I ask people why they do not attend City Council meetings and their reply is often, “It doesn’t matter what we say, they do what they want.” Well you can add a few more business owners to that list of people, it was exactly what they said as they were leaving the Council meeting tonight. Councilman Corbin mentioned unintended consequences tonight, referencing the expansion of the parking requirements for downtown. He said that people are parking in the paved parking lots, even when frequenting the businesses without improved parking lots. He felt that this would increase and encourage this if the code reduces parking required for all those listed in the downtown area. Public comments: Grove Crank spoke in favor of amending the development code to lift parking requirements for the downtown area. He stated that it would solve all the problems for downtown businesses. The amendment passed 4-1. Corbin being the only no vote.
The Review of the Draft Downtown Economic Revitalization Specific Plan did draw a crowd and a few business owners spoke during the public comments. The business owners all expressed their desire for the City Council to revisit the points that Council member Corbin brought up. Such as the required 16 feet wide sidewalks, which will be prohibitive to businesses old and new. The non-conforming buildings that Jay mentions as a concern in his letter to staff are the buildings with a drive through that are not allowed under the new Downtown Economic Revitalization Plan. So sorry Jack-n- The Box, McDonald’s and the bank, you are now non-conforming businesses. In addition the plan includes the City Hall and the Library, relocating. The spot wasn’t specified, but I wonder could it be the community center, if it turns out that the building just can’t get 9 million dollars to be all it can be? Also, the plan requires additional business license fees, prohibits chain link fences, and also includes development fees for Public Art. It seems that this Downtown Economic Revitalization Plan contains a lot of things that slipped by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Last time I looked the citizens of 29 were at the top of the chart and then the City Council and then the City Manager and then Staff. I think the tail is wagging the dog, and the dog is enjoying the breeze, but it stinks from where I am sitting.
Some council members stated that they wanted to pass it and then go back and study it in-depth because the GP can be amended up to 5 times a year. Staff brought up the dead line with the state housing department, but I say this information should have been given to the council long before now, so that the pressure of time and money would not be an influencing factor in the decision. Public comments were let’s do it right and right now.
One unintended consequence of tonight’s meeting is the growing awareness of the dysfunctional relationship between the staff, the planning commission, and the city council. Some think Corbin wants this to be the “Corbin Plan” and thats why the GP has been stalled and that tonight was just another example, but others believe that the staff runs the show and 4 of the 5 councilmen are allowing the staff to make the decisions in this town. In addition, another ploy that we may have fallen victim to is the National Park sign. Maybe they trotted out the first sign with sheep and a 120,000 price tag, that anyone with two brain cells to rub together agrees it is ridiculous, so when they trot out a more reasonable sign, the public will agree and appreciate the thriftiness of our council.
Anyway you slice it, tonight the people of 29 palms lost.
Business Owners Ask City Council to Rethink The Downtown Economic Revitalization Plan,
Cora,
I think if the offical record is checked or maybe Steve Spear can comment, it was my understanding during the GPAC that the plan was approved only in concept, not officially adopted by the then sitting Council, which would mean, it really dosen’t mean anything except that we paid for something that was never implemented or adopted.
Cora,
My bust, guess the Council adopted the plan last night. Disregard my last.
“It doesn’t matter what we say, they do what they want”. Not true. The council members get a lot of public input by letters, phone calls, e-mails and at the ball game, car show, art exhibit etc. And to say speaking out at the council meetings is bot effective, consider the number of citizens that spoke out against the batch plant and then the council voted down the application for a zoning change and denied the application. The main reason for going forward with the specific plan is to get the General Plan update finished. Delaying it anymore will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and consultants fees. And we all know you don’t approve of that. It’s been going on 3 years and a million and a half dollars to get this general plan to finality. We can’t delay it anymore. It’s time to vote yes or no on the whole plan update, to include the specific plan. And then the same night vote yes or no on the changes to the plan.
Agree Larry on the GP. I do believe the DT Plan has to be adopted such as the Economic Development Action Plan was before it can be included/implemented.
I do not think any of the recommendations in the EDAP were implemented even though it was adopted.
So I’m not really sure what adopting the DT would do for 29. I do know a plan is just that, a plan. The plan can change based on a number of factors, so it’s not like it is set in stone.
The key to any plan implemented is flexibilty, the ability to adjust fire so to speak.
Good comments Larry. How much is “a lot of input”? Where was the input when the council entered into a huge Bond debt for the next thirty years duplicating functioning city buildings, yoking this generations and the next two generation of homeowners? Where was the community input when a few of the chosen few of special non-official folks were working behind the curtain with City Hall on how to spend $13-15 million of taxpayers earnings?
Not sure what the exact motion was: This is what a yes vote was for per the Staff Report recommendation on the DT Plan.
1. Vote on whether the Council would like to further
discuss the draft Downtown Economic
Revitalization Specific Plan;
2. If so voted, vote on which numbered issue (see
numbered paragraphs within report) the Council
would like to discuss further;
3. Once issues are selected, receive a report from
staff; then
4. Provide guidance for any changes as appropriate
As I remeber the motion it was to adopt the Downtown Specific Plan as provided by staff and it passed 4-1. The concern was the possibility of an applicant coming into city hall the day after the GP and the SP were passed and asking for a building permit and being told they had to have 16 foot wide sidewalks and no drivethrus allowed. That’s why I suggest voting on the amendments the same day they vote on the GP.
The information I have is that the plan was moved forward to the next step of the process. The next step is a public hearing and then adoption by consent and then it would become law 30 days later. I wonder if the PC meeting Tuesday night will be considered the public hearing? So maybe people both for and against can show up to the PC meeting Tuesday night.
Cora, the PC is the forwarding body for the GP. We have viewed/reviewed the GP.
With out anymore major issues Tuesday should be the last time for us. Then it moves on to the CC. There is a meeting that will be a joint one. I do not know when that will be.
The CC “should” have it on the agenda April 23rd, I am guessing.
Hi Cora,
I spoke to some “peeps”. The DERSP was put on the “fast track’ so to speak in order to stop the bleeding of funds from the GF in order to get the new GP passed.
This revised GP was to be completed and passed by November 2010 it was delayed for numerous reasons the GPAC being the primary delaying factor.
The new GP can be revisited after it is in place. The questions are, since only 5 changes can be made to a GP in each year, who will initiate the changes at the Council level, will a majority of the Council agree to look at the proposed changes and then to vote in the affirmative to make the changes.
That there is a tall order.
Larry,
You are correct in believing that I do not want the city to spend addtl money, but things have changed since this plan was written 3 to 4 years ago. It does need revised. RHNA numbers, economy, RDA dissolved, and an ongoing wastewater treatment plant study.
The General Plan is worthless without a Development Code.
A plan is just a plan until sheet the fan.
The cost at the present of 1.5 million does include a total rewrite of the Dev Code from what I can recall of the contract with H&I.
yes
Let’s put this baby to bed.
THEY JUST DO WHAT THEY WANT
WHERE DO THEY GET THESE IDEAS?
WONDER WHAT GENERATES THERE DECISIONS
IS IT A TROPHY ON THE MANTEL FROM WHEN THEY WERE IN CONTROL THAT THEY WANT?
THEY JUST CANT LEAVE IT ALONE
THIS STILL IS A SMALL TOWN USA WITH A SMALL TOWN BUDGET
DO THEY REMEMBER WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THERE WHIMS?
I agree with everything you just shouted…. What needs to be done is give the whole council chamber an Enema.
As a side note…. did your CAPS LOCK get stuck?????
Carey and Steve S,
Thank you for your information. I agree that it is time to move forward. My question and I asked 2 citycouncil men. Why was this all a surprise to them/ Answer: That’s a good question. Did they know about the 16 foot sidewalks, the chainlink fence, the moving of city hall as a possibility, they included a possible new job of ombudsman…etc..or if it isn’t new news then did the other 4 not have a problem with it? Secondly, funding has changed, the economy has changed…and Steve, what will be the priority in order of changing?
The Plan requires prohibits chain link fences? Really… so this is in your face for 29 Palms Fencing. Yet another insult to local businesses and the families they support. Indeed, “the whole council chamber needs an enema.” What? Moving City Hall and the library? Any one have any supplemental info on this? This council, city manager and a few staff need to be challenged on their competency and mental stability. If a city councilmen is non campos mentis, does he have to be impeached? My guess is that a court order would send him to see a shrink. These clandestine operators are an anathema to the heath and welfare of the city!