add that if you do this, the county will not be able to pile on top of

[2:42:11] to above that $2 local cap.

[2:42:14] The best evidence I can offer you is what's happened in the city of Los Angeles with respect

[2:42:19] to a tax that the county pursued there regarding homelessness.

[2:42:22] Many of the cities that are looking to have sales taxes, et cetera, they have their sales

[2:42:29] taxes which were adopted before that county tax and the county tax is not going to be imposed

[2:42:35] in those cities.

[2:42:36] In other words, if the county follows you with their own sales tax measure, they will not

[2:42:41] be able to collect that portion of their sales tax or transaction use tax in the city of

[2:42:46] Palm Springs. You will max out the local share. The county won't have a chance to

[2:42:51] pile on. I hope that's clear if it's not I'm here for questions.

[2:42:55] Yeah, one question. That's just so unclear. So most of sales tax doesn't go to local government

[2:43:00] which is city and county. Correct. Most goes to the state.

[2:43:04] Absolutely. Maximum two cents.

[2:43:06] Except for Measure J.

[2:43:08] Yeah, well, the two set, we have, that's part of our current one and a half set.

[2:43:12] So Measure J would be included, that's exactly right.

[2:43:14] So we can go up to two, and to some degree, if we do it first, it stays local, if the county does it first, they get it.

[2:43:22] That's correct.

[2:43:22] In effect, if you don't think the county is going to raise taxes, then look at their budget.

[2:43:30] So this is a way for it to keep only used in Palm Springs.

[2:43:33] Well, if the taxes coming anyway,

[2:43:35] This is a way to make sure that the tax dollars, both of residents and visitors remain in the city of Palm Springs.

[2:43:41] Thank you.

[2:43:44] Anything else from some committee on this?

[2:43:46] Yeah, let's read the current language we're voting on into the record.

[2:43:50] Yes, just as we had to do the cannabis initiative.

[2:43:54] I'll read this one.

[2:43:56] This was also another one that we spent a lot of time working on.

[2:43:59] And this is really important because we anticipate not only our pension liabilities, but we're also looking at the added expenses we will have with the downtown opening and the need for additional police officers and the need for additional paramedics.

[2:44:24] If anyone's been to any of our fire stations, our fire stations, our crumbling, we're in the process of renovating one of them, but they all really need renovation.

[2:44:39] And our firefighters live there.

[2:44:41] That's their homes.

[2:44:42] And the home that we are providing for them does not measure up to the standards of what we as Palm Springs should be providing for our firefighters and paramedics.

[2:44:54] and the police are in desperate need of...

[2:45:00] Additional officers, because we are going to have a very successful business downtown area, and so we do need additional police for that, and we also need additional upgrade in upgrades in equipment.

[2:45:17] And so we spent a lot of time looking at that.

[2:45:21] I think after I'm finished, I think probably Mr. Corsele

[2:45:25] will address a little bit of why we decided to go with this tax

[2:45:29] with this particular one.

[2:45:31] But I'll read you what we will be on the ballot.

[2:45:35] It's the title is the Palm Springs Essential Services

[2:45:38] Public Safety Measure.

[2:45:40] And this tax would be to maintain essential city services

[2:45:44] including rapid 911 emergency response, fire, police protection, and paramedic services.

[2:45:52] Keep fire stations open, staffed, address homelessness, repair local streets,

[2:45:58] puddles, improve rapid response to assault, burglies, crimes.

[2:46:03] Keep public areas safe, clean, maintain senior services, attract, retain jobs,

[2:46:10] businesses, increase water conservation.

[2:46:12] cell, the city of Palm Springs establish a 1.5-cent sales tax requiring annual independent

[2:46:19] audit public oversight and all funds used locally.

[2:46:24] And it's hard to write these because you can only write seven, what is a 72, 75, 75

[2:46:30] words.

[2:46:31] And so you have to really be careful on what you can put in here.

[2:46:35] So in that little paragraph, what in essence we're doing is increasing a lot of services throughout

[2:46:41] city in a lot of places. We all know we have issues with homelessness. We have issues with

[2:46:50] meeting upgrading as Council Member Roberts was talking earlier of our streets, our benches,

[2:47:01] and things of all sorts. But we also need major public safety increases. And so that's

[2:47:07] point that we try to put this tax to. Mr. Mayor, before Councilmember of course, comments,

[2:47:13] I want to make an observation so that anyone in the public who's listening to these words

[2:47:17] and looking at them, and they want to count the words, if they come to account, that's

[2:47:23] over 75, they're wrong. And here's why. Because the city of Palm Springs counts only

[2:47:29] as one word. Palm Springs counts only as one word. So if people are checking our work,

[2:47:35] They will note that there are only 75 words or less.

[2:47:40] I will also note that I personally verified that with the county's registrar of voters today on your behalf.

[2:47:45] When you do things like fire slash, please protection, is that two words or three words?

[2:47:51] That's going to be counted as one word if it's together.

[2:47:55] And the bottom line is even if it's counted as two, we're still under 75.

[2:47:59] Okay, so any candidates running for city council need to keep these tricks in mind, right?

[2:48:03] Even if it's counted, even if it's counted as two, we're still under that 75.

[2:48:08] Mayor, I'm a member of approval.

[2:48:10] A couple of comments, but thank you.

[2:48:14] One is, you know, we, as we looked into this, Mayor Pro Temphot and I did a bunch of outreach.

[2:48:24] The city manager and I went to Main Street and talked to them about this.

[2:48:27] I've talked as a liaison to the Chamber Board.

[2:48:30] We've met several times with our firefighters and our police about their priorities.

[2:48:36] I think we reached out and to probably about a thousand residents to get their views of priorities.

[2:48:43] And one of the things that we learned in all of this is just to maintain the excellent level of service we get in public safety is going to require additional personnel.

[2:48:56] Police calls, you know, some degree of victim of excess,

[2:49:00] some more people are living here,

[2:49:01] more people are visiting here,

[2:49:02] police calls are up 14%.

[2:49:04] Last year, so to maintain the great service

[2:49:07] we get from the police, we need more police in addition

[2:49:10] to the police for downtown.

[2:49:13] You know, during the recession,

[2:49:17] we ended having our paramedics,

[2:49:19] and we added six back last year,

[2:49:22] but to get fully staff,

[2:49:23] you know, our firefighters really want to be fully fed staff because they can get to people

[2:49:27] faster. And if you get to people within five minutes, if they're having a stroke or hard

[2:49:30] attack, it's life or death, it is so important. And so that's really their priority. And so

[2:49:37] just maintaining our existing services just costs more money as, as we move on. So we really

[2:49:45] wanted to get input, you know, public very much wants to see us continue our work, reducing homelessness,

[2:49:50] this has been successful over the last year.

[2:49:53] And so as we looked at this, we really

[2:49:55] wanted to focus on the things that were priorities.

[2:49:58] We know what, you know.

[2:50:00] 12 million dollars of cuts did to the budgetor and the recession and lots of credit to our staff and council member

[2:50:07] Folten Mills, how well we came out of that compared to so many other cities, because you made really hard cuts and did creative

[2:50:16] programs to make sure the city would thrive again and we are. But we need to make sure we have the funds to continue to do that and continue to address the priorities of our city.

[2:50:26] There's one other point because I think the desert son noted this would put us a half cent over any other city in the valley

[2:50:33] Where we're different than a lot of other cities a lot of cities in the valley. I think most

[2:50:38] They charge extra property taxes for their firefighters. They charge extra property taxes for the parks

[2:50:44] We don't charge those so you know when you're comparing apples to oranges

[2:50:49] The math doesn't work if you just look at the difference in sales tax

[2:50:52] We don't charge those other taxes that other cities charge.

[2:50:56] We provide, I think, probably the most extensive parks and wrecks programs, clearly the best

[2:51:02] firefighters, without adding those fees to property taxes.

[2:51:07] We pay it this way.

[2:51:10] And as Middleson pointed out, what's so special about property taxes in the city, like I mean

[2:51:16] sales tax on my property tax increases, is the majority are paid by our tourists.

[2:51:21] And that's how it should be because they're benefiting from our great 911 police and fire and all the other services that are provided and they should pay their fair share and this ensures that they pay their fair share and it's not all in the residents.

[2:51:33] So that's all I would add.

[2:51:35] A little second to have Mr. Roberts motion.

[2:51:38] Shoulders been made in second of any comments before we take a vote to a vote.

[2:51:42] So here this motion will apply to the adoption of the ordinance, the adoption of the resolution

[2:51:48] as amended with respect to the new ballot language, and also the resolution pertaining

[2:51:53] to the appropriation of funds to fund the election.

[2:51:56] Is that correct?

[2:51:59] Oh, and you did not make the decision as a council, whether to opt for the general or the special

[2:52:05] tax, although all of the commentary to that.

[2:52:07] General, that is the one we read.

[2:52:09] That is the one we read, and I want to clear about that.

[2:52:11] That's the tax that requires only 50% of the

[2:52:16] of the majority of voters.

[2:52:20] Okay, motions are made in second.

[2:52:21] The motion is on the floor.

[2:52:24] Is it a clerk?

[2:52:25] Council member, of course.

[2:52:27] Council member Mills.

[2:52:28] Council member Roberts.

[2:52:30] Mayor Potemphot.

[2:52:32] Mayor Moon.

[2:52:33] Yes.

[2:52:34] Approved.

[2:52:35] Five zero zero.

[2:52:37] An ordinance of the city of Palm Springs, California, imposing a general.

[2:52:42] transaction and use tax. Thank you.

[2:52:47] Okay, thank you. Moving right along, we're now entering into...

[2:52:51] Let me shift a couple of pages.

[2:52:56] Or are we... Okay, item four,

[2:52:59] unfinished business update from the City Council budget

[2:53:01] and finance standing subcommittee.

[2:53:03] This was a change.

[2:53:06] Item four, I update. Do you want to search it?

[2:53:12] We talked about it.

[2:53:13] I had a lot of ideas on today.

[2:53:17] Yeah, one thing we've been looking on this is some committee is we've asked the City Manager over the next month or so when we come back in September to come up with some recommendations

[2:53:27] We've already set aside three and a quarter million dollars that we've taken from reserves this year and we're putting a we're going to pull another three and a quarter million dollars

[2:53:35] We'll vote on after the City Manager mixes recommendations will give us six and a half million this year

[2:53:40] And we'll be putting away that much each year over the next several years to be able to accumulate the money to be able to meet the increasing anticipated increasing obligations for our pension fund.

[2:53:51] So as I said earlier, we are not any financial problems.

[2:53:55] It's just we are looking ahead, just like anyone who has an expense they know that's coming up, they put money aside for it.

[2:54:01] So we're trying to be physically prudent and put that money aside.

[2:54:04] That's, we'll be addressing those changes later, but there was also we wanted to, do you want to address the money for the special funds?

[2:54:15] Yeah, go ahead.

[2:54:16] Yeah, and there are a couple items, because we're doing the grants reviews in September, there were two organizations that reached out

[2:54:26] who have a timing, crunch, and we're hoping we can give direction to the city manager.

[2:54:31] One is Pomspring's Pride, who, I think we have a request for 90,000 of waiver of fees and city expenses.

[2:54:42] And they need to know if we're going to do that in order to do a three-day Pride.

[2:54:47] If we don't, they're fine, they'll do a one-day Pride, but they can't wait till September to make that decision,

[2:54:53] because there's a lot of marketing, both nationally and international, we on that.

[2:54:58] So I think the subject...

[2:55:00] Committee would recommend that we do that. I don't think we can vote on it now. I think we can give direction on it now.

[2:55:06] Corrections appropriate. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I've already noted it.

[2:55:09] And so I don't know if there's other council members on our on it, but maybe we can give Dr. Eddie direction on that.

[2:55:14] And the second one was well on the desert has a significant grant request.

[2:55:19] Their main concern is, I think we give them 2000 a month for their food program, and that they want to be able to continue that.

[2:55:26] And they asked for 1,000 a month towards their rent over the summer until we can vote in September.

[2:55:31] So I think our recommendation would be to do that for July, August, September.

[2:55:35] And then we could look at their grant at that time.

[2:55:39] It would be nine total.

[2:55:42] Because of 2,000 month in food for three months.

[2:55:46] No, we haven't yet.

[2:55:48] So we've been doing that for several years, but they rely on that for their program.

[2:55:53] And normally, we would have had the vote, we would have had the council discussion on the vote on all the requests.

[2:55:59] Teller, that's a very complex and time-consuming process and we've had so many items on the agenda this past month that we just haven't been able to cover it.

[2:56:07] So this is just requesting an exception here so we can identify these two time critical requests.

[2:56:15] Do you need any other information doctor out of here?

[2:56:17] I just want to confirm that it's 9,000 for well in the desert, and then P.S. Pride, that 9,000, that's what it was.

[2:56:26] Last year was 85 and waiver fees, and so is this in waiver fees and expenses that the city occurs up to?

[2:56:35] Does it have an actual cash?

[2:56:39] It's budget because there are payment for our police and those kind of costs.

[2:56:45] It's all in cash.

[2:56:47] You're not asking for cash contribution?

[2:56:50] No, they're not asking for cash contribution.

[2:56:53] So, is this not on the specific agenda this evening?

[2:56:57] What I would recommend, the budget committee has raised the issue with some general direction to me,

[2:57:03] what I will do is I will send a notice to these organizations indicating that when Council does

[2:57:11] Council will actually formally take the take up the measure when they vote on these which

[2:57:16] would be a supposed in September, but then they could rely in theory on my letter that

[2:57:22] Council ultimately will approve this.

[2:57:26] Sort of an IOU, yes.

[2:57:27] And then just a couple other things.

[2:57:29] Just make sure they'll probably be the matching grant request from Desit Healthcare District

[2:57:37] will be coming sometime between now.

[2:57:39] And when we come back, I think the money is already in the budget to cover the half a million

[2:57:45] or so they're going to be giving us to match, but I just wanted to highlight that that

[2:57:49] will be coming, they think probably within a week or two,

[2:57:55] given how long it takes to add police officers,

[2:57:59] can the process start now as so if we decide to add positions based on funding, you're ready to do it.

[2:58:08] Yeah, the recruitment period will take at least two to three months, so what we would do

[2:58:13] is we will begin that immediately on the additional officers that the chief has indicated

[2:58:20] and presumably, obviously, by the time the election occurs, we'll know if we have that time.

[2:58:24] Okay.

[2:58:25] And given there currently, you know, down about 15 officers, not because people are out

[2:58:29] on medical, even other things, we don't want to risk them getting even more short-staffed.

[2:58:34] that the police chief had recommended for new officers and two community service officers.

[2:58:40] So we can start that recruitment immediately.

[2:58:43] Thank you.

[2:58:44] And then I just want to add sort of the mayor's set about us really being thoughtful and

[2:58:49] how we're approaching the CalPERS issues and separate from any ballot measure.

[2:58:56] We're still looking at what wise cuts will be and where there's areas that we can make cuts

[2:59:02] that are the least painful and one area I just want to touch on is Dr. Eddie and I have been

[2:59:09] meeting with the school district on our youth parks and rex program, which is a pretty

[2:59:14] big expense for us as far as tiny tauts, tutoring after school and the school district is

[2:59:21] really interested and actually excited about the possibility of taking and running those programs

[2:59:26] at their expense. Their issue has been they need facilities. So if they can use

[2:59:32] our facilities to run them, they get grants for this and actually our facilities are

[2:59:38] not licensed for the youth because they don't meet state criteria, they will actually

[2:59:43] get money to upgrade our facilities, James O'Jesse, to move the leisure center to do this.

[2:59:50] So it's really promising you could save us a lot of money and actually provide school

[2:59:54] personnel to run these programs. So we have people who understood, doing homework, helping

[2:59:59] on homework and too.

[3:00:00] During who actually know the curriculum, and I think it's a real exciting opportunity, and I think

[3:00:04] the partnership we have with the new superintendent in moving this forward, I think is really

[3:00:10] going to vote well, and we're also doing a fee study on parks and wrecks, and we're also doing

[3:00:14] a fee study, and in September we'll be getting a report on ways to reduce the expense and

[3:00:21] hopefully bring in revenue to offset the expense for the buzz. So we are continuing to look

[3:00:26] at smart ways to make cuts.

[3:00:29] It's not just all that spending.

[3:00:31] So that's all I have.

[3:00:31] Thank you.

[3:00:32] Any questions?

[3:00:34] Before we move on?

[3:00:35] OK, next item, item 5A.

[3:00:37] Mr. Mayor, before you proceed to 5A, I apologize.

[3:00:39] We neglected to cover 3D, which is part of your amended agenda.

[3:00:43] The staff report will take about 13 seconds.

[3:00:47] 3D, I'm sorry.

[3:00:49] OK, that's the amended agenda.

[3:00:51] That's not your fault.

[3:00:51] It's part of the amended agenda.

[3:00:54] OK, 3D establishing procedures

[3:00:55] for filing written arguments regarding two city measures at the November 7, 2017 General Municipal

[3:01:00] election.

[3:01:01] A general transaction is used taxed in a cannabis business activity and cultivation tax

[3:01:05] in directing the city attorney to prepare impartial analysis for both measures to

[3:01:09] afford.

[3:01:10] Mr. Mayor, members of the council, this is a formality pursuant to the elections code

[3:01:13] urge you to adopt the resolution.

[3:01:15] Thank you.

[3:01:16] Motion's have made in seconded.

[3:01:17] Motion's on the floor.

[3:01:18] City clerk.

[3:01:19] Council Member Cores.

[3:01:21] Council Member Mills.

[3:01:23] Council Member Roberts.

[3:01:24] Yes.

[3:01:24] Mayor Pro Temphote, Mayor Moon.

[3:01:28] Approved 5-0.

[3:01:31] Thank you, Mr. Cuckon.

[3:01:32] Next, item 5A.

[3:01:34] Request for Council Member review.

[3:01:35] Procedure to Palm Springs, zoning code,

[3:01:37] Section 94.10.00.

[3:01:39] Action by the Planning Commission to approve sign programs.

[3:01:42] For the multi-tenant buildings located on Block B.

[3:01:44] And see you within the downtown Palm Springs facility.

[3:01:47] And at 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-7-5.

[3:01:49] North Palm Canyon Drive, sign program case numbers,

[3:01:52] 70-002 and 17-003 staff report please.

[3:01:55] Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council.

[3:01:58] Tonight we're going to view a brief overview of the sign program that was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.

[3:02:04] With us, tonight is David Null, our associate planner, who's intimately aware with the downtown project.

[3:02:11] And we also have the representative from best signs who can go into the details of the sign program.

[3:02:17] As noted in the staff report, there were certain conditions required by the Planning Commission,

[3:02:22] which differ with the desires of the developer at the request of Council Member Mills.

[3:02:29] This was brought up as a Council Member call up for you to reconsider the sign program.

[3:02:36] So with that, I'll turn it over to David Null and ask that the PowerPoint starting with slide five.

[3:02:42] Thank you.

[3:02:43] I'm sorry, prior to do that, just a question of order.

[3:02:48] This was, was this appeal by the applicant?

[3:02:53] It, it was, but then that was withdrawn because, uh, concurrently, the council member

[3:02:58] Mills called it up under his, um, under his authority under the code.

[3:03:03] So what are our options with that?

[3:03:05] The, the entire program is subject to your review as it was reviewed by the Planning Commission.

[3:03:10] So the Planning Commission's just as the prior council member call up item,

[3:03:15] the Planning Commission's actions have been set aside pending your action tonight.

[3:03:20] Should I have Council Member Mills tell us why you called it up?

[3:03:23] Yeah, I'd like that.

[3:03:24] Council Member Mills?

[3:03:25] Actually, Mayor, I called it up prior to the applicant.

[3:03:31] I don't think he knew I did before he filed his appeal.

[3:03:34] But I saw the recommendations from planning and disagreed with some of the comments and at H&M especially is a one that hit me the hardest and then after that and that was really what my feel was based on was that one item

[3:04:02] But then, in looking at the other items that when I looked in detail, then I think we should look at the entire program.

[3:04:14] Okay, but is the applicant here?

[3:04:15] I mean, I understand you didn't like some of it, but I'd be real interested in the applicant's take on that.

[3:04:21] It's written in his appeal letter and that, but he withdrew his appeal.

[3:04:28] But his appeal letter is part of our staff report, and I agree with all the items, not completely, but mostly the items that he had brought up, I think it's important to realize that this project is a different kind of product project.

[3:04:57] within the city, attracting...

[3:05:02] Or major retailers that do have brands. And also, the way I saw what the planning commission was doing in their approval was trying to standardize everything and make all the signage, particularly in the case of blade signing, all exactly the same, which to my feeling is not the way it should be.

[3:05:29] Each store should be able to have its own own identity with within our ordinance or with within the format,

[3:05:39] but they are the way that I read what was approved by planning was they were attempting to standardize everything,

[3:05:49] block by block. And that, to me, is not what this project is about. It's about bringing interest

[3:05:58] to it. I mean, we looked at, I look at scientists being just as important to the project

[3:06:07] as whatever the architecture is. Probably more important, because it's at more at the human

[3:06:14] scale. So I thought it important that we allow some flexibility, and it's not the flexibility

[3:06:22] flexibility within our ordinance. So still keeping the same sizes and requirements,

[3:06:29] but not dictating what the type of sign is. And so that's really what the question

[3:06:37] about not any, anyone that's not attended its face right now, that sign is still going to

[3:06:43] need to come in for review, as separate, sorry from this deals with the ones that are

[3:06:51] teneted spaces that teneted as a word, and that's what this deals with.

[3:06:59] And it establishes the parameters for those other spaces to come into.

[3:07:05] One of the buildings, I think it's in the, was the original program and the design had an

[3:07:12] of which the tenant was allowed to do whatever he wants, within that space, and that space

[3:07:22] is well within the compines of what our ordinance is, but if I understand what was approved

[3:07:31] by Plano Commission, it was dictating the type of sign that went in that space, and that's

[3:07:37] what I did in the group.

[3:07:38] with. When I say type the construction and the lighting.

[3:07:45] No, no. No. This is, this is a

[3:07:47] sign program. You can dictate any, any, any, anything you want. But we look at it at a case

[3:07:53] by case basis. We're not saying, store A, they're in the same block, store A and store B have

[3:08:00] to have the same type of construction of a sign. That's what this is saying if I understand

[3:08:06] it.

[3:08:06] Why don't we hear from David?

[3:08:10] Okay.

[3:08:11] Yes, Mr. Mayor and Council members.

[3:08:13] So what I have here on the screen before you is just an

[3:08:16] elevation of one of the exhibits shown in the sign program.

[3:08:20] It identifies the three types of signage signs that would be

[3:08:25] permitted under the sign program.

[3:08:27] You have the primary identification sign, which is above the

[3:08:30] onnings.

[3:08:31] And you see those are within kind of a frame popped out

[3:08:35] that extends from the face of the building.

[3:08:38] And then the other two identification signs are your blade signs,

[3:08:42] and then a window sign, which is not depicted in this exhibit,

[3:08:45] but it would be essentially an alternating window.

[3:08:49] I should note, you have a printout of this in your yellow folder as well,

[3:08:53] if you want to follow along.

[3:08:55] This is page five.

[3:08:59] So, specifically for Block B,

[3:09:02] each Block B, the building on Block B, the two-story building

[3:09:04] has its own time program, and then the building on Block C has its own time program.

[3:09:08] So we'll focus on Block B right now.

[3:09:12] So what is being requested with this time program are duplicate signs on the same elevation.

[3:09:19] You see, when it exhibits the free people tenant has two signs on the same elevation, but

[3:09:25] they are both within the frame of pop out area.

[3:09:29] They are also requesting various types of signs in three locations, as I mentioned, the primary

[3:09:34] identification sign, the blade sign, and the window signs.

[3:09:38] Normally, in our downtown ordinance, we limit signage to two types, which would be an individual

[3:09:43] letter, primary sign, and maybe a blade sign, but not all three signs.

[3:09:47] So that is a request that's being a deviation that's being requested.

[3:09:52] And then finally, they are also requesting sizes that do exceed the downtown sign ordinance

[3:09:57] in terms of the litter height, the area.

[3:10:00] And the maximum widths. When staff reviewed this, we looked at a comparison with block A to see what has been approved.

[3:10:12] And so, essentially, what this table shows is some of the comparisons between the program for block A and then the comparison with block B.

[3:10:23] It's very similar that some of the changes are that you do have a higher letter being requested,

[3:10:31] potentially up to 38 inches in this block versus the 22 that was approved as well as the 36 for West Island.

[3:10:44] When the planning commission reviewed this item, they did make certain restrictions to the program when they held their discussion.

[3:10:53] They allowed the signs as they were shown, except as modified by these conditions.

[3:10:59] Basically, they wanted all future tenants to return with their signage package to the AC and planning commission.

[3:11:07] We staff recommended that they allowed a provision for a tenant to be approved at the administrative staff level,

[3:11:13] and that would be if it met certain criteria that was consistent with our downtown ordinance.

[3:11:21] The commission also, which is consistent with the AAC,

[3:11:25] restricted the blade signs to two foot by three feet,

[3:11:31] and that final design would be approved by the director.

[3:11:35] The applicant is opposed to this limitation.

[3:11:37] They do not wish to restrict the dimensions of the blade sign,

[3:11:42] and note that there are some issues with its installation

[3:11:46] about the sidewalk because some of the overhangs would not allow for a Bladesign underneath it.

[3:11:54] Excuse me, David.

[3:11:56] But the applicant is not objecting to the footage, the square footage, just the proportion.

[3:12:04] The sign program did propose a larger size, but they were okay with the reduced.

[3:12:08] I'm confused.

[3:12:09] The proportion versus the square footage.

[3:12:12] the dimensions versus the area, the total area.

[3:12:16] So in other words, our downtown side nords actually

[3:12:18] allows a 12-foot square sign.

[3:12:23] We're not talking about the bleed signs right now.

[3:12:25] Yes, we're talking about the bleed signs.

[3:12:27] OK, so they're 24 inches by 30, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6,

[3:12:30] square feet.

[3:12:31] I have a mispoke.

[3:12:33] Our downtown ordnance allows nine square feet.

[3:12:37] But they also, the applicant, does note that they would

[3:12:40] allow, like, allowance to go beyond the three feet and width for the blade versus just the

[3:12:45] limitation to three feet.

[3:12:47] But the square footage does not exceed whatever they allow, but that's right.

[3:12:52] So, it may be four foot long instead of three feet long.

[3:12:55] Right.

[3:12:55] Maybe you're in longer.

[3:12:57] Yeah.

[3:12:58] That's exactly right.

[3:12:58] In the issue here, we're going to ensure there's adequate clearance for pedestrians

[3:13:02] under the overhangs where there's not a larger height between the canopy and the side.

[3:13:09] Okay, so the idea is that if you're walking down the street, the blade signs can be changing shape and heights and so forth.

[3:13:17] Right. And one of the other discussion items that the plank machine had was the width by which the sign can be installed.

[3:13:25] The commission felt that the pop out itself should be the maximum 75% and so that was their action.

[3:13:31] Whereas typically when we say 75% of your store front, it can be the whole store front.

[3:13:37] So in this case, the pop-out is only a portion of the store front where you have a tenant

[3:13:43] that extends beyond that pop-out, which would get an additional width that could be applied

[3:13:47] within that pop-framed pop-out area.

[3:13:51] So I do know that in speaking with the applicant, they are opposed to this requirement

[3:13:55] that the pop-out, you know, 75% is within just the pop-out area, because they do have

[3:14:00] signs that, as you see in this exhibit here, we're, for instance, the Francesca's would not meet the criteria for 75% it's going to be probably closer to 85 or 90%

[3:14:18] and then lastly they prohibited cabinet signs.

[3:14:22] So their preferences for individual letters.

[3:14:24] Can you explain what a cabinet sign is?

[3:14:26] So cabinet signs, basically, if I can probably point to your attention to your design program

[3:14:37] package.

[3:14:38] It's one piece, Jenny versus individual services, essentially all the letters and everything

[3:14:44] would be within a cabinet as opposed to the individual channel letters that you see.

[3:14:48] Generally, we went from the inside to the box with the lettering on the outside of it.

[3:14:53] But the applicant agreed on that one, though, didn't he?

[3:14:57] They were okay with that.

[3:14:58] Yeah, they were okay with that.

[3:14:58] The new sign ordinances face.

[3:15:04] There was nothing right. So the halo illuminated letter was specifically for block C, which what?

[3:15:13] Only for block C. Because in this case, some of the pop outs themselves could be translucent. So potentially that would not serve, would not serve for a backlet sign.

[3:15:30] So, basically they want to be able to fill more of the space for their sign, they want to take up more of the architectural front with size and they want to change the shape of their blade sign.

[3:15:42] Those are the two big issues.

[3:15:45] Well, I believe there's one other.

[3:15:47] I mean, like on Starbucks, if you look at Blaze Pizza, they have a logo and they also have letters on the ledge, says Blaze Pizza, which is basically what Starbucks wants to do.

[3:16:00] And this is saying they can't do that, they can only have one sign.

[3:16:04] So it's not consistent Starbucks as it is with Blaze Pizza.

[3:16:07] So that's a difference between Block A and Block C,

[3:16:09] which doesn't seem quite fair.

[3:16:11] Well, the planning commission gave a reason for that.

[3:16:14] And it had to do with the architecture of the two buildings themselves.

[3:16:18] Isn't that correct, David?

[3:16:20] Can you describe why they allowed that for Blaze?

[3:16:23] And they yet they don't want to allow for A, that's not for no reason.

[3:16:27] So, all of this right here that I've just gone over is really only for Block B. So it's strictly for Block B.

[3:16:33] Okay. So, if there's any other questions on B.

[3:16:38] Well, I mean, the mayor asked a very interesting question.

[3:16:41] Right. Why are we allowing one type of signage on one building and not on another?

[3:16:45] And there's they have a reason for that.

[3:16:47] And I kind of know the reason, but I'd rather you define it.

[3:16:50] Well, and so when we move on to Block C, basically, when you look at the, for instance, the H&M sign on Block C, there is, that's going to be applying to a stucco surface and would allow for a backlit tail of type of a light backlit water backlit or not and not allow and based on the size that was presented in the color of being what it was.

[3:17:19] There was some concern about its brightness and appearance on the street.

[3:17:23] So this, so what H&M is willing to do is what we are seeing in under additional materials that we got in our yellow packet.

[3:17:33] Where they're showing it is a backlit letter.

[3:17:35] That was something that staff had prepared to see what other jurisdictions had approved.

[3:17:40] But H&M is okay to go with this.

[3:17:42] H&M is preferred is requesting to have a front lit letter.

[3:17:46] They are requesting it, but it shows that they're using backlit and other environment, correct?

[3:17:52] But that's contrary to the conditions act.

[3:17:55] This is a new yellow packet.

[3:17:57] Is it for this?

[3:17:58] No, no, it's all by itself.

[3:17:59] Chinese looks just like that on the front.

[3:18:02] It's got no photo.

[3:18:09] And then it's got a few images from other cities.

[3:18:11] But more importantly, it shows the backlit letter versus the fully lit letter.

[3:18:17] I guess they call it the halo effect, David Wright.

[3:18:19] Correct, reverse channel letter

[3:18:23] Farhees or

[3:18:24] Halo lighting. Yeah, so

[3:18:27] That's important

[3:18:29] So H&M doesn't want that's they want a fully-friendly letter. Correct. All right, okay

[3:18:36] So that was an exhibit that's sapphire paired just to see what other jurisdictions had approved in downtowns. Okay. Thank you

[3:18:42] No, it's long as we're on this out of these are not main signs these are like

[3:18:46] It's probably signs that our organs wouldn't allow.

[3:18:48] These are not main H&M signs for the court of the business.

[3:18:53] Those you'll see in the staff report.

[3:18:56] This is actually looking at the other page, Chris, the Whitsign.

[3:18:59] How they were open that up.

[3:19:02] That's what I was looking at.

[3:19:05] Oh, those are our main signs.

[3:19:06] Those are main signs.

[3:19:07] Those are the same font.

[3:19:09] Those look like a similar size.

[3:19:11] They're just backlit.

[3:19:12] So I'm fascinated why H&M doesn't want to do that.

[3:19:15] Why they don't want to do that now, I mean, I'm going to say I far prefer this halo lighting over the fully lit letter.

[3:19:23] Probably because they didn't once did it once and didn't like it.

[3:19:27] Hmm, too bad we saw it.

[3:19:31] The age of the design companies here maybe they know what the reason is for that.

[3:19:37] Could you come up and tell us what the reason is that H&M doesn't like this, because I kind of like this.

[3:19:45] We're really screwing up Davis report here, because we're jumping for A to B to C to B to C.

[3:19:51] If it's sorry, it was just so confusing building to building and reason to reason.

[3:19:56] That's why I would like to hear from Jim on this, you know, and get...

[3:20:00] Get us paid.

[3:20:03] Sure.

[3:20:03] About why H&M doesn't want the back of it?

[3:20:09] I, I, gem of the signs, I appreciate the opportunity to help resolve the issue.

[3:20:15] I can, I can appreciate that H&M is getting all of the, all of the, the plate time here.

[3:20:21] But the issue is not so much H&M. The issue is that this building has many tenants, not just one tenant.

[3:20:28] And what the, what the, the clinic commission recommended, and then they voted, and then they adopted is that all tenants must have a reverse channel letter, in which no other block, or any other, any other portion of downtown is being restricted to.

[3:20:51] The images that you are seeing in regard to H&M, it's entirely possible that some of them have

[3:20:59] been up for many years prior to the establishing their definitive protocol that they

[3:21:10] went their signage to look like.

[3:21:11] I was fortunate enough to recently take a three week trip to Europe and I'll be damned if my

[3:21:21] at the airport in Dusseldorf, and I'll be damned if I've never seen one of those signs.

[3:21:26] I even took pictures of them, they're all lit through the face, so they're serious about

[3:21:29] the brand, but once again, I don't want us to focus on H&M, a match, as design their signs,

[3:21:36] so that their sign is a black background with white letters.

[3:21:40] So, Jim, can I just focus you for a minute?

[3:21:43] Can you answer the one question specifically?

[3:21:47] Why H&M doesn't want to do the same backlighting

[3:21:52] that they didn't send or you've just thought

[3:21:54] that we have a photo of?

[3:21:56] It is inconsistent with their signage guidelines.

[3:22:01] Whether they are established in 2015 or 2014,

[3:22:04] I can't speak for sure.

[3:22:06] But I do know that their signage guidelines

[3:22:08] current today do not allow a reverse halo lit letter. I can also, and I thought to bring

[3:22:18] a reverse lit letter a halo letter with me, so I can, I can explain why they are concerned

[3:22:28] because a halo letter essentially silhouettes the letter. And if you do look at, when

[3:22:36] If you have a letter that is straight on, you're able to distinguish what that letter form

[3:22:41] is.

[3:22:42] And a reverse or a hilly letter works best when it sits back from the street to allow you

[3:22:48] to distinguish that letter form.

[3:22:51] When that letter is pulled up too close to the street, we all know that this building is close

[3:22:55] to the street, and we are traveling southbound or eastbound, that we are seeing this letter

[3:23:04] at an angle.

[3:23:05] We're seeing the side as much as we are from the face and we won't be able to make out the letter form

[3:23:11] Once again, I did bring a reverse letter

[3:23:13] I got it right here in this in this backpack and I can show you exactly what I'm what I'm I'm what I'm talking about

[3:23:19] But the thing is is that is that plan commission and bear in mind that this went through architectural advisory committee

[3:23:26] And they made no distinguished or did they make any recommendation that the signage be reverse block a and block b

[3:23:35] and rowing and every other sign within the city is allowed us to be as creative as possible.

[3:23:42] I'm standing before you saying, I like reverse channeleters also.

[3:23:45] In many cases, if there is a, if Rolex or Tynex comes in, I promise you, they're going to have a fancy,

[3:23:52] Polish gold face and a Polish gold return and they're probably going to be a reverse lit letter.

[3:23:58] But there's going to be other applications such as Tommy, Tommy Bahamas, Mac,

[3:24:05] Heal, some of these other letters.

[3:24:07] All of these people have already designed their, their facades based upon what was approved

[3:24:12] in Block A. So I know that H&M would prefer to have their sign lit through the face.

[3:24:21] That's why they sent us a letter.

[3:24:22] Jim, can I interrupt you again?

[3:24:23] Of course.

[3:24:24] David, I'm sorry.

[3:24:25] I never let you answer the question we asked.

[3:24:27] This is important right now.

[3:24:29] Why did the planning commission approve what they approved in A?

[3:24:33] But don't now want to approve that and be in C, I think that's really important.

[3:24:40] Well, the Hale-Litt letter is only for Block C.

[3:24:45] So that was specific to this block.

[3:24:48] The planning commission, when they were considering this application,

[3:24:51] took into consideration the fact that the sign was about five or six feet in height,

[3:24:57] The lighting at the same, potentially, could be...

[3:25:00] Does, and felt that the reverse halo lit would be more appropriate.

[3:25:05] But why did they allow a different sign on A? That's what I'm trying to understand.

[3:25:10] In other words, Jim's saying that something was allowed on A, and you're saying that that they now don't want to allow on B and C, that I think it's really important.

[3:25:19] With A, the signs are on the top of the awning, and this instance, the sign was applied to the face of the building.

[3:25:24] Okay. Thank you. So that's what I thought it was. It was a different. There was a difference in the structure of A. Do we have an image of A to show that and why that occurred?

[3:25:37] I don't have in the exhibit.

[3:25:38] Okay. That would have been helpful. So we need to understand that.

[3:25:42] So there's a very specific reason they allowed one thing on A and they're not allowing it on the other buildings.

[3:25:47] So I have a question also why if we have nowhere else in the city that we've done this, and we are

[3:25:58] getting in major retailers and major people who have worked companies who have really worked

[3:26:05] hard to distinguish their brand, and I identify with the H&M technology, because when I see H&M,

[3:26:14] I know exactly what's in that store, or if I see a mermaid on a cup, I know exactly

[3:26:20] I'm going in for coffee.

[3:26:22] I mean, they were part to establish those brands.

[3:26:27] I'm not seeing the value, or I haven't heard the value yet, of us not allowing people, not

[3:26:36] allowing companies to use the brand that they work so hard to establish.

[3:26:40] They're not denying them the brand.

[3:26:44] They're denying them the look of the brand.

[3:26:46] It's about size and lighting.

[3:26:48] That's what we're talking about.

[3:26:49] No, if they're not allowing that from what I read,

[3:26:53] and maybe I read it incorrectly from what I read in Starbucks,

[3:26:57] or since they're not allowing the Center of Logo and Starbucks.

[3:27:01] Right.

[3:27:02] And so.

[3:27:02] They're only allowing one there, but on each of them,

[3:27:05] they're allowing their font, they're allowing their size,

[3:27:08] but they're not allowing their,

[3:27:10] But what they're saying is backlight it instead of having it be a fully lit letter from the front

[3:27:16] a big glowing letter

[3:27:19] What is the size of the front what is the size of the H and M sign on the front of the building

[3:27:31] send this thing here

[3:27:34] Look up page 103. There's just so much talk fair. I'll pay to 103 one-off ring

[3:27:40] 60 inches high and 90 inches wide

[3:27:43] Okay, so it's

[3:27:45] 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 9, what is that? 9, almost 9 feet, 5 feet by 8, 7 and a half feet.

[3:27:56] 70, okay. So, it's a big building. No, it's actually bigger than 7 and a half feet.

[3:28:01] 7 feet is 72 inches and you said 90, it's 9, 7, 12, 8, 4, plus 6 is 9, it's going to be 7 and a half

[3:28:10] by five. Okay, so it's a pretty big sign. It's seven and a half feet by five feet. Okay.

[3:28:15] It's a two-story building. It's pretty big. Okay. So, okay. Go on, David. That helps.

[3:28:25] So, again, the halo restriction is only to what you're seeing is a block saying.

[3:28:30] Block B, they did not have a restriction for the halo illumination.

[3:28:35] But to move on to the block C.

[3:28:37] I'm sorry David, why?

[3:28:39] So why one building has one building now?

[3:28:41] Because when we looked at block, when they looked at block B,

[3:28:46] block B has pretty much a uniform design around all

[3:28:51] sides of it.

[3:28:53] And then the area where each tenant would tailor their brand

[3:28:57] is within that framed pop-out area,

[3:29:00] which is not, again, that's what you're looking at here.

[3:29:03] So Block B has a very specific design on all four sides of the building and the tenant essentially creates their sign and whatever background template they want to use for branding in that framed area.

[3:29:18] And again, potentially that could be glazing and with a glazed facade, you would not be able to do the backlit reverse light lettering because it would be going through the storefront.

[3:29:32] Okay, that really helps.

[3:29:34] So the issue is the glass that they're mounting on glass.

[3:29:38] So you don't want to backlight it because you'll have the reflection on the glass.

[3:29:41] Potentially.

[3:29:43] Okay.

[3:29:44] That helps.

[3:29:44] Thank you.

[3:29:45] So when we're looking at block C, obviously there's a number of

[3:30:00] Sign as is the case. So those can be back with, because they won't have the reflective issue.

[3:30:05] It could have a front line.

[3:30:06] They will ungloss. Okay, that helps a lot. Thank you.

[3:30:12] So again, with Lock Sea, they are also requesting three types of sign, the primary sign of

[3:30:18] Late Sign, and then window blazing.

[3:30:23] If I can ask one question, only because we've been working on our sign ordinance,

[3:30:28] since it feels like you two years

[3:30:30] and haven't been on council that long.

[3:30:34] But cross the street, right?

[3:30:36] Whether it's a cross-bomb canyon,

[3:30:38] if we think about our new sign ordinance,

[3:30:42] which we can deal with, if a retailer wanted to be able to have,

[3:30:47] right, their blade sign, their main sign,

[3:30:49] and a window sign, that wouldn't be allowed, right?

[3:30:52] Correct.

[3:30:53] Our ordinance limits it to your primary identification sign,

[3:30:57] which could be individual letters.

[3:30:59] And then either a blade sign or window signage.

[3:31:04] Right. Right. Right. Right.

[3:31:05] And I guess we're part of this is one of the reasons we spent money to build roads

[3:31:09] and make it feel like it's part of downtown and not a big mall is to have some

[3:31:13] make it more integrated.

[3:31:15] But I'm more amenable when we do the sign order and it's too loud and other downtown

[3:31:18] people have the same thing as opposed to saying they shouldn't necessarily.

[3:31:22] But I just want to note that.

[3:31:26] It's sort of a fairness issue that I just, you know, I think I want to raise.

[3:31:35] I think the issue with me is taking a building and saying all the signage of that has

[3:31:43] to be backlit.

[3:31:45] I agree.

[3:31:47] You're going to look at one block and one block and one block and they're going to look like

[3:31:53] individual blocks.

[3:31:53] We're trying to blend it all.

[3:31:55] And we're also trying to blend it with what's across the street.

[3:31:58] And so that's what my objection is to being done the way it's done.

[3:32:05] And also, and the report, a Starbucks was another issue

[3:32:09] that they had concerns.

[3:32:10] Because on page 103, it shows Starbucks

[3:32:12] has illuminated channel letters on their Starbucks,

[3:32:15] but they're round logo space, and it shows all of them

[3:32:19] or below the total loud square feet.

[3:32:22] That's a warm-mounted illuminated logo.

[3:32:25] I mean that round, mermaid logo is not going to work if it's just lighted from behind.

[3:32:30] I mean, there's not any sign in this program that comes even close to what the allowable

[3:32:34] square footage is.

[3:32:35] No, they're all below, they're all buried.

[3:32:37] If you look at the drawings, the elevations, they all look pretty discrete.

[3:32:40] When the plankers are reviewed, they essentially approve the signage as it was presented with

[3:32:45] the exception of some modifications, those being the lighting, and then the restriction

[3:32:50] of some of the blade signs.

[3:32:52] they did not have a comment about the Starbucks signage. It was essentially reviewed.

[3:33:00] So they about that to be fully, fully lit, right?

[3:33:06] That's not in Halo lit sign, that's Starbucks sign.

[3:33:09] Well, no, they said all signage should be Halo lit.

[3:33:12] It should be Halo lit. Okay, the entire block.

[3:33:14] So so I agree with you. I just want to we can pick this part all night and I agree. I think I think because of the nature of what we're putting downtown

[3:33:27] These these blanket rules aren't going to work now the Starbucks sign shouldn't should not be back

[3:33:33] But you won't be able to see it night. It'll just be a disk with light around it now if we were to allow the letters the Starbucks wants

[3:33:41] Then Starbucks those would show up

[3:33:46] And I, you know, we've all seen 1,000 Starbucks, the free standing letters are really attractive, I think, and add some dimension and character.

[3:33:57] You know, I'm just going to move down the block.

[3:33:59] Mac can be backlit.

[3:34:02] H&M should be backlit, because those letters to me are kind of overwhelming, and sometimes those giant letters in a red could just be glarity.

[3:34:12] And I think we want to avoid that, but if we need to send back a blanket statement, I think

[3:34:21] I agree with you, Chris, I think that these should be taken on a case by case basis, rather

[3:34:25] than having these blanket sizes and shapes, and let them just work it out on each storefront.

[3:34:33] I'll talk to you already, how would that work?

[3:34:37] Which is how we handle all of this story.

[3:34:38] I think the planning said, and I think that the tenants, what they're submitting is the

[3:34:49] tenants that have been established.

[3:34:51] So the future tenants signs do come back on an individual basis.

[3:34:55] We're not proving anything that doesn't mean what these drawings are.

[3:35:00] Or we'll show you a space that has a tenant and a space that doesn't have a tenant, just as tenant or something like that.

[3:35:06] That does have to go back for a separate sign permit.

[3:35:16] But they're trying to put these blanket sizes on and shapes, correct?

[3:35:21] That's the problem we're having.

[3:35:22] Well, the blanket sizes are only on the blade size. That's the only time.

[3:35:27] By the way, I don't have any problem with that. Consistency in the blade sign. I don't really have an issue with.

[3:35:32] What I have an issue with is the backlighting.

[3:35:36] The lighting of these signs should be more

[3:35:38] based on the sign itself, rather than doing a blanket

[3:35:43] restriction on the whole building.

[3:35:46] You can't tell H&M that they have one thing,

[3:35:52] and then let another company starbucks do a backlit

[3:35:58] until H&M they need to halo.

[3:36:00] Like, doesn't make any sense to me?

[3:36:02] Well, I think you can because it depends on the sign.

[3:36:04] We tell different businesses downtown,

[3:36:07] depending on what they bring in, different things all the time,

[3:36:10] on what we think will be effective,

[3:36:13] or things that we think will be glary.

[3:36:15] Like I said, Starbucks is an easy one.

[3:36:18] If you make them because of the nature of their signage,

[3:36:20] if it's backlit, it won't show.

[3:36:23] H&M's, it's proven, because we're looking at a picture of it,

[3:36:26] will work perfectly backlit.

[3:36:28] So, and maybe some, you know, well, I'm not, and I get a question J.R. about, I mean, look at

[3:36:34] this, what we're looking at on the screen right now, as big as that H.N.M. sign may be in

[3:36:39] dimension in what you're talking about, look at it on that facade. I mean, it is not overpowering,

[3:36:45] is not huge, but that's what you're, that's the actual look on a 30-foot high wall.

[3:36:51] Well, to me it's a little garage, and when you're, first of all, we're not standing in front

[3:36:55] of it, we will never be able to see that sign from the distance that we're looking at it right

[3:37:01] now.

[3:37:02] When you see that sign, you're standing under it, because how close it is to the street and

[3:37:07] pomechanian, you know, the only thing you can do is cross pomechanian to look at it.

[3:37:11] That's a great big sign.

[3:37:13] So it's going to certainly show up in the day without a problem, and I think it's shown

[3:37:19] that it will show up perfectly at night.

[3:37:22] I'm afraid if that size sign is fully lit,

[3:37:25] it's going to be garish and glaring.

[3:37:27] It's my take.

[3:37:32] That sign is about the same size.

[3:37:34] If you put the Starbucks circle over it,

[3:37:37] they're not that far apart in size,

[3:37:41] which just what everybody just said

[3:37:44] that that should be a front-let's sign.

[3:37:48] So anyway, I just,

[3:37:49] what, what, what, okay, I think I think I'm,

[3:37:52] I think I'm a little lost now.

[3:37:54] What is our decision to be here because I think we're going down a rabbit hole?

[3:37:59] Chris called it off Chris what is it you want here?

[3:38:02] I want David and David's outlined it and David thank you very much because you put it together very well organized.

[3:38:10] If you would just go through and highlight for us what the the the

[3:38:18] exceptions or the exceptions that the applicant is taking to what was approved and there's

[3:38:27] just a few.

[3:38:28] No, wait a minute.

[3:38:29] Mr. Mills, let me ask you this.

[3:38:31] Could you make a motion?

[3:38:33] So I know what you're wanting me to look at.

[3:38:36] What is your motion?

[3:38:38] I would want to make a motion.

[3:38:43] Well, when I got ready to do, would be.

[3:38:45] It would be number one to, I do have a question on Starbucks.

[3:38:54] I need to ask Mr. Cross about that, but allow H&M as presented and allow everything in

[3:39:01] block A, B and C as main identification signs to be approved.

[3:39:07] And the blade sign, not to be restricted to a specific size, but to be restricted to square footage.

[3:39:18] By whatever square footage was outlined by Plan A, I think it was two by three or something like that.

[3:39:25] So, the restricted footage, but not in size or proportion.

[3:39:30] And if we do that, I think that's really the two basic issues.

[3:39:42] And if you want to turn that into a motion.

[3:39:45] Although I do want to ask Mr. Cross about the Starbucks sign,

[3:39:49] the actual individual letters, how they're mounted on that facade,

[3:39:53] because it's really hard to tell.

[3:39:58] So, so.

[3:40:00] So Jim, there, it looks like the letters are bigger than the facial. Is that right?

[3:40:07] It does appear, so yes, we did not render the Starbucks, Starbucks has their own national vendor.

[3:40:16] And essentially, they would need to be mounted the same way West Elm is, where you have the steel support, then you would have fabricated brackets that would be structural, though,

[3:40:27] No, to the end.

[3:40:27] Do we have a close up of this?

[3:40:30] We have anything more of a close up David than what I'm looking at, page 103 for Starbucks.

[3:40:37] So, you can actually see that.

[3:40:40] I think that's right.

[3:40:41] Well, I saw it was eight and a half.

[3:40:42] The elevations are just tiny.

[3:40:45] Well, we haven't, you know, bear in bear in mind though.

[3:40:48] We haven't presented Starbucks signage to you.

[3:40:51] We haven't presented it to you.

[3:40:52] We haven't presented it.

[3:40:53] And essentially what we have our task and our scope was to get a signed program approved

[3:41:01] that would then allow the the the planning department to work within within a parameter.

[3:41:07] So in each of these individual tenants went to that plan and submitted for their permit.

[3:41:13] That's what they would be obligated to not only submit for a a planning permit, but also a a building permit.

[3:41:21] they would establish how that sign is mounted and they would have to get a building permit

[3:41:26] and provide a proof positive how it's installed and so forth.

[3:41:30] So if we made a motion to simply have the individual stores

[3:41:37] go through the process with our currently approved signage program or our signage ordinance.

[3:41:46] Would that work?

[3:41:50] Does that leave the flexibility in place for the

[3:41:53] stores to come in with the branding and signage and

[3:41:55] sizing that they're looking for?

[3:41:58] I'm sorry.

[3:41:59] Are you saying that if it's approved the same way that

[3:42:02] blocks A and Bs?

[3:42:03] Are you saying what the city's done?

[3:42:05] The city has a sign ordinance that calls out the

[3:42:11] various sizes and restrictions for signage.

[3:42:15] Does that work?

[3:42:16] It seems that only a different layer of restrictions added to different buildings on this project.

[3:42:22] It's confining in almost impossible to understand.

[3:42:26] Can we simply send this back and say we're removing those additional restrictions

[3:42:31] and asking each sign to go before the go through the process on its own merits based on our current sign ordinance?

[3:42:37] know that, that, that, yes, it could work in terms of meeting the method of elimination,

[3:42:47] but it can't work in terms of size.

[3:42:49] There's, there's nothing about these buildings that are consistent with the downtown

[3:42:53] office, which was established, probably 20 years ago.

[3:42:56] We don't have the same downtown today as we did then.

[3:43:00] But each can't each store then request whatever variance they want on the signs.

[3:43:07] And then that request can be considered?

[3:43:10] Well, I'd tell you, if I could help nudge as long as if what if we allowed everybody to have the same sign as Block A and B?

[3:43:19] And perhaps H and M could come, could submit for a variance.

[3:43:26] Well, that doesn't make sense at all.

[3:43:27] What am I saying?

[3:43:28] Council member, the point of the sign program is to develop a program for all these individual signs that meets the sign ordinance in terms of

[3:43:38] and then addressing the types of illumination and the details.

[3:43:42] And then the idea is that as each tenant comes along,

[3:43:45] it's an administrative process that the planning department

[3:43:48] reviews those signs and accordance with the approved sign program.

[3:43:52] So it's a little out of the norm to then require each individual tenant

[3:43:55] to come through the formal AAC and planning commission process

[3:43:59] for each individual sign that's in that sign program.

[3:44:03] I mean, David has more experience with this,

[3:44:05] I don't believe that's the way to do it.

[3:44:06] All right.

[3:44:06] So, Marcus, I understand that cookie cutter concept on a strip mall, where it's one consistent

[3:44:13] building all the way across, and they have one designated area for a sign, and all of the

[3:44:20] letters or all of the box signs or everything have to fit within this very narrow area, right?

[3:44:27] Or when we're looking at monuments signs, we do that, we give them one criteria, does that

[3:44:32] makes sense when we have an area where we have different

[3:44:38] stores, different architectures, different types.

[3:44:42] Does this really work here?

[3:44:45] Essentially, what does work is we say with our

[3:44:49] sign program, you have your allowed to sign, it can be in this

[3:44:52] location, it can be this size.

[3:44:54] And that's really what we're trying to get at with this

[3:44:56] sign program for block C. They're showing the location.

[3:45:00] And the signs of the signs do deviate from our downtown ordinance. And when they do deviate, do they compliment the architecture, is it justifiable?

[3:45:11] Because it's for certain circumstances in the case that we're looking at here, the signs of the buildings, the the signs are going on.

[3:45:19] What a 14 inch sign located for H&M is being shown, work probably not.

[3:45:24] So what we're doing with the sign program is allowing certain deviations ensuring that it's not such that it's out of just free for all to do whatever they want but also trying to give us something to work with at the staff level.

[3:45:42] I got to tell you honestly, I think I don't think we should be approving any of these signs at staff level.

[3:45:48] I think they should be going before the planning commission each one of them.

[3:45:52] But actually, they are, I mean, we're looking at them right now.

[3:45:56] All of what happens, there's a separate sign

[3:45:59] from myth that has to happen for each one of these signs.

[3:46:02] When it comes in, then staff would look at the approved plans

[3:46:07] right here, and they'll say, OK, yeah, it fits within the parameters,

[3:46:13] it matches basically what the thing is, size, location, color,

[3:46:17] it said, yeah, and then it's a simple over-the-counter operation.

[3:46:26] When a new sign comes in, that is identified as tenet, that just shows a type and a location

[3:46:35] of which the tenet, whoever the tenet is, would fill in, and if they bring a staff and

[3:46:43] Yeah, it looks like the approved letter type, the basic, the same location, done AMMN.

[3:46:49] If it's not, if it's different, then staff is going to say, oh, wait a minute.

[3:46:53] It doesn't match what the overall approval is and needs to go on its own trail.

[3:46:59] So, so, Chris, why don't you try to craft?

[3:47:03] All right.

[3:47:04] Something on this?

[3:47:05] So, I've been trying to squeeze in a word here.

[3:47:08] On 8A on page 7, the applicant is saying each space has its own, each space has its own specific architecture, which is true. That's what we wanted.

[3:47:19] And the blade sign should support the character of each tenant. All blade signs are to be presented to the planning department for review and permitting.

[3:47:25] So it says right there, they're acknowledging each blade sign will.

[3:47:29] Yep.

[3:47:30] But it is going before the planning department.

[3:47:32] I mean, each sign still needs a permit.

[3:47:38] I mean, that process is in changing.

[3:47:43] Let me go ahead and craft something.

[3:47:47] So I would make a motion to approve the signage on BNC as submitted and as approved by

[3:48:05] planic emission, the exception would be on the blade signs that they be allowed to not exceed

[3:48:12] the square footage, but not have to have the same proportion.

[3:48:17] And that's throughout the project.

[3:48:19] And then also that we not restrict block C to only backlit signs, they can have backlit

[3:48:31] But we're not restricted and in the case of H&M because that seems to be the big topic right now that a front-lit side is acceptable.

[3:48:43] Again, I still, and I have an empty Mr. Cross is not doing the start of like sign.

[3:48:50] But when that comes in, I don't, I think the way the Starbucks is is unattractive and that's our big corner.

[3:48:58] That's because it's not the same size as the fascia by what we're looking at here.

[3:49:04] So I would not include the Starbucks sign in my motion, except that it needs to be reviewed.

[3:49:14] Because I just don't think it looks good for our number one corner.

[3:49:19] What don't you like about it?

[3:49:21] The letters are bigger than the fascia.

[3:49:23] They're only 20 inches high.

[3:49:25] But it's a bigger than the face of the man.

[3:49:28] Isn't that true of blaze?

[3:49:30] No, no, no.

[3:49:32] These are on the face, which is out 12 feet or 90 from the building hanging over the side wall.

[3:49:40] And it looks awkward to me to put an oversized letter on that's thinner face.

[3:49:46] So would you prefer if they sat up on top of the face?

[3:49:48] Or underneath?

[3:49:50] I mean, but...

[3:49:51] Okay.

[3:49:51] So it's send that message.

[3:49:52] I agree with you.

[3:49:53] But I don't mind Starbucks individual letters.

[3:49:56] No, no, I don't.

[3:49:57] I don't.

[3:49:58] I don't.

[3:50:00] So we're not saying Starbucks can't do its little freestanding letters. We just don't like it, split.

[3:50:06] And the fact that it's two signs is fine, too. That was an issue. Yeah, and I'm fine with that, too.

[3:50:10] Okay. I'll take the motion.

[3:50:13] All right. Wait a minute. Do you guys have a clear motion here?

[3:50:17] Yes.

[3:50:18] Marcus, David.

[3:50:20] So staff has two motions before you. One for Block B went for Block C.

[3:50:26] No, we're not considering staff motions.

[3:50:31] So the motion is to eliminate the dimensions and allow it to be flexible, but not exceed the

[3:50:38] set square foot.

[3:50:39] On the blade size.

[3:50:40] On the blade size.

[3:50:41] For both blocks.

[3:50:43] For both blocks.

[3:50:45] Eight-signed signage is restricted to 24 by 36, but the proportion of that can change to six square

[3:50:54] feet.

[3:50:55] Six square feet.

[3:50:56] Six square feet.

[3:50:57] They can come up with a shape and proportion.

[3:51:01] All right.

[3:51:01] Okay.

[3:51:02] That's one.

[3:51:03] We've eliminated the halo illumination requirement.

[3:51:08] Yes.

[3:51:08] So, no.

[3:51:09] Friendly letters may be permitted anywhere on either block.

[3:51:12] I'm not going to die on that hill, but I'd rather stay.

[3:51:15] Can I give a shot?

[3:51:16] Can I give a shot?

[3:51:16] I tried to type everything.

[3:51:18] Let's see if this is got it.

[3:51:20] The motion would be to approve the signage on B&C submitted

[3:51:24] and approve by the Planning Commission.

[3:51:25] the exception would be blade signs being restricted to 24 by 36, but proportion can be adjusted

[3:51:31] up to six square feet. Also, we're not going to restrict block C to only backlit signs,

[3:51:38] and in the case of H and M, we're going to specifically say that a front line, front

[3:51:42] lit sign is specifically acceptable. Finally, Starbucks needs to be reviewed individually,

[3:51:48] but two signs are fine. Well, individual only reviewed on the letters on the fascia.

[3:51:54] Yeah, the Blades, the Bladers can say...

[3:51:56] It's good above or below the face of but not split in half by the face of the face.

[3:52:02] So Starbucks needs to be reviewed individually as to the location of the letters on the face and two signs that is the letters and the circle sign are both.

[3:52:15] Well, I just wanted to send back to the Planning Commission that we're OK with those letters on top or below.

[3:52:20] But not as present on top or on bottom, but not as present correct.

[3:52:25] The motion is to me.

[3:52:27] Instructivity.

[3:52:29] The logo is fine the way it is.

[3:52:32] Yes.

[3:52:35] Okay.

[3:52:35] Motion's been made and seconded.

[3:52:37] Any more comments on this?

[3:52:40] JR is like being back on the planning commission isn't it?

[3:52:43] No, it's much worse.

[3:52:45] It's much worse actually.

[3:52:47] Okay.

[3:52:47] Would you please do a roll call vote?

[3:52:49] Yes sir. Yes sir, council member before. Yes. Council member Mills. Council member Roberts.

[3:52:59] Mayor Poetem vote. Yes. Mayor Moon. Yes. Approved 50.

[3:53:06] Thank you.

[3:53:11] Next item 5b.

[3:53:13] That's when we're skipping five

[3:53:26] C extension of the hotel incentive program deadline for commencement of the construction for a new hotel at the Northwest corner of Barista road and Belardo road 284 South Koea road developer new church LLC until May 31st 2018 staff report please.

[3:53:49] Thank you, Mayor, members of Council.

[3:53:52] This is obviously request from the developer for an extension of the TOT, incentive plan

[3:53:58] that was granted to them under the original program that has since expired.

[3:54:03] This project has gone through numerous iterations of the planning department that developer

[3:54:10] has been very receptive to their changes, redesigning and redesigning again.

[3:54:15] The neighborhood is very much in favor of this project as it has been finally presented

[3:54:23] is my understanding and I think you do have some letters from the tennis club to that

[3:54:28] effect.

[3:54:29] That being said, the developer representative is here to answer any specific questions and

[3:54:37] I would note that one of the requirements the city council had was for this extension to specify

[3:54:45] specifically what the brand of the hotel is and it's been decided that it is the

[3:54:51] Obert Hotel, which is a high quality hotel for the city palm springs. It would be

[3:54:57] the only one in the area and the letter.

[3:55:00] It was just passed out to you as a letter from Ovarage, which indicates that they would be the flag of the brand at this hotel.

[3:55:07] With that, Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to answer any specific questions.

[3:55:11] And the representative is here to answer any questions you have of the developer.

[3:55:16] Thank you.

[3:55:16] Thank you. Do we have any questions or staff?

[3:55:19] Councilor McCors.

[3:55:20] So, Dr. Reddy, in addition to working with the planning department, just from some information you provided.

[3:55:26] The applicant's been working with HSPV, all the neighborhood groups, and has been continuing

[3:55:34] to some degree to be delayed because of making changes that we as a city want.

[3:55:41] Not they necessarily had wanted.

[3:55:43] Is that?

[3:55:46] That is correct, Councilman.

[3:55:48] Obviously, the project was different early on.

[3:55:51] The developer did respond to the Planning Commission and the neighborhood and the surrounding

[3:55:55] businesses concerns and the project has been significantly altered to the benefit to the positive

[3:56:02] way to those stakeholders and the developer has cooperated. I think he has a very good

[3:56:08] product.

[3:56:10] And one of the things here now is the rehabilitation of our historic church. Correct? That's

[3:56:18] correct. The church is part of this project and I would note in addition to the church.

[3:56:22] This clearly is a very, very blighted area in the downtown.

[3:56:27] It was a former hotel, it hasn't been that way since,

[3:56:33] but over 15 years practically.

[3:56:35] And this will resolve that blighted area,

[3:56:38] including the church that did suffer a fire,

[3:56:40] and that is part of this project as well.

[3:56:44] So two things I would just want to ask is one,

[3:56:47] as for the staff report is, what can be done given this is going to take some more time over

[3:56:55] the next couple of months to make sure we're saving the church and doing what we need to

[3:56:59] do to save that historic property.

[3:57:02] So, if I could, Jake, Jake, Jason, you could step to the microphone and address what you're

[3:57:08] doing with regard to security.

[3:57:12] Yes, we have a weekly monitors that come to the to the buildings and service the whole

[3:57:17] as well as the church, including, they go inside of the structures, as well as the historic buildings and they scope everything.

[3:57:27] They report back to us and if any damage is seen, then we immediately repair it.

[3:57:33] Okay, so thank you.

[3:57:36] So David, has the city done any inspections of this to make sure that whatever is necessary for the historic buildings is being done?

[3:57:48] As the city gone and looked at these to make sure that we're taking all precautions to make sure these buildings are preserved.

[3:57:57] Have they ever looked at?

[3:57:59] Stay alive.

[3:58:00] Stay alive.

[3:58:01] Stay alive, sir.

[3:58:02] Better or hard.

[3:58:04] Well, different from security.

[3:58:06] So they'd have their security.

[3:58:07] It's on our route for our security of the historic sites that we pay.

[3:58:11] So, but if you're talking about inspections on internally of the building itself,

[3:58:15] I defer to Mr. Foley. I don't believe so.

[3:58:20] Okay, just because the staff report speaks of concern about the ongoing deterioration of the building.

[3:58:28] So I'm a little confused there.

[3:58:29] If I may jump in real quick.

[3:58:32] When we suffered the fire, I think in September of 2013,

[3:58:36] we had it inspected and we had numerous structural engineers

[3:58:40] that went through the property.

[3:58:41] at that point we reinforce the areas of concern, and then we continue to monitor those.

[3:58:47] So one of the conditions of approval can be for this is that the church is restored.

[3:58:54] And you know, phase one restoration to the church, facade, and so they can't, I mean,

[3:59:00] our vacant building ordinance doctor can kick in in the meantime, right?

[3:59:05] Because they're making requests that they don't have to commence construction until May of 19.

[3:59:11] That's a long time, but in the meantime, can't we enforce our vacant building ordinance?

[3:59:17] We can.

[3:59:18] And we've gone back and forth on that property over the years.

[3:59:21] For a while, there was a fence around it.

[3:59:23] But then, obviously, you couldn't see through the fence.

[3:59:27] And then things were going on behind the fence in terms of a vagrancy and things of that nature.

[3:59:32] Then we took the fence uncovered it.

[3:59:36] So we've gone through different kinds of ways

[3:59:39] to try to maintain it.

[3:59:42] But so I'm not certain what we'd be able to do

[3:59:45] between now and when this building gets built.

[3:59:48] Dr. Reddy may I suggest that we came to this exact intersection

[3:59:53] with the town and country center.

[3:59:56] And we required that the owner of the town and country center

[3:59:59] come.

[4:00:00] Up with a way to stabilize the property to ensure that no additional fires took place, and also to put in motion

[4:00:07] sensors and alarm systems to detour vagrants. And it seems to be effective. And maybe what we need to

[4:00:18] require from this applicant is something similar as a way to prove to the city that it's being monitored

[4:00:23] when regardless of who's there or not there,

[4:00:28] with respect to keeping people out of it and keeping people from ruining it.

[4:00:33] So it is fence now.

[4:00:35] We certainly could put whatever additional restrictions on that as well,

[4:00:40] but it is fence.

[4:00:42] And I don't know that the church is fence as well.

[4:00:46] Yes, they are all enclosed.

[4:00:48] No, I'm closed.

[4:00:49] So our concern really is any more damage to the church and vagrants taking over the church, correct?

[4:00:58] Yeah, and so the best way to do it obviously is we have 24-7 security.

[4:01:02] I mean, that obviously would be an expense, but that would be probably the only way to really ensure that at this point.

[4:01:08] Well, or we go the route that we went on the town in country because that was the option for that as well, correct?

[4:01:14] Oh, which was the sensors, I believe.

[4:01:16] Well, we put in sensors, live beams, all sorts of stuff.

[4:01:20] There are, I guess there are cameras there, there are all sorts of things there, but mostly

[4:01:25] there are alarms, there are sensors and alarms that go off if people violate or trespass

[4:01:33] onto the property.

[4:01:35] I mean, we can probably get a recommendation from the police department on ways to secure

[4:01:40] the property.

[4:01:41] But that would be the responsibility of the developer.

[4:01:43] Correct.

[4:01:44] We've put that in as a condition of their approval.

[4:01:47] That they've got to maintain the property

[4:01:49] and keep it vagrant free until this commence development.

[4:01:52] Which is important because the reason

[4:01:54] the fire was in the church in the first place

[4:01:55] was vagrants in there and they caught it on fire.

[4:02:00] So we can't afford another fire in one of those buildings.

[4:02:03] Well, yeah, I mean, the church is already in pretty bad shape.

[4:02:06] I mean, the restoration is pretty much going to be a rebuild,

[4:02:09] but we want to preserve lives.

[4:02:13] Can I ask a question Mr. Mayor?

[4:02:15] Yes.

[4:02:15] Because I don't know, and I'm sure you all do, did the Town and Country Center involve

[4:02:19] lighting in addition to motion sent?

[4:02:21] No.

[4:02:21] Just the motion sent.

[4:02:22] Well, no.

[4:02:23] I think they have lighting that is motion sent as well, but there was a whole plan.

[4:02:30] We did a walkthrough on the Town and Country and we put together a whole plan, which included

[4:02:34] smoke detectors, they included motion detectors, things that would trigger alarms and lighting.

[4:02:42] And monitoring, yeah, there was just, you know,

[4:02:46] classic security monitoring.

[4:02:48] So if the motion sensors were tripped, it would call,

[4:02:53] it would call dispatch, and either send our police

[4:02:57] or their own security.

[4:02:59] If I may jump in, we currently have the,

[4:03:02] every building is boarded up, and we do have fire alarms in there.

[4:03:07] I'll smoke through smoke detectors.

[4:03:08] We can work with staff or somebody in building safety on incorporating some type of motion sensor

[4:03:15] that would immediately call me or another representative of our company if the building were to be

[4:03:22] de-borded.

[4:03:22] And I think that would probably satisfy this.

[4:03:25] Well, just you know, I guess what we can put in is requirement that you put in all sorts of

[4:03:30] motion detectors.

[4:03:31] So, I can't remember if anyone's got any under the property, the town and country managed to even keep people from off the property if they jumped the fence, it's set off motion detectors.

[4:03:43] So, we could have staff and maybe the police department work with you on that.

[4:03:47] Mr. Mayor, could I offer some language to address Council Member Roberts comments?

[4:03:51] comply with the reasonable directives of the police chief with respect to stabilization of all historical structures

[4:03:57] potentially to include lighting motion detection, monitoring and security.

[4:04:02] That should be for the entire property, not just the historical factors.

[4:04:06] We don't want it to take an over by the homeless.

[4:04:10] And I don't know how what happens there now we'd have to get a report from the police on that.

[4:04:16] So I've modified that to say with respect to stabilization of all historical structures

[4:04:21] maintenance of the property.

[4:04:25] And I don't know if that's acceptable in that form

[4:04:28] to the applicant, but that is the language that would reflect what you've said.

[4:04:33] Yes, this also protects the interest of the applicant because it keeps their

[4:04:38] property, because we've had so much experience with this in the past here in

[4:04:42] the city with the ignorance breaking in and causing fires and other damage.

[4:04:46] So, a condition of any extension would be that, you know, lines.

[4:04:51] Chief Reyes is here, you know, maybe we can ask him if he is willing, or the department,

[4:04:56] is willing to work with the applicant to come up with a way to fully secure.

[4:05:00] Yes, we have spoken with the police in the past and we're happy to do that going forward and we could have maybe a meeting on the site going forward with us in the police department or some phone conversations to determine what the best way and most effective going forward.

[4:05:13] Is that something that your department can work with or would you recommend that they bring it outside people? You will work with them?

[4:05:24] We'll speak after this meeting.

[4:05:27] Mayor, if I could, one other thing I'd like to just note to council, in the staff report

[4:05:34] on the title, there's a type of graphical air with the extension in the title says to

[4:05:39] May 31st of 2018, you see in the body of the staff report, it's May 20th of 2019, so I'd

[4:05:45] like the record to reflect that it's May 31st of 2019.

[4:05:49] That is a type of the city manager's correct.

[4:05:52] It's the correct number.

[4:05:57] 31st 2019.

[4:05:59] Okay.

[4:05:59] I'm ready to craft a motion as the council's ready.

[4:06:01] The recommendation is typed and stated correctly.

[4:06:06] So the motion that I'd like to make on this is to move approval has presented with.

[4:10:19] The condition that this must be in our bearish hotel,

[4:10:28] and no other, and if it changes, then the approval is rescinded, that it will include a full restoration of the facades of the historic church.

[4:10:43] Would you just say restoration of church, don't say facade, because that implies certain things?

[4:10:49] Well, the reason I'm saying the facades is because I know with the inside of that shirt there was nothing to preserve in the inside of that church

[4:10:55] It's what we're preserving is essentially the the block facade in the roof right and the steel windows

[4:11:02] Mr. Mayor. I'm I'm going to defer to Mr. Fuller, but I believe that

[4:11:07] Up to now the approvals that the project already has with respect to the church and the preservation of the church and the bungalows by the way as well

[4:11:15] that would cover it. I would urge you to consider just adopting the staff recommendation

[4:11:20] as modified because the staff recommendation does specifically talk about an operating

[4:11:25] covenant with respect to the O'Barrish, which is stated affirmatively. The O'Barrish

[4:11:33] will be part of, I'm sorry, the hotel will be a part of the O'Barrish Resorts collection

[4:11:41] to be constructed on this side.

[4:11:42] we want to make that exclusive, that it has to be an obertage.

[4:11:49] That it must be, I think.

[4:11:51] Much in the way we made that requirement on the virgin,

[4:11:56] that can only be a part of the obertage

[4:11:58] results, resource collection, correct, with that modification and the additional condition

[4:12:05] regarding the stabilization and maintenance of the properties that acceptable.

[4:12:10] I just want you to read back what the language is because I'm looking for it on the church

[4:12:14] specifically.

[4:12:16] Well, what I was saying is that I think the church has already addressed by the existing

[4:12:20] approvals.

[4:12:21] I'm not sure that that isn't already covered.

[4:12:25] I would defer to staff.

[4:12:26] But we've already designated the bungalows in the first year.

[4:12:29] Yeah, that's correct.

[4:12:30] Because HSPB in March of 2016 issued a certificate of approval for the currently approved

[4:12:37] projects.

[4:12:38] They did.

[4:12:39] They did.

[4:12:39] So the church protections and requirements are for us.

[4:12:41] for the way they're going to develop the site is consistent with what it is.

[4:12:44] So the only condition we need to add is it is exclusive in our bear show

[4:12:48] tell and a requirement for our stabilization of the property and to work with the police

[4:12:56] department to come up with a system to protect the property from here on in.

[4:13:03] Okay, I can read the language again or we can just leave right there.

[4:13:07] I think we got it.

[4:13:08] I think we got it.

[4:13:10] I mean, the only thing I might add is that the restoration of church being included in the first phase.

[4:13:17] I don't know if that was in the planning commission conditions or not.

[4:13:23] Regardless, let's add that as a requirement that the church restoration be in the first phase.

[4:13:29] I agree with you, Chris.

[4:13:32] See, I have a problem. Any issue with that?

[4:13:34] No, no problem. I thought you were asking you a question.

[4:13:36] Okay.

[4:13:38] Were you Marcus, did you want it?

[4:13:40] I didn't know that they had a phased project.

[4:13:42] We do know that.

[4:13:45] We'll be part of the first page.

[4:13:46] Then it will definitely be part of the first page.

[4:13:49] Okay.

[4:13:50] I guess I worked.

[4:13:52] Is motion understood?

[4:13:54] I'm clear.

[4:13:56] Any other questions?

[4:13:57] Yes.

[4:13:58] The minutes will be accurate.

[4:14:00] I want to just, I want to qualify my no vote here.

[4:14:06] And I want to mention that this project did not come to City Council,

[4:14:11] who has approved it planning.

[4:14:15] I think for a lot of reasons, this to me is not what I envision

[4:14:22] as a first class hotel in Ponce Springs, architecturally.

[4:14:26] Certainly not talking about the operator.

[4:14:28] We had, I'll point out a few items.

[4:14:32] You're looking at all a bug-grade parking, bay parking, in some cases on Belardo, yeah, as double

[4:14:46] bay parking, stacked bay parking, you're looking at, and I'll ask the council to look at

[4:14:58] 132 in the staff report.

[4:15:00] That

[4:15:03] is the bilardo elevation of the hotel.

[4:15:11] If you take away the palm trees in there, which kind of

[4:15:16] helps soften a little bit, it is pretty nothing, architecturally, in my mind. So my, and I don't, I don't

[4:15:33] speculation of things don't work, including the may-parking off of

[4:15:40] Bristol on the church. That curb is 16 inches high. I don't know how you put

[4:15:46] may-parking as 16 inch high curb. But there are things with it that to me

[4:15:53] do not make it qualify as the level that I envision as a first-class hotel. This is

[4:16:07] If you put the investment in the facility of this versus the virgin hotel, there is no comparison in the millions and millions of dollars difference in the construction.

[4:16:24] So, I'm looking at it from my own architectural side, I'm not looking at it, from any other

[4:16:32] side.

[4:16:33] Had this come to City Council, those are the comments I would have made at the time.

[4:16:42] So that's the issue I have and while we don't even know.

[4:16:46] Okay, I just want to say that this went through and was approved by the Planning Commission

[4:16:50] numerous times in the AC and I call the vote.

[4:16:54] Okay, motion is in May 2nd.

[4:16:56] Any other comments before we vote?

[4:16:58] Seeing none, please take a roll call.

[4:17:01] Council member, of course.

[4:17:03] Council member Mills.

[4:17:06] Council member Roberts.

[4:17:08] Mayor Pro Temphot.

[4:17:10] Mayor Moon.

[4:17:11] Yes.

[4:17:12] Approved for one zero.

[4:17:16] Noting the vote of Council member Mills.

[4:17:19] Thank you very much. Before we go to 5D we are past 10 o'clock and unfortunately unless we're going to come back on August 2nd we need to push through.

[4:17:29] We've only got two more items. Yeah, some of these are going to be easy.

[4:17:33] Okay item 5D authorizes issues of tax allocation refunding bonds.

[4:17:42] Thank you, Mr. Ray, members of Council.

[4:17:45] This is a request to proceed with the refinancing of a couple of our redevelopment bonds.

[4:17:52] The bottom line to this is the general fund would save approximately $70,000 annually.

[4:17:59] And we're recommending that we go forward with this, obviously, with this $70,000 savings

[4:18:04] and the additional 220,000 we're going to save with the pre-payment to our purrs under

[4:18:10] that program.

[4:18:12] We obviously will start putting that towards our $3.5 million savings.

[4:18:16] That being said, Suzanne Harrell, our financial advisors here, and it's happy to address any specific

[4:18:21] questions you have on the bond refinance.

[4:18:23] Thank you.

[4:18:25] Why do you always put these near the end, Mrs. Ham, that's the year for the entire evening?

[4:18:30] The reason the city manager does it, so now Suzanne will have to spend the night and we get the TOT.

[4:18:36] Yes, that's right.

[4:18:38] But the doctor already, this money is already budgeted.

[4:18:41] So we're actually saving money. We're not spending any of these.

[4:18:43] Yes, this will be a net savings of approximately 70,000 per year.

[4:18:47] Is that correct? Suzanne, can we confirm that?

[4:18:49] Suzanne occasionally, everyone has to feel the pain.

[4:18:52] I'm sorry, it's your night.

[4:18:54] But since you're here, I just really want to thank you and staff for constantly being up on these

[4:19:00] finding ways to save money because it really adds up over the year when we look at all the

[4:19:05] different bond measures, you know, probably getting close to a million dollars in savings.

[4:19:10] And that's a big deal in our budget. So thank you. Thank you for your work, everyone.

[4:19:14] And I'll move this if no one has any questions.

[4:19:16] Questions been made by Councilmember Cores, second by Councilmember Roberts.

[4:19:20] Motion is on the floor. Any other discussion before we vote?

[4:19:23] Seeing none, City Clerk, would you please take the vote?

[4:19:25] Councilmember Cores. Yes. Councilmember Mills. Councilmember Roberts.

[4:19:30] Yes.

[4:19:31] We are Pro Temphote.

[4:19:33] Yes.

[4:19:33] Mayor Moon.

[4:19:34] Yes.

[4:19:34] Approved.

[4:19:35] 5-0.

[4:19:38] Okay.

[4:19:38] Next item.

[4:19:39] Item.

[4:19:40] 5-E.

[4:19:41] Approval of a wireless marketing agreement with five-bars communities, DVA, XG communities.

[4:19:46] LLC, a Delaware-limited liability company.

[4:19:50] So, staff report, please.

[4:19:52] Thank you, Mayor and Council.

[4:19:53] It'll be brief.

[4:19:54] This is a follow-up to the action you took last week to oppose Senate Bill 649.

[4:19:59] Thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next video, and I'll see you in the next video.

[4:20:00] This is really a strategy to protect the city from the by-right law that will allow proliferation of small cell installations on all public properties in the public parks and on public right away.

[4:20:15] What we've structured and negotiated with five bars communities is an agreement tailored on our standard form agreement, which preserves the city's full discretionary approvals of any small cell or large cell installation in the city, and we are doing this in theory to protect us from this law allowing anyone to come on to the street and have a buy-write authority to install a small cell.

[4:20:44] installation anywhere in the city.

[4:20:48] So we've structured this.

[4:20:49] We've identified in the staff report that this vendor has been through several

[4:20:53] competitive selection processes with other public agencies and the way that this

[4:20:58] is structured is with a sharing of gross profits on any leases that

[4:21:03] ultimately we end up approving for any installations on public

[4:21:08] properties because there could be some that we ultimately

[4:21:10] need to decide our valuable and worthwhile install.

[4:21:14] But the goal of this was really to protect the city from seeing any proliferation of small

[4:21:18] cell technology.

[4:21:20] So Greg Steininger from Clibarsis here, I'm happy to go into any details, but I would

[4:21:25] end my report with that.

[4:21:26] Thank you.

[4:21:27] And I would just just note it's important.

[4:21:29] I think for council things would be important to you that you still are going to have

[4:21:34] the approval of the design and where it goes under this contract and also we do have the

[4:21:41] ability to terminate this contract if in fact you feel that that's appropriate or if

[4:21:47] that's state law changes and if we don't do this on the stake and come in and put in whatever

[4:21:51] they want we have no sacred that's my understanding yeah the wireless vendors could come to

[4:21:58] the city essentially get a ministerial permit the staff does feel the bill is on the verge

[4:22:03] it's very close. Okay.

[4:22:06] Sounds really good.

[4:22:08] Councilmember Mills.

[4:22:09] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[4:22:11] Marcus, so understanding what,

[4:22:13] essentially, these become a utility of public utility.

[4:22:20] But are they required or are they required to go through,

[4:22:25] get a building permit?

[4:22:28] Yes.

[4:22:28] They would still have to come to the city for permits,

[4:22:30] but the city wouldn't be allowed to reject the permit for any discretionary meeting.

[4:22:36] Well, they could reject it on structural purposes reasons couldn't they?

[4:22:40] I mean, if it's not safe, correct.

[4:22:42] Okay, but that's as far as it could go.

[4:22:46] Thank you.

[4:22:48] Any other discussion?

[4:22:51] No, I think when I got through reading the staff report, I feel like I do now, which is tired.

[4:22:55] But really appreciate how quickly this is happening before the bill gets totally through

[4:23:01] inside. It's really creative. There's no funds being

[4:23:04] expended by the city and I think this is a really smart

[4:23:07] art idea and I'll move this. I hope. I hope

[4:23:10] the oceans have been made in a second. I don't know any further

[4:23:12] discussion. Seeing none city clerk would you take a take a

[4:23:15] boat please. Yes sir. Council member of course. Yes.

[4:23:20] Council member Mills. Council member Roberts. Yes.

[4:23:24] Mayor Pro Temphot. Yes. Mayor Moon. Yes. Approved 5.0.

[4:23:28] Thank you very much. Item five F.

[4:23:32] A point two members of the City Council to an ad hoc subcommittee to assist with the recruitment of the city clerk.

[4:23:39] Staff report.

[4:23:40] Mayor just obviously would like two members to join with us for the interviews for the clerks position.

[4:23:48] As you know, our interim city clerk is retiring the end of the year.

[4:23:52] we have a recruiter on board that's working to find a

[4:23:57] a University of candidates and we would expect to have

[4:24:00] interviews sometime in an October timeframe.

[4:24:04] I'd be happy to do that.

[4:24:06] Yeah, so what?

[4:24:07] I'd be happy to do that.

[4:24:08] Maybe you two should.

[4:24:10] Okay.

[4:24:11] Can I just ask a question, Dr. Ready, do you really need a?

[4:24:14] Do you really need that from us?

[4:24:15] I mean, this is somebody that works very closely with you.

[4:24:20] I mean, I'm happy to do it as well.

[4:24:21] I want to do it. That's fine. I appreciate your confidence and my ability to pick good candidate.

[4:24:27] And again, I do this only because the position of clerk obviously, there's a close working connection with the city council.

[4:24:37] And for this, I just thought it might be helpful if the city council could weigh in on it.

[4:24:42] We've done this also for the police and fire chief, so certain positions I feel that it's sort of a,

[4:24:50] not only a good gesture, but it helps me in picking the right candidate, I believe.

[4:24:54] Well, we also did that with our IT director.

[4:24:56] That's correct.

[4:24:58] So, okay.

[4:25:00] I'm more than happy to defer to our outgoing council members, if one of them would like to do it.

[4:25:04] No, this is volunteering for me that I am not.

[4:25:08] I'm happy to do it.

[4:25:10] Well, I said I would do it.

[4:25:12] Whatever.

[4:25:14] I never go anywhere, I'm always here.

[4:25:17] I go places.

[4:25:18] I don't.

[4:25:19] Okay, so do we have to vote on this?

[4:25:21] I don't think we do, no we.

[4:25:23] I'm sorry, it was Councilman Roberts and who?

[4:25:25] No, Jeffout, Jeff and I.

[4:25:27] course and thank you very much.

[4:25:30] Thank you.

[4:25:31] Okay.

[4:25:32] Next item, public comment.

[4:25:33] Non-agenda items is time has been set aside for members of the public to address the city

[4:25:37] council on items of general interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city.

[4:25:41] Although the city council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act to generally cannot

[4:25:44] take any action on items not listed on the post of the agenda.

[4:25:48] Two minutes will be assigned to each speaker and with that we will open the public comments

[4:25:54] on general items.

[4:25:54] there's one speaker that's requested to speak Henry Hampton. Anyone else in the vast audience

[4:26:00] wishes to speak? Please turn out to Card.

[4:26:06] It's all you. Council Member Foto Mills. I want to

[4:26:10] personally commend you for the 30 combined years of service that you've given our city and the

[4:26:16] hard work. Each of you spent several hours of your personal lives getting us to where we are today

[4:26:22] and moving us forward, building the momentum that the city's experience for the last few

[4:26:27] years, especially the last two years that I've been back here, you are partly the inspiration

[4:26:33] for me to run to continue that balanced momentum and propel this city forward. I want

[4:26:41] to sincerely thank each of you for your dedication to do good for our city. Thank you. Your

[4:26:48] job is not thankless. Truly isn't.

[4:26:54] Anybody else wish to speak? City clerk? No, sir. No.

[4:26:58] we will close public comments. Next item, City Council and City Manager requests and upcoming

[4:27:03] agenda development. Anyone from the staff, as well, of course?

[4:27:08] Sure. During our mayor-protein-photonized meetings with police chief and police officers

[4:27:17] and the firefighters, one of the things that came up is they we start talking about other

[4:27:22] ways to work better with the departments and it was suggested by them that for the next

[4:27:28] a couple of months, we create an ad hoc public safety subcommittee, so Mayor

[4:27:33] Perth and I can continue to do that, which you can appoint tonight, I believe,

[4:27:38] according to Dr. Ready, but that was the right way to do it, I think.

[4:27:44] Yes, Mayor, you certainly have the ability to appoint a subcommittee, okay? So, who

[4:27:50] do you want to that subcommittee?

[4:27:52] We're ready, we've already started, so a little point, Councillor McCorres and Mayor

[4:27:55] Perth and vote, thank you.

[4:27:57] Thank you.

[4:27:58] Thank you. Anyone else?

[4:28:01] Dr. Rady, this is a little nitpicky thing, but I've mentioned a couple of times before, but that whole in the dome above Oscars is getting bigger and bigger.

[4:28:10] And pieces of that roof are falling off.

[4:28:14] Do you, could we address that with the owner and see if they can repair that thing?

[4:28:19] Yeah, I've already talked with Michael Bronson, I'll remind him again.

[4:28:24] Okay, because it's getting bigger.

[4:28:26] Okay, thank you. Anything else?

[4:28:29] Okay, seeing that, seeing none of us, we will, everybody's been waiting for this.

[4:28:34] We will adjourn the City Council to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, September

[4:28:38] the 6th, 2017 at 6 o'clock, hopefully in the Council chamber city hall, seated by a closed

[4:28:44] session.

[4:28:44] Thank you very much and everyone have a good August.

City Council Adjourned Regular and Special Meeting - Jul 26th, 2017

Agenda

Transcript