HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-22MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M.
Mayor Benson convened the meeting at 3:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilman Buford A. Crites
Councilman Jim Ferguson arrived at 3:26 p.m.
Councilman Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Pro Tem Robert A. Spiegel
Mayor Jean M. Benson
Also Present:
Homer Croy, Acting City Manager
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services
Justin McCarthy, ACM for Development Services
Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Teresa L. La Rocca, Director of Housing
Michael J. Errante, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment
Robert P. Kohn, Director of Special Programs
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
None
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
IV. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Reauest for Closed Session:
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
a) Renee Capela v. City of Palm Desert, et al., Riverside County Superior
Court Case No. INC 021720
b) 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: 2
With Council concurrence, Mayor Benson adjourned the meeting to Closed Session
at 3:05 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
V. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M.
A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION.
None
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Jim Ferguson
VII. INVOCATION — Councilman Richard S. Kelly
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
MR. BOB WHARBURTON, resident of Cathedral City, CA, said he was speaking to
the City Council on behalf of the Coachella Valley Coalition for Responsible
Sovereignty, which he said was a diverse group of Valley residents from all walks
of life. He said that although their group supported tribal gaming and were pleased
to see the benefits tribes were realizing, it was felt that all Coachella Valley residents
would be significantly impacted in terms of roads, traffic, public safety, water and
sewage, and the need to build more schools and affordable housing by the growth
of that industry here. He asked for City Council's support of their efforts to ensure
continued quality of life for Valley residents. He commented that their Coalition has
partnered with the Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union,
which had prepared a report entitled Tribal Casinos and Their Impacts on a
California Community, and he presented copies to the City Council and staff.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
MR. DOUGLAS SEXTON, resident of Palm Desert, said he was also a member of
the Coachella Valley Coalition for Responsible Sovereignty and quite concerned
about growth issues that would arise from continued expansion of tribal gaming. He
requested City Council's continued proactive approach to planning in order to
maintain a proper balance, especially for the schools.
IX. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE NEIL LINGLE FOR HIS SERVICE TO
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND ITS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION.
On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Benson recognized Neil Lingle for
his service to the City of Palm Desert and Its Architectural Review
Commission.
B. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE MICHELE BATS AND LINDA VASSALLI
FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND ITS PARKS
AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Benson recognized Ms. Vassalli
with an engraved clock; Ms. Bats was unable to attend this afternoon.
C. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE CITY OF PALM DESERT EMPLOYEES
FOR EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE.
On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Benson made presentations to
the following City employees: Frankie Riddle, Maria Arzaga, David Flint, and
Gerardo Zatarian.
Mayor Benson noted that there was another presentation made yesterday to
Palm Desert Middle School Principal Maureen Thompson, recognizing her school's
recent designation as a California Distinguished School. Mayor Benson pointed out
that the distinction was very significant in that Palm Desert Middle School was
chosen from a field of over 400 applicants. Further, it was the second school Ms.
Thompson had brought up to this level. She said, in turn, the school praised the
City for its support over the years.
X. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 8, 2003.
Rec: Approve as presented.
3
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY — Warrant Nos.
241, 242, 245, 246, and 249 PDOC.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#494) by Rosli Riemhofer in an Unspecified
Amount.
Rec: By Minute Motion, reject the Claim and direct the City Clerk to
so notify the Claimant.
D-1. LETTER OF RESIGNATION from Evelyn Bennett from the Sister City
Committee.
Rec: Receive with very sincere regret.
D-2. RESIGNATION from Spiro Stameson from the Technology Committee.
Rec: Receive with very sincere regret.
E. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase Twenty (20) Machine Traffic
Counters and Accessory Equipment.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize staff to purchase twenty (20) machine
traffic counters and accessory equipment from TimeMark, Inc., Salem,
Oregon, in the amount of $19,234.85 — funding for this equipment is
available in the Traffic Safety Budget (Account
No. 110-4250-433-2145).
F REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for the Boxing, Removal, and
Transportation of Plant Material within the Scope of the Highway 111 Street
and Signal Improvement (Contract No. C21120, Project No. 910-02).
Removed for separate consideration under Section XI, Consent Items Held
Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and
action.
G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract with Joseph S. Gaugush for Plan
Checking Services for the Public Works Department on a Contract Basis
(Contract No. C21250).
Removed for separate consideration under Section XI, Consent Items Held
Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and
action.
4
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract with Security Signal Devices, Inc.
(SSD Systems), to Upgrade the Desert Willow Security System.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Authorize staff to contract with Security Signal
Devices, Inc. (SSD Systems), Palm Desert, California, in the amount
of $12,419.75; 2) appropriate said funds from Account
No. 241-4195-495-8092.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for the
2003 Palm Tree Pruning Program (Contract No. C21200, Project
No. 588-03).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for
bids for the subject project.
1-2. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for the
2003 Slurry Seal Program (Contract No. C21210, Project No. 751-03).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for
bids for the subject project.
1-3. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Advertise and Call for Bids for the
2003 Street Resurfacing/Overlay Program (Contract No. C21220, Project
No. 752-03).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for
bids for the subject project.
J-1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map No. 30801 (College View
Estates #3, LLC, Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 03-63, approving the
Final Subdivision Map of Tract No. 30801 and approving the
agreement relating thereto.
J-2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Parcel Map No. 31012 (Lindquist
Development, Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 03-64, approving
Parcel Map No. 31012.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
J-3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, of Parcel Map No. 31013 (Lindquist
Development, Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 03-65, approving
Parcel Map No. 31013.
J-4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL, of Parcel Map No. 31134 (J.M. Madera, LLC,
Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 03-66, approving
Parcel Map No. 31134.
K. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Final Five -Year Consolidated Plan and
Associated Documents.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Authorize the City Manager to sign all Five -Year
Consolidated Plan Certifications; 2) approve the Five -Year
Consolidated Plan, One -Year Action Plan, and Citizens Participation
Plan; 3) authorize staff to submit Final Plans to the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
L. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST from the California Literacy "Cities That
Read" Campaign.
Rec: By Minute Motion: Concur with the recommendation of the Library
Promotion Committee and approve Palm Desert's support of the
"Cities That Read" campaign, and authorize the Mayor as the City's
official liaison for this outreach.
M. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Progress Report on Retail Center Vacancies
Councilman Kelly removed Item F and Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel removed Item
G for separate discussion under Section XI, Consent Items Held Over.
Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Ferguson, the remainder of the Consent
Calendar was approved as presented by a 5-0 vote.
6
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
F. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for the Boxing, Removal, and
Transportation of Plant Material within the Scope of the Highway 111 Street
and Signal Improvement (Contract No. C21120, Project No. 910-02).
Councilman Kelly questioned the temporary nursery on San Pablo adjacent
to the Civic Center.
Councilman Ferguson asked if it would be in the area behind the electric
charging station.
Mr. Errante responded that it would be further north of that. He said there
were currently three waste bins located there which had been there for the
last two years, and they would be removed. Staff was planning to put part
of the removed material there, and the rest would go to the proposed
Corporation Yard.
Councilman Kelly stated that all of those boxed plants would be right on the
back exit to the Civic Center and the Park, and he did not feel that was an
appropriate place for them.
Mr. Errante responded that staff had chosen that area because it would be
easy to maintain the material with the City's own parks crew. Staff was also
concerned with the plant material "disappearing" if it was placed elsewhere.
He added that staff planned to put some sort of screening in front of it to
make it less obvious.
Upon question by Councilman Ferguson, Mr. Errante responded that the
approximate value of the material to be relocated was $400,000.
Councilman Crites noted that from discussion of the project at the Landscape
Beautification Committee, staff was going to look at options, and he asked
what those options were.
Landscape Manager Spencer Knight stated that staff had looked at Cahuilla
Park; however, the area there that might be appropriate was not owned by
the City. He said staff also looked at other areas; but, the biggest problem
encountered with the other City properties was that there was no water. He
said there was a nine -month window of time at the Corporation Yard, and
perhaps the material could be divvied up in that time, but the amount of time
taken by the new construction projects would be a determining factor.
Upon further question by Councilman Crites, Mr. Knight said the 20-acre site
on Portola was scheduled to be stabilized with plant material and ground
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
cover; although that was a site looked at by staff, there was not currently a
water meter at that location.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel suggested Ironwood Park, part of which is grass
and part which is natural area. This plant material could be placed at that
location, and there is water from the park available.
Mr. Knight responded that staff's concern with Ironwood Park was that it
suffers quite a bit of vandalism on a regular basis. He said a large number
of these boxes are 24-inch, which can easily be moved, and staff was
concerned with theft of the plants. He said if it was possible to get water to
the 20-acre site on Portola, that would be viable.
Councilman Kelly noted that the Desert Willow maintenance yard was
adjacent to the Portola Avenue site, he was sure that water could be
provided to that site, making it the most appropriate one.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to
Hort Tech, Inc., Palm Desert, California, in the amount of $208,834.25; 2) approve a 10%
contingency for the project in the amount of $20,883.43; 3) authorize the Mayor to execute
the agreement; 3) direct staff to utilize the Portola Avenue site adjacent to the
Desert Willow maintenance yard for nursery -storage of the plant material to be relocated.
Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote.
G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract with Joseph S. Gaugush for Plan
Checking Services for the Public Works Department on a Contract Basis
(Contract No. C21250).
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel said he felt the City was doing something
unusual in bringing back a staff member to work within a year of his leaving
the City. While he had no problem with that, he questioned whether $85.00
per hour is the normal fee the City gives to people who come in and help with
plan check.
Mr. Errante responded that the City normally pays between $75.00 and
$125.00 per hour for plan check.
Mayor Benson said it was her understanding that staff actually wanted to pull
this item.
Mr. Croy said staff did want to pull the item in order to recommend changes
but wanted to wait to see whether Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel wanted those
changes.
8
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel said he did not want to change it but was just
wondering whether the amount was proper.
Upon question by Mayor Benson, Mr. Croy stated that the recommendation
listed on the Agenda was different from the staff report, which actually had
the correct recommendation.
Mr. Errante noted that the first recommendation (waive the two-year
separation of full-time employment with the City of Palm Desert stipulation for
former Director of Public Works/City Engineer) had been removed, and staff
was requesting approval of the recommendation as listed on the staff report.
Mayor Benson said she had not been in favor of waiving the two-year
stipulation.
Mr. Croy stated that the two-year issue was the concern; however, it was not
an issue, and the staff report was changed.
Upon question by Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel, Mr. Errante responded that
this particular case was not considered an issue since Mr. Gaugush was not
going to be representing any outside consultants.
After additional discussion, Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to continue this
matter to the meeting of June 12, 2003. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried
by a 5-0 vote.
XI1. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 03-67 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING AND
ENCOURAGING LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRONIC
SCRAP (E-WASTE).
Mr. Croy noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 03-67. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1, with Councilman
Ferguson ABSTAINING.
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
B. RESOLUTION NO. 03-68 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 03-14, AND DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX
REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE RELATING TO ANNEXATION NO. 36 —
THE CREST (LAFCO 2002-27-4).
Mr. Erwin stated that it had been discovered in the last day or two that the
resolution before Council was not acceptable to the County of Riverside. He
said Mr. Ortega and other staff members met with Supervisor Wilson and
members of County staff attempting to arrive at some mutually acceptable
position with regard to this matter. He noted that he had also talked to
County Counsel. Although the document attached to the resolution was the
document provided by the County, they objected to it being attached. What
they would like to do, and the only thing that is agreeable with them at the
present time, would be to modify the resolution by deleting Section 2d and
reword the last portion of Section 2c to read "...that represents the County of
Riverside's share of such property tax revenue," deleting the words "reflected
by District 01 1001 General 17031789 (Attachment A)." He said his and
Mr. Ortega's recommendation was that the Council, if it wished The Crest to
go forward and be annexed, adopt this resolution as modified.
Upon question by Councilman Kelly, Mr. Erwin responded that he believed
the modifications did nothing with regard to the current share of the taxes
from that area. The County's concern was stated to be that it is probable that
the Legislature is going to change this in some manner in the future, either
with ERAF or some other program which is unknown to the County, and they
do not want anything that could be argued would fix a specific figure.
Councilman Crites asked if this met the intention of what the City of
Palm Desert wants, and Mr. Erwin agreed. Upon further question by
Councilman Crites, Mr. Erwin stated that in the Council's prior resolution
(#03-14) which is being amended, there had been included as part of the
County's share what they had proposed as ERAF. Councilman Crites asked
why the City would want to settle for something that is going to be a money
loser while the County has no responsibility for any of this in the future and
will pick up a great amount of money while the City is left holding the bills.
Councilman Kelly moved to continue this matter to the meeting of June 12, 2003.
Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
10
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
C. RESOLUTION NO. 03-69 - APPROVING THE NEW, ADJUSTED
SCHEDULE OF FEES (EXHIBIT 5) FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES
CONTAINED IN CONTRACT NO. C17230, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003.
Councilman Ferguson stated that because he represents Waste
Management in California, he would not participate on this matter. He said
he had abstained on the E-Waste matter because he did not know whether
or not it would affect Waste Management; however, this particular matter
would affect Waste Management, and in accordance with new State law, he
would leave the Council Chamber during this discussion.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel said it was his understanding that residents in
Palm Desert would be paying about six cents more per month for trash
service. This increase was based on a formula agreed upon with Waste
Management.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 03-69. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman
Ferguson ABSENT.
XIII. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 1049 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE
LICENSURE OF TOBACCO RETAILERS AND AMENDING THE PALM
DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance
No. 1049 to second reading. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
For Adoption:
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. SEGWAY HUMAN
TRANSPORTERS).
Mr. Croy noted that staff was recommending that Council continue this item
until after review and recommendation of the Public Safety Commission at
its meeting in June.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to continue this matter until after review and
recommendation of the Public Safety Commission. Councilman Ferguson seconded the
11
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
motion, noting that he would also like the Public Safety Commission to consider a permit
process similar to the City's Golf Cart program for those with a doctor's prescription for the
device. Motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 1048 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
CREATION AND OPERATION OF A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING VARIOUS UTILITY SERVICES, AND
AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF CERTAIN OTHER ACTION IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance
No. 1048. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
Councilman Ferguson moved to add the following item to the Agenda. Motion was
seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote:
B-1. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
RELATIVE TO COMMON INTEREST IN MUNICIPALIZATION AND HIRING
A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS PURPOSE.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor, Mayor
Pro Tem, and City Manager to, if deemed appropriate, move ahead with both the hiring of
a representative to protect the City's interests before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
as well as selecting two representatives from the City of Palm Desert to work with its
neighboring cities of Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage on these issues. Motion was
seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XIV. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PROMOTE AND ADVERTISE THE
"SHOP PALM DESERT" SUMMER RETAIL PROMOTION.
Business Support Manger Ruth Ann Moore noted the staff report and
recommendation in the packets and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize staff to promote
and advertise the "Shop Palm Desert" summer retail promotion — funds are budgeted and
available in the City-wide Fund Account No. 239-4416-414-3215. Motion was seconded
by Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote.
12
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ISSUANCE AND SALE BY THE CITY OF
NOT TO EXCEED $3,030,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS
SILVER SPUR RANCH UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 01-01 LIMITED IMPROVEMENT OBLIGATION BONDS,
SERIES 2003.
Redevelopment Finance Manager Dennis Coleman reviewed the staff report
and recommendation and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt City Council
Resolution No. 03-70, authorizing the issuance and sale by the City of not to exceed
$3,030,000 aggregate principal amount of its Silver Spur Ranch Utility Undergrounding
Assessment District No. 01-01 Limited Improvement Obligation Bonds, Series 2003;
approving as to form and authorizing the execution and delivery of certain documents in
connection therewith; and approving certain other matters relating thereto. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIONS RELATIVE TO ISSUANCE OF
LIMITED OBLIGATION REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES
2003, FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NOS. 94-2 (SUNTERRACE) AND
94-3 (MERANO).
Mr. Coleman reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt:
1) Resolution No. 03-71, declaring its intention to issue refunding bonds for Assessment
Districts Nos. 94-2 and 94-3; directing the preparation of a report pursuant to Section 9523
of the California Streets and Highway Code; making certain determinations relating to the
refunding; and directing other matters relating thereto; 2) Resolution No. 03-72, approving
a reassessment report prepared in connection with issuance of refunding bonds for
Assessment Districts Nos. 94-2 and 94-3; confirming reassessments for such refunding
bonds; making other findings in connection therewith; ordering refunding and
reassessments; and directing and approving other matters relating thereto; 3) Resolution
No. 03-73, authorizing the issuance and sale by the City of not to exceed $980,000
aggregate principal amount of its Assessment District No. 94-2 (Sunterrace) Limited
Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2003; approving as to form and
authorizing the execution and delivery of certain documents in connection therewith; and
approving certain other matters relating thereto; 4) Resolution No. 03-74, authorizing the
issuance and sale by the City of not to exceed $1,155,000 aggregate principal amount of
its Assessment District No. 94-3 (Merano) Limited Obligation Refunding Improvement
Bonds, Series 2003; approving as to form and authorizing the execution and delivery of
certain documents in connection therewith; and approving certain other matters relating
thereto. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None
XVI. OLD BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN APPEAL AND
REVERSE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL TO ALLOW A SECOND
UNIT AT 44-574 PORTOLA AVENUE Case No. CUP 02-14 (Jerome M.
Beauvais, Applicant).
Following is a verbatim transcript of this matter.
Kev:
JMB Mayor Jean M. Benson
BAC Councilman Buford A. Crites
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
RAS Mayor Pro Tempore Robert A. Spiegel
HC Homer Croy, Acting City Manager
JF Councilman Jim Ferguson
RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly
FU Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner
JB Jerry Beauvais, Applicant
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
AH Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building and Safety
SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager
JMB Old Business...Consideration of a resolution to approve an appeal and
reverse Planning Commission approval to allow second unit at 44-574
Portola Avenue, Case No. CUP 02-14 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant).
BAC Madam Mayor, why don't we open all four of these.
DJE You may do that if you wish.
JMB Alright with everyone?
RAS Yes.
(Inaudible)
DJE Yes, if you would please.
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
JMB
Okay, B is consideration of a resolution to approve an appeal and reverse
Planning Commission approval to allow a second unit at 44-536 Portola
Avenue, Case No. CUP 02-15 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant). Next one
is consideration of a resolution to approve and appeal and reverse Planning
Commission approval to allow a second unit at 74-041 San Marino Circle,
Case No. CUP 02-16 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant). Next one is
consideration of a resolution to deny an appeal and affirm Planning
Commission denial of a second unit at 74-060 San Marino Circle, Case
No. CUP 02-17 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant).
HC You have all four staff reports before you with recommendations from staff.
Staff is here to answer any questions that you may have.
JF I have a clarification one. I have four resolutions, four Code Enforcement
reports. I have two replacement resolutions, and I just...if somebody could
tell me...CUP 2-14,15,16, and 16...which structure those match up with, and
I guess in my mind we have one that hasn't been built but was stripped in
anticipation of building. We have one that pretty darned close meets the old
ordinance, that was with the attached garage. And then we have two that are
somewhere in between. So, which one is the one that has never been lived
in...14, 15, 16, or 17?
HC 17.
JF Which one?
HC 17.
JF 17.
RSK 17, okay.
JF That's uninhabited, and what's the one that...
RSK Wait, let me get this down, too. Which one is the one that's never been lived
in?
JF 17.
RSK Is that here the 'A' one or the 'B' one or the 'C' one?
BAC That's the 'D' one.
RAS 'D' one.
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
RSK `B'?
RAS D', on the other side.
RSK Oh, well that's the one that...that's a different one. That's the one that...
RAS Yeah, never been lived in.
RSK That was the one that was denied by the Planning Commission.
DJE I hate to confuse the issue, but I think the one that is in the framing stage has
an address on Portola.
RSK Yeah, that's what I...
DJE And 17 is on Marino Circle, San Marino Circle.
JF Okay
DJE Which one...Francisco perhaps...
FU I'm Francisco Urbina, Planning Department staff. CUP 02-14, which is
44-574 Portola Avenue, is the one that has never been lived in.
JF That would be 'A'.
FU Yes, correct.
JF Okay, and which is the one that comes pretty darned close, I believe it's on
San Marino Circle...
HC That's the structure with the high fences?
JF The one with the attached garage that was converted to a room.
FU Yes, that's CUP 02-16 at 74-041 San Marino Circle.
JF That's 'C' on our agenda. Okay. And the one that's adjacent to the vacant
or the one that's adjacent to the one that's on Portola?
FU CUP 02-15, 44-536 Portola Avenue, the one on the corner of El Cortez.
JF And there's two across the street from each other, and the one I keep calling
with the attached garage is on the east side of that street, and the other one
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
FU
is on the west side of the street. Can you tell me which one is east and
which one is west?
The one with the converted attached garage is on the southwest side of San
Marino Circle. The one that has the detached garage is on the northeast
side, CUP 02-17.
JF I got it, okay.
JMB Buford.
BAC So to go back again, Item A on our agenda is the one that is just framework
and nothing else?
FU Correct, that is the one that was purchased from the Redevelopment Agency.
BAC Right, and Planning Commission recommended that that be approved as a
second unit possible structure.
FU Correct.
JF Okay, so I have two replacement motions, resolutions, that I just got before
Council today that are resolutions of approval for 'C', if I'm reading this
correctly, and 'B', and 'B' is 15 and 'C' is 16.
FU Yes, the ones...the resolutions you received today are if the Council does not
want to allow the second units at those locations.
JF Well, the two I got says we're approving the appeal and reversing the
Planning Commission on both of them.
FU Correct because the Planning Commission approved those cases, and there
was an appeal filed by the Kopps.
JF So we just did something different with our resolutions of denial in those two
cases.
DJE No, these replacement resolutions basically changes some of the language,
it does not change the result.
JF That's what I was after. Okay.
FU Correct, changes in the findings.
JF Okay. Is there a staff recommendation?
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
HC
I guess I can put it together here. It looks like the staff recommendation
would be Resolution 03-76 and 03-75 to recommend that...l'm trying to catch
up (inaudible)
DJE 03-75 is the one (inaudible)
(Inaudible)
BAC Well, the motion to annex all these properties to Indian Wells is still one of
(inaudible)
(Laughter)
HC I think we need to look at them individually, since they are confusing.
Looking at Item 'A', that's the building that is framed.
JF
HC
(Inaudible)
HC
Staff recommendation?
And we're looking to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission
...approve the appeal and deny the Conditional Use Permit...
DJE Okay, which is the resolution that...
RSK Can I suggest that you take these items A, B, C, and D and associated
resolutions and give us the resolution that goes with each one of those so
that we can take them one by one and let's handle them one by one.
(Inaudible)
RSK The resolution is not on the Agenda, so then you have to take that and
search through this stuff....
JF Could we just go A, B, C, D...
RSK Find the resolution that goes with that heading. It's very difficult to keep track
of it and associate them. So if we take one by one and just handle it...
JMB `A' should...
RSK ...and then tell us which resolution it is, that would be a lot less confusing for
me.
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
DJE With regard to 'A', I believe the staff recommendation is to approve
Resolution 03-75...
RSK 03-75
DJE ...which you have in your packet, which would approve the appeal and
reverse the Planning Commission approval, in effect denying the Conditional
Use Permit.
JF So 'A' is denied.
DJE 'A' is to deny, yes.
BAC And that is the unit that does not, is not occupied?
DJE That is correct.
BAC And that would allow the property owner to build that unit as a single-family
residence...
DJE Correct
— BAC ...or to sell that to another person who could come in and ask for a second
unit, if they so chose...
DJE Correct
BAC ...or whatever...
DJE Correct
DJE Resolution 03-75 is applicable to 'A' as it is presented to you in your packet.
RSK So the proper, if you wanted to grant the appeal, you would move affirmation
of the appeal as per Resolution 03-75.
DJE Correct.
RSK I move that.
JF Question. I'll second the motion for purpose of discussion. As I understand
it, we can either do this with or without prejudice, which may or may not give
Mr. Beauvais the ability to reapply under the new ordinance when it becomes
effective.
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
DJE Correct
JF
It should, back to Buford's point, if he can meet all the requirements and it's
owner occupied and everything, it gives him the option of doing a second unit
and moving in or selling it or doing whatever, but if we do it with prejudice
then he has to wait a year before he can do anything along the lines of
reapplying for anything.
DJE For a Conditional Use Permit, yes.
JF So I guess my clarification is...
RSK I'll make that with...
JF Without
RSK ...without prejudice.
JF Okay, I'II second that.
JMB Do we want to hear from Mr. Beauvais? Do you want to speak?
JB My name is Jerry Beauvais, I live at 74-041 San Marino Circle, and I admit
to being totally confused by what I just heard. The resolution that was
brought before the City Council was a resolution for denial for the Conditional
Use Permit for that particular property, and are you then saying that within a
year or after a year's period I could...
RSK The motion, the way the motion is made, you can come quicker.
RAS As soon as you want to.
JB Right.
RSK You could come back tomorrow.
JB But it would be under the new guidelines that...
RSK Which would be a good thing for you.
JB But it would be under the new guidelines brought forth by the City regarding
size and owner occupancy and everything. As a consequence, it wouldn't...
RSK You could take a new run at it.
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
JB But I wouldn't be able to comply, Mr. Kelly.
RSK You would have an opportunity to do whatever the rules require.
JB Is there any chance to make any sort of appeal to comply under the old code,
Mr. Ferguson?
JF No, that's what we've been trying to do, and we couldn't find any scenario
where you would be able to comply with what you're doing under the old
ordinance. And so...to make it easy, we have 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D'...'A' is your
Portola that's never been lived in, 'B' is the one right next door to it, 'C' is the
one that's on this side of that street that's pretty darned close under the old
ordinance, and 'D' is the one that's on the other side. And skipping whether
we're granting or denying an appeal or a resolution, the bottom line is the
recommendation on 'A' is to deny it, and we can either do that with prejudice,
which means you have to wait a year under the law before you can reapply,
or we can deny it without prejudice, which gives you the chance to come
back as early as June 15th with a set of plans, with something that complies
with the new one. Or if you can't comply because you don't want to live
there, then you can sell it to somebody who does want to live there.
JB
Okay, so then it's my understanding that the Commission believes that under
the old code it doesn't comply. With the rules set forward in the code under
which I applied, it doesn't...it does not comply (inaudible)
JF Were you not given a copy of these staff reports?
JB No, I'm sorry...you know what...I apologize, I am not a paperwork man...it's
possible that I had that. I did understand the wording in it.
RAS We were told that you had them.
JB Okay, so it's just I was not found in compliance with the old code, then,
Mr. Spiegel. Okay, thank you.
RAS You had something you wanted to say, Homer?
RSK We're about ready to vote. If I was a red-blooded staff person, I wouldn't
have anything to say.
RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote.
JMB The next one is...
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
DJE With regard to 'B', item `B', the address is 44-536 Portola. The resolution that
you have in your packet is the replacement resolution, 03-76, and that
resolution reflects the staff recommendation.
JF
Question. The staff report from the City Attorney says that this does not have
a second unit that doesn't exceed ten percent, the carports do not comply
with the building setback requirements, that the maximum building site
coverage exceeds our maximum of 35 percent, and miscellaneous
violations...are those four bases the basis of the City Attorney's
recommendation?
DJE Yes, sir.
JF Staffs recommendation.
DJE I understand the staff recommendation to be the resolution 03-76 as set forth
in the replacement resolution.
JF Which, when all said and done at the end of the day would deny the CUP.
DJE Would deny the CUP, yes.
RSK We approve the appeal and deny and reverse the Planning Commission
approval.
DJE That's correct.
RSK Then I make that motion.
RAS Second.
JMB Anything else to say?
BAC Now what happens...if this is...let's say this is denied. What is the end result
of that? I mean, if the motion passes, let me make it (inaudible). If the
motion passes, what happens?
HC If it's the same motion you made previously, it would be the same conditions.
He could come back.
RSK I'll add without...
JF Without prejudice?
RSK ...prejudice.
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
BAC So it could...does that result in the occupants no longer being able to live
there?
HC Yes, they would have to move the house back to being a single-family
residence.
JF Question. Would, hypothetically, the property owner be able to make the
property available to the people that are living there, and would they be
allowed to, without prejudice, come back and make an application since it
would be then owner occupied.
HC Yes.
JF Under our new ordinance?
HC Yes.
BAC So...
JB Mr. Ferguson, may I ask you to clarify what you just spoke of.
JF I'm trying to strike a balance here that gives you your economic -backed
— expectations in the property; i.e., allow you to get the work that you put in, the
sweat equity, your financial investment, give your residents who live there a
chance to keep living there, and the only way to do that under our new
ordinance is it has to be owner occupied. This way...I do not deem as
acceptable just turning a blind eye on our old ordinance because it's there,
everybody understood it, it's been there. But at the same time, to give you
a denial, force your tenants to move out, and not be able to reapply within a
year I think would be a hardship, and so if you want to try and sell these
properties to a third party that may want to move in, to the tenants who live
there, but it's getting you out of the landlord business when you don't live
there. That's what I'm trying to do. So, I don't know if that answered your
question, but...
JB Okay. Okay, I believe that does. I didn't realize that...I had thought that that
property...actually, I had thought...I must be under a misconception...I had
thought the properties were largely in compliance as far as property
coverage. That particular property is under 35 percent as far as coverage of
the lot goes. There never was a garage on that property, and as a
consequence, there wasn't a problem with a carport setback. The setback
would be alright. There wasn't a variance required for that particular, so I
admit to being confused on that property not being in compliance. In regard
to your question, Mr. Ferguson, regarding violations, the City did inspect all
of those properties, the three residences being questioned. I received that
23
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
list last Wednesday. I had an inspection yesterday on the permits that I
pulled. One house was finaled, and the other two houses were signed off
on rough electric, and I've asked for an inspection tomorrow, so they
are...they have been brought into...the violations have been, regarding health
and safety, have been brought under control. And so I guess my only
question is the question of compliance on that property as far as the lot
coverage or square footage coverage on the lot goes...
JF Well, there are two issues here, and I'm trying desperately not to merge
them. One is compliance with our building codes...
JB Right.
JF ...and the other is compliance with our land use ordinances.
JB Correct.
JF I haven't mentioned anything about Building Code violations. I don't think I
asked a question about them. As to the land use violations, I at least got
what the City Attorney thinks those are, and if you'd like our staff to elaborate
and explain why they believe those violations exist, that could clarify some
things.
JB Please.
AH Well, the violations that Mr. Beauvais was mentioning as far the ones that he
has corrected or he has asked for inspections, again, I have put it in the staff
report under the supplemental information for you guys. There is strictly, just
for the immediate high hazard items. They do not address all the violations
in the units, and the final inspection that Mr. Beauvais received was not by
any means the final inspection for the property meeting all the violations.
Many of the violations cannot be even discovered yet or addressed because
obviously our inspectors need to ask for certain areas to be uncovered before
we can even do a thorough inspection. So just to clarify it, the inspections
that were originally conducted and the inspection that Mr. Beauvais received
for the final were strictly for high hazard emergencies.
JB I think my question, and I understand...
JF Was on the land use.
JB ...was actually on the land use insofar as I believe I am in compliance at less
than...I think that property covers 32 percent and not more than 35 percent
as a percentage goes and as far as variances, I don't believe that I'm
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
requiring any variances. There is an as -built and unpermitted structure on
that which I would love to have inspected and move forward on that.
JF Well, while they're conferring, there were four separate land use issues.
JB Okay.
JF
JB
JF
JB
JF
JB
The accessory structure exceeded ten percent of the existing home, number
one. Number two, the proposed carports, I didn't call them a garage, carport
doesn't comply with the setback. Number three, the maximum site coverage
exceeds 35 percent, and...
There is no carport, Mr. Ferguson.
Well, you're required to have one under the code.
Yes, and there is a space to put one. That doesn't require a...
Okay, that's one of four. And the last one was...
And it is not 35 percent.
JF The second unit was not incorporated into the existing unit. So any one of
those four is the basis for denial, and maybe I could just have staff go
through each one of those four and why they think you haven't met the
requirements, if that's in fact their position.
JB May I ask, sir, the ten percent of which you spoke, I believe that was an issue
at the last meeting at which we spoke that this was an issue, and...
JF Why don't we let our staff explain it, and then you'll have a chance to
respond.
JB Thank you.
HC
What we have is on the plan, what we have on the plan is we show that if he
is to comply, he will end up being at 36.2 percent coverage on the lot. And
he is currently showing on the plan an eight foot setback on the carport,
which would have to go to the full setback requirement.
JB May I address that, sir?
HC (Inaudible) in the staff report.
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
JB
Regarding the carport, I was putting in two carports. It was decided at the
time that because there was two units to put in a carport for the existing unit,
although there was never a garage there. But there is room for one carport
without a variance requirement. It would have the required setback, which
means that it would bring it under 35 percent because the carport would...one
carport as opposed to two carports would bring it under 35 percent.
RSK (Inaudible) question?
JB No, I addressed Mr. Croy's assertion about the percentage, and I explained
that there wouldn't be a variance required with one carport. It would be not
eight feet, it would be, it would be 18 feet, which does not require a variance,
and which would bring it then under 35 percent, it would probably bring it to
34.4 percent to address that issue. So regarding that issue, that would make
that in compliance.
RAS There are other problems with all, excuse me Jim for butting in...
JF No, no, you're not.
RAS There are other problems with all the properties. Unfortunately, you didn't
come to the City, you didn't get the proper permits, some of the sizes are
wrong, etc., etc. What we're trying to achieve here tonight is to give you the
ability to come back and work with Homer Croy and some of the other people
on our staff and say, okay, I can fix this or I can't fix it. And that's really going
to be up to you. But we're talking about the minutiae, and it's not going to
change my feelings at this point that there are too many codes that are
broken here that need to be fixed before I could vote yes on anything to
approve anything. So, you can talk about 25 percent and 32 percent and 33
percent, but that won't affect me in my decision making.
JB Thank you, Mr. Spiegel. You must forgive me, I'm...I realize that I didn't pull
these CUPs, and I apologize for that.
RAS You don't have to apologize, it's not necessary.
RSK The thing is, we can't go through all this detail. It can't be done.
JB I guess my only point was that I thought they were in compliance, and I
realize that it's minutiae to you, but it's 20 years of work and my retirement
to me, and I thought that because they were in compliance that it mattered,
that it counted.
JF It does matter, and it does count, and minutiae isn't a derogatory term, it's
just a tonnage term, because...
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
JB I understand that, Mr. Ferguson, but it...
JF Hang on one second, Mr. Beauvais. You have a legal right to have your
CUP appeal heard, you have a legal right to understand the grounds on why
it's being affirmed or denied, and based on that, you can or cannot,
depending on what you want to do, take legal action. But I want to make
sure that we dot all our is and cross all our is and make all the information
available to you...
JB Yes, sir.
JF ...so that you understand what's going on.
JB Yes, sir. And I guess I'm just stating for the record that it's my understanding
that on this particular property, sir, that it in fact does comply in the areas that
Mr. Croy has been discussing as far as carports, blah blah blah, and I
apologize for dragging this out.
RAS We could stay here all night and listen, but...
JB I understand what you're saying.
RSK But we're trying to set it up so you can solve the problem.
JB Mr. Kelly, and I understand that and I appreciate that, but as they are built,
they won't comply, and that's why either I fight for them tonight or it doesn't
happen, and you'll have to forgive me for fighting for these because I thought
they were a good thing, and I have to fight for them. Under the new ruling,
they won't comply. They won't comply with the change in size, which I
believe is 35 percent of the primary dwelling, which makes for a very small
residence, and as Mr. Kelly mentioned several meetings back, has anybody
ever tried to live in a 300 square foot dwelling? It doesn't make for quality
living, it makes for transitory type, well I can stay here for six months kind of
a think as opposed to somebody settling in and actually becoming a part of
the neighborhood and wanting to stay there for years as my tenants have.
So, the way that they have been done, they will not comply...I wouldn't want
a 300 foot transitory type studio where people were coming and going all the
time and would not become part of the neighborhood. So, again, I apologize,
I have to...l had to state for the record that I feel that the 740 or the 44-536
property does comply in these important issues with the City. Thank you.
RAS
RSK
Do we have a motion?
Yes, we had a motion, same as the first one. And a second.
27
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
JF
Well, I guess one question. The other two areas cited as independent
grounds, forget the setback and the maximum coverage, but the item listed
in miscellaneous violations on two and the second unit resulting in an
increase of more than ten percent...
RSK Where are you reading?
JF The Dave Erwin, City Attorney, staff report on the land use violations in
support of the resolutions. Grab any one, they're all the same.
RSK I'd like staff, next time they do one of these, to have them all of the staff
reports in a separate section so that I don't have to go through the whole pile
every time to try to find each item.
JF Could somebody explain what the ten percent and how much he exceeds the
ten percent by? Somebody on our staff. There he is.
FU Under the existing ordinance, which will become the old ordinance, to create
a second unit, a person could not expand the existing floor area of the main
unit by more than ten percent of the square footage. After further analysis,
it appears that Mr. Beauvais added, without the benefit of building permits,
more than ten...increased the floor area of the main unit by more than ten
percent.
JF How much more?
DJE I think the staff report that I've seen indicates the main unit was around 1,300
square feet, the addition was, I believe, 145 square feet.
FU That is correct.
JF And, I guess the other basis is the fact that these were never connected
together, as was required by our ordinance.
FU These two units are connected together.
JF Okay, so he had 13 percent instead of ten percent, that's at least what my
math shows.
FU Correct.
JF Okay. So, I just want to clarify this one thing because it's kind of key to me.
Instead of being ten feet back, he's eight feet back, so he missed it by two
feet. Instead of 35 percent coverage, we think he'll have 36 if he does it the
28
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
way we want him to, and he expanded by 13 percent instead of the maximum
of ten percent, and the two aren't connected.
BAC Are connected.
FU
There was some, I guess, confusion or difference of interpretation among the
staff about whether or not the proposed detached carport is a gazebo -like
structure. The City Attorney has determined that it is not a gazebo -like
structure eligible for a reduction of less than 15-foot required rear yard
setback in the R-1 zone.
JF Okay, so it's off by a bunch.
FU So in order to have an eight -foot rear yard setback, he would have to file a
variance application, go through public hearing process before the Planning
Commission. In order to exceed the 35 percent lot coverage by buildings, he
would have to go to Architectural Review Commission, and staff would have
to notify surrounding property owners within 300 feet.
JF He never went through Architectural Review?
FU He did; however, staff did not notify surrounding property owners within 300
feet. That was an omission on our part.
BAC So that's an error we made, not him?
FU Yes.
BAC And then we would use that as a reason for denial?
FU The City Attorney's resolution is just stating the fact that it did not go to
Architectural Review Commission based on the established written
procedures in our...
BAC That was not his problem, that was our problem.
FU We accept the responsibility for not notifying the surrounding property owners
within 300 feet, but that's just one of the issues related to the denial.
BAC Right.
RAS Councilmen Ferguson and Crites, I go to the report that I get from the City,
and the one that's CCM Item XVIB, which is the property, and I look at the
brief history of the property...the property is without the minimum required
number of covered parking spaces; all parking and maneuvering areas are
29
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
JB
not paved with concrete asphalt; perimeter fencing does not meet material,
height, or setback requirements; electrical outlets as installed is not approved
for exterior use; correct the existing open, non -terminated conductors at the
northeast corner; water heater unused open knockouts on the exterior outlet
box are required to be sealed off; unused open knockouts at the exterior
electrical box, opposite to the water heater enclosure; the laundry room, the
cable fed through the electrical box without stress relief connectors; the gas
shut off valve of the gas dryer is not accessible; there are no GFCI protected
outlets provided for the kitchen area per CEC 210; the patio room closet
opened uncovered junction boxes; in the bathroom, cords are utilized for
temporary applications and are not recognized by the electrical code for
permanent wiring; in the bedrooms, exposed outlets and switches, absence
of smoke detector for the bedroom and hallway leading into the bedroom; in
the patio room, exposed wiring; exterior entry, unprotected lighting at
wet/damp location and existing cord protruding from the laundry room onto
the existing fence; Unit B exterior electric junction box...and I could go on and
on, I've got four pages like that, that really aren't up to code.
All those situations have been addressed, Mr. Spiegel, they are completed,
and they were inspected yesterday, and all the things that you mentioned
were addressed.
RAS Is that correct, staff?
AH All the items you see on the first list were the high hazard emergency items
that we wanted to meet because of the tenants, and they needed to be
addressed immediately. They have...Mr. Beauvais has addressed those first
set of violations only. The other two sets have not been addressed, and one
of the sets really on the second set is the set of violations that we can only
address when Mr. Beauvais uncovers some of the...
RAS I see that...it says in the living room addition, please justify all the following
is in compliance with applicable related codes: uncover for all inspections
footings, foundations, and slabs; anchoring systems and distribution; framing,
bracing, and shear transfer; energy, lighting and ventilation; electrical, wiring
and distribution of outlets, grounding, bonding; correct application of water
proofing around all openings and applicable overlapping of paper felt and
wiring...all these things you can't see because (inaudible)
AH Right.
RAS So they're really not all done, are they?
AH Absolutely not.
30
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
BAC But the ones that were listed as high hazard are done.
AH On two units, I believe, today he received the final on...
RSK Don't worry about two units, we're working on 'B' now.
AH Yes, yes.
BAC So on this unit, the things that are listed as things that we said specifically
had to be fixed are fixed.
AH Correct, on the electrical, correct, on the emergency list.
JF But my assumption, and this is to address Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel's point is,
no matter what happens, these are going to get fixed.
AH These have to get fixed.
JF Right. These are not negotiable.
AH Absolutely.
— JF They're not...if you don't do these you're...
RAS If they're not up to code, they're not up to code.
AH Right, absolutely.
RAS And that's the...
AH Regardless of who the owner is and what happens, these are violations of
the property.
BAC Right.
JF Right, but the point that was emphasized by our City Attorney's office is that
we should not use code violations as the basis for making land use decisions,
so 1 was just assuming that no matter what, these things were going to get
addressed or he would be, the tenants would be out. The thing that concerns
me, and Mr. Beauvais I think I'd at least like to discuss this with my
colleagues because I'm getting a little bogged down in minutiae myself. The
only thing that concerns me is we do have 50 percent coverage allowed; if
it's over 35, Architectural Review should look at it. Apparently, they did and
gave it an okay, but we forgot to notify the residents. The setback, if he can
move it within the setback, shouldn't be an issue. And it be 13 percent
31
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
instead of ten percent be the basis for me to want to knock people out of their
homes is...l can see why reasonable people differed on this application.
RAS Where do you suggest we go from here. ?
JF Well, let me ask...can you move your structure back to the 15-foot setback?
JB The carport, sir, is what we're speaking of, yes...
JF Well, you have a history of saying yes and then it not being so, so...
JB (Inaudible)
JF No, no, I don't mean that personally, but your interpretation of things and
ours appear to be different on a number of occasions.
JB If Francisco will recall, regarding the carports on this structure, during a
meeting between Mr. Drell, Francisco, and myself, we put in two carports, an
additional carport just so that both tenants, one in each unit, would have a
carport. It wasn't necessary to put in two carports. By saying okay, I'll
build...if they give me a variance, I'll build an extra carport, but that extra
carport wasn't required. The extra carport is what required the variance. The
single park carport does not require a variance.
JF You're not answering my question.
JB I'm sorry.
JF Can you move it eight more feet?
JB Yes, sir.
JF Okay.
JB And again, Mr. Spiegel, the violations, they have been addressed, sir.
RAS Not where you have to tear up the cement.
JB No, sir, and I'm looking forward to tearing it up and showing that there's rebar
in, that it was...
RAS So they haven't all been, you know...
JB No, sir, I haven't received that list yet, but I will be happy to...
32
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
RAS You haven't received this?
BAC The whole thing is, you can't fix what they haven't opened up (inaudible) tell
him what needs fixing.
JF What he can't see.
RAS Okay.
JB But I feel confident that when it's opened up, the City will be satisfied.
RAS Well let me ask you about this one, then.
JB Yes, sir.
RAS And again, I'm staying with the (inaudible) The present heating and air
conditioning...
JB Yes, sir.
RAS The present HVAC central system is not permitted; where it is roof mounted,
obtain Planning Department approval for the location where visibility to public
may be an issue. So you've got to do something with it...have you done
something with the air conditioning?
JB No, sir, 1 didn't have that on my list, but if there is a requirement...
RAS Well, you're more than welcome to my list.
JB Thank you, Mr. Spiegel. I received one list from the City, and that was the
health and safety. I pulled permits for those problems. I addressed them.
I received an inspection yesterday. One of the houses was finaled, and the
other two were written off as per rough electric, and they will be finaled
tomorrow. I did, in fact, put in a second air conditioning unit, and that will be
addressed, sir, on the second list, which I will receive from the City, which
don't have yet, but I will jump through hoops of fire to make sure that that
house complies with whatever it is that Building and Safety....
JF
JB
JF
Let's talk about those hoops for a minute.
Yes, sir.
Do you have any time frame either on the City's...from Amir...do we have any
kind of estimation between you and Mr. Beauvais on when this uncovering
33
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
AH
JF
and inspection, the additional inspection work, how long that's going to take
to accomplish?
No, we haven't set any date, but we were waiting for your decision tonight
until we go any further with that, but as soon as we know the decision, I'II
make contact with Mr. Beauvais and set...
Well, Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel asked me if I had an idea, and I'm not sure I
do yet, but what I was thinking is if he can notice a hearing and address the
issue of 35 percent, move the carport back, apply for a variance, and I do
mean variance on the 13 percent versus the ten percent, and see what those
bodies have to say, and meets all of the safety violations in the meantime, it
seems like it gives him a chance to come into compliance both on the code
side and on the land use side.
RAS So you would like to continue this item for...
JF I guess that would be my suggestion.
RSK If the motion passes, without prejudice, he can do these things and come
back with his application. This way, we go on and on with this you did this,
you didn't do this, you did this, you didn't do this...we're sitting up here doing
detailed staff work. We just spent a lot of time right now that I don't
understand why we should be going through all that kind of detail up here.
RAS The only question that I would ask if we do that, then the buildings would
come under the new ordinance, and so then it would be all over. He can't
live in four different or two different...
FU
JF
Mayor Benson, I just had a clarification on a statement that Mr. Beauvais
made. The current second unit ordinance requires two covered parking
spaces, so he does need a two -car carport for this address, but as he
indicated to Councilman Ferguson, he could move that carport structure an
additional seven feet to comply with the 13 foot rear yard setback.
know it's painful to go through, but I'm doing it for two reasons: Number
one, legally I think he's entitled to it. I don't want to hand a lawsuit to
somebody, and secondly, it is 20 years worth of work, it is people's lives who
live there, and none of us want to do that. And it's a close call for me. It's
not a slam dunk one way or the other.
RAS So you think in two weeks you could get these things accomplished that are
being questioned by our Code Enforcement people?
34
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
JB As far as the opening up of the slabs and all that, I'll move heaven and earth
to do whatever it takes, sir.
JF And move your carport and...
JB Well, there is no carport there, and if I may briefly address...Mr. Spiegel, you
referred to areas where there was no concrete, there was no covered
parking, there never was concrete and there is no City code that requires that
a house built in 1938, with a gravel driveway, for you to go in and put
concrete in. If you do something with that driveway, then you have to do
concrete, but it never was concrete, so there is no City code. It's like if you
buy a house that doesn't have a garage, the City doesn't require you to build
a garage. They encourage you to build a garage, but they don't say you
have to...this house built in 1938 has to have a garage. It never had a
concrete driveway, so consequently, the City can't require and say you have
to build a concrete driveway.
RSK But (inaudible) didn't add another unit.
JB I'm sorry, sir.
RSK If that happened to a person, that's one thing, but when you want to add
another unit, then there are requirements that go with that.
JB That's correct, Mr. Kelly, and 1...
RSK You've added another unit.
JB Yes, sir, that's correct, and I have told...yes, sir.
RSK You're proposing to add another unit...you did it without any permits.
JB That's correct, and I will put in a concrete driveway.
RSK I'II address Councilman Ferguson. My point is, and I understand what you're
at and what you're doing. If that's the case, and this is not defendable in
court, then we should be sending it back to staff, and they should be the ones
that go through all of this minutiae.
JF I would be happy to send it back to staff.
RSK Then that's what should happen, not an attempt to go through hours and
hours of staff work.
35
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
JF
Well, my hope was this...he's got to apply for a variance, and he's got to go
to Architectural Review. By definition, it's going to go to staff, it's going to
have to go through...work up through those bodies, and by the time it does,
I'm hoping that we can uncover, do all the inspection, all the testing, and he
can do everything to satisfy Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel's concerns about code
violations, and hopefully, knock on wood, when it does get back up to us, a
lot of this stuff should be resolved. So I'm not suggesting we just postpone
it to another Council meeting. I'd like to send the whole thing back, notice it
properly so we do our part, and tell Code Enforcement to get together with
Planning Department and solve this situation.
RAS I would assume that you have concerns with the Code Enforcement also.
JF Oh, absolutely.
RAS They're not just mine. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to go on record.
JB Mr. Spiegel, I have concerns with Code Enforcement too. I'm very much on
board...
RAS I wish you had earlier (inaudible)
JB Yes, sir, I...yes
RSK It's hard to be consistent...
JMB We do have a motion and a second on this one.
RSK It was seconded.
JMB It wasn't?
RSK It was.
JMB I know, I said we have a motion and a second.
JF What was my motion? I think (inaudible)
RSK Well, I moved the staff recommendation to...if you want to do something
different, the proper thing to do would be to...
JF To vote on your motion.
RSK ...offer a substitute motion.
36
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
RAS Alright, I'll second your motion.
RSK It was seconded, so it's on the floor.
JF Would you entertain a substitute motion, or would you like a vote on yours?
RSK I mean, I don't think...I don't know that I have an opportunity to do that...it'll
be voted on.
JF I'm willing to vote on your motion, if that's what...
RSK Let's vote on the motion.
JF Okay.
RSK It'll be simple what you're going to do with it.
RDK Motion fails, 2-3, with Mayor Benson, Councilman Crites, and Councilman
Ferguson voting no.
JF Okay, I would move that we refer this back for a proper Architectural Review
hearing, with notice to the residents, that we refer back any variances that
may be necessary to the extent that Mr. Beauvais can't comply with them,
and then if necessary, if it comes back to us, it comes back to us, if it gets
worked out at the Planning Commission level, it gets worked out, if we're
satisfied with it.
RAS Would you be saying the same thing for 'C' and 'D', or do you want to take
them...
RSK Well, I think we ought to discuss those separately because...especially'D' is
completely different.
JF Yeah, 'D' is...
BAC So seconded.
RDK Motion carries 4-1, Councilman Kelly voting no.
RSK When you bring it back, bring it back in a separate cover, separate...by itself,
in a separate compartment.
JMB (Inaudible) separately. Next is Item 'C', that is CUP, Resolution No. 03-77.
RSK Let me get all my things (inaudible)
37
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
HC Staffs recommendation on this would be to uphold the Planning
Commission's approval in the previous staff report. The structure's Building
and Safety requirements are not that out of compliance that they cannot be
met in its entirety with minimum exposure.
RSK This is...you're saying this is two units, though.
HC Yes, sir.
RSK It is two units?
HC Yes, sir.
RSK And it complies with our old ordinance for two units in an R-1 neighborhood?
HC Yes, the Planning Commission found enough findings that it did meet all of
the Planning requirements for the second unit ordinance. The issues that are
of concern are the Building and Safety issues, but they are all reparable with
minimum intrusion into the building. The questionable area was the garage,
which was attached to the building that was converted into a living space as
if it was actually adding on more than ten percent or not, that's the
questionable issue.
JF And what's the square footage of the...well, he didn't increase the square
footage of the home (inaudible)
HC No, the building itself was not increased. The living area was increased by
the conversion of the garage. No new square footage was added to the
building.
JF What was the square footage of the garage and the square footage of the
home?
FU The square footage of the converted garage is approximately 200 square
feet, 10 by 20. The living area of the primary unit is 1,319 square feet. As
it exists today, that includes a portion of that converted garage. Another
portion of that converted garage went into the living area of the secondary
unit, which is 856 square feet. The off street parking requirements would be
met. The one -car converted garage would be replaced by a one -car, ten foot
wide by 20 foot deep, carport at this location. The required two covered
parking spaces for the second unit per the existing ordinance would be met
through a two -car, tandem carport, ten foot wide, 40 feet deep. The current
government code state law section dealing with second units states that a
city must allow tandem parking for a second unit if we allow it elsewhere in
the City, and we do allow it elsewhere in the City in the R-1 M zone.
38
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
JF
Okay, so just to (inaudible) simplify it hopefully, Mr. Beauvais didn't build
anything new. He simply took an existing attached garage, converted it into
some living space. Is that correct?
FU Yes. He did take out some building permits for some remodeling and...
JF That's (inaudible) the Mayor Pro Tem side of things.
FU Okay.
JF On the land use side of things, not that I'm dismissing them, but I'm trying to
keep apples apples and oranges oranges.
RAS (Inaudible)
JF So I guess our objection is the fact that the garage was 15 percent of the
existing living space and not ten percent.
HC Correct.
FU Yes.
JF If we're sending him back to get a variance on 13 percent versus ten percent,
why wouldn't we do the same thing with 15 percent against ten percent?
HC That's where I...I made the recommendation and it's Council's pleasure if
they want to uphold the ten percent (inaudible) or not by sending it back.
JF I'm just trying to be consistent in the way we handle them. I would make the
same motion with respect to this property, only without the Architectural
Review because I'm hoping we did that part of it right. Did we notice
Architectural, the residents within 300 feet? Anybody from Planning? Mr.
Urbina? Did Architectural Review look at this one?
FU They did, but we did not notify surrounding property owners within 300 feet.
JF Okay, then I make the same motion that I did for Unit B for C.
JMB Second?
BAC Second
RDK Motion carries 4-1, Councilman Kelly voting no.
JMB Okay, the last (inaudible) Resolution 03-78, 74-060 San Marino Circle.
39
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
BAC And am I correct, this is one with Planning Commission (inaudible)
HC Yes
BAC Well, it says here...
RSK Planning Commission...
BAC ...per Planning Commission denial of the second unit.
RSK Mr. Beauvais appealed it.
BAC Right, so Planning Commission said no to this one.
RSK Planning Commission denied it, and I would move that we uphold the
Planning Commission.
BAC To get this on the floor, I will so second that.
JB Yes, Mayor Benson, may I address Mr. Crites?
BAC Address us all.
JB The Planning Commission, the reason that they denied approval on that was
very simply that there was not at that time room for a third covered space.
If there had been at that moment room for a third covered parking space,
they would have approved it. That was the reason for denial. I went back
and I realized that in fact without variance, there is room for a third covered
space, so in fact, as in all the other units, that property in its entirety comes
within compliance, and that was the reason that it was denied. I found
additional space for a covered parking, and so to my knowledge, it will
comply. And again, all safety issues on that house have been addressed
and inspected yesterday.
RSK Would this be one that we might want to refer back to the Planning
Commission?
JF If they denied it, that's usually what we do.
RAS Is that a motion?
RSK I made the motion that we uphold the Planning Commission, and that was
seconded.
RAS That was seconded, so we've got to vote on that.
40
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
RSK But I'd be willing to withdraw that and make a substitute motion that we refer
this one to the Planning Commission, back to the Planning Commission.
JF May I ask Mr. Urbina a quick question? Is that an accurate statement by Mr.
Beauvais? The only reason that it was denied by Planning Commission was
that it did not have a third parking structure or third space and there is, in
fact, space for a new third space?
FU Correct, because he was not providing two covered parking spaces for the
second unit. His revised site plan, which we included in the Council packets
in April, did show two covered parking spaces for the second unit, so that
Planning Commission concern or reason for denial has been met.
JF Okay, so he meets the ten percent requirement?
FU Yes.
JF He meets the 35 percent coverage requirement?
FU Yes, this is a very large lot.
JF And it is a actual attached second accessory structure?
FU It is an attached second unit, yes.
RSK Maybe the motion should be that it be referred to the Planning Commission
and not be heard by the Planning Commission until all of the code violations
are approved.
JF Okay, and did we skip notice to the residents at Architectural Review?
FU Correct.
RSK (Inaudible) Architectural Review?
JF Yeah (inaudible)
FU You are correct.
RAS Send it to Architectural Review. I'II second that motion.
RSK Oh, wait, I made that wrong.
RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote.
41
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
RSK I'm so used to voting no, I voted no again.
RAS Okay.
JMB Next item is consideration of approval of an amendment to the Hillside
Planned Residential District
Following discussion of Old Business Item E, additional discussion of these issues arose
as follows:
RSK Before we go any further, I'd like clarification on two items. Under Old
Business Items B and C, what exactly did we do with those two?
JF Which ones?
RAS B and C.
JMB Sent them back to the Architectural Review...
JF B, C, and D all went back to Architectural Review and Planning Commission.
RSK Tell me exactly what we're doing with them.
DJE My understanding is that B, C, and D were referred back to Architectural
Review and the Planning Commission to consider, number one, noticing all
the surrounding property owners on the Architectural Review with regard to
the coverage issue and...
SS If it exceeds 35 percent.
DJE If it exceeds 35 percent and I think there was a variance because some of
the structures were in the setbacks.
RSK Okay.
JMB Okay then, we're on to request for approval of amendment to Contract
No. C21050
For clarification purposes, the following is the action taken by the City Council on
Old Business Item "A":
Waived further reading and adopted Resolution No. 03-75, without prejudice,
approving an appeal and reversing Planning Commission approval of CUP 02-14 to allow
a second unit at 44-574 Portola Avenue. Motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
42
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
Please see each individual Old Business Items below for its associated Council
action.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN APPEAL AND
REVERSE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL TO ALLOW A SECOND
UNIT AT 44-536 PORTOLA AVENUE Case No. CUP 02-15 (Jerome M.
Beauvais, Applicant).
Please see verbatim transcript under Old Business Item "A" above for
Council discussion.
For clarification purposes the following is the action taken by the City Council on Old
Business Item "B":
By Minute Motion, referred the matter back for a proper Architectural Review
Commission hearing, with notification to be provided all affected parties, and referring back
any variances that may be necessary to the extent that applicant cannot comply with them,
all with the understanding that matter may return to the City Council for review, if
necessary. Motion carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO.
C. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN APPEAL AND
REVERSE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL TO ALLOW A SECOND
UNIT AT 74-041 SAN MARINO CIRCLE Case No. CUP 02-16 (Jerome M.
Beauvais, Applicant).
Please see verbatim transcript under Old Business Item "A" above for
Council discussion.
For clarification purposes the following is the action taken by the City Council on Old
Business Item "C":
By Minute Motion, referred the matter back for a proper Architectural Review
Commission hearing, with notification to be provided all affected parties, and referring back
any variances that may be necessary to the extent that applicant cannot comply with them,
all with the understanding that matter may return to the City Council for review, if
necessary. Motion carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO.
D. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO DENY AN APPEAL AND
AFFIRM PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A SECOND UNIT AT
74-060 SAN MARINO CIRCLE Case No. CUP 02-17 (Jerome M. Beauvais,
Applicant).
Please see verbatim transcript under Old Business Item "A" above for
Council discussion.
43
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
For clarification purposes the following is the action taken by the City Council on
Old Business Item "D":
By Minute Motion, referred the matter back to both the Planning Commission and
Architectural Review Commission for additional review, further directing that it not be heard
by Planning Commission until all Code violations are approved and providing that
notification be given all affected parties. Motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER 25.15 AND THE
WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
(City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report, noting that
maximum coverage in all of the existing R-1 zones was currently 35 percent.
The Code amendment processed in 1998 created that 35 percent limit for all
the R-1 zones; prior to that, there was a stepped coverage limit ranging from
25 to 30 to 35. He said if the City is going to have a dwelling unit limitation
by coverage or actual size, the Council may need to hold another public
hearing on that, because it was not part of the notice. He said staff had
noticed Alternative A, and it did not have that as part of it. If it is necessary
to re -notice, staff would need a longer continuance than two weeks. Also, if
it ends up there is a limitation on dwelling unit size, staff requested
clarification as to whether it applied to the hillside only and not the areas
under ten percent average slope or whether it would apply globally in the
HPR district.
Mr. Erwin added that because of the coverage issue particularly, and it not
being noticed, he felt it would be appropriate to have a public hearing that is
noticed so that everyone has an opportunity to address those issues.
Mr. Smith noted that either the second meeting in June or the first meeting
in July would allow staff sufficient time to do the necessary noticing.
MR. DAVID NELSON, 72-595 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, stated that he
had always supported Alternative A and felt it met the concerns of both the
City and the property owners. He said he was shocked when it came to his
attention that Alternative A had been approved but with an extreme building
size reduction. He said at no time in any discussion, hearings, or notification
was there any mention of the building size restrictions, and it was only
mentioned after the public hearing was closed. The changed the dynamic of
the zoning completely from what it was advertised to be. He said although
it was unclear exactly what was approved, it was clear that a size restriction
of this type was extremely unfair and inconsistent with the City's residential
ordinances. All residential lots in the City have a 35 percent coverage of the
44
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
entire lot, not just the pad size. This could even be increased up to 50
percent with proper design. This new restriction seemed to be 25 percent of
pad size, which is already restricted to five percent of the lot — that equates
to one percent coverage on a five -acre parcel. He noted that it was his
intention to build his home on his land on Upper Way West, and he wanted
to build a house that both fit his needs and was marketable should be decide
to sell one day. He asked Council to uphold the vote for Alternative A as
originally written and remove the addition regarding the building coverage.
If the Council still feels it is needed, he would like Council to direct staff write
a new amendment regarding the building size and have a public hearing on
that matter.
Upon question by Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel, Mr. Nelson said he was
thinking of building a 3,500 square foot house. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel said
his concern was with controlling the building on the hillsides.
DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon, stated that he could applaud
the intent and spirit of this amendment; however, the impact on the property
owners would cause them to not be able to build the size homes they need
and would devalue the property. He questioned why The Crest had such
huge density and the ability to build homes at values that are pretty high,
where these hillside property owners were not allowed the same kind of
freedom provided by Alternative A originally. He said he did not mind shifting
from County to City, but he had concerns with the amendment and felt it
would damage them financially and make it impossible for his family to build
a smaller home and continue to live in this community.
Councilman Ferguson noted that Council was advised at the last meeting
that the property of Dr. Meints, Mr. Davis, Mr. Johnson, and another owner
are all squarely within Alternative B. He suggested that Dr. Meints go back
and look at Alternative B because it has the same coverages and maximums
as Alternative A.
DR. MEINTS spoke on behalf of Bruce Kuykendall, who he said had the
same concerns expressed here.
MS. DORI CREE, South Cliff Road, agreed with the two gentleman who
spoke before her. She said she understood the City's desire to control and
restrict the building in the hillsides, and she felt Alternative A did that.
However, Alternative A did not qualify how big or small a homesite on these
pads could be. She asked Council to reconsider Alternative A as it is written.
She said by severely restricting the size of the homes, she felt the Council
was really perpetuating the kind of homes which are now on the hillsides.
She noted that the hillside closest to town was dotted with tiny building pads
topped with tiny houses, and they do not blend into the hillside terrain, are
45
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
not architecturally good or even in some cases acceptable, and they are not
site -sensitive. What they are is small and inexpensive, and they completely
ignore the desert site. She said these houses had made the most visible
hillsides in Palm Desert unsightly. She felt what Council was trying to do with
Alternative A is to end this topping of the hillsides with these obvious, in your
face, site -insensitive kind of buildings. She believed that restricting the size
of the building pads and then also restricting the size of the dwelling only
perpetuated the kind of blight now on the hills.
Upon question by Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel relative to what size house
she wanted to build up there, Mrs. Cree responded that she did not know
exactly what size at this time. She said she did not think it was the size of
the house, it was a house that is architecturally well -planned that was
important.
Councilman Ferguson stated that it was his understanding that Mrs. Cree has
seven lots, and Mr. Nelson has three. Since these owners are obviously not
going to live in all these homes, he said they must be building the homes to
sell them. Like any good business person, they want to maximize the value
of the product they have to offer. He suggested that profit motive and the
City's desire to preserve the hillsides do not dovetail perfectly. He said the
Council was trying to craft an ordinance that does, but as Mayor Pro Tem
Spiegel suggested, how do you put reasonable constraints on development
so as to preserve the hillsides and still allow private property rights. He said
he would be most interested in hearing from the property owners some
constructive ideas on how the Council can do that, other than it doesn't
economically pencil out for them.
Councilman Kelly said this was an opportunity for the property owners to
work with staff to justify and explain their reasoning on why they would like
to have things a certain way.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to continue this matter to the meeting of
June 26, 2003, with staff directed to renotice the cases for public hearing at that meeting.
Motion was seconded by Kelly.
Councilman Ferguson stated it was his understanding that the Council had
adopted an ordinance, and it was not being asked to adopt a new one at this
public hearing, so they would not be continuing anything. He said what he
heard was that the Council may need a public hearing on an aspect of what
it has already voted on.
Mr. Erwin stated that this item should be continued, and staff would notice it
as a public hearing. He said there was an ordinance which had been
46
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
approved on first reading, and this would effectively continue any second
reading of that ordinance.
Mayor Benson called for the vote, and the motion carried by a 4-0 vote, with
Councilman Crites ABSENT.
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
NO. C21050—ADVERTISING SERVICES FOR THE EL PASEO BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (EPBID), RELATIVE TO THE 2003-2004
AGREEMENT.
Business Support Manager Ruth Ann Moore reviewed the staff report and
offered to answer any questions, noting that this amendment does not
increase the budget and was merely a housekeeping item for the Business
Improvement District.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the amendment
to increase the amount of $36,000 to $190,000 for the subject agreement with
Stephanie D. Green, dba Creative I Group, Palm Desert, California, and authorize the
Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 3-0 vote, with
Councilmen Crites and Ferguson ABSENT.
XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SALE
AND ISSUANCE OF PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY
ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2003 (JOINT
CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY).
Mr. Coleman reviewed the staff report, noting that in order to issue bonds
through the Financing Authority, there has to be made a finding of significant
public benefit and acceptance of it as well. The recommended City Council
resolution made the findings of significant public benefit, and the Financing
Authority resolution acknowledged the benefit, authorized the sale, and
approved the documents as to form for delivery and execution. He said
staff's recommendation was that the public hearing be opened, that public
testimony be solicited, and that the two resolutions then be adopted.
Mayor/President Benson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in
FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this matter. With no testimony offered, she
declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Pro TemporeNice President Spiegel moved to waive further reading and
adopt: 1) City Council Resolution No. 03-79, making a finding of significant public benefit
and other findings in connection with the issuance and sale of Palm Desert Financing
47
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
Authority Assessment Revenue Bonds Series 2003; 2) Financing Authority Resolution No.
FA-46, acknowledging a finding of significant public benefit in connection with the issuance
and sale of Palm Desert Financing Authority Assessment Revenue Bonds Series 2003;
authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of said bonds, approving as to form and
authorizing the execution and delivery of certain documents in connection therewith; and
authorizing certain other matters relating thereto. Motion was seconded by Kelly and
carried by a 5-0 vote.
XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
With Council concurrence, the following item was added to the Agenda:
1. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO SISTER CITIES
COMMITTEE.
Mayor Benson noted that on May 16, 2003, Council appointed
Arthur Samuel to the Sister Cities Committee; however, in looking
through his application, it was found that he had never indicated
attendance at a Sister Cities Committee, nor had he submitted the
required questionnaire. The Sister Cities Committee asked why
Council had not appointed William Harris, who had been attending all
of the meetings. She asked whether Council wished to appoint
Mr. Harris or if it wanted to go out for interviews again for Sister Cities.
She noted that Mr. Samuel had not yet been notified of the
appointment and that there had been no other applicants for this
committee when the interviews were done; however, there were two
alternates who had been attending the Sister Cities Committee
meetings: Patty Bannon and William Harris.
Councilman Kelly suggested appointing Mr. Harris as a regular
member from the alternate position and appoint Mr. Samuel as an
alternate.
Councilman Crites noted that Mr. Harris had been an ex-officio
member for the last year and participated in the golf tournament
project, speakers bureau project, etc. He suggested that the City
Council appoint Mr. William Harris to the Committee.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Rescind action of May 16, 2003,
to appoint Arthur Samuel; 2) appoint William Harris to the Sister Cities Committee to fill the
vacancy created by the resignation of Evelyn Bennett (term December 2003). Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
48
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
Councilman Crites noted that at a previous meeting, Council had
asked him to call Cal McIntosh to see if he was interested in serving
on a committee. Mr. McIntosh returned his call at the start of this
week and left a message affirming his interest in Architectural Review
and Parks & Recreation, neither of which had any current openings.
Mrs. Gilligan noted there were two positions open on Rent Review
Commission, and that commission was going to be asked to look at
the overall Rent Control Ordinance within the next several months.
With City Council concurrence, Councilman Crites was authorized to telephone
Applicant Cal McIntosh to offer that there were current positions available on the
Rent Review Commission, and that his application would also be kept active for
future openings on both the Architectural Review Commission and Parks &
Recreation Commission.
Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel moved to add the following two items to the Agenda.
Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote:
2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL
FOR COUNCILMAN KELLY TO ATTEND ART SHOW IN
PRESCOTT, ARIZONA.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize Councilman Kelly's trip
for participating in the subject art show in Prescott, Arizona, to be followed by his report
back to the Council. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote.
3. CONSIDERATION OF MONETARY DONATION IN MEMORY OF
SHERIFF'S DEPUTY BRUCE LEE.
Mayor Benson noted that according to the staff report, Councilman
Ferguson would like Council to consider approving a donation in
memory of Deputy Bruce Lee. This could be made in one of two
ways: 1) A donation to the Riverside County Sheriff's Association for
distribution as that organization deems appropriate; 2) a donation to
the Palm Desert Rotary Scholarship Fund.
Councilman Ferguson said he and Mayor Benson had attended the
funeral of Deputy Bruce Lee on Monday, and the previous Friday he
had discussed with Neil Lingle what would be appropriate for cities
that want to honor Deputy Lee. Mr. Lingle indicated there was a
financial need for the family and that a donation to the surviving
spouse to help her meet expenses would be appropriate. The Cities
of Indian Wells and La Quinta did the same thing. He said it was not
his intent, nor did Neil Lingle confirm it would be their desire if asked,
49
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
to have this go through either the Sheriffs Association or the Palm
Desert Rotary. He asked that whatever the Council determines is
appropriate be given directly to the family.
Upon question by Councilman Crites, Mayor Pro Tempore Spiegel
noted that the City of La Quinta gave $10,000. Councilman Ferguson
noted that Indian Wells gave $5,000.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor, Mayor Pro
Tem, and City Manager to consider the issue and, if deemed appropriate, approve a
donation directly to Deputy Lee's family in an amount up to $7,500. Motion was seconded
by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. CITY ATTORNEY
None
C. CITY CLERK
None
D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
1. Consideration of Request for Changed Mute Switch for Council
Dais (Councilman Jim Ferguson)
Councilman Ferguson noted that the Council transponders
have to be red in order to speak. When the buttons on the
console are red, you cannot speak. He felt this was confusing,
and he asked if staff could look at the possibility of reversing
the switch on the console so that it is red when you speak.
With City Council concurrence, staff was requested to look at the possibility of
changing the configuration so that the light was on when the speaker was on.
o City Council Committee Reports:
1. Councilman Ferguson said that in response to the suggestion
made by The Jack Parker Group, he would be making a trip to
meet with them and look at their facilities, scheduled for
May 30, with all expenses to be paid by him personally. He
wanted to make his colleagues aware of his plans. He would
be taking a look at their financials, meeting with their corporate
50
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
officers, and trying to ascertain the level of service they provide
to their hotel. He hoped to be able to provide information to his
colleagues when they consider a proposal for a hotel at
Desert Willow.
Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel commented that their hotel in
New York and what would be proposed for Desert Willow
would be entirely different products. He noted that on the
latest Conde Nast list of top -rated hotels, theirs was not one of
them; however, a new one just opened in San Diego, "W," was
an entirely new concept and had received Conde Nast's rating.
Councilman Crites offered that he would be in favor of
considering Councilman Ferguson's expenses for
reimbursement following his return, as it would be beneficial to
have his firsthand impression.
2. Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel reported that he'd just returned from
the International Council of Shopping Centers in Las Vegas,
where 44,000 people attended, 900 of them from the public
sector. He met with the people who'd just purchased The
Gardens on El Paseo, Davis Street Land Company, which
owned small upscale centers. He noted that with the addition
of Tiffany's, it was only a matter of time before other high -end
retailers would follow there. Further, he learned that it was the
new company's intent to keep everything the same, including
keeping Tammy Perezchica as the General Manager (to be
named the Chamber of Commerce's Businessperson of the
Year), and to retain the various charity events that have been
held there.
He also visited with Westfield and learned that
David Hokanson was no longer with their corporation. In
visiting with David Doll, he found out Westfield was very
interested in the merry-go-round attraction being discussed by
the Parks & Recreation Commission. Further, there was a
good chance that Old Navy would come in very shortly.
He noted that the Desert Crossing Center had been sold by the
Oregon Teachers Retirement Fund and purchased by
Buildworks, whose chairman is Steve Rebeil from Laguna
Beach. He said Mr. Rebeil intended to remodel the center's
facade and rearrange some of the stores and offerings, which
all sounded very exciting.
He went on to say that he'd spoken with Todd Gooding, whose
company owns the Albertson's Center, learning that there were
51
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2003
four hot prospects being courted for that location within the
next six months.
Lastly, he provided his colleagues with a flier on
Desert Gateway, which he reported intended to break ground
as soon as litigation of the matter is settled.
o City Council Comments:
1. Mayor Benson noted that in the most recent National League
of Cities publication, the week of May 18-24 was "National
Public Works Week," and she congratulated the City's Public
Works Department for being at the forefront of everything
happening in the City.
XIX. ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Crites, and a 5-0 vote of the City Council, Mayor
Benson adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
41/ n i�r--ter,
RA HELLE D. KLASSEI�, CITY CLERk
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
M. BENSON, MAYOR
52