Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2016 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.H. 1.H. APPOINT TWO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROCESS: RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Mayor Pro Tern Mills and Mayor Moon to an ad hoc City Council Subcommittee for the review of the Planned Development District process with a sunset date of June 30, 2017. Item No. 1 • H • Jay Thompson From: Judy Deertrack <judydeertrack@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 SA8 PM To: Flinn Fagg; David Ready; Douglas C. Holland; Babak Naficy; Frank Tysen; Robert Stone; Kathy Weremiuk; Scott Bigbie; Lyn Calerdine;Tracy Conrad;Jim Harlan; Michael Johnston; Mary Roos; Robert Moon; Christopher Mills; Geoff Kors;Jay Thompson Subject: ITEM 1H CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOV 17 2016/AD HOC PDD STUDY COMM Attachments: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS DAKOTA U July 2014.pdf; 2016.11.16 CC AGENDA APPT AD HOC PDD STUDY COMMITTEE.pdf Mr. Jay Thompson City Clerk City of Palm Springs, CA Re: Agenda Item I.H. for Wednesday, November 16, 2016 (City Council) Dear Mr. Ready and Mr. Fagg, Please place my comments on the Agenda for Item 1. H. I note on the City Council Agenda for November 16, 2016, that the City Council is appointing An Ad Hoc Sub-Quorum Committee to study and make recommendations to the City Council on the use of the Planned Development District (PDD). This Action is more than puzzling because the City has then created and peopled two Ad Hoc Committees with the same subject matter jurisdiction. Considering that the first Committee was created under the negotiated terms of a Settlement Agreement between the City, John Wessman, and People for Proper Planning, in consideration of a General Release of Claims, my question is whether this Agenda Item and proposed Action is in violation of that Agreement. Important and binding provisions were negotiated in the Settlement; firstly, with the explicit language: 'A seven-member ad hoc committee shall be formed to study the existing PDD process, and to make recommendations to both the Planning Commission. . . , . , X,as to whether modifications should be made to the PDD process, and if so, what type of modifications.". . . . . . . . . [typo appeared to eliminated the words, 'and City Council') [ emphasis added] 'The Committee's recommendations shall be considered in good faith by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed regular or special meeting. The recommendations shall not be binding. The recommendations of all members of the Committee will be presented, even if the recommendation is not adopted as the majority position of the members; The Planning Commission will consider whether or not to make any or all of the recommendations to the City Council. " [emphasis added] t 1 / J �oI261 10 These SA provisions make it clear the Committee presents to the Planning Commission; not clear on whether that is a joint session; not clear on the ultimate obligation to present to City Council -- but members of the Transparency Committee have been urging in our recommendations all year that the City be very clear on the powers and obligations granted to Sub-Committees at their time of creation, particularly because their primary focus appears to be getting information back to City Council. So, that obligation should have been stated and made clear from the beginning. But it is very clear this committee's purpose for meeting is to make recommendations to the City on the PDD process -- and one way or another, that information is to be considered by City Council. So what is happening here? Ad Hoc Sub Quorum Committees are specifically created to allow two Council Members to study the topic, meet with required persons, prepare reports (when needed) and report back to the City Council. Isn't that what the Ad Hoc Committee is presently doing on the subject of PDD's? Would this Sub-Quorum Committee now come along and just ignore the ongoing work and efforts? It doesn't seem right that they would insert themselves into the middle of the process with no protocol. Their presence certainly was not planned for nor negotiated by the terms of the SA. How is that to be done in a manner to respect and honor the ongoing work of the PDD Study Committee that has donated hundreds of hours of work over the last few months. Has that work product been preempted? The City's current action to inexplicably now create a new committee with the same subject matter jurisdiction violates the Settlement Agreement, displaces and confuses the role and the work of the current committee, insults and undermines the public's volunteers and their contributions, returns the Committee work on PDD's to a private sub quorum committee, destroys the public's right to attend, and usurps the work schedule agreed upon between Mr. Fagg and the present Committee. The Committee has made astounding progress, which is now at question. The proposed Action (1.H.) also challenges the considerable hours spent by PFPP in presenting data to the Committee, that work may be disrupted and undermined; and that is bad faith. We seem to have returned to the earlier point when PFPP had to challenge the City with a Cure and Correct Letter to even get a right to attend meetings. This is discouraging. Non-compliance and bad faith acts undermine future potential settlements, because who is going to trust that the City will honor its agreements. The City Council created the Ad Hoc SubCommittee in 2015 and in 2016 appointed as the Base Committee: Kathy Weremiuk (Commissioner), Mary Roos (replacing Rich Meaney), and Jim Harlan (representative for PFPP). The Settlement Agreement (SA) specified further appointment of four additional public representatives with the following qualifications (per the Settlement Agreement, attached): "(1)a local contractor or engineer; (2)a person with expertise in the field of affordable housing (ignored); (3)a local architect; and(4)a person with expertise in the field of planning in the local area." Based upon the SA terms, the following four persons have been appointed and have served and contributed their time and efforts substantially throughout the year as follows: (1) Michael Johnston (designer); (2) Tracy Conrad (hotelier and businesswoman); (3) Scott Bigbie (urban planner); 2 (4) Lyn Calerdine (Commissioner - who actually doesn't meet the criteria of the study, but was accepted and has worked hard). This Committee has met at least six times, with the Planning Director, Mr. Flinn Fagg, supplying extensive information to the members for review and comment. On November 3, 2016, the SubCommittee agreed with Mr. Fagg that they would meet on November 21st to hear the presentation and work product of PFPP, and would meet on December 5th to begin formulating recommendations for potential changes in four areas: Administrative, PDD, Zoning, and General Plan Language. This November 3rd meeting, where the agreements were reached on timing and work output, were actually filmed or recorded through substantial parts by KESQ News, and the members were interviewed afterwards. For the City to be suggesting the formation of a second Committee out of the blue right at this critical juncture is highly irregular, and potentially very obstructive of the Committee and its work. But even more problematic is the idea that to create a committee outside of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement -- actually breaches that Agreement. For all of these reasons, I recommend that the City not move to create a Sub-Quorum Ad Hoc Committee to study the PDD process. If, after recommendations have been made by the Planning Commission, or -- after a joint session of the Planning Commission and City Council, the City still feels there is further work to do in this area, then at that time, after termination of the present Committee -- it might be timely and appropriate to continue study and discourse. It certainly does not appear to be presently appropriate. By the way, it is possible from the obscurity of language on Item 1.H. that the City Council intends to appoint Council member Mills and Mayor Moon to the actual present and ongoing Subcommittee. Again, I would state that this was not anticipated in the Settlement Agreement, and is inappropriate and in breach of that agreement, and would disrupt the Committee's work midstream -- which has advanced to a stage where the Committee is close to formulating recommendations based upon much prior work. Please let me make one point very clear. This Committee currently existing IS NOT a Sub-Quorum Committee and it falls under the Brown Act and requires public meetings. The City cannot be proposing to create a Sub-Quorum Committee that gets to come into the picture in some manner, meet with the Committee, and then go off privately and collect information outside of the Brown Act. Please do not obscure the law and the obligations under the law. With regard, Judy Deertrack 3 P\bbb SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS ("Agreement") is entered into as of this _ day of July, 2014 (the "Effective Date'), by and between the City of Palm Springs, a California municipal corporation, and the Palm Springs City Council (collectively, "Palm Springs"), Wessman Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"), Dakota PS, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Builder") and People for Proper Planning, a California ad hoc non- profit membership organization ("People") with respect to the facts set forth in the Recitals below. Palm Springs, Developer and People shall hereinafter be referred to, collectively, as the "Parties" and, each, a "Party." RECITALS A. On February 19, 2014, Palm Springs approved a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Planned Development District ("PDD") allowing 39 two-story detached single family homes and approving a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 6.37 acres into 30 residential lots located at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains, fronting Belardo Road in the City of Palm Springs (the "Dakota Project" or the "Project"). On March 5, 2014, Palm Springs adopted Ordinance No. 1846, approving the POD. B. On or about March 21, 2014, People filed a Petition for Preemptory Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Petition") against Palm Springs in the Riverside County Superior Court, Palm Springs Branch, entitled People for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs, et at., Case No. PSC1401656 ("Action"). Developer was named in the Action as a Real-Party-In-Interest. People's Petition alleges that Palm Springs, as lead agency with respect to approval of the Dakota Project, violated the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq. - "CEQA") when it issued certain Approvals for the Project. The Petition further alleges that Palm Springs violated its Municipal Zoning Code and further violated the City General Plan in approving the Project. Palm Springs and Developer deny all of these claims, and contest People's allegations in the Petition. C. The Parties, in their shared interest, to avoid any further litigation between them, and to settle and resolve, fairly, fully and finally, all matters in dispute between them, wish to compromise and settle the Action and the disputes between them regarding the Project (and certain proposed modifications thereto) on the terms and conditions set forth herein. Accordingly, this Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims, and the execution of this Agreement shall not be considered or treated at any time or for any purpose as an admission that the other side's positions had merit, or as an admission of liability, or wrongful conduct, by any of the Parties to this Agreement. No past or present wrongdoing on the part of any of the Parties shall be implied from the negotiation or the consummation of this Agreement. -1- AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties to this Agreement covenant and agree as follows: 1. Ad Hoc PDD Committee. A seven-member ad hoc committee ("Committee") shall be formed to study the existing PDD process, and to make recommendations to both the Planning Commission as to whether modifications should be made to the PDD process, and if so, what type of modifications. Margo Wheeler, the City's Director of Planning Services, will serve as staff to the Committee. If Ms. Wheeler no longer works for the City, the City Manager shall appoint an alternative staff member to serve as the staff to the Committee. The Committee membership and formation shall be as follows:. The City, Builder/Developer, and People hereby form a three-person base committee ("Base Committee"). The City's Mayor Pro Tern shall appoint a member of Palm Springs Planning Commissioner as the City's representative on the Base Committee. Builder and Developer jointly appoint Rich Meaney as their representative on the Base Committee. People hereby appoint Jim Harlan as People's representative on the Base Committee. The Parties may replace their representatives on the Base Committee as necessary. The Base Committee shall be responsible for selecting up to four additional Committee members from the following categories: (1) a local contractor or engineer; (2) a person with expertise in the field of affordable housing; (3) a local architect; and (4) a person with expertise in the field of planning in the local area. The Base Committee will work cooperatively to fill positions (1) through (4) with persons who will bring local knowledge, expertise, and differing viewpoints to the Committee. Except as provided in the next sentence, the decisions shall be made by a majority of the Base Committee members. The Base Committee may by unanimous decision select members who do not fit within the criteria specified above. The persons selected shall have demonstrated the ability to work collaboratively. If the Base Committee is unable to fill one or more of the four positions, the Base Committee and any additional members selected by the Base Committee shall serve as the Committee. The Committee shall have its kickoff meeting within 45 days of the Effective Date. The Committee shall hold no fewer than three meetings. After receiving the information it deems appropriate, the Committee shall formulate its recommendations regarding the PDD process. The Committee shall complete the formulation of its recommendations within six month if the Effective Date unless the Committee votes to grant itself a reasonable extension of time to complete the process. The Committee's recommendations shall be considered in good faith by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed regular or special meeting. The recommendations shall not be binding. The recommendations of all members of the Committee will be presented, even if the recommendation is not adopted as the majority position of the members. The Planning Commission will consider whether or not to make any or all of the recommendations to the City Council. 2. Enhanced Notice of PDD Applications/Hearings Pending Completion of the Ad Hoc PDD Committee. Between the Effective Date and the date that the Ad Hoc -2- PDD Committee completes its task and delivers its recommendations to the City Council, the City will provide enhanced public notice relating to PDD applications and hearings as follows. (a). Complete Applications. Counsel for People will prepare a listing of e-mail addresses of persons who wish to be notified of the filing of PDD applications. The list may be updated as desired by People. Once such applications are deemed complete, the City will provide a notice to the persons on the list that includes the name of the applicant, the location and type of project, a brief description of the project, and a description of any deviations in property development standards from the Palm Springs Municipal Cade requested by the Applicant. Application documentations will be available for inspection at City Hall during normal business hours. (b). Hearing Notices. On ail public hearing notices related to projects involving a PDD application, the notice shall include a description of any deviations in property development standards from the Palm Springs Municipal Code requested by the Applicant. 3. Compromise of Claims and Dismissal of Action. The Parties hereby agree to compromise and settle People's claims arising from or related to the facts alleged in the Petition pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein, including the general release set forth below in Paragraph 5. Concurrently with the mutual execution of this Agreement, People shall execute and transmit to counsel for Palm Springs and Developer a fully executed Request for Dismissal of the Petition, with prejudice, in a form suitable for filing with the Court, which such Request for Dismissal shall be filed with the Court by counsel for Palm Springs or Developer. Except as otherwise agreed to by the Parties in writing, each Party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the Petition proceeding. 4. No Admission of Liability. The Parties enter this Agreement and release for the purpose of terminating the dispute between them. By entering into and carrying out this Agreement, no Party to this Agreement admits any liability to any other Party on any theory for any claim or cause of action. This Agreement shall not be used or construed as an admission of liability by any Party hereto for any purpose. 5. General Releases. (a) This release is intended as a full and complete release by People in relation to the Petition, the Action and the Project. No part of this release shall release any rights or obligations of the Parties created by this Agreement. People, for itself, and on behalf of its members, associates, predecessors, successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, alter egos and affiliates (collectively, the "Releasing Parties"), fully release and discharge Palm Springs, the Builder, the Developer, the Developer's affiliated entities (including, without limitation, Wessman Holdings, LLC), and its respective present and former officers, directors, employees, partners, attorneys, independent contractors, agents, insurers, accountants, heirs, and successors and assigns -3- (collectively, the "Released Parties"), from all rights, claims, demands, actions or causes of action of every nature whatsoever which any of the Releasing Parties now has or may have against any of the Released Parties arising from or related to the above recited facts, the Petition, the Action and/or the Project (collectively, the "Released Claims"), except those rights and obligations arising out of this Agreement. People, on behalf of itself and each of the Releasing Parties, covenants not to threaten, bring, commence, initiate, institute, file, join, maintain, prosecute, support, or threaten any action(s) based in whole or part upon any of the Released Claims, except as necessary to enforce this Agreement and the obligations set forth herein. People understands and agrees that this Agreement may be pled as a full and complete defense and bar to, and may be used as the basis to dismiss with prejudice or enjoin, any action(s) based in whole or in part upon a Released Claim. (b) This release is intended as a full and complete release and discharge of any and all Released Claims that the Releasing Parties may have arising from or related to the Project or proceedings on the Petition. In making this release, People, on behalf of itself and each of the Releasing Parties, intends to release the Released Parties from any liability of any nature whatsoever for any claim of damages or injury or for equitable or declaratory relief of any kind, whether the claim, or any facts on which such claim might be based, is known or unknown to the party possessing the claim. People has read and has otherwise been informed of the meaning of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, and has consulted with its counsel, and understands the provisions of Section 1542. People, on behalf of.itself and each of the Releasing Parties, expressly waive all rights under Section .1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California and any successor statute, which the Parties understand provides as follows: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. People's Initials: c%J (c) People, on behalf of itself axd each of the Releasing Parties, acknowledges that it may hereafter discover facts different from or in addition to those which they now believe to be true with respect to the Released Claims. People, on behalf of itself and each of the Releasing Parties, agrees that the foregoing releases shall be and remain effective in all respects notwithstanding such different or additional facts or any discovery thereof. (d) No Released Parry nor any related entities have made any statement or representation to any of the Releasing Parties regarding any fact relied upon in entering into this Agreement, and People, on behalf of itself and each of the Releasing Parties, expressly states it does not rely upon any statement, representation or promise of any Released Party or related entities in executing this Agreement, or in -4- making the settlement provided for herein, except as is expressly stated in this Agreement. (e) Each Party to this Agreement has made such investigation of the facts pertaining to this settlement and this Agreement, and of all other matters pertaining thereto, as it deems necessary_ In entering into this Agreement, each Party assumes the risk of any misrepresentation, concealment or mistake. If any Party should subsequently discover that any fact relied upon by the Party in entering into this Agreement was untrue, or that any fact was concealed from that Party, or that the Party's understanding of the facts or of the law was incorrect, such Party shall not be entitled to any relief in connection therewith, including without limitation upon the generality of the foregoing, any alleged right or claim to set aside or rescind this Agreement. This Agreement is intended to be, and is, final and binding among the Parties. (f) If it is within the contemplation of the Parties to this Agreement that each of them may have claims for relief or causes of action for malicious prosecution or abuse of process or other claims in connection with the Petition proceeding described above, and matters undertaken in connection therewith, it is the intention of the Parties to this Agreement to fully, finally and forever release any and all such claims. 6. Representations. Warranties and Covenants. Each Party to this Agreement (each, the "_Representing Party") hereby represents and warrants to the other Parties as follows: (a) The Representing Party has the right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement, and no approvals or consents of any person or entity other than the Representing Party is necessary in connection with it. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the documents related hereto by the Representing Party have been duly authorized by it, and this Agreement and the documents related hereto, when executed and delivered, shall constitute a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Representing Party enforceable against it in accordance with their terms. (b) Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of an entity, other than an individual executing this Agreement on his or her own behalf, represents that he or she is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said entity. (c) The Representing Party has not assigned or transferred to any third party any of the rights, claims, causes of action or items to be released or transferred which it is obligated to transfer or to release as part of this Agreement. If a Representing Party breaches the foregoing representation and warranty, such Representing Party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the non-breaching Parties, of, from and against all liabilities, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred by such non-breaching Parties as a result of any person or entity asserting any such assignment or transfer in violation of this paragraph's -5- representation and warranty. It is the intention of the Parties, and each of them, that this indemnity does not require payment as a condition precedent to recovery. 7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties, and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements between them concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may only be waived, modified or amended by the written agreement of all Parties to this Agreement. B. Partial Invalidity. In the event that any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or against public policy, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 9. No Waiver. The waiver by one Party of the performance of any covenant, condition or promise shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor shall it be considered as a waiver by such Party of any other (or the enforcement for subsequent breaches or failures of the same) covenant, condition or promise. The delay in pursuing any remedy or in insisting upon full performance for any breach or failure of any covenant, condition or promise shall not prevent a Party from later pursuing remedies or insisting upon full performance for the same or similar breaches or failures. 10. Headings. The headings, subheadings and numbering of the different paragraphs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience and reference only and are not to be taken as part of this Agreement or to control or affect the meaning, construction or effect of the same. 11. Governing Law, This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 12. Successors In Interest. Subject to any restrictions against assignment contained herein, and to any legal limitations on the power of the signatories to bind non-signatories to this Agreement, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, the assigns, successors in interest, agents and related entities of each of the Parties hereto. 13. Time Is Of The Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement. 14, Necessary Acts. Each Party to this Agreement agrees to perform any further acts and execute and deliver any further documents that may be reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this Agreement. 15. Advice of Counsel. Each Party hereto, by its due execution of this Agreement, represents to every other Party that it has reviewed each term of this Agreement with its counsel in the above-referenced litigation, and that hereafter no Party shall deny the validity of this Agreement on the ground that the Party did not have advice of counsel generally or advice of its counsel in the aforementioned litigation. Each Party has had the opportunity to receive independent legal advice with respect to -6- the advisability of making the compromise and settlement provided for herein, and with respect to the meaning of California Civil Code §1542. 16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Except as otherwise may be agreed to in a writing executed by the one or more of the Parties hereto, each Party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the Action and the preparation and execution of the Agreement. 17. Construction. Each Party has cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement. In any construction to be made to this Agreement, or of any of its terms and provisions, the same shall not be construed against any Party. 18. Notices. Any notice or demand which by any provision of this Agreement is required or permitted to be given or served shall be deemed so given or served if sent by United States mail, certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, with return receipt requested. Such notices or demands shall be effective upon the earlier of (a) three (3) business days after mailing, or (b) actual receipt as evidenced by the return receipt, and shall be addressed as follows: To: People With a Copy To: Law Office of Babak Naficy 1504 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To: City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 With a Copy To: Douglas C. Holland, Esq. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 To: Wessman Holdings, LLC 555 S. Sunrise way, Suite 200 Palm Springs, CA 92264 With a Copy To: Emily Hemphill, Esq. Post Office Box 1008 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 -7- To: Rich Meaney Dakota Partners, LLC 700 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite A Palm Springs, CA 92262 With a Copy To: M. Katherine Jenson, Esq. Rutan &Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Either Party may change its address for service of notices by giving written notice to the other Party of the new address. 19. No Third Parties Benefited. This Agreement is made for the sole benefit and protection of Palm Springs, the Developer (and its successors, if any) and People. No other person shall have any right of action or right to rely thereon, and the Parties hereto hereby agree that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to vest in any other person or entity any interest in or claim upon the funds that may be advanced pursuant to this Agreement or any rights under this Agreement. 20. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and by facsimile signature; provided, however, that any Party executing this Agreement by facsimile signature shall provide the original of his signature to every other Party within one (1) business day. When each Party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart to each Party's counsel, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed counterparts, shall constitute one Agreement, which shall be binding upon and effective as to all Parties. One fully executed original is to be delivered to counsel for each Party hereto. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] -8- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. PEOPLE FOR PROPER PLANNING By: Name Name: Title: An I . idual and on Behalf of Title: An Individual and on Behalf of People for Proper Planning People for Proper Planning APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Name: Babak Naficy Title: Attorney for Petitioners CITY OF PALM SPRINGS; PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL 1 — By: Nam Title:_�-.�=�,. ��.es.✓wr�c+�1 ATTESTED: Bye N � 7 Rc,n tt��o i City Clerk, City of Palm Springs APPROVED AS FORM: By: Name: Do gas Holland Title: City Attomey, City of Palm Springs [Continued on Next Page] -9- WESSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC By: Nam . Title 'F APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Name: Emily Hemphill Title: Attorney for Real-Parties-In-Interest DAKOTA PS, LLC By. Name: W � _ Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ByA �-- Name: M. Katherine J son Title: Attorney for Dakota PS, LLC [Signature Page to Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release] -10- WESSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC By: Nam Title (- APPROVED AS TO FORM: Name: E i Hemphill Title: A or y for Real-Parties-In-Interest DAKOTA PS, LLC r By. Name. lir041V Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By. f• - Name: M. Katherine J son Title: Attorney for Dakota PS, LLC (Signature Page to Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release) -10. 1