HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-24MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2003
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M.
Mayor Benson convened the meeting at 3:01 p.m.
IL ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilman Buford A. Crites
Councilman Jim Ferguson
Councilman Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Pro-Tempore Robert A. Spiegel
Mayor Jean M. Benson
_ Also Present:
Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services
Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services
Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment
Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Teresa L. La Rocca, Director of Housing
Michael Errante, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer
David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment
Robert P. Kohn, Director of Special Programs
Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
None
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
IV. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Reauest for Closed Session:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8:
1) Property: Lease Property - Parkview Professional Office Complex,
73-710/720 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Paul S. Gibson/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: City of Palm Desert
Other Parties: Coachella Valley Economic Partnership
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
On a motion by Councilman Crites, second by Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel, and 5-0 vote
of the City Council, the following item of Property Negotiation was added to the Closed
Session Agenda:
2) Property: 97 Acres West of the Palm Valley Channel, south of
Painter's Path, Palm Desert
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert/Palm Desert
Redevelopment Agency
Property Owner: George Fox
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
a) Greg Clyde, Susan Hayes, and Andrew Murray v. City of Palm Desert,
et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 390984
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b):
Number of potential cases: 3
With Council concurrence, Mayor Benson adjourned the meeting to Closed Session
at 3:03 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 4:08 p.m.
V. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M.
A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION.
None
2
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Jean M. Benson
VII. INVOCATION - Mayor Pro-Tempore Robert A. Spiegel
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
MS. LINDA GARBARINI, 73-221 Haystack Road, Palm Desert, addressed the City
Council about her and her husband's continued dissatisfaction with the City and
Bighorn over the industrial well site that is already in their neighborhood and the
notice just received about a proposed new one on Chia and Haystack Road.
IX. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING RICK ERWOOD FOR HIS PAST
SERVICE TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND HIS RECENT JUDICIAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Benson presented an engraved crystal
platter and pedestal to Judge Erwood who, in turn, expressed his appreciation to the City
for allowing him to be a part of its development.
B. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 25, 2003, AS
"HOMETOWN BUFFET DAY" IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Benson presented a framed proclamation to
Mr. Tony Dalugdug, General Manager of Hometown Buffet.
C. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 2003 AS
"NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH MONTH 2003" IN THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Benson presented the framed proclamation to
the Riverside County Department of Mental Health, which was accepted by Palm Desert
Housing Commissioner Linda Ward.
D. PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING DESERT SUN BEST OF THE VALLEY
FIRST PLACE WINNERS: RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE;
SAMMY'S WOODFIRED PIZZA; VEGGIE & TEA HOUSE; PAPA DAN'S
PIZZA & PASTA; DESERT WILLOW GOLF RESORT; ELEPHANT BAR &
RESTAURANT (5 FIRST PLACE AWARDS); THE OLIVE GARDEN.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Benson presented engraved gold platters to
representatives from the various establishments, joining with the Valley in celebrating
Palm Desert's "Best."
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
E. PRESENTATION OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM VIDEO.
Mrs. Gilligan noted that as part of the promotion of the City's art program, a
video was made of the installation of the public art on El Paseo, which she
then played for everyone to see.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of
staff to submit the subject presentation for a Helen Putnam Award. Motion was seconded
by Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote.
X. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of April 10, 2003, and the
Adjourned Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of April 10,
2003.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant
Nos. 224, 225, 228, and 231 PDOC .
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by
Jose Manuel Esparza for Carniceria Atoyac Meat Market,
73-850 Highway 111, Suite E, Palm Desert.
Rec: Receive and file.
D. MINUTES of City Committee and Commission Meetings
1. Entrada del Paseo Steering Committee Meeting of March 20, 2003.
2. Investment & Finance Committee Meeting of February 26, 2003.
3. Library Promotion Committee Meeting of February 12, 2003.
4. Public Safety Commission Meeting of February 12, 2003.
Rec: Receive and file.
E. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Denise Roberge from the
Art In Public Places Commission.
Rec: Receive with very sincere regret.
4
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
F-1. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION, to Advertise and CaII for Bids for
Construction of the Sagewood Storm Drain at Country Club Drive (Contract
_ No. C21070, Project No. 604-02).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for
bids for the subject project.
F-2. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and CaII for Bids for the
Boxing, Removal, and Transportation of Plant Material within the Scope of
the Highway 111 Street and Signal Improvements Project (Contract
No. C21120, Project No. 635-00).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for
bids for the subject project.
G. REQUEST FOR AWARD of Contract for Traffic Engineering Services to
Study Alternatives for Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive (Contract
No. C21130).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to RBF Consulting,
Irvine, California, in the amount of $15,300; 2) authorize the Mayor to
execute said contract — funds are available in the FY 2002/03 Budget,
Account No. 110-4300-413-3010.
H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract
No. C20800 — Design of the Sagewood Storm Drain at Country Club Drive
(Project No. 604-02).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of
$6,285 to the subject contract with N.A.I. Consulting, Inc.,
Cathedral City, California, and authorize the Mayor to execute same;
2) authorize transfer of $3,596 from contingency to base for the
project; 3) allocate $2,689 from Account No. 232-4370-433-4001 to
the design phase of the subject project.
I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Maintaining the City's Existing Natural
Signage Theme.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the Entryway Signage Subcommittee
recommendation for maintaining the existing natural entryway signage
theme for the City.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
J. REQUEST for Denial of Entrance Sign Concept for Fred Waring Drive and
Washington Street.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of staff and deny
the design concept by Orr Studios for the entrance sign at Fred
Waring Drive and Washington Street.
K. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Two Variable Message Boards for Use by
the Cove Communities.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve and appropriate from the California Law
Enforcement Program Funds (Account No. 229-4210-422-3918) in the
amount of $7,333.33 for the shared cost of two variable message
boards.
L. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Expenditure of Cal COPS (Supplemental
Law Enforcement Block Grant) Funds.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation of the Public
Safety Commission to purchase Pepperball launchers for the
Palm Desert Police Department in the amount of $14,146.08 with
funds to be obtained from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Block
Grant.
M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out -of -State Travel for the Americans For
The Arts 2003 Annual Convention Pre -conference.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject request for the Public Arts
Manager to participate in the Pre -conference, "Defining Success in
Public Art" in Portland, Oregon, June 4-7, 2003 — funds are available
in Account No. 436-4650-454-3120.
N. REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Fees for Use of the Civic Center Amphitheater
and Pavilion #1 by Washington Charter School Parent Club Foundation for
Ballet Folklorico.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject request for a waiver of fees on
May 3, 2003.
O. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies
2. Status of Landscaping Projects for Charger Installation and the
Highway 111/Western City Limits Entry Signage --
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
Upon motion by Kelly, second by Spiegel, the Consent Calendar was approved as
presented by a 5-0 vote.
XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
XII. RESOLUTIONS
None
XIII. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
A. ORDINANCE NO.1041 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING ELECTRIC
PERSONAL ASSISTIVE MOBILITY DEVICES (E.G. SEGUE SCOOTERS).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report in the packets.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel said he had brought this to the attention of the
Executive Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, which was very much
in favor of not allowing someone to go down the sidewalk at just over 12
miles per hour on one of these devices, particularly at The Gardens.
Councilman Kelly noted that the Public Safety Committee had also
recommended adoption.
Councilman Crites said he had not ever seen one of these devices and would
like the opportunity to see a presentation about them.
Councilman Ferguson noted that the staff report indicated that the State of
California classifies these devices in the same category as an electric
wheelchair. He said he was not sure he would rush to ban them without ever
having seen these devices, especially if they do help people get around who
really have a genuine need for such assistance.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance
No. 1041 to second reading at the meeting of May 22, 2003, in order to allow time for
receiving a presentation on the subject devices. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried
by a 5-0 vote.
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
B. ORDINANCE NO. 1042 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT EMPLOYEE -EMPLOYER RELATIONS.
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report in the packet and offered to answer any
questions. Upon question by Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel, he said the
ordinance had been reviewed by the employees.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance
No. 1042 to second reading. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
For Adoption:
A. ORDINANCE NO.1040 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO CHAPTER 19 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING
SECTION 19.01.055 REGARDING DRAINING OF SWIMMING POOLS.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1040.
Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Crites voting
NO.
XIV. NEW BUSINESS
None
XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. ORDINANCE NO. 1017 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2.20,
2.34, 2.60, AND 2.64 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE
(AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 99, 390, 553, 861, 875, AND 899)
RELATIVE TO COMMITTEE/COMMISSION MEMBER REQUIREMENTS
(Continued from the meetings of September 12, 2002, January 23,
February 13, and April 10, 2003).
Councilman Ferguson questioned Sections 2.34.010(d) and (e). He said for
Committees/Commissions which meet once a month, four absences were
allowed in one year, which is a third of all of the meetings. However,
Committees/Commissions which meet twice per month were allowed five
absences, or 20% of the meetings. He suggested that the same percentage
of absences be allowed for both. He noted that allowing 25% unexcused
absences would mean three for those boards which meet monthly and six for
those which meet twice monthly.
8
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance
No. 1017 to second reading, as amended for Section 2.34.010 (d) to state three unexcused
absences and Section 2.34.010 (e) to state six unexcused absences. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
RELATIVE TO THE REORGANIZATION OF THE CIVIC ARTS
COMMITTEE, PROMOTION COMMITTEE, THE SISTER CITIES
SUBCOMMITTEE, AND THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION
(Continued from the meetings of November 14, 2002, January 23,
February 13, and April 10, 2003).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report in the packets.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and: 1) Adopt
Resolution No. 03-47, amending Resolution No. 01-115, relative to meeting schedules;
2) adopt Resolution No. 03-48, dissolving the existing Civic Arts Committee; 3) adopt
Resolution No. 03-49, dissolving the existing Promotion Committee and establishing a
Marketing Committee; 4) adopt Resolution No. 03-50, establishing the Sister Cities
Committee as a stand-alone committee and increasing its membership by two; 5) pass
Ordinance No. 1043 to second reading, decreasing membership of the Art In Public Places
Commission to seven members and two non -voting members. Motion was seconded by
Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIONS RELATED TO THE CITY'S
FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN
RELATIVE TO ITS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM (Continued from the meeting of April 10, 2003).
Mr. Ortega noted that this matter was continued from the last meeting in
order for staff to bring back an exhibit that showed the Council all of the
organizations that had applied for funding, and that information had been
included in the staff report.
MR. JAMES LEWIS, 43-210 Silk Tree Lane, spoke as a Palm Desert resident
and Executive Director of the Coachella Valley Rescue Mission, a recipient
of the CDBG Program, and thanked Council and staff.
Councilman Ferguson moved to: 1) by Minute Motion, approve the Outside Agency
Funding Committee's recommendations for FY 2003/04 CDBG Applications; 2) waive
further reading and adopt Resolution No. 03-37, adopting a contract to provide fair housing
(anti -discrimination), landlord/tenant complaint resolution, and education services; 3) by
Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Fair Housing
Council of Riverside County, Inc., to provide fair housing (anti -discrimination) and
landlord/tenant complaint resolution services (Contract No. C21080). Motion was
seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly ABSTAINING.
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
D. REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
HOVLEY LANE EAST FROM WATER WAY TO
(Continued from the meeting of April 10, 2003).
Mr. Ortega stated that the map requested by Council
attached to the staff report.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel asked if this would take
the Carlotta residents.
FOR WIDENING OF
OASIS CLUB DRIVE
at the last meeting was
care of the concerns of
Traffic Engineer Mark Greenwood noted that Carlotta residents had an
ongoing concern about turning left out of the project, and they had currently
requested an all -way stop control at Hovley Lane and Carlotta. That
intersection had been evaluated, and it was found that this was not a location
at which to install a four-way stop. Staff recommended installation of a
median to allow left turns onto Carlotta from Hovley eastbound, with no left
turns onto Hovley from Carlotta. Residents needing to exit the neighborhood
and travel east would have to use Sandcastle to Eldorado and then Eldorado
to Hovley or Country Club. He said this would address the safety concern at
the intersection but not in the manner requested by the residents. Upon
question by Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel, Mr. Greenwood responded that this
had not been reviewed with the Carlotta residents.
Councilman Kelly said he felt this might be a good location to try a
t-intersection where eastbound traffic could have a straight -through, and
westbound traffic would have a stop. Mr. Greenwood responded that this
was a possibility; however, it would require substantial modification of the
approved street plans, and the bulk of the work would be in the City of Indian
Wells. It would also extend the length of the project by quite a bit and would
require coordination with the developer of the project south of Hovley
because it would encroach in his project by about 12 feet.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel said he would like to have the input from the
people at Carlotta before approving the request.
Upon question by Councilman Crites, Mr. Greenwood responded that
improvements at the intersection of Eldorado and Hovley would include
installation of the conduits under the street now for the future traffic signal
which the project was conditioned to install; therefore, the intersection would
not have to be torn up when the signal is installed several years in the future.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Appropriate $954,500 from
Fund 400 for the subject project; 2) appropriate $954,500 to the General Fund Transfer
Account No. 110-4199-499-5010; 3) authorize the transfer of $954,500 from the General
Fund to Fund 400 for the widening of Hovley Lane East — said funds include cost of
10
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
construction of the road, median, drainage improvements, and a contingency for same;
4) direct staff to return to the Council on Recommendation #4 (authorize prohibition of left
_ turn egress from Carlotta Drive onto Hovley Lane East) with a report/recommendation on
Carlotta Drive traffic issues and a potential redesign of the intersection to include a through -
lane bypass. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-1 vote, with
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel voting NO.
XVI. OLD BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF THE SELECTION OF AN OFFICIAL CITY OF
PALM DESERT BIRD.
Councilman Crites recommended that the official bird be the Verdin, as it was
a species native to the Southern California Desert, was found abundantly in
our community, and would make an appropriate symbol for Palm Desert.
Councilman Kelly countered that he had a different preference for something
more distinctive, more abundant, and readily recognizable. Therefore, he
recommended the Mourning Dove would be a better fit for the community,
adding that there were currently two of them nesting in his back patio.
Mayor Benson said she favored the Cactus Wren, as she had many cactuses
and was very familiar with that species. However, she, too, considered the
Mourning Dove because they were also quite prevalent in her neighborhood.
Councilman Ferguson commented that he had no preference and would
defer to the bird experts here.
Mayor Pro-Tempore Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the Mourning
Dove as the official City of Palm Desert bird. Motion was seconded by Councilman Kelly
and carried by 4-1 vote, with Councilman Crites voting NO.
XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 25.21 OF
THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO SECOND UNIT
SENIOR HOUSING Case No. ZOA 02-02 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
The following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearing A:
Key
JMB Mayor Jean M. Benson
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
KH Kim Housken
KK Kathleen Kopp
11
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
HS Harry Lesseos
SP Stan Paris
KR Ken Ratner
TE Todd Estenson
JB Jerry Beauvais
BAC Councilman Buford A. Crites
FU Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
JF Councilman Jim Ferguson
RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly
RAS Mayor Pro Tempore Robert A. Spiegel
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
JMB Next is Public Hearings. First public hearing is Consideration of an
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 25.21 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
Relative to Second Unit Senior Housing, Case No. ZOA 02-02 (City of Palm
Desert, Applicant).
DJE
Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, Palm Desert has on its books
an ordinance dealing with second units that we placed there in 1983. There
have been some substantial changes in the law since that period of time. In
fact, in September of 2002, the Governor signed a bill, AB1866, which
basically limits the ability of the City to hold public hearings with regard to
second units and provides only very specific conditions that can be imposed
upon second units. The idea and thought of the legislation is to increase the
housing supply in California. The ordinance that we have proposed for the
Council tonight is in your packet. We have utilized those conditions and
limitations that are provided in the legislation to provide that ordinance with
still as much oversight as the City is able to do under the existing legislation,
and we would recommend your approval on first reading, pass to second
reading.
JMB Then I will open the public hearing. We have a couple of cards...Kim
Housken.
KH Good evening, Madam Mayor and Councilmen. My name is Kim Housken.
I live at 73-237 Somera. I am a 35-year resident of this city, and I have been
following this amending of the second unit ordinance closely since November
2002, and I feel pretty well versed on it and comfortable speaking on it. I
believe staff has done an admirable job tackling the issue, and I am pleased
to see that they are recommending owner occupancy of the main unit. I think
that's critical in maintaining both the aesthetics of the home rather than
having two rental properties there. I feel that, again, a personal property
owner is going to be much more selective as to who they rent out to, so I
think that's an excellent choice for the ordinance. I'm also happy to see
about the off street parking requirement, one off street site provided per
12
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
bedroom. An area that I think could be more closely regulated is regarding
the size of the units. The State, in this new Assembly Bill, did not give the
cities much latitude as to what they could control, but they are allowing cities
to set either a minimum and/or a maximum or also base it on a percentage
of the main unit, and I think the City of Palm Desert should take advantage
of that, basing it on a percentage. I think it's important to keep a small
second unit, proportional to a main unit. I believe the State itself even said
these second units can provide affordable housing for groups other than
senior citizens, such as family members, students, in -home health care
providers. Again, they're looking at a small unit. I fear that a 1,200 square
foot unit is far too large and would encourage perhaps small families. I don't
think that is really the intent the State is wanting to provide here. I am
recommending perhaps basing it on 35% of the main unit, or perhaps even
leaving the 1,200 square feet as the maximum, so if you had a 2,000 square
foot house, you could have a 700 square foot unit. If you went up to a 5,000
square foot house, I haven't done the math on this one, but they'd be limited
to 1,200 square feet. So 1,200 would be the maximum, and I think that's
critical and the City should take advantage of that. My fear is some of the
older areas of Palm Desert do have smaller single-family homes that are
perhaps only 1,400/1,500 square feet, and by allowing a 1,200 square foot
unit on a site with a home that is not much larger than that, I believe you're
going to see duplexes. I think you're going to be changing the zoning of the
neighborhoods. I don't believe that is the intent. I believe it should be a
smaller, secondary unit, much like a mother-in-law unit. I'm aware that staff
is concerned that this would be something difficult to regulate. I don't really
see how hard it is. Staff claims that someone, if they had a 1,500...or let's
say they had a 2,000 square foot home, that they could expand it up to 3,000
square feet, then add their second unit. Well, that's fine. They could expand
it to 3,000 square feet. 35% of 3,000 square feet would still only allow for a
1,050 square foot home, so it's still going to be smaller, it's still going to be
proportional to what is there. I also question the minimum size unit that staff
is recommending, the 600 square feet. I believe that is what's allowed in
multi -family housing, and that was the explanation given. But again, we're
talking about single-family R-1 neighborhoods, and I believe 450 square feet,
which is what is, I believe, allowed in the senior housing, the minimum size
provided by a city, is 450 square feet, which is, again, a studio. Again, keep
in mind, the State is only requiring that you allow an efficiency unit. An
efficiency unit is 220 square feet, so the jump from 220 square feet up to 600
square feet, I think that's substantial. And I think the problem is you're going
to be getting people that are building these on maybe not for a mother-in-law,
maybe not for a college student, but with just the intent of renting it out,
making money. And I believe the larger unit they're able to build, the more
enticive [sic] that would be to them, they would be more enticed to do
something like this if they're going to be able to build such a large unit.
Again, I know the staff is not saying a second unit is not an entitlement. You
merely need to set an ordinance which will not preclude anyone building a
13
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
second unit in the City. Perhaps someone with a smaller lot, they might not
be able to do this, but I believe that if you do base it on a percentage, that is
not going to limit everyone from having a second unit in the City. At this
point, I'd like to present you with a petition. I have over 110 signatures of
Palm Desert residents that are concerned both about the second unit
ordinance and they are concerned about the size. They are also concerned
about the owner occupancy, which again I'm recommending you approve
that. Additionally, this is a two -fold petition which also deals with the
retroactive granting of the Conditional Use Permits that we're going to be
reviewing later. So if I may approach, I'd like to present that at this time. I
hope you will consider my comments tonight and take these, particularly the
size, into account when basing your decision. Thank you for this time.
JMB The next card I have is Kathleen Kopp.
KK A hard act to follow. Kathleen Kopp, 44-870 Cabrillo. Two weeks ago, I
urged you to take control over what was happening with some second units
in the City, and I think with this proposed ordinance, 1099, you do just that.
I fundamentally am opposed to Sacramento's long arm being in our R-1
zones, in our single-family homes, telling us what we can and cannot do.
However, since there is a law, and I know it's controversial, I think that what
you have come up with here is a good solution. I think it's commendable,
and I do urge you to pass it tonight, immediately. Thank you.
JMB The other card I have that I don't have an item number on, and I don't know
which he wants to speak on, is Harry Lesseos.
HL Good evening, Councilmembers, Honorable Mayor. My name is Harry
Lesseos. My wife and I currently own and reside at 73-166 Loma Vista Lane
in south Palm Desert. We would like to go on record as adamantly opposing
the retroactive granting of any Conditional Use Permits. Homes that fall into
this category, in our opinion, were illegally converted. Do we reward them at
this time for their unlawful deeds? I don't think so. I myself have lived in the
beach area of Los Angeles County most of my life, having relocated in Palm
Desert in 1989. During the time of growing up and living at the beach, I saw
what developed into an urban blight with the conversion of what we referred
to at that time over there as so-called bootleg apartments. It created
unnecessary added traffic and also created the non -existing parking. An
individual here is applying for a Conditional Use Permit for three homes, two
of which are facing on Portola Avenue just north of Highway 111, where no
parking...
JMB Sir.
HL I'm sorry, ma'am.
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JMB
I'm sorry. I didn't know you wanted to speak on the use permit. What we're
talking about now is the second unit ordinance, not these use permits. That's
coming up next.
HL Oh, that's next? Okay, well forgive me for coming out of line.
JMB I'II put your number down on that one. Anyone else that would like to speak
on the second unit ordinance?
SP Madam Mayor and City Council, my name is Stan Paris, and my wife and I
reside at 73-210 Somera Road. Actually, what I would like to do is just voice
my complete agreement with what Mrs. Housken previously said with respect
to making the second unit...tying that as a percentage to the primary unit at
30 or 35%. And that way, we have no chance, then, for unplanned duplexes.
Thank you.
JMB Anyone else who would like to speak on the ordinance for second units?
KR Good evening. My name is Ken Ratner. I live at 74-041 San Marino Circle.
I was listening to the comments, and I was struck by the 35% requirement
that seems to be bantered about here. If a person has a 5,000 square foot
house, he is going to have a sizable unit to rent, perhaps provide
companionship, as a close neighbor. But that kind of penalizes the little guy.
I think it's an interesting idea, but somebody that...a grandma that has a
1,200 square foot house, she wants to have some income, she wants to have
a close neighbor, I think that penalizes unfairly the little guy, and it's very nice
to have this percentage. It's a nice, easy way to figure things, but I just think
it's inappropriate in this matter. Thank you.
TE
Good afternoon. My name is Todd Estensen. I live at 74-043 El Cortez Way
here in Palm Desert. I just wanted to make a comment about what was just
said. This is my neighborhood, this is where I live. I live there. It's not my
business. I have a business elsewhere where it belongs. I pay business
taxes. I'm living in an R-1 resident home. I live there, and I enjoy it, and I
please wish that you don't let these people turn my neighborhood into a
business just as was said earlier. Thank you.
JMB Anyone else who would like to speak on the ordinance?
JB My name is Jerry Beauvais. I live at 74-041 San Marino Circle. I am
involved in secondary units currently in the old neighborhood of Palm Desert,
and the size restriction is an impediment in regards to providing the type of
quality housing that can be provided for people who do not wish to live in
apartment type settings. The tenants that I have in my units are all mature
adults, they are all serious parts of our working community, and the only way
that they can afford nice housing is by living in one of these units. And they
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
don't actually equate as a place to live when they are that small. They are
not...quality living is not afforded at that size. So I would hope that you would
see the value in this percentage issue. Thank you very much.
JMB Anybody else that wants to speak...(inaudible)...(faint)...then I will close the
public hearing.
BAC At least a couple of questions. One, why do we have a minimum size at all?
Secondly, what brought the minimum size and the recommendation to 600
square feet versus, as was suggested, 450 or some other number?
FU Phil will answer the question.
PD There needn't be a minimum. It just, for whatever reason, when we are
dealing with multi -family apartments, we have minimums for all our housing
units in the City, including single-family homes. We have minimums if you
want to build an apartment. You cannot build an apartment in this city
smaller than 600 square feet. We've made a determination, rightly or
wrongly, that that is the size of a quality, one -bedroom apartment. So,
consistent with that rationale, we have a standard for an R-1 that you can't
build less than 1,200 square feet. So we have minimums...it's arguable
whether they apply anywhere, and they needn't apply here, it's just
consistent with our philosophy that we've had in the past.
BAC Then a question. Do you have any strong objections to it being...
PD Oh, no. I have none, it's just a matter of consistency.
BAC Just a matter of what we want.
PD Correct.
BAC Okay. Thank you.
JF Yes, I want to thank Mrs. Housken for her obvious hard work in this. I've
been dealing with our attorneys and our staff and other folks for almost a
month on this, and you probably gave the best summary I've heard of the
reasons driving this whole debate. And I do think the intent of the
Legislature, both in terms of the new bill, AB1160, and the old bill was to
increase housing by having small accessory units for family members, for
parents, for nursing care providers and skilled assisted living providers. I
hope it wasn't the intent, and if it is, I for one will urge that we fight it, that we
double the densities in all of our neighborhoods, we make landlords out of
every resident, and certainly in the absence of an owner -occupied
requirement that people start buying up old homes, doubling their densities,
and all of a sudden we have apartment neighborhoods instead of single-
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
family neighborhoods, which has been the intent of our ordinance all along.
I like the 35% limitation. I think it's probably a little bit high. I just ran the
numbers based on my own home, if I were to be able to afford to do
something like that, and that would put 40% coverage on my lot, and I have
an 11,000 square foot lot and only a 2,900 square foot home. I would be
able to build a 20 by 50 foot structure in my back yard, which I'm not sure
would even fit. But if 35% is a threshold that, you know, folks are
comfortable with, I'm willing to listen to it, but to have no threshold
whatsoever and to have small units being the tail wagging the dog for a much
larger unit, I just don't think is keeping with the character, the complexion, or
the charm of our neighborhoods at all. And I'd at least like to hear from our
staff on the 35% limit.
PD It's clearly within the authority granted by the Legislature to do that. The only
language in the current State law is that efficiency language, which you can
limit it, she's right, to 260 square feet. Again...
JF No, the maximums.
PD Oh...no, you can limit that to the maximum if you wanted. You can limit that
for the maximum if you want.
JF Do you have a recommendation?
PD Again, it seems a little inconsistent that we made a determination, and if
you're building an apartment, that people shouldn't live in a unit less than 600
square feet, but if we do this calculation, it comes out to 200 or 300 square
feet. So, I have no problem...remember, the total development on the lot is
still limited by what you can build as a single-family home. So the total
amount of building area is fixed, whether it is a single-family home or with a
single-family home and a second unit. That is established by the coverage
requirement and the setbacks, and those don't change whether we're talking
about single-family homes or single-family homes with accessory units. If
you want to create a...if you feel comfortable having a 1,200 square foot
house, and 35% yields 450 square feet, and you're happy with that as a
minimum, then that is perfectly fine. I don't have...l've lived in a 450 square
foot apartment in my life, and if efficiently designed, it provides an acceptable
place to live.
JF I think the thought was if there was no minimum, we wouldn't have to worry
about what the minimum is. The maximum would be 35% of whatever the
base unit is.
PD Right. I have no problem with that.
JF Okay.
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
BAC
PD
One other one. The answer is probably obvious, but Item D under
requirements notes the second unit is not intended for sale. Is that a fancy
way of saying you can't sell it?
You can't sell it apart, separately, from the main unit. So it doesn't subdivide
the lot that you can sell two units. The second unit has to be associated, in
terms of ownership, with the primary unit.
BAC Why don't we just say that?
PD I didn't write it.
BAC It's not a major issue, but I'm just saying...
PD I think that's taken right out of the State law, but...
RSK Well, I guess just that I would prefer the 600 minimum.
JF This isn't a public hearing?
RAS It's closed, we closed it.
JF We already closed it?
BAC Yes. Well, I'll just try moving, then, a motion that limits the size maximum to
35% of the main unit, period.
RAS Without a minimum?
BAC Without a minimum.
JF I'll second it.
RSK Question before the vote. What does that do if somebody comes to us and
wants 300 feet?
BAC If that's what they want to do to their mother...I mean, it's designed...
RSK Seems shortsighted to me, so I still think 600 feet...I think we have all kinds
of health and safety ordinances, and I think the health and safety ordinance
here would be that we wouldn't ask somebody to live in a unit less than 600
square feet...one man's humble opinion.
JF Well, but if I heard Phil correctly and Mrs. Housken, the bill does provide in
certain instances for 225 square feet.
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
RSK Yeah, he doesn't live in 225 square feet.
PD The State legislation, the City of Palm Desert doesn't, as far as a standard
apartment, we don't allow something Tess than 600 square feet.
BAC Well, then, let me ask a question. We have a minimum of 1,200 square feet
for an R-1.
PD Correct.
BAC So 35% is 450 square feet. So the minimum in an R-1 would be 450, and we
have probably very few 1,200 square foot R-1 homes.
PD Correct.
BAC So in most cases, it would be...
PD 1,400 - 1,600.
RAS So would you add to your motion a minimum of 450 square feet?
BAC I could live with that.
RAS All right.
BAC
JF
I'd be happy to so amend the motion.
So seconded.
RSK Motion carries 4-1, Councilman Kelly voting NO.
To clarify the motion, Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and pass
Ordinance No. 1044 to second reading, as amended to specify the minimum limit at 450
square feet and the maximum limit at 35% of the main unit square footage. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO.
B. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL AND A CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR
REVIEW REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN
ATTACHED SECOND UNIT AT 44-574 PORTOLA AVENUE
Case No. CUP 02-14 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant)
(Douglass & Kathleen Kopp, Appellants) (Continued from the meeting of
April 10, 2003).
Kgy
The following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearing B:
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JMB Mayor Jean M. Benson
CLO Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager
FU Francisco J. Urbina, Associate Planner
HL Harry Lesseos
JF Councilman Jim Ferguson
KH Kim Housken
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
RAS Mayor Pro Tempore Robert A. Spiegel
JB Jerry Beauvais
JMC Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment
DK Douglass Kopp
LG Linda Garbarini
RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly
BAC Councilman Buford A. Crites
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
JMB Next item is Consideration of an Appeal and a City Council Request for
Review Regarding Planning Commission Approval of an Attached Second
Unit at 44-574 Portola Avenue, Case No. CUP 02-14. (Jerome M. Beauvais,
Applicant) (Douglass & Kathleen Kopp, Appellants) (Continued from the
meeting of April 10, 2003).
CLO Madam Mayor, Planning staff is here to make a presentation on this item.
FU This Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on
February 18, 2003. Subsequently, there was an appeal filed and a call up by
the City Council. The site plan that you see shows two Conditional Use
Permits. The subject one, CUP 02-14, is located here. This is a property
that the applicant, Jerome Beauvais, bought from the City's Redevelopment
Agency. It contains a distressed single-family home and a detached one -car
garage with a room. The applicant would meet the current second unit
zoning ordinance parking requirements for the second unit, which the current
ordinance requires two covered spaces, by providing a two -car carport in the
rear at this location, and access would be via a proposed private driveway
being accessed off of El Cortez. There is an existing recorded easement
over adjacent properties, and the adjacent property owner to the east
consents to the development of the driveway. The proposed second unit,
with the conditions of approval recommended by staff, complies with the
existing second unit ordinance. Staff's recommendation is that the City
Council deny the appellants' appeals and adopt the City Council Resolution
affirming the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 02-14.
JMB I'II open the public hearing on this. I have a couple of cards, and probably
more people would want to speak, but I would just like to remind you that if
you spoke last time, please be brief. All of the comments are recorded in the
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
record from the last meeting and really don't need to be repeated, but if you
are compelled to speak, please try not to cover everything that you covered
last time. The cards that I have are Harry Lesseos.
HL Good evening once again. Should I start all over, or...start all over, okay.
Again, my name is Harry Lesseos. My wife and I own and reside at 73-166
Loma Vista Lane in Palm Desert. We've owned in Palm Desert since 1989,
and the purpose I'm here tonight to speak about is that I just cannot see
rewarding people that go about or skirt the law by not having applied for
proper permits back years ago. Again, it appears to me that somebody here
tonight is applying for conditional permit in compliance with our bill 1866 that
our illustrious Legislature decided to pass for various reasons, whatever.
Again, lady and gentlemen, my argument here tonight is, having been raised
in the beach area, I saw these so-called bootleg apartments develop. I saw
garages being converted into homes wherein anywhere from a half a dozen
to a dozen people at them, that's what they call crash pads. Some
gentleman seated here adequately said it earlier...we live in an R-1
residential neighborhood. We love the ambiance of living and having
neighbors next door that live in single unit homes. If I chose to live in an
apartment building, I would move in that area. I know you folks won't have
much control with this new bill. I'm only asking you to consider the fact that
we don't reward people by allowing them these conditional use permits now.
Why didn't we cite or do something in the past? I'm sorry, Mr. Ferguson...
JF Yes, question. You just saw us pass an ordinance...
HL Yes, sir.
JF ...which, in part, we were forced to pass...
HL Yes, sir.
JF ...and I think we tailored it in a way that kept the intent of the Legislature. If
Mr. Beauvais were to withdraw his appeal, right now, and go back and
comply with our ordinance and come back and ask for a CUP, would you still
feel as strongly that he shouldn't be able to do it?
HL I don't think we'd have any other choice but to grant him this. But my
question to you folks is why hasn't he been cited or brought before the courts
in obviously direct violation of the City codes?
JF But we...Mr. Beauvais submitted CUP's when he was caught and was red -
tagged on this project and stopped building and immediately came and filed
a CUP. But my question is, because it's easy for folks to get morally
— indignant about what he did, but now that we have an ordinance, we've set
forth what the rules are that people have to do to comply with it, if he is able
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
HL
to take the stuff that he's got and somehow bring it into compliance and ask
for approval and meets our code, what are your feelings then?
My feelings would be, I would suggest wholeheartedly, make it an
amendment or an addition to the particular bill here by limiting the number of
people that can live in a home. In other words, if Mr. Beauvais decides to
build a 450 square foot house, do we allow him to have ten people living in
there with cots on the floor? I don't think that would be the proper answer.
JF Well, are you saying that he's got ten people living in there now?
HL No, no, no, I'm saying that if the plan is adopted, as it will be, that there
should be a conditionary section placed in there that according to the square
footage of the house, and I don't know if this is legal, I know you're an
attorney, but do you put a dozen people into a 450 square foot residence?
Now, he may comply with the Health Department by having a lavatory, a
sink, what have you, and a refrigerator, the point there being that what if eight
of the ten people own vehicles, where do they park them? Or their friends
that come visit, especially on Portola Avenue, hopefully some day they'll
widen that street to two lanes each way, but the point being is, look at the
inconvenience it causes the neighbors around them. I thank you very much,
folks.
JMB I have Kim Housken again.
KH Again, I'm Kim Housken, 73-237 Somera, and I just want to clarify...these
cases are being judged under the old ordinance, is that correct then, not the
one that was just approved. Is that correct?
DJE At the current time, that ordinance is not effective.
KH Okay. Great. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. And I grew up
in this neighborhood and, again, I'm very familiar with these four cases, and
in regards to this case, there are four issues I'd like to speak on. Number
one, the size of the second unit.
RAS Is this repetitive of what you told us two weeks ago?
KH No, actually, the other...last...two weeks ago I did not even speak on this, I
was just recommending that you hear it that night. Number two is regarding
the existing garage, three the proposed carport, and the fourth item is the
applicant's intent for the property. Number one, the ordinance that this was
applied under, the 1983 ordinance passed by the City Council, Subsection
C says the second unit shall not result in an increase of more than ten
percent in the living area. I took that as just the common sense
interpretation. In other words, with this particular case, we have a 1,082
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
square foot house. My interpretation of the ordinance would allow a 108
square foot second unit, and I think that's just the common sense
interpretation that most people would understand it to be. The Planning
Department has taken a different tact in that they discuss how things could
be enlarged, and then we'll add the second unit later and so on. I believe the
bottom line is what was intended by the City Council in 1983. To check that,
I went back to the Minutes. In 1983, I'm quoting, "Councilman Jackson
asked if it was accurate, that if a person owned a 2,000 square foot home,
it could only be increased by 200 square feet under this ordinance. Mr. Diaz
responded that was correct." So I believe this is the intent of the Council. I
think some people have misinterpreted it, but I think ultimately you need to
go back to what was the Council's intent back in '83, and clearly they
intended it to be a small unit, basing it at 10%. The four cases you're going
to hear tonight, I believe, all exceed, far exceed, what was intended by
Council in 1983.
Secondly, the plans as Mr. Urbina pointed out, there is currently an existing
one -car garage. I mean, actually, and everything else is moot. If we accept
that, then I really don't need to address these other issues, but I'm going to
go ahead and do that at this time. As Mr. Urbina pointed out, there is an
existing one -car garage on the property; however, I was at the Planning
Commission meeting back in February when they approved this. The
Planning Commissioners, I do not believe, were aware there was an existing
one -car garage at this site. At the time, in fact even this current plan, it's
labeled a secondary unit, it's not even called what it is, which is a one -car
garage, and even the staff report, let me quote from the staff report. It
said...this is your current staff report, says "The Planning Commission did not
require replacement of the existing one -car garage for the main unit". Again,
the Planning Commission was not aware that there was a one -car garage
because at this February 18th staff report, it referred to the garage as "an
existing detached guest unit." So, of course, they did not require
replacement, they did not realize there was a garage, and there is a garage.
Unfortunately, with the widening of Portola, which the applicant was aware
of when he acquired the property from Redevelopment, access will be lost
from Portola. I would propose the garage could be accessed from the
eastern side. Unless this is somehow addressed, the problem with this
particular case is there is no parking for the main unit. There is a carport
being provided for the second unit, but there is no parking for the main unit,
and I question how by converting this garage into a second unit, why is a
replacement structure not being required?
The third thing is the proposed carport. Rear yard setbacks I understand to
be 15 feet, and the rear setback from the carport is only 12 feet, and I'm not
sure why the rear carport is not being required to meet the setbacks.
23
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
Finally, it was my understanding that the applicant acquired this property
from Redevelopment with the intent of using it as a studio, and I'm kind
of...l'm not sure if perhaps the Redevelopment Agency, something was
misrepresented to them, I'm not sure where the confusion happened, but this
clearly is not just a studio. This is yet another one of the duplexes that we're
seeing pop up all over the place. So, again, I would question the applicant's
representations, perhaps to Redevelopment...were they hoodwinked as well?
I'm not sure. Based on this information, I would urge you to reverse this
Conditional Use Permit. Thank you.
JMB That is all the cards I have on this issue. Is there anyone else that hasn't
already spoken that would like to speak?
JB Good evening, my name is Jerry Beauvais. I live at 74-041 San Marino
Circle. When I approached the City regarding this house, Ms. Housken was
correct, it was my original intention, because this house would be land -locked
behind an eight -foot wall to be built by the City along Portola, losing the
driveway, this house would become a non -livable area because of no access
from the street. I asked the City to sell me this house, and I was going to turn
it into a music studio because I didn't want a dirt lot next to my house. Mr.
Drell brought it to everybody's attention that there is no such thing as a music
studio in R-1 zone and that it had to be determined what exactly was the
viability of this house, what it would become, in fact what was the future of
this house. It was at that time that I started discussion with the City about the
possibility of turning it into or restoring the main unit for habitation and, as
well, the garage with an attached small unit on the back which also at this
time includes a bathroom, that that would be turned into a secondary unit.
The obvious value, it seems to me at this point, was that with the housing
shortage in Palm Desert, everywhere in California for that matter, the value
of having two quality units rather than a dirt lot was clear, and that's why the
decision was made to do this. The question Ms. Housken brings up
regarding the setback of the carport was made in a discussion regarding the
necessary space required to back up a car and turn it around and come out
the driveway. And I was told at that time, in City Planning, that this was
acceptable because a percentage of buildings and the relation to the lot line,
the back lot line, if the percentage worked out to 15 feet or better, then it was
acceptable, and this process is used from time to time by the City
determining if one building can be closer than 15 feet, which in fact this one
is three feet closer, it is at 12 feet. I believe this is how it was determined that
this carport was acceptable. Also the reason for this being was that it made
the back yard area more acceptable for the main unit and as a quality living
space. I still think it's a good idea for this house rather than being torn down,
to become a quality living space in an area that is short on housing, and I still
promote this idea as being a good idea. The City has toured my houses, and
I have been told in round fashion, from people even in protests against this,
department heads, that yes it was clear that my housing units were in fact
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
very nice, they were charming, they were quality, and there were good
people living in them. I believe head of Redevelopment stated that very
thing. Although he is not necessarily in favor of what I do, he complimented
me on the obvious quality of the construction. I thank him for that, and I
would love to do that to this historic house on Portola. And I thank you for
your time.
JMC Is it possible to comment?
JMB Pardon?
JMC I'd like to make a comment to that. My comment was with respect to the
charm of the properties, not the quality of the construction. Thank you.
JMB Anyone else?
DK Douglass Kopp, 44-870 Cabrillo. I just have one question. I commend you
on passing the new ordinance, and the question is, is all these Conditional
Use Permits, is this kind of a moot issue or is this going to be heard and
voted on? Even if it isn't in effect at this moment, I saw that it could have
been...I don't know if it was adopted as an immediate new ordinance or if has
to wait 30 days...
RAS It requires two readings. This was the first reading. The second reading will
be at our next meeting of the City Council.
JMB It was not an urgency ordinance.
DK Okay, gotcha. So then, just one other question. If these are approved or not
approved or whatever, when the new ordinance is in effect, does that affect
these cases. Are they going to be under the old rules, or are they going to
be under the new rules?
DJE That will be determined by the time... if and when Conditional Use Permits
are approved, the ordinance that is in effect at that time.
DK I don't think I still understand, Mr. Erwin.
DJE Well, the Conditional Use Permits can be approved today, potentially, or they
can be rejected today, or they can be continued. I don't know what is going
to occur. If they are continued until the new ordinance is in effect, then
clearly the new ordinance would be the one that the Council would vote to
see if they comply.
DK I see, so I just didn't want to take up your time if, you know, if things are
already determined, but...okay, well, I'll go forward and make it as quick as
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
I can. We're the appellant on this case, and I completely disagree with
Francisco saying that under the existing...l'm going to back to what's in place
right now, not the new one...
JMB Could you move the mike up...
DK
Yes. These units positively do not meet the existing requirements for a
second unit. We've also in past years had concerns about other
encroachments into our neighborhood. We've lived there 35 years. We're
appealing this because it doesn't meet the requirements of the existing
ordinance. The second unit is seven times too large, and also the staff report
says the second unit is 630 square feet, it's actually 810. It exceeds the lot
coverage of 40%, not 37% as the staff says. The requirements of going over
the 35% limit is that you have to appear before the Architectural Review
Committee, and this was not addressed. We checked the Minutes of
September 24th — they did not address the maximum lot coverage. This unit,
it's required to be an attached unit...it's not. It's got a trellis that attaches the
two units. The alley is 12 feet; the recorded deed is ten feet. So the
easement should be 12 feet. The existing garage, which Ms. Housken
already mentioned, is being converted into the second unit, with no
replacement. The on -site and off -site parking is completely inadequate. You
come up a little narrow alley, and there's not room in this remaining area, this
lot coverage, for adequate parking, and then out on El Cortez, it's very
limited. You have a small little curb where he has his other duplex. And also,
the applicant bought this property knowing that it was a reduced property,
and that is what it should remain, just as an R-1 unit. And please reverse the
Planning Commission's decision. Thank you.
JMB Anyone else that would like to speak that hasn't?
LG Hi. Linda Garbarini, 73-221 Haystack Road, Palm Desert. I just want to say
I'm also in opposition of the continual use permit, but one thing everyone
keeps saying or the developers say is that we're at a loss for property and for
housing in Palm Desert. Well, you know what? This is it. You just can't do
any more. I've been here since 1996, and I'm amazed at the growth that we
have had, and some of it's good and some of it's annoying. You know, the
traffic on 111, the restaurants to go to them, and I'm talking twelve months
out of the year now instead of just the tourist season. So to start turning one -
family homes into second dwellings, and like they say, if there is nothing that
says five people, two people, one people, 12 people, something has to stop.
I mean, parking, traffic, all of it, you know, impacts all of us. So I am
opposed. Thank you.
JMB Okay, I'll close the public hearing now and take remarks.
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
RSK Well, from my standpoint, I'II support the appeal and reverse the Planning
Commission decision on the basis of he fails to comply with City ordinances
and causes devaluation, net devaluation of the neighborhood, improper
zoning for two units, inappropriate design of the second unit allows a duplex
in a single-family zone. In addition to that, with all of the violations of our
Building Codes, I would think before we even consider the PUC [sic] that we
would require that the units be brought up to Code and that compliance with
all the Codes should be taken care of.
BAC (Faint)...Would you list those...(inaudible)
RSK I have a list right here.
BAC (Inaudible)
JF In the appeal.
RSK They're in the agenda.
BAC (Inaudible)
RSK You wrote them.
__ BAC (Inaudible)
RSK I just agreed with your comments.
BAC All right.(Inaudible)...(Faint)...Question of staff...if (inaudible) or does or has
to be brought back (inaudible)...
DJE If the Council...
RSK Instruct staff to come back with a denial...
DJE With an appropriate resolution denying. We do not have that resolution
tonight.
RSK My motion would be that we direct staff to bring back a resolution of denial
and causes and reasons.
DJE And we will include in that resolution the appropriate findings based upon the
testimony and the documents that are before the Council.
BAC As a question (inaudible) with that motion (inaudible) motion is being crafted
by the City Attorney (inaudible)...(faint) is it your intention to have the
27
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
applicant and City staff (inaudible)...(faint) look at building and safety issues
and see what (inaudible)...
RSK My intention would be if they came into compliance and met these other
requirements of Zoning Ordinances and City Ordinances and the application
didn't violate any of those ordinances, then he could bring it back.
RAS It is my understanding that much of the building that was done on these
properties was done without a permit from our City. Consequently, we don't
know whether they're up to Code or they're not up to Code, and there's a
responsibility that the City has for any building that goes on in our City, the
peace and the welfare of the people that live in the buildings. And obviously,
we can't say that about these buildings because we haven't inspected them.
JF Well, this takes me back to my first question for somebody who spoke early
on. And that is, normally you come in and you file for a Conditional Use
Permit with vacant land. You get conditions put on you by the Council, one
of which is that you follow all of our codes and laws and regulations. And
then as you build your product, we come out and inspect the foundation, the
framing, the wiring, the plumbing, the air conditioning, the drywall, everything,
and then ultimately issue a Certificate of Occupancy saying that it's safe for
a person to live in. I don't think that Mr. Beauvais' application meets our
existing ordinance, I know it doesn't meet the one we just passed, and I
doubt it will meet the one that is percolating its way up through the
Legislature right now and the Assembly, despite its intent. So, I would
second your motion to prepare a resolution of denial because I don't think it
currently meets our Code, any of them. But secondly, if Mr. Beauvais is
going to try and bring it into compliance, I would like to ask our Code
Enforcement to do two inspections, one a detection inspection which
identifies areas that need to be uncovered, such as wiring, plumbing, and
everything that would have been looked at had this been done properly. And
then second, a follow up inspection once Mr. Beauvais has uncovered all
those areas, to make sure that they are in fact in compliance with our Code,
because I suspect, given the binder of suspected violations that I've received,
it may cause Mr. Beauvais to significantly rethink his accessory structures or
at least the configuration of them or the size of them, and it may cause him
to think of things he's not currently thinking of in terms of a way to bring
this into compliance. And the time it takes to prepare that resolution will give
Mr. Beauvais and his business partner a chance to take a look at this, it will
give our staff a basis to go through and prepare the resolution of denial. But
it's clear that based on what is in front of us right now, I don't think it can
merit anything other than a resolution of denial.
BAC
I guess just, then, would it be acceptable to the maker of the motion to have
the report back from staff at our second meeting so that there's a month for
the things that Mr. Ferguson is talking about to occur?
28
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
RSK So we would...
JF May 22nd
RSK Are you sugg-...
BAC We would come back to this one month from now...
RSK Instead of coming back next time with the resolution of...that would be
acceptable. I'll amend my motion to do that.
JF I'II second his amendment.
JMB (Inaudible)
RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote.
To clarify the motion, Councilman Kelly moved to: 1) By Minute Motion, direct staff
to return to the City Council at its meeting of May 22, 2003, with a resolution that will deny
the Conditional Use Permit and grant the appeals, with the appropriate findings, including
failing to comply with City ordinances, causing net devaluation of the neighborhood,
improper zoning for two units, and inappropriate design of second unit allowing a duplex
in single-family zone; 2) by Minute Motion, require that a two-phase City Code Enforcement
inspection be performed on the unit within the next 30 days: a) Detection of areas to be
exposed for further review (e.g. wiring, plumbing); b) follow-up examination of the exposed
areas to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. Motion was seconded by
Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
C. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL AND A CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR
REVIEW REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN
ATTACHED SECOND UNIT AT 44-536 PORTOLA AVENUE
Case No. CUP 02-15 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant)
(Douglass & Kathleen Kopp, Appellants) (Continued from the meeting of
April 10, 2003).
The following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearing C:
Key
JMB Mayor Jean M. Benson
CLO Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager
FU Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner
BAC Councilman Buford A. Crites
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
RAS Mayor Pro Tempore Robert A. Spiegel
KH Kim Housken
29
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
HC Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services
RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly
JB Jerry Beauvais
TE Todd Estenson
TM Trish Moore
JF Councilman Jim Ferguson
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
JMB Okay, the next public hearing is Consideration of an Appeal and a City
Council Request for Review Regarding Planning Commission Approval of an
Attached Second Unit at 44-536 Portola Avenue, Case No. CUP 02-15
(Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant) (Douglass & Kathleen Kopp, Appellants)
(Continued from the meeting of April 10, 2003).
CLO Madam Mayor, this is a similar request, and Planning staff is here to make
a presentation.
FU Yes, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-15 is located at the southeast corner of
Portola Avenue and El Cortez. The Planning Commission approved the case
on February 18th and subsequently is was appealed. The existing property
contains a main unit plus an attached second unit. There are no records that
building permits were ever issued for the second unit, and that is part of the
reason we're here, part of the Conditional Use Permit process. The applicant
proposes to meet the two covered parking spaces requirement for a second
unit under the current ordinance by constructing a detached two -car carport
at this location, with a driveway off of El Cortez. Staff's recommendation is
that the City Council deny the appellants' appeals and adopt a resolution
affirming the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit
02-15.
BAC Question to staff — is there any substantive difference between the issues
on this application and those on the previous application?
PD I'd like to clarify something, two things. Last application, no construction has
been done. We got a little bit confused. No permits, no work has been done.
In the previous case, no work has been done, and there's really no...and so,
that's the difference. The other one is, on the revision of the existing
ordinance, relative to the...
RSK What is this one?
PD This one, work has been done. The previous case (inaudible) we are starting
from scratch, there's been no...
30
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
RAS All right, but the next three are all the same.
— PD The next three involve existing development.
RAS Okay.
PD For what it's worth, to clarify the existing ordinance...
RSK Got it.
PD Well...I'd like to...there was a statement by a speaker relative to the
interpretation and meaning of our existing ordinance, and it is probably for
the Council at least to hear staffs version of why we determined compliance
with the section relative to size. I am fairly familiar with the existing
ordinance, I wrote that existing ordinance in 1983, and it says that the
addition of the second unit can't involve an increase of more than ten percent
of the existing dwelling. It does not specify how large that second unit can
be, and all the discussions of second units, there was always a thought that
second units could extend into a portion of the existing dwelling. It's just that
the addition of it can't involve more than a ten percent expansion, but if you
had a 1,200 square foot unit, you could add 120 square feet, but of that
1,320, you could create a second unit that was 300 square feet or 400
square feet. There is nothing in our existing ordinance that limits the size of
the second unit, only how much new construction you can build as part of the
whole project, if you understand that. We did not assume that at 1,200
square foot, you could only have a 120 square foot second unit. It was
assumed that that second unit would extend into the existing living area, and
a lot of the original thoughts about second units assumed that we have some
very large homes in neighborhoods where families used to be large and now
there were just individuals and that houses were larger than they needed to
be and that second units could be created wholly within existing homes
without any addition. So the provision relative to the ten percent didn't limit
the size of the unit, it only limited how much additional construction you could
complete to create it.
JMB Do we have anyone who wants to speak on this?
KH Kim Housken, 73-237 Somera. Again, I guess it comes down to
interpretation. My interpretation and, again, reading the Minutes, I think
we're mincing words here. I don't believe...I think any ten people on the
street would agree, when you read ten percent, an increase of ten percent
of the area, I think we would all agree that would be ten percent of what is
there, that's the unit. Because again, going back to '83, the intent of the
legislation in 1983 was a mother-in-law type unit. That was when they did
have an age limit on these units. And traditionally, anyone knows of, like, a
granny flat, it is a small unit. So I would disagree with the size limit, and with
31
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
KR
that, in regards to this case, there are two issues I'd like to address. Number
one, the size. I think it is six times too large. The second thing I'd like to
address is the proposed carport. In regards to the rear yard setbacks with
this carport, you'll notice that it is eight feet from the rear yard property line.
I disagree with the Planning staffs interpretation that a carport could be
considered what they called a gazebo -like accessory structure, thereby it
would not need to meet the same requirements. They are contending that
an eight -foot high accessory structure would only need to be eight feet from
the property line, a foot for every foot of height. In looking, I believe this is
Section 25.56.280, detached accessory buildings. This is Subsection C, the
same subsection that Planning staff used in describing a carport as a
gazebo -like accessory structure. I think they failed to notice the first
paragraph of this subsection which says an accessory building needs to be
100 square feet or less. The problem is this is a 400 square foot carport, so
I believe if you agreed with their interpretation that it is a gazebo -like
structure, it's far too large. On the other hand, if you disagree, which is what
the State of California would disagree with their interpretation, the State of
California clearly groups garages and carports as Group U occupancies; in
other words, garages and carports are considered the same thing in the
State of California. They're considered a Group U occupancy, they are not
a gazebo -like structure, so I would contend that the carport would need to be
15 feet from the property line, whether they went into averaging numbers and
so on and so forth, that's up to the Planning staff. But, I think eight feet, I
think they misinterpreted this. I don't think eight feet is adequate. Finally, I
would like to say that even the Palm Desert Building Department does not
believe that a carport is a gazebo -like structure, and they questioned how
that could be claimed. So, there seems to be some disagreement between
the Planning Department and the Building Department as to what a gazebo -
like structure is. One last thing, I would like to recognize there is a much
greater issue here before you tonight than just these three cases. The
petition that I handed in earlier with over 110 signatures...these are residents
all over the City that are very concerned about the precedent that would be
set if these Conditional Use Permits are retroactively granted for these units
that clearly do not meet the current ordinance of what a second unit should
be. So I recommend that you deny this or reverse the Planning Commission
decision on this and protect the interests of all the residents of the City of
Palm Desert. Thank you.
Ken Ratner, 74-041 San Marino Circle. Got to take issue with a few of the
things that were just said and what happened previously on your vote. There
are two issues here, two basic issues. You have land use, you have building
and safety, which is a health issue, health and safety issue. What's before
you is a Conditional Use Permit, which is a land use issue. Building and
Safety follows the land use issue. The Building and Safety has a provision
for as -built permits. There is a provision in your code now, and you use it,
and that's what enforcement is for. You find somebody that's not in
32
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
compliance, you bring them in compliance. You get a speeding ticket,
somebody doesn't take your car away — you pay the fine, you have to go to
school, you do what the law requires. The policemen do not confiscate your
car. On this land use issue, as I understand the code, the existing code now,
and as I read the existing code now, Jerry's houses comply right now.
There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that. They comply. He's asking you to
give him the Conditional Use Permit so that Building and Safety can come
out after permits have been taken out, to get an as -built permit. Now, as I
understand it, we've been playing kind of "hide the ball" in Building and
Safety. I live in one of the units, and as I understand it, there has been an
inspection. That inspection has not been made available to Mr. Beauvais or
to myself, and I happen to live in one of those units. I don't understand that
game, and what is that? If they've made an inspection, they've made a list,
make it available to the public. It has not been made available to the public,
and it should have been. If you're saying on one hand let's make this guy
comply, well give him the list, let's make him comply. I'm interested in that,
too. But you can't play "hide the ball" on this thing. CUP, yes or no, does it
comply with the State? If so, let's do it. If it doesn't, then vote no. Then
you've got the Building and Safety issue. Make him comply or don't let him
use the Conditional Use Permit. That's what's at issue tonight. This cherry
picking that I hear people talking about, this ten percent, that I don't read it
this way, I don't read it that way, that's a bunch of hooey. That thing's very
clear, it says what it says, and it talks about ten percent additional space
being added to a building. If a unit has 2,000 square feet, you can add 200
feet, and that can be utilized any way you want in the secondary housing, but
the idea of your 35% flies in the face of some common sense. Let's say you
have a 2,000 square foot house, you want to have an 800 square
foot...you're not adding on to the unit, but you want to take 800 feet and have
that be secondary and maintain 1,200 square feet for yourself. What's the
difference? You can't see it from outside the house, it has to do internal to
the house. And that was what really this is all about. The 35% really has to
do with adding on, adding the impact to the neighborhood with the room
additions and the additional footage. Thank you very much.
JMB (Inaudible) Do you have something else to add?
RAS Before Mr. Beauvais gets up here, let me ask staff...do we have a list, a
hidden list, that has not been shown to Mr. Beauvais or anyone else that lives
over there?
HC
No. The question was is if the prima facie conditions that were inspected to
determine if there was Code Enforcement action has been given to all the
parties that have requested it through the City Clerk's Office under Public
Records Act. There was a question whether it could be released because it
was Code Enforcement action, and it was determined that it could be
released, and it has been.
33
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
RAS So there's nothing, no hidden list?
HC No, the list that was done was purely to determine is there Health and Safety
reasons and is there violations to the Code.
RSK There is no list that hasn't been...
HC There is no completed list of total inspection requirements that...
RAS We haven't done a total inspection.
HC No, sir.
BAC I don't mean to part words. You say there is no total list because we haven't
done a total inspection and so on and so forth. Let me try it slightly
differently. Is there any list that we have put together that the applicant does
not have access to.
HC No.
BAC Thank you.
JB The list in question...and my name is Jerry Beauvais, 74-041 San Marino
Circle. The list in question, I have been trying for the last six months to get
this list. I was given half of the list by Code Enforcement about two months
ago. When asked to reinspect the property, I said I haven't seen the original
list determining if anything was wrong with this property, and half of the list
at that time was provided to me, and I allowed a reinspection of my property.
The remainder...I didn't realize there was a remainder of the list until I looked
through the reports, letters written by Kim Housken, and she had a copy of
that list. I had been trying for six months to get that list. I went to Mr. Croy
and I asked him if the list was available. He said the list was not for public
record, and I asked him at that time how it was possible that Kim Housken,
who doesn't live on that street nor own the properties, was in possession of
the complete list. He looked through his papers, and he said, oh, well, here
it is. She went through Public Information...l'm sorry...Freedom of
Information Act, and that's how she obtained the list. I asked him if I could
obtain a copy of the list, and he said he would not, he could not give it to me.
In fact, he did not have a copy of the list. I went to the City Clerk, I was
advised to go to the City Clerk, I filed under the Freedom of Information Act,
Rosie in that department called me up the other day. She said "I have that
list for you". That was two days ago that Rosie called me and informed me
that that list was now available, the other half of that list. I was in touch with
an electrical contractor to show him that list. He looked over the list, and he
said this is all very doable in two days' time, and we can get started on this
any time. To say that there is not a list is patently untrue. There was a list,
34
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
and I could not gain access it to it until I went through the Freedom of
Information Act. I feel it necessary to...l'm being inundated here by
accusations of devaluing my neighborhood, of destroying it in one way or
another, of putting tenants in houses that are less than habitable. I really feel
like I'm getting unfairly blasted here, and I would beg the City Council and
Madam Jean Benson, Mayor, to let me read a statement to you. I ask you
to let me read it. Thank you.
In 1982, I purchased a very tired home, built in 1939, on San Marino Circle.
As a hands-on learning experience, the project of restoring this house took
ten years. During that period, the neighborhood experienced a decline.
Good families were moving out, replaced with transient drug houses. A
murder on El Cortez in a grossly overpopulated owner -occupied single-family
home, as well as continual rash of burglaries, my ten-year investment in that
home was looking like a bad idea. In 1993, I was approached by an
acquaintance regarding a rental she owned on the corner of El Cortez and
Portola. She had not been able to collect rent in six months from the tenants
dealing drugs in this house. The interior was painted black and strewn with
hypodermic needles. The stench of urine was overpowering. We had, in the
midst of our neighborhood, a shooting gallery. Coming home one evening
to this now -restored house, I walked into the middle of a drug bust.
Undercover police, with guns drawn, lurking behind cars, told me to go in my
house and stay down. Looking across the street to Gil and Fran's house, I
saw their children looking out the window. Witnessing this scene and the
murder that followed shortly after was a wake up call in the extreme. Neither
the City nor the police were able to stop this decline into insanity. With a
considerable investment of time, a grass roots movement began and
flourished. As neighbors, we worked together planting trees, cleaning up 1
long -neglected homes, restoring the pride so necessary for a health
neighborhood. I purchased the McGee house in 1998. This house was so
blighted it was considered a tear -down. Angela Scott, with her recently
purchased adjacent home, complained often about this house and that it
brought down the value of her property. In fact, the neighborhood had strong
concerns that this house would be purchased, left as is, and occupied by two
or three families as is typical in this area. As our neighborhood was now
showing signs of recovery, I realized the rehabilitation of this house as being
key in its importance. Towards the end of this restoration, though never
having personally met Mr. and Mrs. Kopp, I was approached by them in front
of the McGee and warmly thanked. Mrs. Kopp said, "It's nice that somebody
is taking an interest in this neighborhood." l then took them on a tour of my
work, and they expressed pleasure at my efforts, inviting me to see their
prized home on Cabrillo. I accepted this kindness and fully understood their
pride in showing me their perfectly preserved, mid-century modern home
designed by Shindler. The last house l purchased from the City of Palm
Desert is situated next to my El Cortez house. It was to be torn down for the
widening of Portola, leaving behind a dusty and unusable dirt lot. The City
35
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
saw the value in my suggestion of restoring this house, including the idea of
having a secondary unit. Mr. Kopp has told the Planning Commission his
worry is that I am buying up the neighborhood, and to use his words, "where
will it all end?" In fact, in my 20 years here, I have purchased my original
residence, a crack house on El Cortez, the severely blighted McGee house
on San Marino, and a house to be torn down on Portola. In the past three
years, there have been numerous reasonably priced homes available for
purchase on our street. If what Mr. Kopp suggests were true, I would have
purchased these homes as well. The record shows my interest is blighted
houses or drug habitats because the continuing health of our neighborhood
depends primarily on solving these problems. This is a clear and
substantiated focus of my energies. In looking over the content of the
original petition submitted by Angela Scott and Douglass and Kathleen Kopp,
I believe the City, through a series of hearings, has found no evidence to
substantiate claims against my property of increased parking problems, a rise
in population density, or the devaluation of our neighborhood. In truth, I do
not understand why the appellants have not, during the course of these
public hearings, addressed any of the complaints brought forward in their
petition. What the City did witness is an outpouring of support from the
neighbors in defense against this petition in the form of many highly
supportive letters as well as a petition signed by long-time residents living in
this neighborhood adjacent to these properties showing an overwhelming
majority of support. I did not bring in people from outside my neighborhood
to represent me as interested parties at these hearings. I say this because
individuals I have never met have stood at this podium and, rather than
addressing the issue at hand of secondary housing, have focused instead on
personally attacking my character. Last week, Mayor Benson toured several
of these old Palm Desert homes. Once blighted and an impediment to our
recovery, they are now restored, providing desperately needed quality shelter
to a very high caliber of tenant, people who are well settled, enjoying their
homes and their neighbors, as well as the comfortable lifestyle these
affordable settings provide them. The rents charged for these homes are
well below current market value. Criteria for choosing these tenants lies not
in their ability to pay a high rent but will this person fit well in the surrounding
neighborhood, are they a substantial and integrated part of our community.
All of my tenants fit this criteria. Gina Galinda has lived comfortably in her
home for the past five years. As a counselor in the adult education program
at College of the Desert, she puts her heart and all her energies into raising
the standards of living for people in our community. Though she well
deserves it, she does not receive the kind of wage required to either
purchase or rent a quality home. This speaks to the core of what I defend.
In giving unselfishly to her community, I believe Gina deserves fair support
in this matter of affordable housing. As a mature adult, she has no desire to
live in the type of dwelling that would be currently available for the $650 she
now pays. There would be little privacy or security, no provision allowing for
her pet, and nothing in the way of quality. At this price, she would find a
36
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
shabby efficiency studio in one of the outlaying communities. I must tell you
that I feel badly that this important issue of secondary housing and its
resulting good possibilities has seemingly taken a back seat in these
hearings. Finally, I have spent many hours working with Planning
Department in order that all four properties will be in full compliance with City
land use code. As the Planning Department report has shown, I have been
successful in accomplishing this necessary step, without the requirement or
benefit of variances. I retract that, it is apparent at this point that there are
several variances required. It is also my understanding that the City Attorney
finds this effort to be in compliance with City Code regarding secondary
(unclear). I don't know that to be the case, City Attorney, but I'm...
DJE That is not the case.
JB It is not the case. Thank you, sir. Once I receive a report from Building and
Safety regarding my properties and any necessary upgrades, within 60 days
I will submit working drawings and pull any permits required. I will work
under the guidance of City Building and Safety, (unclear) and upgrading my
properties as the Department sees necessary. I ask for your support, not
only in regard to these homes but our continuing drive to better our
neighborhood. There was only one other misconception that I would like to
address very briefly. For some reason, there is a belief that these homes
were largely and greatly unpermitted. The truth of the matter is that the
majority of the remodeling that was done was permitted and finaled. There
were three small additions. In compared to what was built, there were three
small additions, and I admit to it, that do need to be identified by the City as
being well-built enough or torn down, but the majority of those houses was
fully permitted. The plans are on record at City Hall. The permits were
finaled. The majority of square footage in these units, plumbing, electrical,
these houses were gutted, new electrical, new plumbing, insulation, high
efficiency air conditioning units, high efficiency everything was put in. It was
inspected, and it was finaled. And before you, before this city, before this
audience, I admit that I did do illegal additions, but they were small, they
were very small, and I beg the City to let me go through the process to make
these as-builts comply with City standards. I feel that, because I over built
everything, that they are in compliance, and I beg the City to let me make
these places right. They are filled with fine people. Some of the people on
our panel know these people, and they know these are great people. My
impact on the neighborhood has been positive. I thank you for your time.
TE Good evening. My name is Todd Estenson. I live at 74-043 El Cortez Way.
As Jerry had just mentioned, it would be a good idea perhaps to turn this all
back to an R-1 and then maybe start over. I don't know if there is any reason
to even look at these or do anything, just pull that bulldozer right down that
road, just tear the stuff out. Why you all stopped I have no idea. We all are
aware of the alleyway there that is creating now a big compound. With these
37
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
TM
two lots, the lot to the right that they neglected to draw the house on there for
their neighbors, which is my direct neighbors to the west, which is Jerry's
back neighbor to his east I guess, the point being there is this is a bigger plan
than what they're letting you on to know unless you're all aware of the next
lot there with the wishes of the Moores. They've already torn out their
garage, ready for this alleyway to make access for another complex over
here. So this is a small of the whole goal that is going on, and if you realize
the driveway there is cooperation of the two land owners. It's incredible that
they didn't put the house there because it would make that drawing look
really ridiculous. I just wanted to let you know about that. And that bootleg
building there, the duplex there, that I don't know how he can fix something
that's an R-1, and it was R-1 when the crack dealers were there. Now that
he's there, he's turned it into some type of compound, and I would wish for
you to reverse that, and I don't know if that's what I'm here to discuss about.
But, it really disturbs me on what is going on on these three lots now that are
going to be one big complex. Thank you for letting me speak, and good
evening.
My name is Trish Moore, and I own the property at 74-041 El Cortez Way,
and that was the property that Todd just referenced for you. The City does,
in fact, have a complete site plan of all three properties in question. It has
not been misled in any regard to that degree. When I bought this home a
little over five years ago, it was on a lease option to purchase, and at that
time it was a drug -infested home with people coming and going. I believe at
one point in time there was as much as ten people coming and going from
that house on a regular basis, so-called calling it their home. I took over that
property. For the first couple of years, I didn't do anything to the property, I
had no idea what to do with it. I rented it out to a slurry of people, none of
whom I would consider desirable today. I've had a considerable amount of
problems with some of the tenants that I chose to occupy that home. My only
intent during that period of time was to be able to cover the mortgage so it
didn't impede on me financially. The property was initially owned by a
girlfriend of mine who moved out of state. Since that time, about close to
three years ago, I began working with Jerry Beauvais on my property, and he
very graciously gave of his time and efforts and energies to be able to help
me find a way to rehab that entire property, both inside and outside. Today,
as it stands, I have a tenant that's been in there for a little over six months,
who is also another member of the society and community in which we all
choose to live in. There is one person living in that home, and that's how it's
been for actually for the last three years. The entire year that we spent
rehabing that property, nobody lived in that house. We've...I'd love to bring
you in my photo albums to show you what it was and what it is today. I'd love
for you to come over and see my home and see what it has become. A lot
of what's taken place in these Council meetings I am really having a hard
time understanding. The first problem that appeared in this whole situation
was when I approached my neighbor for a variance, and that variance was
38
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
to be able to do an addition on the guest house that's currently on my
property. And there was an issue of 16 inches, and it's turned into, as far as
I'm concerned, a three-ring circus. A lot of the issues that I have seen on
paper and the complaints that have been registered and noted in this regard
just, frankly, don't exist. The issue of off-street parking has been well -
addressed. We have worked very tirelessly and effortlessly with the City, and
the City has done so with us in terms of meeting all the compliance that you
would like to see, and I don't see why this has turned into the personal
vendetta that it has been turned into. Thank you for your time.
JMB Now I'll close the public hearing.
BAC I think it would at least be appropriate to have staff be able to respond to
Mr. Beauvais' comments that "a majority of the remodeling was permitted
and finaled." Staffs response, I think, should be in the record to that issue.
HC That is something that we would like the opportunity to investigate by
reviewing the files for all these addresses and verifying his statement. At this
time I don't know if it's true or false.
JF
HC
Well, we've got two more of these to do, and a dinner break, and a guy here
who says he doesn't have all his information, and you need to review your
file. Might it be appropriate to take a recess and have dinner and get
Mr. Beauvais the information on the violations and get the permit
information? Because (inaudible) it's the first time I have ever heard of any
permit ever being (inaudible) by the City for work done on any of the four
properties.
He has permits that have been taken out for the El Cortez corner house.
There are permits for several sections of that house that have been secured
in the past for expanding it from the single-family house by adding laundries
and so forth. Those are all permitted. The other areas I do not know if they
have been or not.
JMB We've heard all the testimony on 02-15 (inaudible).
DJE We did not combine them, we did not state that. There may be something
different on the other two that we have not yet heard.
BAC Would it, then, be appropriate to take Councilmember Kelly's request, his
motion from the previous application, apply it to this one, at the same time
allowing a month for staff to both inspect and to come to some conclusions
about the differences between what Mr. Beauvais has said and staffs "not
sure." And that's not a criticism, I'm just saying here we are, and to
— (inaudible) Councilman Kelly's motion (inaudible) important to look and see
what we really have here.
39
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JMB (Inaudible)
BAC Well, on this...
RAS No, no, just on this one. We've got to do each one separately. Is that a
motion?
BAC Well, I'm finding out if that meets the pleasure with my colleagues.
RAS Well, I'd like to know a little bit more about where we're at before I make a
decision, so we would have a month to make the decision.
BAC And we would just simply ask staff to prepare such motion, and that would
give us both a motion to accept, a motion to deny, bring that back in a month
(inaudible)...
RAS Do you agree? Then if that's a motion, I'll second it.
BAC My motion, then, is to take the substance of Councilmember Kelly's motion
from the last public hearing, transfer it to this public hearing as the same
motion, noting that we will come back in one month and we'll have before us
then the ability to deny and accept.
JMB With all the things that need to be done.
BAC With all the things that...
RAS ...need to be done and what we've got records of, that we've had permits,
and so on.
JMB Please vote.
JF If it's coming back to us, I, for one, would like a little bit more of a balanced
staff report because I've seen such tortured logic and twisting of words in
here where a trellis can become an existing single-family home expansion
(inaudible) a detached accessory unit where a parking garage becomes a
gazebo -like structure. And that's fine if staff wants to advocate that, but I'd
like them to tell me the other side of it, which is a garage is a garage is a
garage, and it violates the 20-foot setback. And a trellis is not a single-family
home, it is simply a trellis between two units.
BAC It is a Mourning Dove resting place.
JF Mourning Dove resting place.
JMB We have a motion and a second, please vote.
40
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote.
To clarify the motion, Councilman Crites moved to: 1) By Minute Motion, direct staff
to return to the City Council at its meeting of May 22, 2003, with a resolution that will deny
the Conditional Use Permit and grant the appeals, with the appropriate findings, including
failing to comply with City ordinances, causing net devaluation of the neighborhood,
improper zoning for two units, and inappropriate design of second unit allowing a duplex
in single-family zone; 2) by Minute Motion, require that a two-phase City Code Enforcement
inspection be performed on the unit within the next 30 days: a) Detection of areas to be
exposed for further review (e.g. wiring, plumbing); b) follow-up examination of the exposed
areas to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. Motion was seconded by
Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote.
With Council concurrence, Mayor Benson recessed the meeting at 6:34 p.m. for
dinner and continuation of Closed Session. She reconvened the meeting at
7:34 p.m.
NOTE: Mayor Pro-Tempore Spiegel left the meeting at 6:34 p.m. and was absent for
the remainder.
D. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL AND A CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR
REVIEW REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN
ATTACHED SECOND UNIT AT 74-041 SAN MARINO CIRCLE
Case No. CUP 02-16 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant)
(Douglass & Kathleen Kopp, Appellants) (Continued from the meeting of
April 10, 2003).
The following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearing D:
Key
JMB Mayor Jean M. Benson
FU Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner
JF Councilman Jim Ferguson
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
KH Kim Housken
BAC Councilman Buford A. Crites
JB Jerry Beauvais
RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly
KR Ken Ratner
RM Roberta Murphy
VF Virginia Fast
DK Douglass Kopp
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
41
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JMB
FU
JF
FU
JF
We are now on Public Hearing D on the Agenda. Consideration of an Appeal
and a City Council Request for Review Regarding Planning Commission
approval of an Attached Second Unit at 74-041 San Marino Circle, Case No.
CUP 02-16 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant) (Douglass & Kathleen Kopp,
Appellants) (Continued from the meeting of April 10th)
Yes, Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on
February 18, 2003. Subsequently there was an appeal filed and a call up by
the City Council. The property contains an existing attached second unit and
a main unit. The current second unit ordinance requires two covered parking
paces for a second unit, and subsequently to the April 10th City Council
meeting on this case, Planning staff did a more detailed research of Building
Department permit records and discovered that at one time there was a one -
car garage for the main unit that has now been converted to living area.
Therefore, we did a supplemental staff report that you have before you
tonight where we want the lost covered parking space for the main unit
replaced with a covered parking space, which would occur by the
construction of a new carport at this location, and parking for the second unit
would be provided through a two -car tandem carport. The current
Government Code Section that deals with second units states that cities must
allow, or shall allow, tandem parking if we allow it elsewhere in the City. We
do allow it elsewhere in the City, in mobilehome parks and subdivisions, but
the Government Code doesn't distinguish between the different zones, it just
says if you allow it elsewhere in the City, you shall allow two -car tandem
parking. Therefore, with the recommended conditions of approval, the
proposed second unit would comply with the existing second unit ordinance.
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appellants' appeals and
adopt a resolution affirming the Planning Commission's approval of
Conditional Use Permit 02-16. Thank you.
Let's see if I can streamline this a little bit. I have a Code Enforcement
inspection memo from July of 2002 that lists seven violations on this
property. Can you tell me if any of those have been cured as part of the
application process.
I believe they have not. Planning staff is primarily focusing on the use issues
and whether the proposal complies with the existing second unit ordinance.
Any building permit violations or Code Enforcement violations would have to
be taken care of at a subsequent date if Council were to approve the
Conditional Use Permit.
Okay, well a good portion of these are land use violations, they are not
building violations. The first one is illegally converted to multi -family duplex.
You've addressed, I think, parking. I believe you addressed paving, although
I didn't hear it in your report, but I understand the applicant has done
something to make the driveways paved.
42
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
FU Correct. The site plan that we see does show both driveways as paved.
JF Okay. And perimeter fencing, heights and setback requirements? Have
those been complied with?
FU Staff has not conducted detail investigation of the fencing at this time;
however, prior to any issuance of building permits, that would be one of the
procedures, that any fencing that does not comply with the current ordinance
must be brought into compliance.
JF Okay. What is the square footage of the existing house prior to any
conversion or modification, the primary residence?
FU The site plan submitted by the applicant shows it as 1,319 square feet for the
primary and 856 for the second unit.
JF Okay. And you're saying that meets our 10% requirement?
PD As I explained, the 10% requirement does not speak in any way to the
proportion between secondary unit and primary unit. It speaks to how much
can be added to an existing structure as part of the conversion. It does not
state that only that new portion can be this secondary unit. It allows portions
of the existing unit to be converted as part of the...or it actually allows zero
construction. You can take a 5,000 square foot house, single-family house,
and take a portion of that and create a secondary unit without any. So the
section of the 10% does not refer to...does not set a maximum or a minimum
on the size of the second unit.
JF So he could...
BAC (Inaudible)
PD That's staffs interpretation. It was my intention in writing it, that's what it
meant, and I believe that's what it says.
JF So you can convert garages and make them second units?
PD You can...you can convert garages, you can make additions to your house.
It's just that under the strict interpretation of that language, that the addition
cannot account for more than 10% of the existing structure. Now that's an
easily defeatable strategy because you can always, if you have a 1,000
square foot house, you can do a room addition to a single-family home and
make it a 3,000 square foot house and then convert it in the secondary
process.
JF Right, but he didn't do that.
43
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
PD He didn't do that.
JF But we cited him under Municipal Code 25.16.040 for having a prohibited
use.
PD Which was a secondary unit without going through this process. The process
we're going through this evening is the process that he has to do to comply,
to make the use not prohibited. It's not prohibited by the Code, it was
prohibited because he didn't go through the process to get it permitted.
JF Okay.
JMB (Inaudible) public hearing, and we have (inaudible) Anyone from the
audience that does want to speak?
KH My name is Kim Housken, 73-237 Somera. In regards to this case, I have
three issues. Again, I question the interpretation in regarding the size.
Again, I think if you go back to 1983, we are talking about a small secondary
senior unit. Again, looking at the Minutes, I think the intent of Council was
clear — 10% meant 10%, it didn't mean this whole well you can expand it
and you can add it and you can still do this. I'm not convinced about that,
and maybe the City Attorney could clarify that for us. Another issue...all
along, with all these three existing units, the applicant is claiming that all
these units existed when he purchased the property, and I don't believe that
is true. I would like to...l'd like you to notice, first of all, the current plan...this
was on March 3rd I believe it was, I had asked for a more detailed plan from
the applicant. I asked the Planning Department to provide that.
Unfortunately, the Planning Department chose to not require the applicant
provide a more detailed plan. I don't think this plan is adequate. When we're
discussing number of parking spaces and so on, I don't think this was
adequate. I think a detailed plan would show how many rooms there were,
how many bedrooms, and so on. Fortunately, I was able to find the
applicant's own original plan for this site. This was the plan from 1998, the
month the applicant (oh, thank you) purchased the property. It's somewhat
difficult to see, but you can see there were three bedrooms and there's one
and three quarters bathrooms (inaudible) and what the applicant in 1998
proposed to do was add on a new closet, expand the family room out, and
add on this generous sized laundry room. You'll also see that there was an
existing garage, clearly labeled in the applicant's own writing, at this property.
Furthermore, I have another plan. This is, again, something I found just in
the staff file regarding this case, and you can compare and see what this has
been turned into. And I would like to point out this, next one I'm going to
show you is not to scale, but it does give you an idea what's there now,
assuming this is accurate. You can see, basically, and again these were on
two separate pages, for ease we cut the one out and stuck it on the second
page, just so we could try to determine what was there. You can still see
44
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
there are the three bedrooms, but now the garage is a very large master
bedroom, and furthermore, there is a new bathroom, and the old bathroom
is no longer shown, and you can see that it would appear what happened,
this is just my guess, the laundry room that was applied for, that's a reason
to have water running to this certain area of the house, that's a reason to
have power running to this area of the house. Well, after it was inspected,
we just kind of moved things around a little bit. Now there's a kitchen that
backs up right to that new bathroom and laundry room. So I would speculate
that this is how this illegal conversion occurred. On the original plan, there's
clearly no existing second unit. This was a home I used to walk by on my
way to school and ride my bike by on my way to school for years. And this
was a single-family home. This was the McGee house, a well -established
family. I mean, I think they had five kids. Clearly there was no second unit
at this house. What was done was the house was basically divided in half.
Again, there was no replacement parking structure provided after this master
bedroom was converted. At this time, I'd also like to read...unfortunately, the
neighbor most affected by this is unable to attend due to a family illness,
she's out of the area. But I would just like to reference her letter, that you do
have a copy of, where she says, "When I purchased my home in 1996, there
were single-family homes on both sides of me." Again, she is right next to
this. "In 1998, Mr. Beauvais purchased the home next to me and proceeded
,over time, to turn it into a duplex. Prior to his conversion, I walked through
the house and it was a single family home. There was no second unit, no
second kitchen...just a single family home with a garage. About a year later
he decided to convert the garage into another bedroom for one of the units.
About six months later he added a shed about a foot away from my fence,
saying he needed storage space for his tenants. I recently spoke with
Mrs. Nelson who owns the house next to me (on the other side of me) and
who had lived there for over 30 years. She remembered when both of
Mr. Beauvais' San Marino Circle properties were single family homes.
Neither house had second units." So I would dispute the claim, or perhaps
put the burden of proof on the applicant to explain where these units were,
because I do not believe they were ever there. I commend the applicant in
his efforts to clean up the neighborhood. I think he has done a tremendous
job in rehabing these properties. I think the landscaping is very attractive.
I just question why did he have to turn it into two homes? It could have been
a beautiful single-family home. Nothing prevented him from doing that. And
as for whether there is a need for this type of housing or not, there was a
process that was to be followed should he want to do this. He chose not to
follow the process of getting a Conditional Use Permit. That would have
required noticing of the neighbors. These concerns could have been
addressed prior to any of this happening, and unfortunately, he chose not to
do that.
JF Ms. Housken.
45
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
KH Yes.
JF A couple of questions.
KH Certainly.
JF However we got here...
KH Yes
JF ...this is a public hearing...
KH Absolutely.
JF ...your neighbors were noticed...
KH Yes
JF ...and our staff is telling us that they believe that what he has done to date,
what's there right now...
KH Yes
JF ...does comply with our existing ordinance. Would you agree with that?
KH I would...well, again, we're coming down to the issue of the size, and I would
disagree. Clearly, we have two different opinions on that.
JF So it's the 10% provision of our current ordinance that troubles you the most.
KH That's what troubles me the most by far. And, again, going back to '83, this
was when the State was saying, you know, a mother-in-law type unit.
JF I understand.
KH I think clearly the intent was a small...that's why they made it 10%...mother-
in-law type unit. And I think even from the Minutes, that was Council's intent
at the time. I think you need to go back to what their intent was, not the
interpretation now, but what was the intent?
JF I understand your point real well.
KH Okay. Furthermore, I would say...l was at the February 18th meeting,
Planning Commission meeting, when they did approve this, and I feel like the
Planning Commission definitely based their decision on the fact that they
were told by the applicant that, number one, there was an existing unit there
46
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
already, which I don't believe to be true. One of the Planning Commissioners
asked two, three times to clarify, was this here, and...
JF But does it really matter?
KH I guess not.
JF If he's going through the process now...
KH Yes, absolutely.
JF ...how it got there and when it got there really is kind of irrelevant.
KH That's true, that's true. And I guess my other concern is regarding the
parking. In my mind, if you convert a garage into a room, either you need to
convert it back into the garage, or you should provide a replacement garage.
I'm not sure that just providing a carport is adequate in terms of a
replacement. And furthermore, regarding the tandem parking, I know Mr.
Urbina said that the current State ordinance does allow tandem parking if it's
allowed in another area of the jurisdiction, which it is, next to mobile homes;
however, this is being judged under the old ordinance. We cannot sit here
and pick and choose. Let's pick and choose from this ordinance, let's pick
and choose from this ordinance. You can't do it. Let's pick one, let's pick the
other. But tandem parking at this point, as far as I believe, I don't think it
should be allowed here, and I think there should be another garage provided.
I think that's all I have to say. Any questions?
JMB I just wonder why you keep picking on the mother-in-law. What do we do
with the father-in-law?
KH Oh, I know. Or the college student, absolutely. Well, better than saying the
granny flat, I think.
JMB Well, that's just as bad.
KH I know, I agree.
BAC I think that is covered in another subsection under the woodshed ordinance.
JMB That's where the father-in-law goes.
KH Thank you.
JMB Okay, anybody else wanting to speak?
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JB My name is Jerry Beauvais. I live at 74-041 San Marino Circle. If I may, I
would like to address the issues brought up by Ms. Housken. A question was
asked by Mr. Ferguson about whether or not a list stating the conditions
existing in this property has been addressed, and it was what I was referring
to an hour ago was that with repeated attempts to get this list, I could not get
it. And I didn't know what it was that the City had found. And there was no
way for me to start to address these issues. And furthermore, Mr. Croy just
told me this evening after our last meeting closing was that, in fact, without
my knowledge or having...it may have been in the letter to me. I've received
many from the City, but he said there has been a stop work order on these
properties and that he doesn't want anything to happen to them. He told me
that the electrical contractor that this list that I finally came into possession
of two days ago, he said that he doesn't want anything touched. And I told
Mr. Croy that I would honor that request, but I did not have the list in order
to...it was my desire to start to take care of whatever the issues were.
JMB Excuse me a minute (inaudible) is not the list of his...
JF It's almost a year old, and it was in our Agenda packet that was given to the
press...
JB That was from the initial inspection of the property.
JF Right.
JB And that's what I'm referring to, sir.
JF You're welcome to my copy. Would you care for...
JB I received a copy two days ago, sir.
JF Since we are, at least on two of your applications, putting them over for 30
days...
JB Yes, sir.
JF ...would you prefer 30 days to review these and to feel like you can
meaningfully respond, or do you want to go forward tonight?
JB Would you clarify your statement, please.
JF Would you like a continuance in order to read and understand this list that
you recently came into possession with and be able to address them 30 days
from now?
48
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JB
JF
Thank you. Mr. Croy has pointed out to me that an investigation will begin
in earnest in approximately a week in that the houses will be thoroughly
inspected to find out what issues need to be addressed in order to bring them
into compliance. And I told him that I thought this was a fine idea and that
I would make the residences available to his inspectors and at that point I will
take their recommendations into most serious consideration and apply for
necessary permits and do whatever is necessary to bring these homes into
compliance. So that is at this point, Mr. Ferguson, the process as I believe
it is going to go forward. Mr. Croy has asked me not to do anything to these
houses according to the list, which I believe is the list that you have right
now. That was my intention, having received this list two days ago, but he
said there is a stop order not to do anything to these houses, and he will
begin his inspections.
I'm not asking you to fix them in 30 days, but it seems like you're on one
page, one of our departments is on another, yet another department is on a
third...
JB Yes, sir.
JF ...and maybe 30 days would allow all three of you folks to do the inspection,
sift out the health and safety violations, which have nothing to do with the
land use violations...
JB That's correct, sir.
JF ...and then when I ask questions about perimeter fencing and stuff, we have
answers and not guesses.
JB I think that's...l think that's...my understanding is that's what is going to
happen, sir. If I may, the issues that were brought up, the driveways which
are not paved, were never paved, and as existing driveways they were not
required to be paved, so as a matter of fact they weren't a code violation
because they had always been gravel driveways.
JF
JB
Well, this list is a year old. Maybe having gone back and taking a more
thorough look at it, some of these may not exist, some of them may, and we
may find others that don't.
Right. Regarding fencing which is too close to the street, all the fences in
that neighborhood are too close to the street. Mr. and Mrs. Kopp's fence is
too close to the street, I mean it is just the...it is the nature of that
neighborhood that as being...these houses were built in 1939, and although
that fence was built by a number of years ago, looking around, I looked at the
fences and where they were in comparison to the street, and that's what I put
up. That was an incorrect bad judgment on my behalf. I should have come
49
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
down to City Hall and said what is the setback. I didn't do that, I just looked
around and I thought, okay, this is what is here. As far as the conversion of
the garage, the deceptions that I gave to the City, which I can only say was
an attempt to save 20 of the last years of work, I made a clean breast of that
at our last meeting. If you will recall, I stood up and I freely admitted what I
had done. I was bringing it all out, and I knew that there was no question that
I cannot move forward here without total and complete honesty, and I told
that to Mr. Croy a half hour ago, that I was looking forward to working with
him in an honest fashion and making things happen in an honest way. I think
there's a lot of misinformation that's been going back and forth here, and my
only desire is to move forward under the letter of the law and make these
places safe if they're not has been painted terribly unsafe right now. There
are a few violations, but they were inspected by the City and finaled in large.
RSK Question.
JB Yes, Mr. Kelly.
RSK (Inaudible)...have people living in this...(inaudible)
JB Yes, sir, I do. Mr. Ken Ratner, who lives in the front unit, he is a senior. And
Christina and Megan Faust, a single mother raising her six -year -old daughter,
a manager at the Marriott, and they have lived in there I believe going on five
years. It is almost the only home that Christina's daughter Megan has
known. Madam Mayor, Jean Benson, saw this property last week and saw
the little girl's bedroom.
RSK Is that two separate...(inaudible)
JB Yes it is, sir.
RSK It has two separate units?
JB They all are, sir, yes.
RSK (Inaudible) you have it rented to those two separate (inaudible)
JB Yes, Mr. Kelly, that is a fact.
RSK (Inaudible) your intention if this would be approved would be (inaudible)
JB Yes, my intention, Mr. Kelly, is that Mr. Ken Ratner, a senior citizen, would
go on living in the front unit, the primary unit, and that Christina and Megan
would live in the secondary unit.
RSK So there are two rented units?
50
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JB
Yes, sir, there is. It's my understanding through Planning that these units do
comply with current City land use codes. I could be mistaken in that, but we
spent many hours going over what was required, and I made it clear to Mr.
Drell that I was interested in doing whatever was necessary to come into
compliance. And I believe that they are in compliance with what Mr. Urbina
has presented to you.
JMB Thank you.
JB Thank you.
JMB I'II close the public hearing then. (Inaudible)
KR Ken Ratner, 74-041 San Marino Circle. I rent, I live in that bedroom that was
a garage, so this is of some interest to me. What I don't understand...is there
still confusion here about this 10% that you can build onto a building and
utilize that for secondary housing, or is it understood that you can take a
house that's 5,000 square feet and not add onto it and have secondary
housing. This 10% thing is bothersome because I keep hearing people come
up and talk about it as if that is the restriction on secondary housing, and I'm
confused because I keep hearing mixed signals on this thing. Am I
misunderstanding this?
JF Are you asking us whether we agree with your interpretation?
KR Pardon me, sir.
JF Are you asking us whether we agree with your interpretation of the code/
KR What I'm asking you is if you're saying that the 10% is what you're saying is
what can constitute and only constitute the secondary housing, or do
you...are you saying that you recognize the 10% can be added on and also
be used as secondary housing because I hear this and I've read it and it's
pretty clear...not pretty clear, it's absolutely clear what that 10% means. And
keep hearing this, but I...
BAC (Inaudible)
KR All right, I hear this then, he just answered the question. The next thing is is
that I'm struck by the Council's...this thing has been before the Commission
and a paper was filed last November, the Commission heard it in December,
this thing was put off, and now I'm kind of struck by...because it affects me,
and it is not a joke, and it does affect me, it isn't some hypothetical thing that
somebody's getting up here and complaining about that may happen to some
neighbor that's two miles away. This happens to me. Now, as I hear you
guys talk, on one hand you're saying that you're going to create a new code,
51
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
that code's...you've done it. All right? You're going to have reviews and so
on and so forth. And I understand that Jerry has applied under the old code.
It wouldn't possibly be the intention of the Council to be delaying this vote on
his properties so that once you enact the new code, that you can perhaps
deny him, even though he applied under the old code. I jus-...is that a
possibility you're doing that, or am I mistaken?
RSK It's not a possibility with me because under the code we have, I would deny
it right now, so don't worry about me doing that.
KR All right, I won't worry about you doing that. Thank you for pointing that out.
And I appreciate that.
RSK Straight out, you (inaudible) the way it is.
KR Good. Then you might as well get rid of staff, you might as well get rid of
everyone that makes these recommendations and the City Attorney that
comes up here and gives you advice on what this thing says. You've got to
focus on what it says, it's a land use issue. And you guys, I think, have made
it into a Building and Safety and a political issue. Thank you.
RM Good evening. My name is Roberta Murphy, I live at 74-084 San Marino
Way. Again, I'm before you to plead with you to help Jerry. He's been
accused of being deceitful, a liar, building without proper permits, lining his
pockets with money, causing parking problems because of too many tenants
in a single-family zone neighborhood. Are any of these true? Only you can
decide. You've received letters written to you, you've had us speak before
you, but only you can make that decision. I've know Jerry for 20 years. I
know he's not these things people have accused him of. What I can tell you
is that he's taken two homes, not lots and lots of homes as indicated by
some, but only two derelict, run-down, blight of the neighborhood homes and
turned them in to beautiful homes with wonderful landscaping. These two
homes on San Marino Circle are two out of 15 located on San Marino Circle
and San Marino Way where I live. That's two homes in over 20 years.
Again, not many, many homes or lots of homes but two, contrary to some of
the accusations that he's buying up all the homes in the neighborhood. My
husband, myself, and my three sons have lived in this neighborhood, first as
renters, and now as homeowners, for 20 years. We put our home on the
market ten years ago, and we received no offers because the neighborhood
was a disaster. Across the street was a rental home, single-family rental
home, with drug dealings going on. There was another single-family rental
home right next door with the same problem. Are single-family dwellers
better renters than duplex renters? We brought the price down to take a loss
on our house just to get out of the neighborhood. We still could not sell it
until Jerry begged us to stay. We were forced to stay because no one would
buy our home. I'm glad we did stay because Jerry took these two homes,
52
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
turned them into something beautiful, and he brought the neighborhood back
to something good. Neighbors started fixing up their homes, the two streets
have improved, and our property value has gone up when we reappraised
our home last year. It's been stated to the City Council by Kathleen Kopp
that you need to take control. Take control, but let's keep in mind the good
and wonderful things that Jerry's done for this neighborhood. Help him to get
the proper permits. Let him keep his duplexes. Look at the good he's done
for the community as a whole. He's been accused of lining his pockets with
money, but in fact every penny he makes he pours back into those homes,
which is pouring it back into the community. There's been a statement that
there are parking problems in our neighborhood. I've taken pictures at
various times of day, and the single-family homes are the ones that park in
the streets. They do not use their driveways. If you observe the two
duplexes, you find the tenants parked in their designated parking spots in
their driveways. There is no parking problem on San Marino Way or San
Marino Circle, but if there was a parking problem, perhaps we can do what
the Kopp family's done, and that they live on Cabrillo, and they painted their
curb red in front of their mailbox and further down. Is that a legal action? If
so, I think we should all paint our curbs red and force the single-family homes
to park in their own driveways. In closing, I want to read you some names.
Ken, Christina and her six -year -old daughter Megan, Jacqueline, Mike, Gina,
Mark. These names are the names of the tenants in those duplexes. If you
vote against Jerry instead of helping him, these people will be forced to
move. Is it the City Council's idea to have them move? Are you that
unforgiving? Are the few individuals who oppose this that inhumane that they
are willing to make these people homeless? I would like to think that there
is some way that the Council could help Jerry and at the same time keep
these people in their homes. Thank you.
JMB One last time. Is there anybody else before I close the hearing?
VF My name is Virginia Fast, and my daughter and her daughter live in the
second unit here that you speak about. She has lived there since my
granddaughter's been two -and -a -half years old. I must say when we first, I
first came to see where they were going to live, and I looked at the
neighborhood, other than Jerry's units, I was a bit concerned, and as I see
now, as the years go by, the neighbors are fixing them up, it's entirely looking
different, and Jerry was the one that has been doing this. I feel completely
and Jerry always makes the fence where Megan can play, you know,
completely secure, and this has been her home all this time. As far as
parking, Christina has one car, I think Ken has one car. If we come to visit,
we just pull in right behind her, there's never a parking problem on this street
that I observed. Just taking a few minutes because there are just a few
minutes that are important to us. If anything, I would say that Jerry's a
trendsetter for the neighborhood because he has really made these places
beautiful. I believe some of you have visited there, and he is an artist, and
53
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
it's wonderful carpentry and just beautiful, and I feel completely safe. And my
daughter would never be able to...he has afforded her to live there. He's
taken quite a chance. I would never say that he's been greedy. He took
quite a chance when my daughter came, moved to the Valley, to even...she
didn't have a job, she was applying, and it took forever for the departments
to approve her position. And he took a chance and looked at her with a two -
and -a -half year old baby and said you can move in. And since then, my
husband and I have moved into the Valley to be closer and to be of support
and to be here. But if it wasn't for Jerry taking those chances and just
allowing her and giving her the place, renting the way she is, and giving our
granddaughter that security of this home, it's just been a wonderful thing.
And basically I just ask you to work with Jerry and try to rectify this so that
they can stay in their home. And that's it. Thank you.
DK Douglass Kopp. I don't want to delay things, but just a couple quick things.
The Code Enforcement report of July 1st, we found that in Mr. Urbina's file
there. We said, oh, can we get a copy of this, we got it, we got that two
months ago. There are complaints about the red curb in front of our house.
Well, the City painted it there, I had nothing to do. And our fences...we
bought our house in 1968, the fences were there, I don't know if they're in
compliance or not in compliance. And this 10% issue, I think it would be
good to get that clarified because we certainly have one belief, and maybe
your attorney or something could give you a report on that. Thank you.
JMB I'll close the public hearing on this case. What is your pleasure?
JF Well, I, too, would like to clear up this 10% thing because clearly the
ordinance that I'm reading requires a second unit to be built as part of an
existing home, not to exceed 10% new development beyond the existing
home. What I'm hearing from Mr. Drell is there must be another ordinance
that allows a second unit that's free-standing, that's not part of the house,
that allows for a garage to be converted, and if you could tell me where that
ordinance is, it will be a lot of easier for me to weed out apples from oranges
here.
PD
Again, in this particular case, this is not a detached unit. The ordinance
allows an existing dwelling of... 20,000 square feet... it allows a second unit
to be created without any addition, and that it can be created from the
existing square footage of the home. So the 10% does not relate to
detached or attached. Our current ordinance only allows attached. In this
case, we have an attached unit. And if you look at the outlines of the
building, forget the second unit, that outline of a building complies with the
standards of a single-family dwelling. It could have been and according to
Ms. Housken was a single-family dwelling, and from that, you can carve out
according to our existing ordinance, a second unit. Our ordinance says as
part of that activity, you cannot increase the existing dwelling by more than
54
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
10%. It does not limit the size of the second unit because, again, the second
unit can be created without any expansion of the existing unit. And so in this
case, that is what...that is...again, as far as we're concerned, the reason why
we're going through this process, no conversion, legal conversion, has ever
occurred. We are looking at the existing building as if it was a single-family
home. Does that...and then a second unit has been divided out from the
existing dwelling, and that is all within the provisions of that 10%. Does that
answer you question?
JF Yes, it does.
RSK Well, Councilman Ferguson was suggesting that (inaudible) like to continue
this (inaudible). That would...I don't think that would cause me to change my
position because I think if they were all...that's not the only problem. The
problem is, as I see it, it doesn't comply with our ordinance. If it's a multi-
family zoning, okay we'd go through all of the process (inaudible) but the fact
is it's a single-family zoning, and our ordinance is single-family zoning would
not allow you to create a duplex for rental purposes.
JF
I apologize, I probably misspoke. I'm assuming that, since we have no
resolution of denial, we can't deny it tonight, and it's going to have to come
back at a future point with a resolution of denial. I think the other two we set
for 30 days out.
RSK Well, I guess we could do that.
JF No resolution.
RSK Oh, I mean we could request a resolution like we did with the others.
JF That's what I meant, request the resolution be prepared and come back in 30
days.
RSK But as I see it, it's a single-family zoning, and to add a second unit in a
single-family zone, our ordinance is very explicit about what kind of person
you can do that for. It does not say that you can create multi -family zone
unless we approve a change of zone. As a matter of fairness, I understand
maybe...Mr. Beauvais' cleaning up the neighborhood is wonderful. He's
provided some housing for somebody — that's wonderful. But we have a
responsibility to be fair to everybody. I had an occasion where I would have
liked to build a second unit (inaudible) single-family residential zone, so I
couldn't do it. There are a lot of folks out there...it's a matter...with me, it's a
matter of fairness. We have to treat every citizen the same. It's not a matter
of not thinking that Mr. Beauvais has done something humanitarially good or
not, it's a matter that we have created these zones and ordinances to affect
everybody and make this a city that people would like to live in and have a
55
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JF
nice environment. And if we're going to do that and have laws and
ordinances, rules and regulations, then we need to treat everybody the same.
We can't treat one person one way and somebody else another way. That's
not the way to do it. That's where I'm coming from.
Well, I'll go ahead and make a motion just to further discussion, that we ask
the staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Council's consideration, and in
the meantime, that we treat the application the way we are the other two
because if there are children living there, and there are code violations for
public health and safety, I'm assuming the parents of those children would
want to know that. If there's not, then I'm sure Mr. Beauvais would like to
know that, and I would like to know either way. So I'II make that motion. And
I just want to make the observation that this is not about Jerry Beauvais. I've
known Jerry for ten years. It's not a popularity contest, it's not a goodwill
contest, it's not a Mother Teresa award. I know Jerry's done a lot of good in
that neighborhood. I think when I was on the Planning Commission, I voted
to sell him the property on Portola because I saw what he was doing,
cleaning things up. I wasn't aware at the time that they weren't always
permitted or done properly, but the fact that he did some things improperly
is not a basis, I think, to just turn him down. We need to take a look at what
his property looks like now, what our ordinance says now, match up the two,
and either he complies or he doesn't comply. And if he doesn't comply, I
agree with Councilman Kelly, we have to apply all the laws evenly to
everybody, no matter how noble or right intended they are. And if he does
comply, then great, he complies with the same rule that we've had since
1983 with a little asterisk on this 10% interpretation, which we may have to
get to. So I...
RSK It is not just compliance. The application is for the wrong thing.
JF Well, if that's the case, then he's not complying, though I would like to use
the 30 days while staff's preparing that resolution of denial to take a look a
this 10% and give it some more scrutiny.
JMB (Inaudible) However, City Clerk's notes indicate she seconded
Councilman Ferguson's motion.
RDK Motion carries 4-0, Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel ABSENT.
To clarify the motion, Councilman Ferguson moved to: 1) By Minute Motion, direct
staff to return to the City Council at its meeting of May 22, 2003, with a resolution that will
deny the Conditional Use Permit and grant the appeals, with the appropriate findings,
including failing to comply with City ordinances, causing net devaluation of the
neighborhood, improper zoning for two units, and inappropriate design of second unit
allowing a duplex in single-family zone; 2) by Minute Motion, require that a two-phase City
Code Enforcement inspection be performed on the unit within the next 30 days:
56
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
a) Detection of areas to be exposed for further review (e.g. wiring, plumbing); b) follow-up
examination of the exposed areas to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations.
Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Pro Tempore
Spiegel ABSENT.
E. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, DENYING AN ATTACHED SECOND UNIT AT
74-060 SAN MARINO CIRCLE Case No. CUP 02-17 (Jerome M. Beauvais,
Applicant/Appellant) (Continued from the meeting of April 10, 2003).
The following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearing E:
Key
JMB Mayor Jean M. Benson
FU Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner
JB Jerry Beauvais
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
KH Kim Housken
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
JMB Consideration of an Appeal to a Decision of the Planning Commission
Denying an Attached Second Unit at 74-060 San Marino Circle, Case
No. 02-17 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant/Appellant) (Continued from the
meeting of April 10, 2003).
FU
Yes, this Conditional Use Permit was denied by the Planning Commission on
February 18, 2003, because it did not fully comply with the off-street parking
requirements. Since February 18th, the applicant has revised the site plan to
show that he would be in compliance with off-street parking requirements as
far as covered parking, two covered spaces for the second unit, and one
covered space for the main unit. How that would be accomplished would be
a one -car carport for the second unit. The second covered space for the
second unit would be provided in half of this existing 20-foot by 20-foot
garage structure. Currently the garage only has access for one vehicle, but
the applicant is willing to install a wider door to allow two -vehicle access. So
the garage would provide one covered space for the primary unit and another
covered space for the secondary unit. Because of those changes, and based
on staffs recommended conditions of approval, we find the proposed
Conditional Use Permit to be in compliance with the existing second unit
ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve the
appellant's appeal and adopt the City Council Resolution reversing the
Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 02-17. Thank you.
JMB Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on this public hearing?
57
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JB
Madam Mayor Benson, may I make a suggestion at this point because I
know that this is taking up way more time than you people wish it would, that
I would ask that I stand down because I feel that this is going to fall under the
same recommendations as the previous units, and I would ask the opposition
to stand down as well so that the Council and the Mayor can move forward
to other matters. Is that an ill-conceived idea?
BAC (Inaudible)
JB Rather than further of the same arguments, sir.
JF Since we don't have a resolution of denial, despite a unanimous Planning
Commission denial, we have to wait anyway.
JB It seems like wasted time, and you people have a lot on your Agenda still,
and it's time to move forward, I think. That is, if the opposition would be in
agreement with that, and I don't...if they get up and start disagreeing, of
course. Thank you.
DJE You need to open the public hearing to make sure there is nobody that
wishes to speak.
JMB I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wants to speak on this?
RSK Are you going to ask us to approve it?
KH (Inaudible)
JMB Anyone else? Then I'll close the public hearing.
JF I will make the same motion as the previous three.
KH (Inaudible)
JF We closed the public hearing.
JMB I just closed it.
RSK Quit while you're ahead.
KH Did you ask for people in opposition to this?
BAC We asked for everybody.
KH I'm sorry, I did intend to talk, very briefly.
58
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
BAC (Inaudible)
KH Okay.
JMB That's quit when you're ahead.
JF My motion would be to instruct staff to prepare a resolution of denial, bringing
it back in 30 days with the other three, and instruct Code Enforcement to
work with the applicant to identify any Code Enforcement violations on the
property.
BAC (Inaudible) However, City Clerk's notes indicate he seconded
Councilman Ferguson's motion.
RDK Motion carries 4-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel ABSENT.
To clarify the motion, Councilman Ferguson moved to: 1) By Minute Motion, direct
staff to return to the City Council at its meeting of May 22, 2003, with a resolution that will
deny the Conditional Use Permit and grant the appeals, with the appropriate findings,
including failing to comply with City ordinances, causing net devaluation of the
neighborhood, improper zoning for two units, and inappropriate design of second unit
allowing a duplex in single-family zone; 2) by Minute Motion, require that a two-phase
City Code Enforcement inspection be performed on the unit within the next 30 days:
*
a) Detection of areas to be exposed for further review (e.g. wiring, plumbing); b) follow-up
examination of the exposed areas to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations.
Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel
ABSENT.
F. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
10,294 SQUARE FOOT CANCER/CHEMOTHERAPY/INTERNAL
MEDICINE/RESEARCH FACILITY MEDICAL OFFICE IN THE OFFICE
COMPLEX ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALESSANDRO BETWEEN
SAN PASCUAL AND SAN JUAN, 73-712 AND 73-726 ALESSANDRO
DRIVE Case No. CUP 03-01 (Carl Voce, Applicant/Appellant).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report in detail, noting that
its meeting of April 1, 2003, denied the conditional use permit request for
reasons noted in the staff report. He said staffs recommendation was that
the Council grant the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission decision.
He offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Crites noted that the Planning Commission was very detailed
and precise in its reasons for denial. He asked if information had come up
since that denial that might change the decision.
59
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
Mr. Smith responded that there was no new information. He said the
Commission felt the conditions necessary to control the use were overly
burdensome; however, staff actually came up with those conditions and felt
it could work, adding that staff also worked closely with Code Enforcement
in regulation of the permit. He noted that the original medical use previously
approved was a plastic surgery center, where the surgeon would be in
surgery in the morning and see patients in the afternoons. It was a very low
traffic -generating use. The applicant in this specific request had provided a
flow chart of patients and staff, which convinced staff there would be
sufficient parking, with 32 needed and 38 available.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of
or in OPPOSITION to this request.
MR. CARL VOCE, 545 Via Media, Palos Verdes Estates, spoke as owner of
the building and said he felt the Planning Commission's denial was unfair and
arbitrary. He said he had the space, sufficient parking, and a tenant willing
to move in, and he felt the project met all the requirements. He asked the
Council to approve the project.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Benson declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Kelly said he did not have a problem approving this project and
felt the applicant had justified the parking.
Councilman Kelly moved to approve staffs recommendation to waive further reading
and adopt Resolution No. 03-51, granting the appeal (reversing the Planning Commission
denial) and approving Case No. CUP 03-01, subject to conditions. Motion died for lack of
a second.
Councilman Crites felt Planning Commission's perspective had merit,
particularly noting the types of conditions that were supposed to be observed
so that it didn't take up parking (i.e. maximum number of chairs, number of
doctors in one building). He personally found Commissioner Tschopp's
comments reason to give pause, including "...charts looked nice, but that's
not how things work." He acknowledged that staffs perspective may also,
ultimately, be correct.
Councilman Ferguson said if there are 128 spaces provided, and the
applicant will now be 21 spaces short, that is a deviation of approximately
17% from what the Code says. Even when applicants in the past have been
only five to ten percent short, the Council has always cautioned the
applicants and tenants that if a problem did exist, then the City would modify
the CUP and require the parking. In this case, an 18% deviation, coupled
with a Planning Commission unanimous opposition to staff's
recommendation, caused him to be a little more skeptical about staff's
60
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
assumptions on their ability to monitor parking. He noted that a similar
situation existed with the Sun Life Medical Building, where the City allowed
them to make up that deficiency, and there have been nothing but issues with
cars parking on residential surface streets on a daily basis, complaints from
the neighbors, and essentially no way to cure that situation because there is
no more space for parking and the doctor group in there has a vested right.
He was not eager to repeat that mistake.
Mayor Benson agreed with Councilman Ferguson's comments about the
Sun Life Building.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, deny the appeal and affirm the
decision of the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 3-1
vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO, and Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel ABSENT.
G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R1-18000 TO
OPEN SPACE, AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO (+/-) ACRE PARK WITH A PARKING LOT,
RESTROOM, PICNIC PAVILIONS, TOT LOT, BASKETBALL COURT,
VOLLEYBALL COURT, PERIMETER WALK, BARBEQUES, FLOWER
GARDEN, PUTTING GREEN, AND OTHER RELATED FACILITIES AT
73-690 DE ANZA WAY (APNs 627-143-006/007/008/009)
Case Nos. C/Z 03-03. PP 03-04 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Parks & Recreation Planning Technician Ryan Stendell noted the staff report
and offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Ferguson noted that petitions had been received from four
individuals relative to the night lighting, and he asked for staff's position on
that issue. Mr. Stendell responded that there was low-level lighting around
the perimeter pathway and around the volleyball and basketball courts. He
said the issue was raised at Planning Commission, and a condition was
added that the lighting be turned off at 9 p.m. Upon further question by
Councilman Ferguson relative to landscape lighting, Mr. Stendell responded
that the condition was written so that all lighting would be turned off at 9 p.m.
Councilman Ferguson said his concern was that if it is pitch-black dark, it
tends to be an attractive nuisance for certain elements, and it might be better
to have at least a modicum of lighting so people can see what is going on
over there and make sure nothing illicit is going on.
Mr. Stendell noted that the low-level perimeter lighting could be left on for
security purposes, as is done in some of the other neighborhood parks.
61
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
Councilman Crites noted that there was significant concern about spillover
lighting for the baseball fields at the Civic Center Park. One of the issues
was that the lights had to be up higher so they covered more ground and had
less spillover, etc. He asked what had been done to make sure there would
not be any more light than if it was a home.
Mr. Stendell responded that the more active areas (volleyball and basketball)
were scooted away from any surrounding neighbors. Lighting for this use
was very different from lighting of the baseball fields at the Civic Center Park,
and staff had done its best to keep the lighting out of everyone's areas.
Councilman Crites noted that the original staff report had the City paying the
Art In Public Places fee rather than doing the art. In the past, the City had
discouraged developers from waiting until the end of their planning process
to consider the public art, and he would be appreciative if the City could
continue its efforts to make sure when it does a project that it at least work
with Art In Public Places at the start of the process, just as it does with all the
other kinds of considerations needed for a public project.
Upon question by Mayor Benson, Mr. Stendell responded that the picnic
pavilions were nestled close to the perimeter walkway, and the only lighting
would be low-level. In addition, the main picnic pavilion would be nestled
between the two activity areas and would have sufficient lighting from that.
Upon question by Councilman Ferguson, Mr. Stendell responded that parks
generally close at 10:00, and that is when the restrooms would be closed.
Councilman Ferguson said he would prefer that the restrooms be locked at
the same time the lights are turned off.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of
or in OPPOSITION to this request. With no testimony offered, she declared the
public hearing closed.
Councilman Crites moved to: 1) Waive further reading and: a) Adopt Resolution
No. 03-52, approving Case No. PP 03-04, amended to ensure conditions on the park that
shut down all facilities and their lighting at 9:00 p.m., with the exception of overnight
security lighting; b) pass Ordinance No. 1045 to second reading, approving Case
No. C/Z 03-03; 2) by Minute Motion: a) Approve the Palma Village Neighborhood Park
design and cost estimate; b) authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with
Community Works Design Group, Riverside, California, in the amount of $45,510 for the
completion of construction documents and construction administration for the Palma Village
Neighborhood Park (Contract No. C21140A) and appropriate said funds from Parks and
Recreation Fund 430; c) authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for
construction of the subject park (Contract No. C21140B). Motion was seconded by
Ferguson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel ABSENT.
62
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 25.15 OF
THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE - WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Councilman Crites stated that because some of the potential amendments
being considered could impact several of the applications that are also on
this evening's Agenda and because at least two of those are located near his
residence, he would not participate in the discussion of this ordinance.
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report and offered to
answer any questions
Councilman Ferguson said it was his desire to keep whatever is done with
the hillside ordinance moving forward tonight completely separate from what
is done on the applications under the old hillside ordinance that come after
this. He said he did not want to spend a lot of time with testimony for or
against Alternative A or B if neither would apply to the applicants here. He
said he wanted to make sure it was clear that staffs recommendations under
the appeals are under the old ordinance and not under any new ordinance
that may or may not be passed this evening.
Mr. Smith responded that the three cases in point all comply with the current
ordinance. Upon question by Councilman Kelly, he responded that they
would all comply under Alternative A, with conditions which are acceptable
to each of the applicants.
Councilman Ferguson said he favored Alternative B but not for any reason
having to do with Mr. Nelson or Mrs. Cree, and he felt they ought to be
processed under the ordinance under which they applied.
Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission had recommended
Alternative A.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of
or in OPPOSITION to this request.
MRS. DORI CREE, 47-205 Southcliff Road, Palm Desert, called Council's
attention to the toe of the slope properties, which seemed to be the issue
between Alternative A and B. She said there were only three of these
properties left, his and Mr. Nelson's, which were both on the Agenda tonight,
and another small parcel belonging to Mr. Whitman to the south of her
property. She said their flat land, which was less than 10% slope, was not
visible. Downsizing them from three units per acre to one unit per acre,
which is Alternative A calls for, was something both she and Mr. Nelson had
agreed to. She said they had both engineered their flat land to meet the
63
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
standards of Alternative A. She asked that Council approve Alternative A
and give them a fair rezoning package they could live with.
Councilman Ferguson noted that the applications by Mrs. Cree and
Mr. Nelson were processed under the ordinance in affect at the time the
applications were filed, and he felt it was fair to process those applications
under that ordinance.
MRS. CREE said she and Mr. Nelson were both aware of the City's desire
to institute new zoning over there, and she engineered her property not under
the current ordinance but in anticipation of Alternative A, whereby she
downzoned from three units per acre to one unit per acre on the flat property.
Upon question by Councilman Ferguson, she said it would not matter to her
if she got her approval tonight whether it is under Alternative A or the existing
ordinance, although she felt Alternative B would be unfair to them.
MR. CALVIN CREE, 47-400 Southcliff, Palm Desert, said he owned five
acres in Section 30 adjacent to the Homme/Adams Park. A portion of that
property was less than 10% slope on the flat, and he could accept being
downzoned from three units per acre on the flat to one unit per acre. He felt
Alternative B was unfair and unreasonable to any property owners on the
hillside, whether their property is on the flat or entirely on the hillside. He
asked that Council do the fair and reasonable thing and decide on
Alternative A.
MR. GREGORY CAREL, 296 Paseo Primavera, Palm Desert, said he and
his wife were opposed to Alternative B. He said they were potential home
buyers looking to live in the vicinity of Cahuilla Hills, and they felt it was not
right to zone a piece of flat land as if it were a hillside view lot. He said they
felt the flat land at the base of the hillsides should be entitled to no more than
one house on a four- or five -acre parcel. The recommended Alternative A.
MR. DAVID NELSON, 72-595 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, owner of five
acres on Upper Way West and part owner of 5.84 acres on Campesino,
which is on the Agenda later for review. He said he felt Alternative A
protected this area in keeping with the natural beauty by reducing the zoning
down to one unit per acre, but it also allowed the City and property owners
to have some flexibility with development to create projects that are a benefit
to all. He felt to put a blanket zone for all properties without taking into
account the differences in those properties did not make good planning
sense, and he recommended Alternative A.
MR. KRIS SCHULZE, NAI Consulting, Inc., Cathedral City, spoke as
Mrs. Cree's engineer and said she had instructed him to prepare a tentative
map for her 15 acres which was very sensitive to the hillside area. Only five
Tots were planned in the flat land, which is Tess than half of what is allowed
64
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
under the current ordinance. They felt it was consistent with the current
ordinance as well as Alternative A, which encourages the use of flatter areas.
He said it was his belief that Alternative B as proposed was too restrictive
and would actually encourage development in the hillside instead of utilizing
the flat land.
MR. HAYWARD PARDUE, 47-455 Southcliff Road, said he felt Alternative A
was reasonable, where Alternative B seemed designed to restrict growth in
general.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Benson declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he would feel more comfortable with Mayor
Pro Tempore Spiegel in attendance, especially with one Councilman
abstaining.
Councilman Kelly agreed.
Councilman Kelly moved to continue this matter to the meeting of May 8, 2003.
Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Councilmen Crites and
Spiegel ABSENT.
I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY AND
12,819 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING PAD ON A 5.12 ACRE LOT IN THE
HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WEST OF THE STORM
CHANNEL, SOUTH OF SOUTHCLIFF ROAD (APN 628-120-013)
Case No. HPR 03-01 (Dori Cree, Applicant).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report, noting that the
proposal complied with the current ordinance and also complied with
Alternative A. It would not comply with Alternative B, and the amount of
grading would be excessive in order to comply with it. The recommendation
of both the Planning Commission and staff was to approve the proposed pad
and driveway location, subject to conditions requiring the re -naturalization on
the driveway and the cut and fill slopes.. He offered to answer any
questions.
Councilman Ferguson asked how much fill, if any, needed to occur to create
the 12,819 square foot pad.
MR. KRIS SCHULZE, NAI Consulting, Inc., Cathedral, noted that there was
about 7,400 yards of import required. The fill pad is entirely filled, there was
no cut for the pad. There was about 1,600 yards of cut for the roadway. He
said there was a net import of about 6,000 yards.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
Councilman Ferguson asked if the 7,400 yards of fill material going in on the
building pad would just level it out to its existing highest point, and Mr.
Schulze agreed.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of
or in OPPOSITION to this request. With no testimony offered, she declared the
public hearing closed.
Councilman Ferguson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 3-54, approving Case No. HPR 03-01, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by
Kelly and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Councilmen Crites and Spiegel ABSENT.
J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE 15.44 ACRES (THREE LOTS) INTO SEVEN (7) RESIDENTIAL
HILLSIDE LOTS IN THE HILLSIDE AREA WEST OF THE STORM
CHANNEL, NORTH OF SOUTHCLIFF ROAD (APN 628-120-004/007/010)
Case No. TT 31135 (Dori Cree, Applicant).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report and offered to
answer any questions. He noted that with this proposal, there was a net of
five new residential lots being created. The proposal complied with the
current ordinance and also Alternative A.
Councilman Ferguson asked what portions of Lot 7 could be developed
under any ordinance. Mr. Smith responded that they all would be difficult, but
there were a couple of flatter areas which would be carved out, but he was
not sure access could be gained to them. Councilman Ferguson asked why
a lot was being given up in exchange for something that cannot be built
anyway. Mr. Smith responded that under the current ordinance, the density
on the four acres at the toe of slope was three units per acre for a total of 12
units. At the time staff was working with the applicant, they were working
toward compliance with Alternative A.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of
or in OPPOSITION to this request.
Councilman Ferguson directed a question to the applicant and said it was his
understanding that she was doing four lots, and he did not realize she was
doing five.
MRS. CREE responded that she was doing four lots, with the fifth lot at the
bottom being the density transfer for Lot #7. She said there were two
building sites on Lot #7. She noted this was the second time her property
had been down -zoned, and the first time was in 1979. She said she was not
trying to slide under the wire and go under the current ordinance; she had
respected the City's desire to keep density low in this area, and she had
66
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
come to terms with Alternative A and had tried to keep the zoning in line with
that new alternative. Ordinarily, under the current ordinance, she would have
had 12 units on the flat plus an additional unit on each of the three five -acre
parcels. She said she had not tried to take advantage of this and had kept
her Tots down on the flat, had not used any of the hillside, and had only kept
the one hillside lot that is already in use on Lot #1.
Councilman Ferguson said Mrs. Cree had not been down -zoned, and it
troubled him that staff had her tailor her development to an ordinance that
does not exist and will not exist at the earliest for another two weeks.
MRS. CREE responded that staff did not require her to down -zone her
property and that she had done it in anticipation of the new ordinance.
MR. KRIS SCHULZE, NAI Consulting, Inc., said the five lots being placed on
the flat land was Tess than half of what is currently allowed. He said staff did
not direct that they plan it under the new ordinance, but they felt that was
what the market bears and was the best use for the project.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Benson declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Ferguson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 03-55, approving Case No. TT 31135, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by
Kelly and carried by a 2-1 vote, with Mayor Benson voting NO and Councilmen Crites and
Spiegel ABSENT.
Mrs. Klassen asked whether a 2-1 vote constituted approval, and City
Attorney Dave Erwin responded that it did.
K. CONSIDERATION OF A CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF A
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING A PARCEL
MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.84 ACRE LOT INTO THREE (3) RESIDENTIAL
HILLSIDE PARCELS LOCATED WEST OF THE STORM CHANNEL
ADJACENT TO CALLE DE LOS CAMPESINOS, SOUTH OF
CHAPEL HILL ROAD (APN 628-140-004) Case No. TPM 31056
(Nelbeck LLC, Applicant).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report. He noted that the
lots complied with the provisions of the current ordinance and would also
comply with Alternative A, but they would not comply with Alternative B. He
said staffs recommendation was that the Council affirm the action of the
Planning Commission approving the map as conditioned. He offered to
answer any questions.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
Upon question by Councilman Ferguson, Mr. Smith responded that there
were three residential parcels plus a fourth open space parcel at the
southerly end behind the booster station.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of
or in OPPOSITION to this request.
MR. DAVID NELSON, 72-595 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, asked that
Council affirm the Planning Commission decision, and he offered to answer
any questions.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Benson declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Ferguson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 03-56, affirming the Planning Commission decision to approve Case No. TPM 31056,
subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 2-1 vote, with Mayor
Benson voting NO and Councilmen Crites and Spiegel ABSENT.
With Council concurrence, Mayor Benson called for a recess at 9:33 p.m. She
reconvened at 9:39 p.m. and, with City Council concurrence, took Public Hearings
Item M and N out of order at this point in the meeting.
L. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE INSTITUTING A MORATORIUM
FOR SELECTED FOCUS AREAS OF THE CITY, PENDING APPROVAL OF
THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions.
Councilman Ferguson stated he had a series of questions for the City
Attorney, and they came mostly from assumptions he had gleaned from the
folks at World Development, the folks at Ponderosa Homes, the folks at
Noble & Company, as well as general telephone calls he had received. He
said it was apparent to him that there was a gross misunderstanding of what
a moratorium of the type being proposed does, and he wanted to get on the
record from the City Attorney his understanding of what it does and does not
do. He asked the following questions:
— Does a moratorium in and of itself ban development? Mr. Erwin
responded that it did not.
— Does a moratorium in and of itself slow down any applications that are
on file? Mr. Erwin responded that the applications will continue to be
processed, and the City was required to do that.
— Does it permit streamlining acts to apply? Mr. Erwin responded that
it did.
68
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
— Is the City Council prohibited from approving an ordinance if it does
not match one of the proposed concepts such as University Village
Concept Seven, which has not been to the Planning Commission?
Mr. Erwin responded that the Council could continue to approve if it
wishes. Councilman Ferguson asked if World Development has an
application that is being processed and the Council wishes to approve
it, the Council is free to do so, and Mr. Erwin responded that the
Council could approve it.
— If a project comes forward that the Council thinks may interfere with
some potential land use in the future, even though it has not been
approved yet, is the Council free to deny it on the basis of a
moratorium? Mr. Erwin responded that Council could do so.
— If the folks who are developers in this area free to come and petition
the Council with land use designations that are different from the
current General Plan and different from whatever the proposed
General Plan may be? Mr Erwin responded yes.
Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of
or in OPPOSITION to this request.
MR. JOHN ANTHONY, 62 San Simeon Court, Rancho Mirage, said he
worked for World Development. He said the streamlining process would help
them immensely. He noted that if his project were delayed in any way, it
would put a lot of people out of work.
MR. DON CLOES, 40-750 Centenial Circle, said he felt the more
development that continues, the better off people will be because the
development will help cut down on the blowing sand.
MR. JAMES LEWIS, 43-210 Silk Tree Lane, Palm Desert, spoke as a citizen
as well as a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and
said he felt strongly about the University Village plan mentioned by
Councilman Ferguson. He said when a former City Council set aside the
land for a university site next to the land being considered for the moratorium,
it was done with the realization that Palm Desert was no longer just a resort
community. Since that time, the City's growth has borne that to be true.
However, he believed that private property should be private and that
landowners should be able to do what they want with their property within
reasonable community codes. On the other hand, the City Council has a
fiduciary duty to responsibly plan the growth and development of the City.
He said he felt it would be beneficial for the City Council to approve a
moratorium for selected sites in the City so that the new General Plan may
be given proper and timely consideration. He also appealed to the Council
69
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
to move on such consideration of the General Plan at the earliest possible
date to minimize any negative fact to landowners or developers.
MR. DAVID MacMURTRIE, 14145 Lima Hall, asked if a moratorium meant
the developers could continue building or if they could continue going through
the process of approval, and he expressed concern that a moratorium meant
he would have to lay off some people.
Mr. Erwin responded that it would depend on where in the process the
development was. He said the Council was talking about a moratorium that
deals particularly with applications that are ongoing. For example, if a
subdivision map is already recorded, building permits have been pulled, and
the subdivision was under construction, the moratorium would not stop that.
He said the City was required, under current law in California, to continue
processing all the applications. They can get it right up to the final approval,
and the Council can use the moratorium to deny that application if it gets to
that point. He said the permit streamlining act was not stopped by a
moratorium.
Councilman Crites said it was his understanding that the only thing a
moratorium does is add a separate legal reason for denial of a project.
Mr. Erwin responded that is where we are at the present time. Councilman
Crites said it would allow projects to be approved or not approved and adds
one more possible reason in there, and Mr. Erwin agreed.
MR. PAUL QUINLISK, 2544 Whitewater Club Drive, Suite C, Palm Springs,
expressed concern with a moratorium. He said it was his understanding was
that a moratorium would allow developers to proceed with the process, get
all of the paperwork done, pay thousands of dollars to designers and
marketers, and if it does not comply with this particular plan for that particular
property, it will be shut down. He asked if that was correct.
Councilman Ferguson said he wondered that as well. He said the University
Village Concept Seven has not yet been to the Planning Commission or City
Council, and despite enthusiasm by some people in the private sector and
also City staff, it has not received final approval. He said a lot of people had
inferred, since he suggested a moratorium, that it was because he wanted
to do a University Village Concept Seven, and nothing could be further from
the truth. He said what we do have is eleven people who have spent two
years coming up with something they want the City to consider, and if the
City does not enter into some kind of a moratorium that allows it to have a
number of public hearings that will have notice mailed to all property owners,
published in the newspaper, published in the newsletter, over a series of time
to let all of the residents give input on what they want to see the City do out
there, all of that would be for nothing if the City did not put everyone on
notice, developers especially, that the Council is about to make a significant
70
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
change potentially in the area. He said that rather than having people come
in and file permits for what they think the Council might want to do, as seen
with the hillsides, or filing permits for what the General Plan currently says,
he said he doubted that anyone would want to get into the process and be
denied at the end and then say, as the letter from World Development said,
"Had we known about this six months ago, we never would have gone down
this track." He said this public hearing was to let everyone know that the City
is going to be making a change. Developers are still free to file their
applications. He said there may be some where three members of the City
Council find them to be perfectly okay and will approve them, there may be
others where three members would like to preserve the decision making until
later in the process. Developers will have to make that risk assessment on
their own. He said the questions he went through with the City Attorney did
not guarantee approval under the City's existing ordinance, but it did not
prevent them from developing. He said the idea of the moratorium was not
to stunt growth, it was to let the development community know on the front
end that changes are coming along on the back end and to let them know
now so they can adjust their economic expectations accordingly.
MR. QUINLISK noted that there were several property owners, and he asked
if it was those property owners who need to get together and decide what is
acceptable.
Mr. Drell responded that if those property owners got together and addressed
the global design issues that should apply to that whole neighborhood, that
immediately is responding to one of GPAC's main desires, which is to look
at these things as neighborhoods rather than individual isolated parcels to be
developed.
MR. QUINLISK asked if these individuals were being asked to get together
to come up with this idea.
Mr. Drell said he was suggesting that would move in the direction of the
General Plan process. He said he believed that would answer a lot of
unknown questions that arise when we are getting individual isolated
applications. He said he felt that could possibly facilitate the approval of all
of the projects in the area if they are in that context.
MR. QUINLISK asked what would happen if the property owners got
together, presented the plan to the City, and it was not in line with this.
Mr. Drell responded that the Council would make its decision on what it
believes is appropriate. If the Council wishes, staff could run these master
plans through the General Plan Committee so that Council could hear exactly
how the Committee feels about them and can make a decision to act on them
or not act on them.
71
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
Councilman Ferguson stated that the County of Riverside had spent $30
million and close to five years doing a general plan update. They had an
advisory committee that came up with a plan as a starting point for
discussion. That plan went through approximately 11 Planning Commission
hearings over a year; it has now been the subject of three different Board of
Supervisors hearings, and the map that is now finally coming for approval in
the next week or so, if you were to hold it up next to the General Plan
Advisory Committee starting point, are night and day. He said that is how the
public process works. If individuals or groups of individuals want to argue in
favor of a certain land use designation, they can do so at the Planning
Commission or Council, but he said he suspected at the end of the day what
it will finally look like is different than what it was when it was started. He said
as the Planning Director indicated, it would end up being a comprehensive
update that involves all of the City's residents, all of the stakeholders in this
community who may want houses, development, high schools, middle
schools, elementary schools, etc. He said all of this would come together,
and we are right at the trail head of that process. To not let the community
know that things are going to change over the next nine months, he felt
would be fundamentally unfair.
MR. QUINLISK said he felt by instituting a moratorium now, with the homes
they build, would dramatically affect the future of their future customers. He
said there were retired people and even younger people coming in and
looking to purchase homes there already on those pieces of property, and he
was concerned that this would jeopardize that. If this planning process takes
a long time, he felt there were a lot of hopes that would just be gone. There
were also a lot of individuals who worked for him who would have to go
elsewhere.
MS. DEE SIMPSON, 76-601 Florida Avenue, Palm Desert, spoke in
opposition to the moratorium. She said she was a sales agent and was
concerned that she would lose her job if the projects do not continue, and
she was the sole support for her family. She said she did not understand the
Village Concept because where she was from, this meant alleys behind
houses, which she felt was devastating because of crime, trash, rodents, etc.
MR. GARY RICHARD, World Development, 44-600 Village Court, Palm
Desert, said he understood that the City would continue to process those
applications that are in, they can continue to go through the design approval
process, and Council would have the ability to approve or deny the project
at the end, either under the current General Plan or the proposed General
Plan or something in between. He expressed concern that substantial funds
would be spent to get through that design process and not know what rule
they would be adjudged against. He noted that Council in an earlier public
hearing had indicated to the applicant that it would consider her application
based on the ordinance that was in place at the time she submitted her
72
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
application, and they would expect the same consideration for their project
submitted in January. He added that it was unclear to him at this point what
the City will require of them as the developer.
MR. JORAM PINEDA, 67-365 Verona Road, said he understood that there
was a risk for the developer to go through the process and possibly not be
approved by the Council. He said he would not want to take that risk if he
were a developer. The people who end up losing out are the working class.
MR. DICK BAXLEY, 41-865 Boardwalk, Palm Desert, said he was
representing the ownership of a 70-acre parcel, Couch -McCloud, that fronts
on Monterey Avenue immediately south of the new proposed WalMart
location. He said they were finalizing the sale documents with a purchaser
on that property, and that would stop if this moratorium is instituted.
MR. MICHAEL GRANUM, 72-314 Valley Crest Lane, Palm Desert, said he
was an independent land use consultant who has worked with a number of
the property owners and landowners in the area. He said they realized that
this moratorium would most likely be passed. He said he had informally
talked to all of the different landowners, and they were willing to sit down and
try to work out a general plan that works somewhat within the parameters of
the City Council and Planning staff. He requested a two -week delay and felt
during that time it was possible to reach a consensus, a path, and a direction.
He said there were some topographical issues with the land on the north side
of Gerald Ford, so high density would be a problem for the piece owned by
Ponderosa Homes. He said they spoke of a willingness to possibly change
part of what they proposed to submit to comply with what Planning seems to
have as a density goal. He added that he did not feel a nine -month
moratorium was the way to solve the affordable housing problem in Palm
Desert.
MR. TOM NOBLE, 42-620 Caroline Court, Palm Desert, noted his letter in
the Agenda packets as well as one from Jeff Schroeder of Ponderosa
Homes. He said there was a stigma that goes with the term "moratorium."
The assumption is that it is likely to be extended, it is likely to be very heavy-
handedly applied, and it is something that is a potential disaster. He said he
felt it would slow down development dramatically at a time when we really
cannot afford to have housing slow down. He said that a general plan did not
mean you have to do a certain thing with a certain piece of property;
however, a specific plan or master plan is quite different. He noted a
statement in the staff report that "Inherent in the GPAC's recommendation is
the need for a thoughtful master plan which integrates..." all these various
factors. He said he felt what was being looked at was a moratorium for a
master plan, not a moratorium for a general plan. Master planning can take
a lot longer, and a lot of other parties have to be involved in it. He said he
73
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
was afraid that was something that was going to be imposed on the
developers.
MR. JIM SNELLENBERGER, CEO of World Development, spoke in
opposition to the moratorium and said he felt this was something that
everyone should be able to get together, work out, plan, and master plan with
the developers. He said they were all in agreement to sit down over the next
couple of weeks and come up with something. If the Council knows what it
is it truly wants, they are willing to do that. He said they were told that the
City wanted the Village Concept #7, they turned in their plan, and they
couldn't do anything but the 8,000 square foot lots because that is what the
General Plan said. Since then, they had been asked to take their road from
the side they had it on the project and move it to the other side so that it
matched up with the Village Seven concept plan, which they had done. They
were also asked to make their entrance at a certain distance from the road
so it would match the apartments next door that were not yet even approved.
He said they spent a lot of money with those plans getting to the stage where
it is now; to have this moratorium instituted and to be told at the very end that
it is not what the City wants is disheartening. He said he was surprised to
hear about the program put together with citizens and builders to come up
with some kind of General Plan there and that he had never heard anything
about it and would like to have had the chance to be on that board. He was
willing to sit down and do whatever it takes to get this problem done without
the moratorium if the Council could continue the matter for a couple of
weeks. He said that if they do get held up because of the moratorium, it will
jeopardize some jobs, and they did not want to go all the way through the
process and have it denied at the very end. He asked that the Council either
continue it or vote no on it.
MR. PAUL BRADY, representing Alliance Retail Partners, said he wanted to
make sure for the record that those of them who have development
agreements are not included as part of this discussion.
Councilman Ferguson responded that this was correct.
MS. ISABELLE WHITLEY, 79-610 Butler Bay, Bermuda Dunes, said she was
a mortgage broker and felt the City could not afford to put a hold on its
economic livelihood. She also noted she had a lot of clients moving out to
the desert area because of the openness.
MR. MIKE KENNELLY , owner of Velma's Construction Cleaning, said he
was already receiving letters from developers indicating they were
considering cutting back because of the term "moratorium" being used by the
City. He said developers were concerned with the possibility of development
being stopped, and there would be a lot of people out of work if that
happened.
74
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
MR. JOHN COVER, Baxley Properties, said he had been working with the
GPAC for two years, and it was now time to work from inside out, take all
those plans, and create something. However, he felt the moratorium should
be avoided. He asked that the Council continue this to the next meeting and
allow everyone to meet and work together to come up with a plan.
MR. JIM LEWIS stated that with regard to GPAC, there were a lot of people
who had a different opinion, but the majority came to this idea. None of the
members had in their minds that this was a concrete plan but rather a
general framework. He said each of the developers wants to build their own
piece of land, and there are a lot of pieces. Unless and until more property
is annexed into the City, this is it. There are things needed in this area, such
as parks, schools, affordable housing, etc., and he felt it was important to get
this General Plan on the table as soon as possible so that something can be
done that everyone can be proud of for Palm Desert.
MR. BOB DAVIS, Project Manager for World Development, said he felt it
would be wise for the City to sit down with the developers over the next four
weeks rather than voting tonight and shutting everyone off. A lot of people
would be affected by this, and it would not be fair not to include everyone.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Benson declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Crites said he was comfortable with the fact that the City Council
has a duty not just to property owners but also to citizens. The Council has
a responsibility to make sure this is done properly. He said he had
deliberately not looked at any of the proposed iterations of the General Plan
out there because that is the business of the General Plan Committee. It will
then be the business of the Planning Commission with input from citizens,
and then it will get to the City Council, and that is when he wants to have an
independent look at those kinds of things. He said he was not voting tonight
on something that is any different than what he has expressed consistently
to various people in this audience for a long time, and that is that the City
needs to have the General Plan done before developing the rest of these
areas. He said at the appropriate time, he would make the motion to pass
the ordinance to second reading instituting a moratorium pending approval
of the General Plan Update.
Councilman Ferguson said he was convinced that whatever the term,
moratorium or whatever, developers are infinitely better knowing what is
about to happen to them and be aware of the fact that some of the
developers may be used as pawns in a political chess match over what some
might consider very controversial land use element that he would assure the
developers the Council has not even seen yet but loathe to come to any kind
of consensus on. He said no Tess than 15 people had come and wanted to
meet with him and laid out University Village Concept Seven and told him
75
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
how their plan would further this concept. He said he felt sorry for them on
the one hand but strongly suggested they take their cues in making their
development decisions based on talking with those who have the final
authority on this and not just staff. He said what we have here is a collision
of two worlds, a world of 18-month investment -backed expectations and a
world of 20-year long-term planning. The City purchased and set aside 200
acres of land 14 years ago, took it off its tax roles, and set it aside for a
university. Now there is a Cal State University site and a UC Riverside site
there, although they are small. He said he was skeptical about how fast they
will grow, but they are here, and for the first time in the history of our Valley,
we have four-year education. He said that does not match anyone's 18-
month pro forma, but it is forward thinking; however, just because you are
forward thinking does not mean you are anti -development. He added that he
could envision over the next several months some very spirited, heated
discussions about this University Village concept, and he would like to hear
from the developers about how it does or does not make sense, how certain
aspects of it don't fit with Palm Desert, etc. The City had been very
successful financially, and it had made very good, conservative, balanced
decisions about its growth. There was now a major decision to be made on
what is left of the City. He said he respected private property rights,
respected staff's opinion, and really respected the 42,500 people who live in
Palm Desert who want to see and have a voice in what the future of Palm
Desert is going to look like. He said for World Development and other folks
who had been encouraged to do things with the expectation that somehow
the City was amenable to one plan or another, if nothing else, this hearing
tonight was meant to tell them that there is no definitive role of what is going
to happen with the General Plan. The concept was a point of discussion, and
he suspected it would change dramatically. He said he would rather have the
developers hear it from him up front, right now, than find out about it nine
months from now after hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent and then
come back and claim "if I had only known." He said he would second the
motion made by Councilman Crites. He said this is an ordinance, there are
30 days, it has to be read twice, so the developers will get their four weeks
and will have a chance to meet with the Planning Department. He cautioned
the developers that he would not do anything until he has heard from the
residents as well and has considered all comments. He added that whether
one is a realtor, a developer, a mortgage lender, etc., when the City does
come up with its new General Plan, there will be a wealth of opportunities to
sell homes, sell mortgages, build those homes, and afford to buy one and
actually live here. He said the Council's responsibility was to guide the future
of the City, and he felt putting the developers on notice and going through
these hearings with their participation was the best way to proceed.
Councilman Kelly said he did not like the term "moratorium" and did not like
changing the rules when people have invested a lot of money. He said he
felt what everyone talks about doing with a moratorium can be done without
76
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
a moratorium. Council has control, and it already knows what the citizens
want the City to look like just from being out in the community. He said he
felt instituting a moratorium was a mistake and was not fair to the people
involved. He said he felt there was no reason why the Council could not take
on projects and fit them in the way they should be. He added that it was not
a matter of being pro -development; it was matter of treating people fairly and
working with them.
Mayor Benson said she felt this was being fair to the people. Almost two
years was spent redoing the General Plan, and it was not something the City
thought up to do, it was mandated by the State of California. She said there
was a cross-section of between 15 and 20 people who worked on this plan.
Everyone in the City was notified that the Council was picking a General Plan
Committee; there were notices in the newspaper, there were interviews, and
there were approximately 60 applicants to start with, people from all walks of
life. The applicants were narrowed down to a 21-member committee, and
the members were very diligent. She said she had heard many comments
that this is what Planning wants, and this is so far from the truth because the
Committee members are the ones who voted. No one was told how to vote.
It was all voted on fair and square and will be sent out to the Planning
Commission and to the general public. There had been moratoriums in the
City in the past, and they did not seem to slow down anything nor stigmatize
the City in any way. If anything, this showed the citizens that the Council
wanted to protect their way of life and wanted them to have their input on the
next 25 years.
Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1047
to second reading, instituting a moratorium pending approval of the General Plan Update.
Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 3-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting
NO and Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel ABSENT.
M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIONS RELATIVE TO THE SALE AND
ISSUANCE OF TAX ALLOCATION REVENUE BONDS (PROJECT AREA
NO. 1 , AS AMENDED) SERIES 2003, OF THE PALM DESERT
FINANCING AUTHORITY (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE
PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY).
Redevelopment Finance Manager Dennis Coleman reviewed the staff report
and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor/President Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in
FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request. With no testimony offered, she
declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman/Commission Ferguson moved to waive further reading and adopt:
1) City Council Resolution No. 03-57, making a finding of significant public benefit and other
77
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
findings in connection with the sale and issuance of Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Project
Area No. 1, As Amended), Series 2003, of the Palm Desert Financing Authority;
2) Financing Authority Resolution No. FA-42, acknowledging a finding of significant public
benefit in connection with the sale and issuance of the Authority's Tax Allocation Revenue
Bonds (Project Area No. 1, As Amended), Series 2003. Motion was seconded by Kelly and
carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Pro Tempore/Vice President Spiegel ABSENT.
N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIONS RELATIVE TO THE SALE AND
ISSUANCE OF TAX ALLOCATION REVENUE BONDS (PROJECT AREA
NO. 3), SERIES 2003 (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE
PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY).
Redevelopment Finance Manager Dennis Coleman reviewed the staff report
and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor/President Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in
FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request. No testimony was offered, and she
declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman/Commissioner Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) City
Council Resolution No. 03-58, making a finding of significant public benefit and other
findings in connection with the sale and issuance of Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Project
Area No. 3), Series 2003, of the Palm Desert Financing Authority; 2) Financing Authority
Resolution No. FA-43, acknowledging a finding of significant public benefit in connection
with the sale and issuance of the Authority's Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Project Area
No. 3), Series 2003. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with
Mayor Pro TemporeNice President Spiegel ABSENT.
XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
None
B. CITY ATTORNEY
None
C. CITY CLERK
1. Reminder of Wednesday, April 30, 2003, Schedule to Consider
Committee/Commission Appointments.
Mrs. Klassen reminded Council of the meeting scheduled for 9:00
a.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, to discuss
Committee/Commission applicants.
78
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Reauests for Action:
None
o City Council Committee Reports:
None
o City Council Comments:
None
XIX. ADJOURNMENT
Councilman Kelly moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:08 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, April 30, 2003, for an Adjourned Joint City Council/RDA Meeting to discuss
Committee/Commission applicants. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0
vote, with Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel ABSENT.
ATTEST:
HELLE D. KLASSN, CITY CLERIC
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
. BENS(1I, MAYOR
79