HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-11MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Benson convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Richard S. Kelly
ILL INVOCATION - Mayor Pro Tem Robert A. Spiegel
IV. ROLL CALL
Przscial
Councilman Buford A. Crites
Councilman Jim Ferguson
Councilman Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Pro-Tempore Robert A. Spiegel
Mayor Jean M. Benson
Also Present:
Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
Sheila R. Gilligan, Director of Community Affairs/City Clerk
Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works
John Wohlmuth, ACM/Director of Administrative Services
Carlos L. Ortega, RDA Executive Director
Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Paul Gibson, Finance Director/City Treasurer
John Nagus, Community Arts Manager
Mary P. Gates, Deputy City Clerk
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. DON LOW, 616 Sandpiper, stated he was at the meeting to protest the development by Lowe
Corporation at F1 Paseo and Highway 111. He asked that the Council consider looking at this area
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
for a park or something that would be low traffic area as opposed to a high traffic area being
proposed by Lowe Corporation.
MR. MARK ROSS 48-240 Birdie Way, asked that the Council consider making a recommendation
to the Desert Willow Golf Course Committee to consider allowing City employees to play at resident
rates, perhaps four times during the season and seven to eight times during the summer months.
MS. TESSA GOSS, 73-589 Haystack, expressed concern about the well being drilled on Haystack.
She said the large switch gears and transformer boxes were unsightly and noisy. She was also
concerned that her was being devalued because of this well and stated that the peace and
quiet of her home was being disturbed.
Mayor Benson noted that this item was on the Agenda and would be discussed by the Council during
this meeting.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meetings of October 23, and November 13, 1997, and
the Adjourned meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of December 1, 1997.
This item was held over for separate discussion under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over.
Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 24, 25, 26,
27, and 25PD Office Complex.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Award of Loan Agreements to El Paseo Exhibition Artists.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve award of Artwork Loan Agreements between the City
of Palm Desert and the artists or artists' representatives listed in the staff report dated
December 1, 1997.
D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Award of Contract for Haystack Channel Drainage
Improvements (Contract No. C13410, Project No. 500E-97).
Rec: By Minute Motion:
1) Award Contract No. C13410 to G&M Construction of Palm Springs,
California, for the Haystack Channel Drainage Improvements in the amount of
$45,175.00, plus a ten percent contingency in the amount of $4,517.50 and
authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement;
2) Appropriate construction funding in the amount of $49,692.50 from Account
No. 420-4690-433-4001.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
E. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION of Notice of Completion for the Civic Center Park
Information Kiosks (Contract No. C12670).
Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file
a Notice of Completion for the subject project.
F. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATIQN of Notice of Completion for Traffic Signal Interconnect
Improvements at Five Locations (Contract No. C12740, Project No. 557-97).
G.
Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file
a Notice of Completion for the subject contract.
REQUPZT FOR APPROVAL, of Art in Public Places and Civic Arts Recommendation for
Acceptance of Completion of Bill Ware Artwork and Return of Art in Public Places Fees.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Art in Public Places and Civic Arts recommendation for
acceptance of completion of Bill Ware artwork at the Sunlife Medical Building and
approval of return of $5,826.97 fee paid to the Art in Public Places fund.
H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Proposal Submitted by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. For
Fiscal Impact Studies (Contract No. C13680).
This item was held over for separate discussion under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over.
Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL , of Parcel Map 28448-1. (Applicant: David Freedman &
Company, Inc.)
J.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-101 approving Parcel Map
28448-1.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 28549. (Applicant: Sedona Homes, Inc.)
Rec: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-102 approving Tract Map
28549;
2) By Minute Motion, authorize a credit of the applicable drainage fees for this
subdivision against construction costs for subdivision drainage improvements.
K. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION of Used Motor Oil Recycling 5th Cycle Block Grant -
Public Education Campaign.
This item was held over for separate discussion under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over.
Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
3
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Target Speed Enforcement Team for Highway 74.
This item was held over for separate discussion under Section VII, Consent Items Held Over.
Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action.
M. INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY for the Month of October 1997.
Rec: Receive and file.
N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Transfer of Right -of -Way for I-10 Cook Street Interchange
Project.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the transfer of the right-of-way to the County of
Riverside for Parcels 0382-001A, 0382-002A, 0382-002D, 0382-002E, 0382-003A,
0382-004A, and 0382-004B and authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary Grant
Deeds.
O. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Refund of Business License Fees
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a refund of $67.50 for Jagged Edge and House of Sun
N' Sound business license fees.
P. MINUTES OF Police Advisory Committee meetings of June 11 and October 8, 1997.
Rec: Receive and file.
Councilman Spiegel asked that Items H and L be held for separate discussion under Section VII,
Consent Items Held Over, of the Agenda. Councilman Ferguson asked that Items A and K also be
held for separate discussion.
Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as
presented by unanimous vote of the City Council.
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
A. MINJLTFof the Regular City Council Meetings of October 23, and November 13, 1997, and
the Adjourned meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of December 1, 1997.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he would only be able to vote on the Minutes for the
December 1, 1997.
Mrs. Gilligan stated that the Minutes of October 23, 1997, had almost been completed, and she
asked that the Council continue these Minutes to the meeting of January 8, 1997.
4
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel moved to continue the Minutes of October 23, 1997, to the meeting of January
^- 8, 1998. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
Councilman Spiegel moved to approve the Minutes of November 13, 1997. Motion was seconded
by Kelly and carried by a 3-1-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT and Councilman Ferguson
ABSTAINING.
Councilman Spiegel moved to approve the Minutes of December 1, 1997. Motion was seconded by
Kelly and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Proposal Submitted by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. For
Fiscal Impact Studies (Contract No. C13680).
Councilman Spiegel stated this was a request for monies for a fiscal impact study of Palm
Desert annexing Sun City and an area adjacent thereto. He said his understanding as a member
of the Committee was that we were going to look at Sun City and the area immediately
adjacent to Sun City as far west as Tri Palms; however, this report was written differently, and
he asked that staff clarify it.
Councilman Kelly stated that he was the other Councilmember on the Committee and agreed
with Councilman Spiegel's understanding. He said in addition to that, he did not understand
why staff had proposed to do Bermuda Dunes again.
Mr. Diaz stated that he would explain the other two parts of the study. He stated that going
on to Monterey would be to have that information available in case the annexation was being
processed and LAFCO wished us to take in the larger area which would include portions of
1000 Palms. With regard to Bermuda Dunes, he said the City did have a fiscal impact analysis
on Bermuda Dunes, but it was just Bermuda Dunes alone. With this study, he said he wanted
to have information as to what the impacts would be if Bermuda Dunes were brought in with
this particular development. He said this could wait to be done afterwards and that we could
just go with the one study which would include the immediate area to Palm Desert limits and
stop at that.
Mayor Benson noted that last week LAFCO instructed the City to pursue looking at Bermuda
Dunes in that annexation because Sun City is not contiguous, and this would leave Bermuda
Dunes an island.
NOTE: Councilman Crites arrived at 4:15 p.m.
Councilman Kelly stated that it would be contiguous if the City took the whole north side of
the freeway and he did not feel this would leave Bermuda Dunes as an island.
Councilman Spiegel stated that he did not feel it was necessary to revisit the Bermuda Dunes
issue and the study that was done last year because we already know what the expenses would
5
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
be. He asked if the study could be changed to do Sun City and Sun City plus the areas west
to Tri Palms.
Mr. Diaz responded that this could be done. With regard to Bermuda Dunes, he said staff
would look at the island issue. He said while the Bermuda Dunes study had been done, staff
wanted to see if there was any impact to lessen the fiscal analysis.
Councilman Kelly stated that all that would have to be done would be to add it to what we have
and that we know it would be very detrimental.
Mr. Diaz stated that the issue was whether it would be less detrimental taking it in with Sun
City, and that determination could be made by the City without having RSG do it. He said if
Council wished, the study would just go with Sun City to Tri Palms, including Tri Palms.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a study by Rosenow Spevacek Group,
Inc. (RSG) for Sun City to Tri Palms and including Tri Palms.
Councilman Kelly stated that he would like to see Sun City all the way to Tri Palms as
separated, and then have the portion to Monterey as a separate portion which could be either
added to or subtracted from the Sun City portion.
Councilman Ferguson stated that if the City is required to do the third study involving Bermuda
Dunes as Mayor Benson indicated LAFCO was interested in, he would like to know if it would
be cheaper to do three studies at once with one contract rather than to go back and have to
contract separately.
Councilman Kelly stated that Bermuda Dunes had been done last year, and we would just have
to add it to the Sun City study.
Mayor Benson stated that what she, Councilman Ferguson, and Mr. Diaz were saying was that
perhaps it would not be as expensive in conjunction with someone else to bring them in. Then
if we have all of it, we could either take it out or put it in. This way we would also have
recent reports on all of the area.
Councilman Ferguson added that if we have public safety north of the freeway already, it may
affect the public services component of that analysis which he understood represented 60% of
the cost.
Councilman Crites suggested that in terms of Bermuda Dunes, the consultant could perhaps
look at the data that is already gathered and see whether or not it would be changed by the
addition of other contiguous areas.
6
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a proposal submitted by Rosenow
Spevacek Group, Inc. (RSG) for studies for Areas 1 and 2 of the staff report, including the areas as suggested
by Councilman Kelly (both up to Tri Palms and including Tri Palms), with direction to the consultant to look
at data already gathered in the Bermuda Dunes study to see whether or not it would be changed by the addition
of other contiguous areas. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
K. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION of Used Motor Oil Recycling 5th Cycle Block Grant -
Public Education Campaign.
Councilman Ferguson stated that this involved a contract with Fairway Outdoor Advertising,
a division of Morris Communications Corporation. He said he would abstain from voting in
this item because his firm has a financial relationship with this company.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to enter into a six-month
contract for (Contract No. C13690) $19,500 with Fairway, a Division of Morris Communications
Corporations, for a rotary bulletin board that will be displayed at six separate sites at one month intervals to
educate the general public on the need to safely dispose of used motor oil. Motion was seconded by Spiegel
and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Ferguson ABSTAINING.
L. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Target Speed Enforcement Team for Highway 74.
Councilman Spiegel stated that staff had been asked to look at the possibility of Palm Desert
taking from the County Highway 74 at the Visitors Bureau on Highway 74 because traffic is
getting heavier and heavier, and it is difficult for citizens to get out of some of the various
subdivisions onto Highway 74. He said staff had looked at this and indicated it would cost
approximately $105,000 per year to take over that portion of Highway 74, including slurry
seal, etc. for the street. He suggested to staff that they go back and revisit the traffic on
Highway 74 to see what can be done for some of the homeowners to give them better access
and make it easier to get out of their subdivisions.
Mayor Benson stated that it was not just the speed but that it was also difficult just getting on
and off Highway 74.
Councilman Ferguson asked how the target speed enforcement team would be implemented on
Highway 74, whether they were just going to be citing everyone or if they would be monitoring
speed with radar, etc.
Captain I ingle addressed the Council and stated that from what he read of the request, it was
a selective enforcement area for speed violations along Highway 74. He said he had attended
the Police Briefing prior to this Council meeting and felt that was the most appropriate course
of action in terms of looking at a variety of alteratives. He said the Police Department would
be happy to do whatever Council wished but that he sensed that Council wanted a deeper
analysis of the problem before the Police Department goes out and issues citations to residents
without fair warning.
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Diaz stated that if Council wishes, a complete traffic study will be prepared for Highway
74 looking at speed, access, etc. and come back to the Council with an entire plan rather than
just one directed at speed.
With Council concurrence, this matter was referred back to staff for preparation of a complete traffic
study as outlined by Mr. Diaz above.
VDT. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 97-96 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN ANTI -VIOLENCE IN THE
WORKPLACE POLICY (Continued from the meetings of October 23, and November 13,
1997).
Mr. Diaz stated that the Palm Desert Employees' Organization had reviewed this policy and
recommended approval.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-96. Motion was
seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 97-103 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING LIFTING THE ISTEA TRUCK SIZE AND
WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND MAINTAINING CURRENT ISTEA TRUCK
LIMITATIONS.
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he would be voting against this resolution. He said he had
worked on truck deregulation at the Interstate Commerce Commission and was aware that there
are compelling reasons both for and against this resolution. He said he applauded Californians
for Safe Highways and appreciated their presentation of their side of this issue; however, he
said it was really difficult to consider a resolution when you don't get countervailing arguments
such as the international trade implications and the streamlining of truck regulations from
Canada and Mexico on this issue. He said if Council is given resolutions in the future, it
would be nice to have Department of Transportation argument for lifting the ISTEA standards
as opposed to keeping them in place as the Californians for Safe Highways would like the
Council to recommend.
Councilman Spiegel stated that as he understood it, the resolution was saying that the Council
is opposed to triple trailer trucks and any other long combination over and above what is
already approved. He said he did not know how anyone could convince him that there is a
need to have three trailers on a truck and that they were too big now in some instances.
8
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Crites said he had no doubt that it was wonderful for international trade but that
it was not a good deal for people who drive automobiles.
Councilman Kelly stated he would be voting in favor of this resolution. He said he sits on five
or six other commissions/boards that have studied this issue. In addition, he once a month
drives into downtown Los Angeles and listens to traffic reports on the radio and hears that most
of the freeway jams include truck accidents. He said he could not imagine facing a three -trailer
truck.
Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No.97-103 and note for the
future that we should vigorously attempt to give the opportunity for countervailing argument on any of these
issues that come before the Council so that those who do not agree with the proponent or opponent have the
opportunity for reasoned argument. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-1 vote, with
Councilman Ferguson voting NO.
IX. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 858 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RE-ENACTING AND RE -ADOPTING THE PROVISIONS
OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE AND INCORPORATING THE CITY
CHARTER THEREIN
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions.
Mr. Erwin stated that the ordinance should indicate the charter filing date. Mrs. Gilligan added
that the date should be shown as December 3, 1997, as Charter Chapter #19.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. ESE to second reading.
Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried.by unanimous vote.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 860 - OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 3.30 OF THE PALM
DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH SETS FORTH THAT CITY PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS SHALL NOT REQUIRE PREVAILING WAGE PAYMENTS.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. EEI to second reading.
Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For Adoption:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 84a - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PCD TEXT FOR "THE CREST" FOR
A MAXIMUM OF 151 UNITS. (CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1.)
THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
ITEMS A AND B FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1997, REGARDING
"THE CREST" DEVELOPMENT:
Kea
JMB Mayor Jean M. Benson
PS Paul Selzer
RAS Councilman Robert A. Spiegel
BAC Councilman Buford A. Crites
JF Councilman Jim Ferguson
RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, Director of Community Affairs/City Clerk
JMB The next is ordinances for adoption, Ordinance No. 848, An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, Approving the PCD Text for "The
Crest" for a Maximum of 151 Units, Case No. C/Z 90-12, Amendment #1. I have
one speaker, Mr. Selzer.
PS
Madam Mayor and Members of the Council...I'm sorry to say, we're back. I'm
sure you're tired of seeing us, and we'd certainly like to see this come to a
conclusion sometime shortly. Before I begin, and I promise to be relatively brief
here, let me clearly say that my clients would like their project, "The Crest", to be
part of the City of Palm Desert. We think we've demonstrated that desire for over,
now, over eight years since the time of our application and the expenditure of many
hundreds of thousands of dollars in trying to meet the reasonable requirements of the
City. Just to go back in time for a moment...we first applied for annexation and
preannexation zoning to the City in 1989. Over the next several years we made
arrangements with all of the relative agencies, we satisfied the Department of Fish
& Game and the Fish & Wildlife Service and negotiated what we thought at the time
were acceptable conditions to the City. I understand today you got a recent...a letter
from the Fish & Wildlife Service asking for a continuance. Again, and I'll talk
about that in a little bit, the bottom line is at the time they were satisfied. In 1993,
the project...the EIR for the project was certified by the City Council for 210 units.
10
M3NUTFS
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
We found that the environmental information contained in that report would indicate
that the adverse...significant adverse impacts to the environment for up to 210 units
were satisfied. But your Council approved the development for only 105 units,
which made it almost impossible for us to economically develop the property. The
reason given for that decision at the time, at least as our memories recall, was that
there had been an unofficial letter received from the County indicating that the
County would likely approve no more than that number, that is 105 units, and you
said to us, in effect, that the City would not give us a bonus for merely annexing to
the City, and of course we thought that was fair, although we disagreed with the
County. We then went back to the County. We made an official application for the
development to the County, paid the fees , and requested that the County staff do an
analysis of the project for presentation to the County Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors. Their opinion, which was later sent to you in writing,
indicated that the project would probably be limited to approximately 155 units under
the County rules and regulations. But, and again I want to go back to where I
started, we would like this project to be a part of the City of Palm Desert.
Therefore, in the fall of 1996 we again began discussions with your staff, with
Councilman Crites, and the Mayor, about an arrangement that would make it
acceptable to everyone. As a result of those discussions, we agreed that we would
reduce our request to 151 units and that we would reduce the lots on the lower
portion and the most visible portion of the project down from 22 lots to 13 and
would place them in sites that would reduce or eliminate them from visibility from
the desert floor and that we would dedicate 59% percent of the property,
approximately 410 acres, to the City and that we would retain another 32% of the
piupi.tly, again approximately 223 acres, as permanent, undisturbed open space, for
a total of 91 % of this r.or:..dy, of this project, 91% of this project will remain in not
just open space but in permanently undisturbed open space. We furthermore agreed
that total disturbance on the site would not exceed 9 % of the total land, or
approximately 62 out of 693 acres would be disturbed at all, and that would include
everything, roads, driveways, and pads. We also agreed at the time that we would
utilize a preannexation development agreement to memorialize our tentative
agreements that we had reached. The preannexation agreement was negotiated with
City staff, your Planning Staff, Mr. Erwin, Councilman Crites, and ourselves. On
July 13th of this year, the Council, on first reading, approved our project, and it was
scheduled for second meeting for late August. At that meeting, I think we all
discovered that there was a misunderstanding about the motion for approval, what
it meant, what was involved in it, and so the matter was continued, and it has
continued to be continued up until the present time.
The issues, or our view of the issues, which were raised in August were the
following. The first had to do with emergency access. Emergency access road and
the location preferred and approved by the Fire Marshall crosses three parcels that
are currently not within the jurisdiction of the City. In order for us to secure the
11
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
right to cross those Y.vr:..ties with the emergency access which was preferred by the
Fire Marshal, it was necessary that we grant to the owners of those parcels, but only
those three parcels, access for ingress and egress to our project. Some members of
the Council wanted access to our gate to be denied to those parcels. The bottom line
with respect to that issue is that we are open to any practical alternative emergency
access, but this remains the preferred route of the Fire Marshall. Mr. Erwin and
ourselves have contacted and talked with the Fire Marshall, and this is the one he
would like to see. If that is the case, we are legally bound to grant access to those
three parcels if we use that emergency access route, and there's nothing at this point
that we can do about modifying that arrangement.
The second issue had to do with access to the road by others, that is the road up the
hill, to others which are currently adjacent to it, specifically those parcels known as
the Jonathan and Ricciardi parcels. Again, in this case, we are contractually bound
as well as even without those contracts to allow access to the road. Furthermore, I
can say that both the City Attorney and I have concluded that there is virtually
nothing either we or the City can do short of condemning those two parcels that
would prohibit access by those two parcels to the road. The bottom line here is that
it is what it is, and neither we nor the City can change that. The good news of that
is that our agreement with Mr. Jonathan requires that any building on his site will be
limited to three dwellings and that he must comply with the same architectural
standards as our development is required to meet. Whether or not that extends to
location on the site, I don't know. What I gave you is the words of the agreement
and that is they must meet the same architectural standards as we are required to
meet.
Finally, after several continuances and after discussions with staff and Councilman
Crites, another issue was raised, or another question was made by the City, and we
were asked if we could and would prohibit access to our bridge and Highway 74
from properties to the north and south of The Crest along, I think the street is
Companieros. Within one week of that meeting we informed the City and Mr. Crites
that we would prohibit access to the bridge and access to Highway 74 from our
private road that that would be to properties to the north and the south and that those
properties would have to continue to use the CVWD easement, Companieros, and
the bridge at Thrush. Access to the bridge and entrance to Highway 74 will be
private and will be restricted to those who have legal access to the road and the
bridge, and we will control that as any other development does with either clickers
or other devices to allow only those people in and out.
In dealing with the issues raised by the City, we've looked at, and Mr. Erwin I'm
sure can tell you this, we've looked at many legal scenarios, including the possibility
of annexation of some of those parcels. We initially thought that because of the size
of our property, the City might use our annexation as a vehicle to bring other
Les into the City, and frankly that idea has failed because of Proposition 13
12
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and the fact that we've owned this property for 75 years or more and thus it has a
very low assessed value which is the basis for uninhabited annexation. We and the
City Attorney have looked at various means of restricting legal access to all other
than owners at The Crest, and we've both concluded that even without our current
agreements with those folks, it would be unlikely that anyone could legally restrict
those accesses. So from our standpoint, where we appear to be at the present time
is that we have done virtually everything that the City has asked of us which we can
legally accomplish and still have a project. We don't know of anything more that
we can do. We are certainly open and available to discuss possible new alternatives
with the City, but we tend to believe we've investigated virtually every possible legal
avenue and have agreed to those which come most closely to what the City has
wanted and expressed its desire in having. Therefore, unless the Council has other
ideas which it would like us to discuss and investigate, and as I say we're open to
that, we think that the time has come for the City to make its final decision.
Furthermore, further delay in the absence of new ideas appears to us to be fruitless,
and we would ask that you proceed with your decision. The bottom line, however,
is this...I dare say that I know of no projects, no projects in this City, in the County
of Riverside, or in Southern California, and I won't go beyond that, where 9% and
only 9% of a project is disturbed, where we have taken, I think, extraordinary
measures to make sure that the concerns of the City have been addressed, and that's
not going to change, that's not going to change. We think we've offered in
negotiations with the City a pretty good deal, and we would ask that you favorably
consider it tonight. Thank you, and again we're open to answer any questions you
may have or to see if there are any other ideas that we and the staff and the City
Attorney may have overlooked or Councilman Crites for that matter may have
overlooked. Thank you.
JMB Comments?
RAS Not really a comment, it's a question for staff. Back about three months ago when
we first were discussing The Crest, I made a request that we take a look at annexing
all of the properties west of Highway 74 that aren't in the City because we, generally
speaking, don't go in and take a little piece of this and a little piece of that and a
little piece of this. We take a look at the entire area and see what the impact would
be on the City. As you know, I'm totally opposed to any additional building on the
hillside. I've mentioned the halo effect, which you said won't happen, but that's hard
for me to believe. If there are homes up there, there will be light up there, and that
light will be seen in the night skies, and all I have to do is drive to San Diego and
go through Temecula and see what's happening down there in the hillsides and even
adjacent to San Diego, how the area is being destroyed, and this is the last hillside
in Palm Desert, and once we start building on it it's going to be gone.
PS Mr. Spiegel, may I respond to that?
13
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAS Surely.
PS There is no doubt that any light at any elevation will have some effect. We have
never argued that fact. Nonetheless, it is private property, and under our
Constitution, something, we have the Constitutional right to develop that property,
you have the right and obligation to see that that development is compatible with the
plans of the City, but can't stop it, can't prohibit us from any...
RAS It's not part of the City right now.
PS ...economic use of the property.
RAS It's not part of the City.
PS No, no, I understand that, I understand that. I would suggest, however, that being
the case, that is it isn't the question of this development versus no development, there
are really three things here. It is no development, which isn't going to occur
Constitutionally, this development, which is limited to 9% of the land, or the
possibility of something much more dense, with a greater halo effect on the City than
this one. So I don't think you can, in looking at it, I would suggest that perhaps the
better way of looking at it is...is this development, that is with only 9% of the
, L..ti and only 151 units, better than some of the other alternatives which could
occur over time.
BAC
Paul, I just want to make one quick comment, and I don't have a disagreement with
most of what you've said in terms of this developer trying a variety of ways to meet
every darn concern that's come up and so on and so forth and has been consistently
willing to meet and work on problem solving, but I would make the comment that
I think your comment that only 9% is being developed might be taken to have a
touch of hyperbole in it.
PS 8.9%
BAC Let me finish my comment.
PS Okay.
BAC There are piles of that that unless you wanted to sleep standing up, in a vertical
fashion, you couldn't develop because there's not a flat inch on some of it. There
are parts of it that are in the middle of ravines, there are parts of it that are in the
middle of lambing habitat, there are parts of it that you're calling open space that
once it's built is left between homes and, therefore, are effectively not usable for
habitat for some creatures and maybe for others. So, I think you've in some way
demeaned your case by overexaggerating what you're calling untouched when in
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PS
reality the effects of development will certainly impact much more than 9 % of that,
and I'm not wishing to argue the nine versus ninety or seventy and so on and so
forth, but I think impact of development has enormously higher impact than "9%"
of the project, and I'm just suggesting that I want you to be careful how you
characterize such things, and that's just...
Councilman, if I, again, may respond to this. I think we both would agree that that
land could be developed as a golf course, and I can tell you that would be our
preference. This rl„r:lty can be developed as a golf course. It would be expensive,
but it would be magnificent. We've talked about it. I mean, the preference of my
client going in was a golf course development, at which point I can't remember your
exact response, but it was not pleasant, I can remember that. So, while I don't
disagree with your analysis, that is that some of the property would never be
developable, that's for sure, but I would hope you would agree with us that that
piece of land could be developed much more intensely without, and we made a
conscious effort, as you know, a conscious effort, to make sure that the grading
connected with this project was kept to the very, very minimum. I would also say,
and you can review the EIR in this regard, that is, under your PCD ordinance, if you
look at...as I am sure you are aware, there are three different alternative ways of
calculating the density. The minimum density, the minimum density using those
formulas, was 199 units. The maximum density using your formula was 257 units.
So, again, while I...I will grant you what you said, that is we couldn't develop 95%
of the r. „r:..l y . I think, I don't, I'm not embarrassed for a moment, for an instant,
standing here and saying to you this project has attempted, using everything in its
power, to reduce the effects upon the City, upon the desert dwellers, to the
maximum extent possible.
JMB Any other Council comments?
JF Yes, I would like to say, first of all, I didn't hear you address the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife request for a continuance, but that may have been because I was talking to
the City Attorney, and I apologize if that's the case.
PS No, if I may...if you recall the issue of phased dedications, remember we have in the
development agreement that we will make an initial dedication to you and that we
will make further dedications as time goes by. At the time you said why are you
doing that. The reason is this...that project will require any number of permits from
the Corps of Engineers, what are called 404 permits, Clean Water Act permits from
the Corps of Engineers. Prior to issuance of any 404 permit, the Corps must consult
with the Fish & Wildlife Service and it will condition its 404 permits upon meeting
the requirements of the Fish & Wildlife Service. So the Fish & Wildlife...and that's
why, frankly, I was reluctant to have them dedicate all this up front because
we still have lots of hoops to jump through, one of them being the Corps of
Engineers and the Fish & Wildlife Service who could pile conditions on this thing
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
that could kill it, and we didn't want that, relating that to why we're phasing the
dedications, that's the reason, because we don't know, I can't tell my client for sure
that this project...and we won't be able to do it until you get tract maps...we can't
apply to the Corps yet. So the bottom line is, the Fish & Wildlife Service is going
to have many, many, many, many bites at this apple, and I can tell you this, well I
can tell you this, that we had discussions with the Fish & Wildlife Service at the time
of the EIR, they were satisfied at the time. I can also tell you, notwithstanding the
signature on that document by Kurt Toucher (sp?), Mr. Toucher and Kevin Barry
Brennan were at this hearing in July when this project was approved by the City
Council. I personally talked with Mr. Toucher and with Kevin Barry Brennan and
asked them specifically the question, are you guys happy with this project, does it
meet all of your conditions, and the answer was a definite yes. They were here, they
could have testified. But they told me .specifically, in those words, we're satisfied
with this project.
BAC So you're asking us to deny their request.
PS I am.
JF The other observation I wanted to make, I don't know how the motion's going to
come out on this, but I spent a considerable, as you both know, time on this as
Chairman of the Planning Commission. I have walked the property now no less than
six times, four times during the day, two times at night, one time with my colleague
Councilman Crites, and I think you're kind of in an impossible situation. I think if
it was the City's land, there never would be development up there, so any
development that's permitted is done begrudgingly at best.
PS Really? I hadn't noticed.
JF Making that double difficult is a sort of implied threat of Yorba Linda through the
County if we don't approve your project, which makes it very difficult to feel good
about what we're doing, and then adding insult to injury on top of all that is this
incremental dedication which you indicate that you want to do in pieces so that you
can use them as chits for mitigation with Fish & Wildlife at the same time that you
have a representative from Fish & Wildlife sitting here during that July meeting.
Notwithstanding that, I recognize legally what your position is and you could go
through the County. It has been an incredibly difficult decision, at the Planning
Commission we were asked to look at the plans for The Crest, at the Council we're
being asked is it a good idea for The Crest to come into the City of Palm Desert
because you're asking for permission through annexation to join our city.
PS Yes, sir.
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JF The question that we ask in response is what impact will The Crest have on our
community, particularly a very sensitive area west of Highway 74. I join
Councilman Crites on a lot of the access issues because I didn't want The Crest to
literally pave the way to residual development on all those surrounding parcels that
now not only have a paved road with direct access instead of a washboard across the
CVWD easement but now also has the possibly of utilities, sewer, water being
brought to their r.,,r;,.t es which previously, my hunch is, made those parcels
previously undevelopable. Our Planning Department got an aerial shot of the
southern perimeter of The Crest and overlaid it with a velum, parcel velum, from the
County which shows that there are 14 five -acre parcels appurtenant to the southern
perimeter of The Crest along a ridge line which potentially could be developed and
because of your contractual agreements with at least five of those parcel owners
you're now telling me that you have absolutely no ability to legally prevent them
from having access but that's because of easements, cross easements, that you
negotiated with them. Isn't it?
PS Well, several things. First of all, the only agreements we have, the only agreements
we have are with five, involve five parcels, not 14...
JF I know that. But there are 14 parcels that abut The Crest which could take the
benefit of the road, the utilities, and the easements.
PS No, they would have to abut the road, and they don't.
JF Well, your easement agreement with the Davenports, Glassners, and Meintzes allow
them to allow all their permittees, invitees, and anybody that they see fit to give
access to to also have access to your road structure, if I remember correctly.
PS That is not correct. The access to those lots, and I don't know if Mr. Meintz is here
tonight...
JF Have you executed a new easement with them?
PS It would surprise me that he's not here. The access is limited to those...it is those
parcels...it does, of course, go to guests, invitees, licensees, on those parcels. It
doesn't extend to any other parcel. In other words, if I build a house on one of those
parcels and I have my guests, my invitees to use that, sure, but it's only those
parcels. It's only those parcels, none other, none other, and that has always been the
agreement.
JF Okay, you also mention that Mr. Jonathan has to abide by your CCC&R's. It's been
awhile since...
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PS That's not what I said. What I said is that he must meet the same architectural
standards as The Crest.
JF Is your interpretation that he also has to follow the grading requirements of our
hillside ordinance?
PS I think I specifically said I can't answer that. All I did...the only response I can give
you is that that...what the document says, and the document says that he must meet
the same architectural standards. Whether or not that extends to siting on the lot,
I'm not prepared to give my client an opinion, and I'm certainly not prepared to give
the Council an opinion with respect to that. I don't know the answer to it. Do I
believe it could be read that way? Yes, I do because the standards in our
development agreement and in the specific plan which you have approved on first
reading are very specific about how the grading is to be done, what's permissible and
what is not. Whether that is encompassed under the word "architecture" I can't...I' m
not prepared to say that. It certainly could be read that way. I'm not...yet to be
determined.
JF Okay. The final thing I wanted to, I guess, point out in terms of the residual impact
from development is that the parcel analysis that was done on the southern boundary
has not been done yet on the eastern boundary of the section line, and given the lack
of that analysis, the questions that can't be answered, coupled with the request from
Fish & Wildlife, I personally would favor a continuance to get answers to those
questions, to get that parcel analysis done, and to give Fish & Wildlife an
opportunity to say what you've said they've said, in writing to us.
PS What I said they said?
JF They didn't have a problem with it.
PS Oh, Fish & Game, I didn't say Fish & Wildlife, I said Fish & Game.
JF I'm sorry, I misspoke.
PS I said Fish & Game. Fish & Wildlife Service... to my knowledge, this is the first
time the Fish & Wildlife Service has had any communication with the City with
respect to any issue. To the best of our knowledge, based upon our meetings with
them early on, they had no problems, but there has been, to my knowledge, nothing
sent to the City until today.
JMB But you said a few minutes ago, and to Mr. Crites, that you didn't want a
continuance for Fish & Wildlife to look at it.
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PS
Again, and the reason for that is this, yes, you are correct, that is our position. But
the reason for that is that the Fish & Wildlife Service will have dozens of
opportunities to impose conditions on our project as we request Section 404 permits
from them for the Corps of Engineers. That is the truth, you may take that to the
bank. They will have opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to go over this
project and each time we cross a wash they will be there.
RAS Then why did they request this? I mean, obviously you can't answer that, and I
don't know either.
PS I don't know. I have a hunch that they don't...that somebody said...based upon the
copies of the letter, my guess is The Sierra Club contacted the Fish & Wildlife
Service who doesn't know this property from the other side of the moon and said
why don't you ask for a continuance. That's my guess. And that's why they did it.
You know...but I can assure you without any doubt, the Fish & Wildlife Service will
review and re -review and re -re -review this project before we're able to put a spade
in the ground.
RAS Mayor, could I ask...
JMB Councilman Kelly had a question.
RAS Oh, I'm sorry.
RSK I'd like staff to clarify for me the exact timing and how it fits in with our approval
of the development agreement as far as the annexation. How does that tie in? In
other words, when we approved the development agreement, does that automatically
mean we're approving the annexation? Explain it to me exactly because I want
to...I' m feeling one way about one and another way about the other.
PD
DJE
Before we can finally apply for the annexation, we have to prezone the property,
general plan, and all those things. Once that's done, the Council will actually act by
adopting a resolution initiating and directing staff to file the application with
LAFCO.
Your development agreement does contain a term which says the City will, within
30 days, pass that resolution to request the annexation, start the annexation process.
At one time, when we were talking about expanding the area of annexation, Mr.
Selzer and I had a discussion about extending that to 90 days. We really have not
concluded that, but I think 30 or 90 is of no concern to them necessarily, but the
agreement itself does say the City will affirmatively act to move that forward.
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
********************************
RSK
So basically, then, if it says in here that we're going to do that, basically then we're
approving our annexation from our standpoint if we approve the development
agreement.
DJE Effectively, yes.
RSK So, my other problem I'm having here is, you know...the legal issues of approving
a project versus maybe we don't want to even have it annexed in the first place. Can
we separate those issues?
DJE They are two separate issues, yes.
RSK We're putting two separate issues into this, and I might want to vote one way on one
and another way on the other.
DJE We historically do that on annexations in that there is a preannexation zoning, that's
a requirement of LAFCO, and anyone who's coming into the City with an
undeveloped parcel of Fivi,c;.ly almost always does this so that it is combined, if you
will, they know what they're getting into if they come in to the City. They are two
separate issues; in this instance they are placed together.
JMB But you couldn't approve the project without the preannexation because the project's
in the County.
JF We have no jurisdiction.
DJE We have no jurisdiction, and the project, if it is approved and then we do not annex
the pa a,pi fly, the restrictions never go on the property because it is all conditioned
upon completion of the annexation.
BAC
Madam Mayor, I might ask, that any member of the Council may move to divide the
question. I don't care if the darned thing is bound up together right now. You may
move to divide the issue as you so see fit, and if that motion is seconded and
approved, then the motion is divided as the Councilmember has requested and would
be voted on in separate actions.
RSK And that helps me. The thing is now, I would be in favor of continuing this because
I would like to, for my own interests, delve into some aspects of separating them.
So that kind of moves me to the position of I'd like to see it continued.
BAC Madam Mayor, with all due respect to Mr. Selzer and his opinions of Fish & Game
and what they do and don't say, there is not prayer on this earth that I'm going to
take a recommendation from both the State and the United States when they make
a request and simply deny it. And I understand everything you're saying about they
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
could wax this they could wax that and so on and so forth. And I have, when I
walked in here, a letter from the two supervisors of those agencies sitting in front of
me. I don't know why it's today and not five years ago, and I don't know why it's
not tomorrow and not today. All I have is what I have, which is a recommendation
from the two agencies charged by the State of California and the United States of
America with doing environmental protection asking for a certain action. You're
asking, at least this person, to do something that he's not willing to do.
PS I understand.
BAC Notwithstanding the issues that are resolved about what the developer has requested,
which are not this issue.
PS Madam Chairman, Mayor I should say. I can read. It looks to me like this is going
to be continued. I would ask one thing if you do continue it, and that is that it be
continued to a date certain and that if there are issues that we haven't dealt with that
we be informed of those as soon as possible so that we can deal with them. If any
of you have ideas about how these issues might be dealt with better, we'd be happy
to hear them and discuss them. And that staff be directed to contact, and I can tell
you we will contact, both Fish & Wildlife and Fish & Game, that the staff do that
also at the earliest possible date so that we can put this back on the Agenda and reach
— some conclusion.
BAC
I would move that we continue this but that the time set for the date of the length of
the continuance be established at our first meeting in January. I don't think there's
any reason to do this till a time certain until we've talked to the people about what
they want.
RSK I agree with that.
BAC And so I will move that this be continued and at the first meeting in January that it
be brought to the Council for the establishment of a time certain for agendizing.
JMB Would that include Dick's looking at separating them.
RSK That's fine. I'll second that motion.
RAS Alright, comment. I, again, reiterate what I said at the beginning. I have asked staff
to look at everything in Palm Desert that's west of Highway 74 as annexation
possibilities because I think it's wrong to vote on a small parcel, not a small parcel
a large parcel, and not look at the consequences of the rest of the mountain.
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RSK
I think that...Councilman Spiegel has a request here, but I think we should make sure
that we have a majority of the Council agrees with that request because we're going
to spend the City's money if we do that.
JMB It would be my thought that that's a different issue than looking at this issue.
RSK I understand that, but I just want to make sure that one Councilperson can't direct
staff to do something, it takes three votes.
BAC I would suggest that when we come to Councilmember requests for action that
Councilmember Spiegel bring it up, by 4/5ths we put it on the Agenda, and we make
a decision at that point. If that's comfortable for you, sir.
JMB Alright, are we ready to vote on the motion that is now on the floor?
JF I'd like to respond to one thing that Mr Selzer said, and this is for the benefit of the
public as well as Mr. Miller, particularly on my behalf and Councilman Crites. I
think we've both done our best to bring and raise issues with you as soon as they
come up. But by raising an issue, it doesn't mean that if you address that issue,
other issues won't come up. As we analyze this, and I told you how things have
progressed, it does impact Palm Desert in a significant way, it is one of our most
treasured assets, and we're not wild about seeing it developed and we're just giving
it the time and diligence and thoroughness that it deserves. And by being diligent
and thorough during these continuances, you are bound to come into other things that
you forgot about, or when you take a look, for example, at the parcels on the west,
we may discover things that we didn't previously know. So I don't want you to
construe that as us being obstreperous, we're just trying to do our job.
PS
I understand that, Mr. Ferguson, and again I know I said, and I'll say it again, we
are open to new ideas, we think we have been assiduous in addressing issues that the
City has raised. And we intend to continue to do that. I guess our frustration is that
at least the issues we're aware of, the issues we're aware of we have, I think, bent
over backwards to do that. If it's development to the north and south along
Companieros, we can't do...I mean, we will keep those people off our bridge, they
will not have access to Highway 74. The only people who will... there are five,
count them five, parcels of land which will have access to our road, and only five,
and only one of those, based upon our review of the documents, only one of those
will have access to the bridge. So, again, while I certainly invite, and I understand
this is a complex issue, I certainly invite every Councilman to look at it. If you
shake it a little bit, that's the bottom line, that five lots have access to our road, and
one of those has access to the bridge. So, again, we're open, we look forward to
continued meetings with staff and such members of the Council who are willing to
discuss it with us to try to get the matter resolved at the earliest possible moment.
Thank you.
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JMB Ready to vote?
JF This is on the continuance?
DJE This is for both items A and B, Ordinance 848 and 849, combination.
JF Councilman Crites, are we continuing this to a date certain in January with the
understanding that we are then going to recontinue it to a date at a later point?
BAC It is continued to a time uncertain and we'd direct staff to attempt to gain information
so that at the first meeting in January we may establish a time certain.
DJE I would prefer that it be continued to the first meeting in January, with a date to be
set at that point in time.
BAC If that's what the City Attorney so chooses, fine.
RSK That's what I understood for my second.
JMB Alright, please vote.
`y SRG The motion carries by unanimous vote.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 849 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
A MAXIMUM 151 UNIT PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE CREST".
See verbatim transcript above.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 855 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT AMENDING CHAPTER 2.52 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM.
Mr. Diaz stated that there had been no changes since introduction of this ordinance, and he
recommended its adoption.
Councilman Spiegel noted that the seventh whereas in the ordinance states "City management
has met and confirmed in good faith...", and this should be changed to "City management has
met and conferred in good faith..."
Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 855 as amended to
change "confirmed" to "conferred". Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
23
MUSIUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. ORDINANCE I TO. 8S6 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.66
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS (CASE NO. ZOA
97-5).
Mr. Diaz stated that there had been no changes since introduction of this ordinance, and he
recommended its adoption.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. .85.6. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
E. ORDINANCE NO. 857 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM
DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-2 (SINGLE FAMILY) TO
O.P. (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL) FOR SIX PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF MONTEREY, STARTING FROM SAN GORGONIO WAY EXTENDING 360 FEET
NORTH (CASE NO. C/Z 97-12).
Mr. Diaz stated that there had been no changes since introduction of this ordinance, and he
recommended its adoption.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. BE. Motion was
seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
F. ORDINANCE NO. 859 - OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 3.30 OF THE
PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH SETS FORTH THAT CITY PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECTS SHALL NOT REQUIRE PREVAILING WAGE PAYMENTS.
Mr. Erwin stated that this ordinance was identical to Ordinance No. 860 passed to second
reading earlier in this meeting. However, this particular ordinance was an urgency ordinance
which would be effective immediately. He added that it would take a 4/5ths vote to be
adopted.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. $59. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. OF ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOUSING AUTHORITY.
Mr. Ortega stated that Ms. LaRocca was available to answer any questions. He noted that one
of the issues to be considered by the Council was the establishment of salaries pursuant to the
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
new City Charter, and compensation could also be established at that time for being members
of the Housing Authority.
Councilman Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-104 approving
a Housing Authority pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law (California Health and Safety Code Section
34200 et. seq.); 2) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 861 to second reading establishing a House
Commission under the Palm Desert Housing Authority. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by
unanimous vote.
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATIQN BY ROBERT AULT FOR A RESIDENT ONLY
STREET PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM FOR SAN ANSELMO AVENUE.
Mr. Drell stated that as noted in Mr. Ault's correspondence, he was impacted first by the
medical building adjacent to him, which had been addressed by staff, and continued to be
impacted by the Street Fair parking. He said although the College had expanded the amount
of parking on the site, it was not as convenient for people as parking on Fred Waring or other
streets across from the Street Fair. He reviewed the staff report, noting that Mr. Ault had
requested a resident only street parking permit program. Rather than this type of program,
staff would prefer to have an educational and enforcement program to let people know that
there is on -site parking at the College, and this would hopefully break these old habits of Street
Fair parking on the residential streets. He said at this point in time, staff would be working
—' with the Public Works Department and Sheriff's Department to try to figure out how this type
of program could be implemented. Staff would then come back to the Council with a final
program prior to any regulation being imposed. He added that staff was looking for direction
from the Council as to whether or not this was something the Council would like to see happen.
Councilman Crites asked whether this recommendation was acceptable to Mr. Ault. Mr. Drell
responded that while Mr. Ault would prefer a permanent type of system, he felt he would
accept any assistance the City could give. Councilman Crites stated that while he had no
reason to doubt the sincerity of the people at Sunlife Medical Center, he was not sure their
solution would work. With regard to the other situation, he said the Street Fair was going to
get larger, and even if this problem is solved right now, as the Street Fair gets larger it will
gobble up its available parking, and we will be back here again with the same type of issue.
He said he would encourage staff to look for something that is permanent.
Mayor Benson suggested working with the Street Fair to see if there would be interest in using
the City's north parking lot on Saturdays with a shuttle service over to the Street Fair. She said
there were other issues that needed to be discussed with Mr. Marchu, and perhaps this issue
could also be considered at the same time.
Councilman Crites stated that part of the problem was availability, and the rest of the problem
was that it was a lot more convenient to park in the residential areas and walk across the street.
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Drell stated that he could come back either with a description of a regular residential
permit program or with a description of just what staff will propose which is limited prohibited
parking and educate those few who are parking in front of the homes that they can and should
park elsewhere.
Councilman Spiegel asked if staff had considered the possibility of a no parking zone during
weekends.
Mr. Folkers stated that from a Public Works standpoint, staff would like to go with primarily
the no parking restrictions similar to what is on Fred Waring rather than preferential parking.
Mr. Drell stated that staffs recommendation was to first extend the no parking zone to around
the corner in front of Mr. Ault's house and hope to break the habit and get people to park
somewhere else.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to create a pilot parking restriction
program designed to direct on -street Street Fair parking to the on -site lots. Motion was seconded by Spiegel
and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly ABSTAINING because he missed part of the discussion.
C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF PALM DELL ESTATES TRAFFIC CONTROL
PLAN.
Mr. Folkers asked that Council hold this matter until 7:00 p.m. so that more citizens are able
to attend and be heard.
Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this matter to the 7:00 p.m. portion of the meeting. Motion
was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
Transportation Engineer Mark Greenwood reviewed the staff report, noting that a petition had
been received requesting that certain streets be closed and gated in an effort to control excessive
traffic and speeds. He stated that a second petition had been received requesting that closures
be implemented per the traffic study, and this petition included signatures from 70% of the
residences. He said that staff recommended implementation of Closure Alternative II from the
traffic study for a trial period of 90 days, implementing temporary closures of Fairhaven,
Adonis Drive, and Acacia Drive north of Fred Waring Drive. He said this would basically
isolate the neighborhood completely from Fred Waring Drive. One of the side effects would
be that the residents would not have direct access to Fred Waring Drive; however, it was the
alternative that the consultant recommended as having the most positive effect in that it
completely prevented access from Fred Waring, where it is believed the extra traffic comes
from.
Upon question by Mayor Benson, Mr. Greenwood stated that what staff believed was that _
people are avoiding the intersection of Fred Waring and Monterey at the traffic signal by
turning onto Park View, then San Juan, Fairhaven, and on to Fred Waring. He said staff and
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
the consultant did observe vehicles exiting the Trader Joe's center, turning left on Fairhaven,
then right on Park View, then left on Monterey to proceed north.
Councilman Kelly asked if this would have any effect on a project just approved by the Council
on that corner.
Mr. Greenwood responded that he did not believe it had any direct effect. He said the closure
would be located northerly of that project's driveway, and people in that project would still
have direct access to Fred Waring. He added that the neighborhood was seeking to isolate
itself from those commercial properties.
Councilman Spiegel asked whether this was reviewed with all of the people who signed the
petitions and if residents were aware of the three closures being recommended.
Mr. Greenwood responded that a copy of the traffic study had been provided to the
neighborhood advocate who circulated the petition, and it was his understanding that she had
that copy while she was circulating the petition. He said residents were aware of the closures
being recommended. He added that staff had also notified all residents, including the
apartment complex on Monterey, all of the commercial on Fred Waring, and the churches of
this meeting tonight.
— MR. SHERM SMITH stated that he represented Mr. Ostrow, owner of the property just east
of the Lutheran Church, a piece consisting of approximately ten acres. He said the proposed
development for this property would go all the way to Fred Waring and eliminate the church.
He said there was approximately 800 feet of west side frontage on Fairhaven that would be
used for this development; in addition, the main entrance to the property would be Fairhaven.
He said he did not see any reason that Fairhaven needed to be blocked; if it was necessary, as
Mr. Ostrow stated in his letter, a "not a through street" sign could be provided at Fred Waring
and Fairhaven, and the blockage could occur at Arboleda and San Juan.
Mr. Folkers stated that Joe Gaugush of his staff had indicated there is a difference of opinion
between City staff and Mr. Ostrow's consultant with regard to the location of their entrances
along Fairhaven. He said Mr. Ostrow's intention was to put them further north, and City staff
wanted them to be south and as close as possible to Fred Waring so that there is not traffic
going up into the residential area.
Mr. Smith stated that there was only one residence facing on Fairhaven in that entire stretch
until it ends at the cul de sac. He said he was concerned that even a temporary closure would
impact future development at that corner.
MR. JOE SCARNA addressed the Council, noting that he and his wife Allison live on San
Juan Drive. He felt the speeds on the streets were dangerous, especially on Parkview, and that
the plan put together on a temporary basis was a solid one that he would like to see go forward.
27
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
He also expressed concern with the UPS, Federal Express, Waste Management, and KMIR
vehicles that go through that residential area at high speeds.
MR. STEVE McW1LL LAMS, resident on Gloriana, spoke in opposition to blocking the streets.
He said if the issue was excessive speeds, he would suggest that the law be enforced instead
of closing the streets. He stated that he liked having access to Fred Waring and cutting through
the neighborhoods to see what is going on and to get from point A to point B. He said he also
did not like dead ends and would not like to see them in his neighborhood. He said he would
compromise and would agree with the temporary closure of two of the streets for a three-month
period, but he felt it would be best to keep Fairhaven open. With respect to staffs comment
that 70% of the residences were in favor of this, he said he was never asked and that the first
information he had received was in November when he got the letter from the City that this
was being proposed. He said he had not seen any report indicating a traffic study being done
except for one done about a year ago which he felt should be updated.
MS. JUDY ROGERS, an 11-year resident of the City of Palm Desert and resident in the
Arboleda/Fairhaven area. She said when she moved into her home in this area seven years
ago, there was no Trader Joe's center and the area was very rural. The amount and speed of
traffic has increased. She agreed with the temporary closure and felt Fairhaven was the most
important street to close. She suggested if Fairhaven is not closed that possibly elongated speed
bumps could be installed to discourage traffic and/or a gate could be installed that residents
would be willing to do an assessment for. She also suggested the possibility of leaving the
middle street, Adonis, out of the closure since people wouldn't really need to use that street
to get through the neighborhood. She expressed concern that the streets were not safe for kids
to play and ride their bikes.
MS. JEANNIE ALBALADEJO stated that she had carried the petitions around to the
neighborhood, and she apologized to Mr. McWilliams and said it had been an oversight that
he was not contacted. She said she lived at the corner of Fairhaven and San Juan. She said
she had looked at the traffic study and felt the best alternative on a temporary basis was to close
all three of the streets: Fairhaven, Adonis, and Acacia.
Councilman Crites asked whether Ms. Albaladejo would have an objection to leaving Fairhaven
open as suggested by Mr. Smith, with closures at the corner of Arboleda and Fairhaven and
where San Juan meets Fairhaven. He said Fairhaven would then in essence be a cul de sacced
street.
Ms. Albaladejo stated that she would personally have no problem with that. She said she was
open to anything that would stop the cut -through traffic of the neighborhood.
MS. SHARON HOWARD, resident at the corner of Adonis/Gloriana for last 18 years, stated
that the traffic problem has happened over the years. She said all of the residents seriously
dreaded not having access to Fred Waring. She said she felt they were caught between a rock
and a hard spot in that they wanted to get rid of the cut -through traffic but still have access to
28
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Fred Waring. She noted that there was a lot of traffic from the offices and church. She added
that many years ago when those offices were first built, some of the residents asked the City
at that time to post signs at the offices and keep that traffic out. While the signs were posted,
it has not prevented the people from going through the neighborhood. She asked if there would
be any way, if the 90-day trial period were granted, to find out if there could be some kind of
gated access to Fred Waring in the future if the arrangement should become permanent. She
asked how the residents of Clancy Lane were able to get their street closed.
Mr. Greenwood stated that California Vehicle Code Section 21101.6 prohibited local
jurisdictions from gating public streets for the use of some and excluding the use by others.
He said the issue of gates was something the City could not do.
MS. DIANA LaMAR, resident at the corner of Acacia and Gloriana, stated she had submitted
a letter to the Council. She said she was adamantly opposed to any closing. She said she had
canvassed the neighborhood a year ago asking residents if they wanted streets closed, and out
of 11 responses, six indicated they did not want streets closed. She submitted the responses
to the City Clerk (on file and of record in the City Clerk's Office). With regard to children
on the streets, she said she felt they should play in their back yards and that there was no need
for children to play in the streets in busy neighborhoods. With regard to dogs in the streets,
she said California had a leash law and that dogs should be kept on leashes at all times. She
added that closing streets would cause an extreme hardship for her. She noted that with the
many service vehicles using these streets, closing them would not allow these vehicles to enter
the neighborhood. She proposed that a four-way stop be installed at Arboleda/Acacia and
instead of blocking the streets, she proposed that stop signs be installed at Arboleda/Fairhaven,
Mimosa/San Juan, and Mimosa/Acacia, with speed limit and children playing signs to also be
posted.
MR. PAGE QUILLING, resident at Arboleda/Monterey, stated that he did not think stop signs
worked. He also stated he felt the only people who would be inconvenienced by the street
closures would be those who are taking short cuts through the neighborhood.
Councilman Spiegel stated that if he read correctly, 71 % of the people who live in the area
want Alternative II for a trial period, with 5 % opposed and 24 % not responding or not liking
the way it was worded or for some other reason.
Mr. Greenwood responded that four residents declined to sign the petition, and six residents
were not contacted. He added that these were numbers reported to him by Ms. Albaladejo.
Councilman Spiegel stated that Councilman Crites made a suggestion to alleviate Mr. Smith's
concerns that there be an additional closure at the corner of Arboleda/Fairhaven and San Juan
Drive/Fairhaven. He asked what this would do with Alternative II.
Mr. Greenwood stated that Fairhaven would in effect become a short cul de sac with one house
fronting on it, and the church's driveways would have access there. He added that the future
29
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
development would potentially have access their also. He noted that he did not expect that this
would change the traffic patterns from Alternative II and that it should be the same.
Councilman Ferguson stated that Mr. Smith represented an undeveloped parcel of property
which may eventually be developed with high end senior housing or whatever else; however,
the fact remains that it is vacant. He said his understanding was that this parcel will not be
developed in the next 90 days, and he suggested that we go ahead with Alternative II as it is
currently configured, with the understanding that Fairhaven will be opened up down to the end
of that street consistent with plans that he submits at that time.
Mr. Greenwood stated that staffs feeling on the proposed development was that their access
on Fairhaven would be very near Fred Waring, which would be south of the proposed closure
location similar to the existing commercial.
Councilman Crites suggested that it be consistent with what is approved by the Planning
Commission and Council versus what the developer submits.
Councilman Ferguson stated that his point was that if it is not developed, why not allow
maximum movement throughout the neighborhood for all the residents, accomplishing the same
result, and when the need becomes desirous, open up Fairhaven down to the end at that time.
He said it is a lot easier to speculate when one can no longer get through the neighborhood, and
90 days from now those who favor it may change their minds and those who are against it may
change their minds.
Councilman Kelly said he had great concern for setting something up just because there's not
an application. He said he felt whatever was going to be done should be done now. With
regard to closing Fairhaven at the end of San Juan and at the end of Arboleda, he asked what
problems that would present and how that changed Alternative II.
Councilman Ferguson stated that it was his understanding that there were two homes on
Fairhaven which now will have no access to the rest of their community and will have to go
in and out exclusively on Fred Waring.
Mr. Greenwood stated that there was one house that faces directly on Fairhaven, and he
believed this was their only access. He added that there was at least one other house that had
a driveway on Arboleda and on Fairhaven so that a closure their could present some possibility
for traffic to drive over someone's private driveway to short cut the closure.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve staffs recommendation and use Closure
Alternative II for 90 days and revisit the matter 90 days after it is in effect. Motion was seconded by Crites
and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO.
30
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DECISION DENYING ILLUMINATION OF BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE AT
74-105 EL PASEO.
Mr. Erwin stated that a memorandum had been given to the Council earlier in the day. He said
if the Council wished to discuss it any further, he would suggest that the discussion be held in
Closed Session prior to any action being taken.
Planning Technician Martin Alvarez stated that a letter had been received from the applicant
requesting a continuance to the next meeting.
Councilman Crites moved to continue this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1998. Motion was
seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
E. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUESTED APPROVAL OF A 6 FOOT HIGH SLUMP
STONE BLOCK WALL WITHIN THE 12 FOOT STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 48-114 SILVER SPUR TRAIL.
Mr. Alvarez reviewed the staff report, noting that Mr. Bill Wright had appealed the decision
of the Architectural Review Commission to replace an existing chain link fence with a six-foot
slump stone block wall, six feet from face of curb on the south end of the ..,r ;,. t and
transitioning to nine -foot setback from face of curb after clearing the existing citrus trees.
Councilman Crites asked whether the issues presented by the appellant were the same as those
presented to the Architectural Review Commission and why the Commission was not persuaded
by those issues. Mr. Alvarez responded that the issues presented were the same and that the
ordinance was set up to improve existing conditions.
Mr. Drell added that the City, after a process of examining the impacts of walls on
lines and the height of different sorts of walls, established a standard. He said there had been
complaints and controversies over walls that used to be built on property lines. As a result of
that process, it was determined that the goal should be a minimum of 12-foot setback fora six-
foot wall. The Commission took into account existing conditions, attempted to reach a middle
ground in this situation, and granted an exception somewhere in between.
Councilman Ferguson asked whether any of the Commissioners indicated that they had actually
gone up to the site and physically looked at the wall. Mr. Martin responded that they did not
indicate whether they had done so or not.
MR BILL WRIGHT, appellant, addressed the Council and stated that he felt a seven -foot
setback would be ample. He said he did not realize the fence would look so bad once the
oleanders were taken out. He said he wished to build a wall and landscape the area so that it
looks nicer. He said he had submitted pictures as well as a petition with 41 signatures.
31
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Ferguson referred to a picture submitted by Mr. Wright. He said he had gone up
and looked at the wall. He said he thought what Mr. Wright was proposing was to continue
the design and height of the neighbor's wall and replace the wooden and chain link fence with
the same style and height wall that already exists.
Mr. Wright stated that it would indent in to six feet where presently it, is about 42 inches. He
said when it gets down to the other end it would be about eight inches inside where the chain
link fence currently is.
Councilman Ferguson stated that when he drove through the neighborhood, he was hard
pressed to find anyone with a nine -foot setback on their side walls, and he asked if there were
any on that street. Mr. Wright stated that the only one was up at the south end. He said his
wife had gone out and measured a lot of the walls, and many of them are right on the curb.
Councilman Ferguson stated that from what Mr. Wright said, in the entire development there
is only one legally conforming wall. Mr. Wright stated that he was not asking for this just
because everyone else is wrong.
Councilman Ferguson stated he understood the homeowners association had no problem with
what Mr. Wright is doing. Mr. Wright stated that there was a letter from the homeowners
association in the packet.
Councilman Spiegel stated that normally the Council affirms the decisions of the various
committees and commissions; however, in this instance, with all the neighbors agreeing with
what is being done, he would approve the wall as submitted by Mr. Wright.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a slump stone wall as presented by the
appellant. Motion was seconded by Crites who noted that it was rare that he would not uphold the
Architectural Review Commission recommendation.
Mayor Benson stated that she would echo comments by Councilmen Spiegel and Crites and
stated that anytime anyone tries to improve the neighborhood, it should be done, and this is an
added enhancement to the property.
Mayor Benson called for the vote. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, OF THE PURCHASE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT
EQUIPMENT.
Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report, noting that this equipment (Thermal Imaging units) would
allow firefighters to see in smoke -filled buildings. Purchasing six of these units would allow
one to be placed at each of the fire stations.
32
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve from the unobligated general fund
— $73,815.00 for the purchase of six Cairns IRIS Thermal Imaging system helmets for the fire department per
the Cove Commission formula. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
G. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PALM DESERT
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE TATTOO ESTABLISHMENTS AS BUSINESSES.
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and stated that Code Compliance Supervisor Hart
Ponder was available to answer any questions.
Councilman Spiegel stated that he had asked for this amendment to the City's Code.
Councilman Spiegel moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 862 as an urgency
ordinance, amending Chapter 5.88 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code to regulate tattoo establishments as
adult businesses; 2) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 863 to second reading amending Chapter
5.88 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code to regulate tattoo establishments as adult businesses. Motion was
seconded by Kelly.
Councilman Crites stated that he would be voting against this motion. He said he suspected
that most people really cared about this. He said he had a lot of students at the College who
choose to engage in what they call "body art" and that he had not found any difference in the
grade points of those with tattoos as opposed to those without, nor had he noticed any
difference in moral values between those who do and those who don't. He said what they
chose to do in terms of having tattoos on any portion of their anatomy was their own business.
He added that the did not feel this was an "adult" issue in the same way that things are
regulated that are pornographic or have moral implications. He said people have to be adults
to do this, they have to be adults to go in any buy alcohol, they have to be adults to go and do
a variety of other things, and he did not have any problems with regulating this and with
signage, etc. However, he felt tattoos are no longer the domain of bikers and people who wake
up the next morning wishing they hadn't. He added that he felt the Council was responding
to an image and to a word and that it was not a reasonable request.
Mayor Benson stated that this ordinance was not against having tattoos parlors, it was to
regulate where they are located.
Councilman Crites said he did not see what was morally bankrupt about having a piece of art
placed on a certain portion of one's anatomy and why that had to be only done in a Service
Industrial area of the City of Palm Desert. He added that he felt the same regulations should
apply to it that apply to a number of other things about which the City has restrictions. He said
he felt this ordinance was overly restrictive.
Councilman Ferguson asked whether current regulations required that if a new tattoos business
wanted to be permitted and exist in the City of Palm Desert it would have to do so pursuant
to a Conditional Use Permit.
33
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Drell responded that this was not the case and that this would be considered a personal
service similar to a hair stylist or barber. He said in the adult entertainment ordinance it was
permitted use and did not require a Conditional Use Permit. In essence, what this ordinance
would do is to remove it as a permitted use in the C-1 zoning and relegate it to the Service
Industrial zoning.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he knew we were rapidly approaching a time when we might
be constructively abolishing adult businesses due to the placement of churches and other types
of things in the City. He asked whether moving this and treating it as an adult business would
somehow impact what we have left.
Mr. Drell stated that once an application is received to locate a tattoo parlor, one of the
restrictions is distance from one tattoo parlor to another adult business. He said that once one
or two are located in the Service Industrial, additional area becomes quite constrained.
Councilman Ferguson asked if this would then jeopardize the City's ability to restrict adult
businesses.
Mr. Erwin stated that there would be an impact if there is no ability to locate an adult business
in the area because a tattoo parlor is there.
Councilman Crites stated that if we have a tattoo parlor there and it requires a certain number
of feet between them, etc., and we have someone who comes in with some other business, we
may not have a spot that legally allows that business, and Mr. Erwin agreed.
Councilman Kelly stated that we do know we want strict regulations on an adult bookstore, and
if we start putting things in there that we cannot defend, it will weaken the one that we are
really serious about.
Mr. Erwin stated that if it is the Council's desire, staff will look at the ordinance again and not
have it included in the definitions of an adult business. He said there were ordinances in other
California cities that provide regulations and even prohibit these businesses. He said staff
could look at providing another form of regulation so it does not impact the adult business
ordinance.
Councilman Spiegel withdrew his earlier motion and moved to continue this matter to the meeting
of January 8, 1998. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
H. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF ASSOCIATE SPONSORSHIP OF THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY FAIR AND NATIONAL DATE FESTIVAL.
Ms. Lori Moss addressed the Council and stated that the Festival was requesting associate
sponsorship in the amount of $20,000. She noted that the Board of Supervisors had decided
not to accept any tobacco sponsors. She added that this year's festival would have heavy
34
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
emphasis on senior events. She also noted that there had been major improvements to the Date
Festival grounds. She introduced one of the princesses, Denise Maestas, a senior at Coachella
Valley High School.
Councilman Spiegel asked whether any other city in the Valley had provided sponsorships other
than Palm Desert and whether Ms. Moss planned to seek support from other cities.
Ms. Moss responded that Indio had also sponsored this event and that letters had been sent to
the Cities of Rancho Mirage and La Quinta. She added that they had also contacted the City
of Palm Springs.
Upon question by Councilman Crites relative to the City of Indian Wells, Ms. Moss responded
that this was a great idea.
Councilman Kelly stated that this was not just one city's operation; it is a Riverside County
Fair, and we are all citizens of Riverside County. He said he would be in favor of the City of
Palm Desert continuing its support.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve Palm Desert's sponsorship of the Riverside
County Fair and National Date Festival in the amount of $20,000.00. Motion was seconded by Spiegel with
the caveat that the organizers of the Festival go to other cities mentioned, explain that the City of Palm Desert
— is providing these funds for the 1998 Date Festival and provided funds for the 1997 Date Festival as well, that
it is important that this be a successful event not just for Palm Desert and Indio but for the entire Coachella
Valley, and ask for their strong cooperation.
Mayor Benson suggested that Ms. Moss also remind the other cities that they helped go to
Supervisor Wilson relative to not accepting sponsorship from cigarette companies.
Mayor Benson called for the vote. The motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
I. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM RENT CONTROL
TRUST FUND TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to transfer half of the monies in the
trust account to the General Fund as reimbursement for legal costs. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and
carried by unanimous vote.
J. ORDINANCE NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE PALM DESERT
MUNICIPAL CODE.
Mr. Erwin stated it had been discovered earlier in the evening that corrections needed to be
made to the resolution, and he recommended that this matter be continued.
35
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Crites moved to continue this matter to the meeting of January 8, 1998. Motion was
seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
K. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF WELL SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HAYSTACK ROAD
WEST OF PORTOLA.
Mr. Drell stated that staff was working with the applicant to mitigate problems with the well
site and had requested that the switch gear boxes be moved. He stated that staff s
recommendation would be changed so that the noise would be imperceptible, not to just comply
with the City's noise ordinance. He said staff felt there should not be noise coming from this
facility. He noted that a letter to him from the applicant to the City indicated that the noise
would be reduced to his (Mr. Drell's) satisfaction, and his satisfaction would be that there not
be any annoyance to the residents.
Mayor Benson stated that in addition to mitigating the noise, the boxes should not be in that
location and should be moved because they are unsightly, deteriorate the neighborhood, and
devalue the property across the street.
Councilman Ferguson asked whether the applicant had any opposition to staffs
recommendations.
Mr. Drell stated that several weeks ago the applicant had committed to address these problems
and had agreed to address them to his (Mr. Drell's) satisfaction.
Councilman Crites stated that in looking at them, the box that is six to eight feet high is
unsightly; the other one, which is about two to three feet high, he felt was no more unsightly
than those located around the rest of the City, and as far as he could tell from standing next to
it, it does not emit any noise. He suggested that perhaps the two be treated separately.
MR. FRANZ VIRO stated that he lived across the street from the well. He expressed concern
with the noise and dirt. He said he had been told by Mr. Lennon that the boxes, one about
eight feet high and the other about five feet high, would look nice and that residents would not
be able to hear any noise coming from them. He also stated he was concerned that his property
was devalued because of these boxes.
MS. TESSA GOSS stated that her main concern was the noise and that she felt this was
something that should not be in a residential neighborhood.
MR. TED LENNON, 72058 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, spoke as President of Lowe
Corporation. He stated that the equipment was originally going to be undergrounded;
however, six to eight months ago Edison changed its policy and no longer allowed anything
to be undergrounded. He then returned to the City and advised that landscaping would be done
around this equipment. He said the noise is from the ventilators and fan motors. He noted that
the City's noise ordinance requires that noise not exceed 55 decibels during the day and 45
36
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
decibels from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Lowe Corporation hired a professional acoustical
-` engineer who discovered that the noise is at 47 decibels which is unacceptable during the night.
He said the acoustical engineer had made four recommendations which would be done
immediately to reduce the noise. He said they were also working with Eric Johnson to
landscape the area. He added that they would also underground the larger of the two boxes.
Councilman Spiegel asked how soon Mr. Lennon expected to take care of the noise and the
boxes. Mr. Lennon responded that he would order the work done now. Councilman Spiegel
asked whether it would be done before the Council's January 8th meeting, and Mr. Lennon
responded that he would try to do so.
Upon question by Councilman Ferguson, Mr. Drell stated that the original intent and
representation by the applicant was that this would not be a nuisance or perceptible to the
residents, and he felt an attempt should be made to get as close to that as possible, regardless
of what the City's noise ordinance says.
Mayor Benson asked why something couldn't be done with the smaller of the two boxes as well
as the larger, perhaps move it down to the park.
Mr. Lennon stated that he would be happy to do so. He said Southern California Edison had
a limit on how far their transformers can be moved from what they're servicing, and that limit
is 100 yards, so the box could be moved 100 yards to find a better place to hide it.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to place this item on the January 8,
1998, City Council Agenda after Mr. Lennon has had an opportunity to do the things he has mentioned during
this meeting.
Mr. Lennon stated that he would like the opportunity to reduce the noise to an acceptable level
and to resolve the aesthetic issues with landscaping and with the neighbors' approval.
Councilman Spiegel seconded the motion.
Councilman Ferguson asked Mr. Lennon to bring photographs of the visual mitigation as well
as the sound expert's report on the noise mitigation.
Councilman Spiegel stated that perhaps the residents could either come to the next Council
meeting or send letters to the Council once the work has been done to let them know how they
feel.
Mayor Benson called for the vote. The motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
Upon motion by Crites, second by Ferguson, and unanimous vote of the City Council, Mayor Benson
adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. for dinner and Closed Session. She reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
37
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Update on Interchanges:
a. I-10/Washington Street
b. I-10/Monterey Avenue
Mr. Folkers noted that everything was moving along excellently, with the completion
date for the Washing Street interchange to be prior to July of 1998.
2. Progress Report on Business Support Center Work Program
Mr. Drell noted the report in the packets.
Councilman Spiegel stated that the Economic Development Advisory Committee had
not had an opportunity to review this report
With Council concurrence, staff was directed to place this matter on the Agenda for the next meeting
of the Economic Development Advisory Committee.
3. Progress Report on Utility Deregulation
Mr. Wohlmuth stated that the final report from Henwood Energy Services had been
sent to staff and would be sent to the Cove Commission on December 17, 1997, for
a December 19th meeting in Indian Wells Council Chamber at 9:30 a.m. He said
the consultant and staff would be making recommendations to the Cove Commission
and that Council would receive copies of the final report. He noted that the survey
results were being tabulated; staff had estimated a return rate of 3 % to 5 % based on
other surveys sent out by the company to other communities in the State of
California, and this survey had a response rate of 7.5%.
Councilman Crites asked if staff could impress upon the Henwood Company that the
final report should be something that people who are not doing this for a living can
read. He said he felt the report submitted was incredibly obtuse and was not a good
report.
Mr. Wohlmuth stated that staff had asked the consultant to deliver two reports, one
that summarizes the survey results in a manner that everyone can read. He said staff
would be working with the consultant over the next week to make it a readable
report.
38
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4. Bermuda Dunes Area Drainage Study
Mr. Folkers noted the report in the packets. He stated that as indicated oh page three
of the report, it would be approximately $2.5 million to do the work in Areas "A"
and "B". With regard to going any further on the study, he said a lot of the outlets
go through other communities or the County, and staff is looking to see what
availability they have for funding. He said staff was looking at the costs and the best
cost benefit for the City to resolve the drainage problems in the quickest manner.
XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Continued from the meeting of November 13, 1997.)
Mr. Diaz stated that staff recommended continuance of the existing contract.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, continue the exiting contract with the Riverside
County Sheriff until City Council decides on the necessary changes to the new contract. Motion was seconded
by Crites and carried by unanimous vote.
— B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EXPANDED HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(Continued from the meeting of November 13, 1997.)
Mr. Diaz noted the report in the packets and stated that Housing Programs Coordinator Teresa
LaRocca was available to answer any questions.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the expanded version of the City's Home
Improvement Program and approve Focus Areas Nos. 1 & 2 for implementation of the program. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
XII. OLD BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAI , OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL TO DISTRICT COMMERCIAL, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) TO DISTRICT COMMERCIAL (PC2), PRECISE PLAN OF
DESIGN FOR A 125,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTER,
AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FOR AN
11.95 ACRE SITE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL PASEO AND HIGHWAY 111.
(Continued from the meeting of October 23, 1997.)
Mr. Drell stated that there had been no new developments brought by the applicant since the
last meeting.
39
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Kelly moved to continue this matter to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by
Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote.
Mr. Erwin stated that technically, this matter should be tabled as opposed to being continued
to a date uncertain.
Councilman Crites moved to table this matter. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by
unanimous vote.
Mr. Drell noted that legal notices would be sent out if this matter is brought back to the
Council. He said if the application is significantly different from what was before the Council
at the last meeting, staff would suggest that it begin again at the Planning Commission level.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, OF DE ANZA WAY NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
CONTROL PLAN.
Mr. Folkers noted the report in the packets and stated that staffs recommendation was to
approve implementation of Option 1, which includes installation of a traffic circle at De Anza
Way and Cabrillo Avenue, for a 90-day trial period.
Councilman Crites stated that if Options 1 and 2 are both done (traffic circles on De Anza at
Cabrillo and Ramona), it would cover approximately 60% of the people.
Mr. Greenwood stated that from a staff perspective, with the number of choices, there was not
a clear, decisive choice of which action plan to try.
Councilman Crites stated that he did not see much support for only doing Option 1 when doing
Option 2 seems to attract more people, and doing Option 3 attracts more people, etc. He asked
why staff was going with the lowest of the options rather than taking Option 2 which
demonstrates the effectiveness of two of those.
Mr. Greenwood said that people who chose Option 1 only were aware of all the other options.
He said staff did not see a clear consensus where everyone wanted such a large-scale
demonstration. He said staff felt this was more an indication of a small-scale demonstration.
Councilman Spiegel asked if staffs recommendation was to do Option 1 first and if it works,
then the other options would be done.
Mr. Greenwood responded that after Option 1 is done and in place for a while, the
neighborhood would be surveyed again to see if that brought about this consensus that staff is
looking for.
40
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve implementation of Option 1, which
includes installation of a traffic circle at De Anza Way and Cabrillo Avenue, for a 90 day trial period, with
a follow-up survey to be conducted at the end of the trial period to determine what, if any, permanent
improvements should be considered. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with
Councilman Crites voting NO.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, OF LIGHTING AT THE COLLEGE OF THE DESERT/SAN
PABLO PARKING LOT.
Mr. Diaz noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets. He stated that if the
College can come up with the money, the City would not utilize this.
Councilman Crites asked if this meant the City is paying for the College's problem. Mr. Diaz
responded that this would help everyone create a better situation. Councilman Crites asked
whether the College had offered to pay the City back since the lights are on the College
1,,},c...11 and they are bothering the residents. He asked why the City should have to bail out
the College.
Mr. Diaz responded that staff would try to get the money from the College.
Councilman Spiegel stated that the City might be able to use this to its advantage during
discussions about the location of the hydrogen fuel cell gas station.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to work with College of the Desert,
appropriate $2,000 to correct lighting problems, and request that the lights be turned off within thirty minutes
after evening classes. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, OF PROJECT SIGNAGE AND TENANT CRITERIA FOR
THE GARDENS ON EL PASEO PROJECT.
Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve Gardens on El Paseo Project Signage
Program and Tenant Criteria with future individual architectural review of tenant identification signs. Motion
was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote.
XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
None
41
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. CITY ATTORNEY
1) Report and Action on Items from Closed Session Made at This Meeting.
2) Bequest for Closed Session
Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation pursuant to Section 54656.9 (b)
Number of potential cases
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Section 54956.8
Property: Southeast corner at Portola/Silver Sands Parkway
APN 624-282-001
Negotiating parties: Zemen Properties
Baxley Properties
Agency: City of Palm Desert/Phil Drell
Property owner: City of Palm Desert
Under negotiation: X Price X Terms of payment
C. CITY CLERK
1. Request for Approval of Change Order No. 2 and Additional Appropriation for
Contract No. C13060 (P.O. 5261) - 1998 Community Calendar - 25th Anniversary
Edition
Mrs. Gilligan asked that this be added to the Agenda for discussion and action.
Councilman Crites moved to place this matter on the Agenda for discussion and action. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote.
Mrs. Gilligan reviewed the staff report, noting that an additional 4,000 calendars was
needed for total Post Office saturation of Palm Desert. She said an additional $8,000
was necessary to cover the printing and postage costs.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve Change Order No. 2 and an additional
appropriation to Contract No. C13060 (P.O. 5261), 1998 Community Calendar, in the amount of $8,000.00
to Account No. 110-4416-414-3091. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote.
42
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
None
o City Council Committee Reports:
None
XIV. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION
See specific items for Council discussion and action.
XV. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
None
XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.16 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE R-1 ZONE (CASE NO.
ZOA 97-4).
Mr. Steve Smith reviewed the staff report, noting that this had come from the Zoning
Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) and Planning Commission on a 3-0 vote. He offered
to answer any questions.
Councilman Crites questioned Section 25.16.080 B which would increase maximum lot
coverage to up to 50% subject to approval by the Architectural Review Commission, and he
asked what the percentage was now.
Mr. Smith responded that it ranged from 25 % to 35 % .
With regard to Section 25.16.120 B which would limit each lot to a maximum of one tennis
court and one sports court unless a Conditional Use Permit is approved by the Planning
Commission, he asked what the procedure is now and how this would be different.
Mr. Smith stated that a Conditional Use Permit is not currently needed. He said this section
defined sports courts, and if someone wanted to go beyond one tennis court and one sports
court, they would have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process.
Mr. Drell added that it was undefined before what constituted a normal recreational use of
r,.,rr..ty and what went over into private recreation like a club. He said this would in essence
43
DIINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
define that difference between what is residential use and what becomes a private club which
is a conditional use.
Councilman Spiegel stated that some of these would be difficult to enforce such as the new roof
mounted equipment. For example, if someone has a swamp cooler on their roof, they will
have to do the best they can so that no one can see it unless it hurts the operation of the swamp
cooler, and then it can be opened up. He asked if people would be coming to the City to ask
if their equipment was okay.
Mr. Smith stated that people will be asked to screen the equipment. If they can demonstrate
that the screening will impair the efficiency of the unit, then it could be waived.
Mr. Drell added that this basically codified existing policy, and this is how staff has been
dealing with such things.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSED to
this request. No testimony was received, and she declared the public hearing clo.sedi.
Councilman Crites stated he had read in the Los Angeles Times that in both Los Angeles and
Orange Counties there had been an increase in home size relative to lot size over the last few
years. He asked what the impetus was for wanting to increase home size up to this kind of
coverage of lots.
Mr. Smith responded that the discussion of this came out of the homes in The Summit. He
said staff did a survey for the Planning Commission, and about two-thirds of the homes were
significantly above the coverage limit. He said it seemed that people were looking for bigger
homes, and the lot sizes were already determined.
Councilman Kelly stated that in Arcadia most of the area was developed back in the 1930's,
with a lot of small houses on fairly large lots. People discovered they could purchase those lots
with the small homes on them and then tear the homes down and build three-story houses to
replace them. He said this absolutely ruined the neighborhoods where large mansions were
built in the middle of neighborhoods with small homes. He said the City of Arcadia had to
quickly deal with this difficult problem and limit the size of homes.
Councilman Spiegel expressed concern with the homes in The Summit not being up to Code,
and he asked where the building inspectors were.
Mayor Benson stated that this would be done in the Planning Department, not Building,
because the homes have already been approved by the time the Building Inspector gets there.
Councilman Ferguson stated that the application that was brought up by a homeowner in The
Summit was put under a variance instead of an exception because the Planning Commission
wanted to clamp down on this type of activity. The r...Y �. t, owner who lived next door to the
44
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hedlunds did a survey and found that almost two-thirds of the people were well in excess of
the 30,000 square foot maximum and, in fact, the Hedlunds were at 38,500 square feet. The
Commission thought that to meet the standard under the variance, extraordinary hardship would
be the selective application of the ordinance when two-thirds of the people had gotten by with
exceptions and a variance was suddenly being imposed. He said the R-1 zone that is being
proposed is a product of what the comprehensive zoning ordinance review was designed to do,
which was codify existing practice (which is not codified), question assumptions about lot
coverage to see if they still made sense, and maintain existing standards. If someone could
make a good argument why they should be able to go beyond it and could get approval by the
City, why not entertain at least a procedure where we can do that and not wind up in another
Summit -like situation.
Councilman Crites stated that he felt if there was a problem at The Summit, we should figure
out how to deal with that issue. He said he did not see how that justifies memorializing the
ability all over the City to create homes that are up to 100% coverage of lots than exists now.
He said he felt going from 25% to 50% was a significant change in the neighborhoods and was
a change about which no one would have a clue until the person next door comes in with that.
He said people will ask how their neighbors were allowed to do these things. He said he felt
the Council had the potential to significantly change the residential character of the community
by increasing by that extreme amount the possible coverage of large numbers of lots.
Councilman Ferguson stated that if someone comes in with 34% coverage and has a good
landscape design, it passes Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission, why
do we arbitrarily pick 30% as the cutoff with no exceptions. He said this was the problem that
was trying to be addressed.
Mayor Benson added that the way the houses are designed now is different than when we first
started out.
Councilman Spiegel stated that this would be like making the speed limit 25 miles per hour
when everyone goes 35 miles per hour, and it is not going to work. He said what the Planning
Commission is telling the Council is that we have a 25 miles per hour speed limit and everyone
is going 35 miles per hour.
Councilman Ferguson suggested that Councilmembers look at The Summit, and if it is a blight
to them, he would invite them to vote against it because it is at 38%.
Councilman Crites stated that 38% was very different than 50%.
Councilman Ferguson stated that they had to pick a threshold somewhere. 30% was picked,
and exceptions were granted all they way up to 38 % . He said he would hate to unduly restrict
this and have a simple exception process that can be granted rather than bring it up to realistic
levels which is what the comprehensive zoning ordinance review was asked to do.
45
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Smith stated that one of the criteria for Architectural Review Commission to look at is
compatibility with setbacks. He said there are certain shaped lots that lend themselves to a
larger percentage of coverage, where all of the required setbacks can still be met.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 866 to second reading.
Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Crites voting NO.
XVII. ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Crites, and unanimous vote of the City Council, Mayor Benson
adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. to Closed Session. She reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. and
adjourned to 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 1997.
ATTEST:
/SHEILA R. GAN, CLERK
CITY OF PALM DES , CALIFORNIA
M. BENSON, MAYOR
46