HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-08MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 2004
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M.
Mayor Spiegel convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Mayor Pro Tem Buford A. Crites
Councilman Jim Ferguson arrived at 3:03 p.m.
Councilman Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Robert A. Spiegel
Also Present:
Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services
Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment
Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Teresa L. La Rocca, Director of Housing
Michael J. Errante, Director of Public Works
Robert P. Kohn, Director of Special Programs
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A (CLOSED SESSION ITEMS)
None
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
IV. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Request for Closed Session:
ON A MOTION BY SPIEGEL, SECOND BY CRITES, AND 5-0 VOTE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL, ADDED A MATTER OF PROPERTY NEGOTIATION AND AN ADDITIONAL
CASE OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION TO THE AGENDA FOR CLOSED SESSION
CONSIDERATION:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
1) Property: NEC Gerald Ford Drive/Portola Avenue
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert/Palm Desert
Redevelopment Agency
Property Owner: American Realty Trust
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b):
Number of potential cases: 3 3
Upon motion by Kelly, second by Crites, and a 5-0 vote of the Council, Mayor
Spiegel adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 3:02 p.m. He reconvened the meeting
at 4:00 p.m.
V. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M.
A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION.
Mr. Erwin reported that there was no reportable action; however, he advised
the Council that it needed to take an action to add to its agenda, as noted
above.
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Jean M. Benson
VII. INVOCATION - Councilman Richard S. Kelly
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
GRAPEVINE STREET RESIDENTS (see below) addressed the City Council about
traffic concerns they have on their street. Residents requested measures be
implemented immediately to make their street safer, including those that would
reduce speeding and reckless traffic, and eliminate cut -through commercial traffic
(e.g. additional stop signs, speed "cushions", and additional enforcement). (This
matter was taken up by City Council later in the meeting. Please see action
recorded during "City Council Requests for Action," Item XVIII-D.)
MS. IRIS ANDERSON, 73-189 Grapevine Street
MR. ED TUNISON, 73-820 Grapevine Street
MR. LES INKSTER, 73-590 Grapevine Street
MR. J. JAMES MILO, 73-570 Grapevine Street
MS. JEANNE BRUNING, 73-050 Grapevine Street
IX. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 2004 AS
"PREVENT CHILD ABUSE MONTH" IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Spiegel presented the framed
proclamation to a representative of the Prevent Child Abuse -
Coachella Valley Council. In turn, the representative provided the City
Council with fliers and lapel pins in recognition of the month -long
observance.
B. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 2004 AS
"NATIONAL ALCOHOL AWARENESS MONTH" IN THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Spiegel presented the framed
proclamation to Danny Leahy of the ABC Recovery Center.
C. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE CITY OF PALM DESERT EMPLOYEES
FOR EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE — APRIL 2004.
Mayor Spiegel and Mr. Ortega recognized the following employees for their
outstanding performance: Steve Aryan, Mike Brown, David Flint,
Benjamin Druyon, James Bounds, Patty Leon, Janet Moore, Frankie Riddle,
Gail Santee, Jose Torres, Daniel Lopez, and Ernesto Navarrette.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
D. APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS VACANCIES ON THE CITY'S
ESTABLISHED COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS.
Rec: By Minute Motion:
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to: 1) Appoint the following applicants to the
respective City Committees and Commissions: a) Karel Lambell to the Architectural Review
Commission to fill the unexpired term of Richard O'Donnell (12/31/05);
b) Thomas Wormley to the Investment & Finance Committee to fill the unexpired term of
Murray Magloff (12/31/05); c) Louise Kermode to the Library Promotion Committee to fill
the unexpired term of Linda Krull (12/31/06); d) Dan Seymour to the Parks & Recreation
Commission to fill the unexpired term of Robert Royer (12/31/04); e) Jane Daugherty and
Jerome Pineau to the Citizens' Advisory Committee for Project Area No. 4 to fill the terms
of former members Marilynn Hamlet (12/31/06) and Bob Bershad (12/31/04), respectively;
f) John Marman to the Sister Cities Committee to fill the unexpired term of Kathy Strong
(12/31/04); 2) direct staff to prepare and present to City Council for adoption the
appropriate resolution that will provide for an alternate position on the Parks & Recreation
Commission, to provide for a constant complement of members on that body. Motion was
seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
E. PRESENTATION OF GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION, DECLARING THE
WEEK OF APRIL 4-10, 2004, AS "LAND SURVEYORS' WEEK" IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Mayor Spiegel presented the Governor's framed proclamation to and
congratulated City Senior Engineer/City Surveyor R. Page Garner.
F. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION FROM SENATOR
JIM BATTIN'S OFFICE, CELEBRATING THE OPENING OF THE
MAGNESIA FALLS BRIDGE OVER THE SAN PASCUAL CHANNEL.
Mayor Spiegel congratulated and presented the Certificate to the City's
Director of Public Works, Mike Errante.
G. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE NEAL JARRETT, A PALM DESERT
HERO.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Spiegel made a presentation of an
engraved plaque and a gift certificate to Westfield Shoppingtown
Palm Desert, recognizing Mr. Jarrett, a waiter at Romano's Macaroni Grill,
for his heroic actions to recover a patron's purse last Friday evening. In
further recognition, Palm Desert Police Department's Lieutenant Steve
Thetford also presented a Riverside County Sheriff's Department pin to
Mr. Jarrett.
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
H. PRESENTATION TO COUNCILMEMBER JEAN BENSON.
Mayor Spiegel made a special presentation to Councilmember Benson, a
framed letter from President George W. Bush in recognition of her birthday
milestone celebrated March 22.
X. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 25, 2004; and the
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting of March 15, 2004.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant
Nos. 189, 190, 194, and 195.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#531) by Teresa Dobrev in an Unspecified
Amount.
Rec: By Minute Motion, reject the Claim and direct the City Clerk to so
notify the Claimant.
D. CITY'S/AGENCY'S PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SUMMARIES for
February 2004 (Joint Consideration with the Palm Desert
Redevelopment Agency).
Rec: Receive and file.
E. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by
Tommy Bahama Palm Desert LLC, 73-595 El Paseo, Suite 2200,
Palm Desert.
Rec: Receive and file.
F. MARKETING COMMITTEE MINUTES for the Meetings of January 13, and
February 10, 2004.
Rec: Receive and file.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
G. RESOLUTION NO. 04-22 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Palm Desert, California, Setting Forth its Findings and Authorizing the
Destruction of Files from the Department of Building & Safety that Have
Been Digitally Imaged (April and May 2003).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt.
H. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase Traffic Signal Equipment for
Fred Waring Drive Widening (Project No. 653-01).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the purchase of traffic signal equipment
from McCain Traffic Supply, Vista, California, in the amount of
$24,788 plus shipping and tax for the Fred Waring Drive Widening
from Deep Canyon Road to Washington Street — funds are available
in Account No. 400-4399-433-4001.
I. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION for Staff to Negotiate for Bus Shelters on
Highway 111 and Other Selected Sites.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize staff to negotiate with an individual firm
to design and fabricate bus shelters on Highway 111 and other
selected sites in the City.
J. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Remodeling of the Building &
Safety Department Front Counter Space and Addition of Cabinetry (Contract
No. C22570).
Rec: By Minute Motion, award the subject contract to Doug Wall
Construction, Inc., Bermuda Dunes, California, in the amount of
$7,710 and authorize the Mayor to execute same — funds are
available in Account No. 110-4420-422-4045.
K. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Performance of
Constructability Reviews of Capital Improvement Projects (Contract
No. C22580).
Rec: By Minute Motion, award the subject contract to Coachella Valley
Construction Services, LLC, Indio, California, in an amount not to
exceed $50,000 to perform reviews on an as -needed basis and
authorize the Mayor to execute same.
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
L. CONSIDERATION of Action by Legislative Review Committee — AB1933
— (Pacheco) — Public Records.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its March 16, 2004, Meeting, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of support for the Mayor's signature with regard to
AB1933 (Pacheco).
M. CONSIDERATION of Action by Legislative Review Committee —
AB2264 (Chavez) — Housing.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its March 16, 2004, Meeting, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to
AB2264 (Chavez).
N. CONSIDERATION of Action by Legislative Review Committee —
AB2437 (Pacheco) — Records.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its March 16, 2004, Meeting, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of support for the Mayor's signature with regard to
AB2437 (Pacheco).
O. CONSIDERATION of Action by the Legislative Review Committee— AB2702
(Steinberg) — Housing.
Removed for separate consideration under Section XI, Consent Items Held
Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and
action.
P. CONSIDERATION of Action by the Legislative Review Committee —
SB1212 (Ducheny) — Local Government Revenue Balancing Act.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its March 16, 2004, Meeting, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to
SB1212 (Ducheny).
Q. CONSIDERATION of Action by the Legislative Review Committee —
SB1641 (Alarcon) — Local Government.
Removed for separate consideration under Section XI, Consent Items Held
Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and
action.
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
R. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Release Improvement Security for
Tract No. 28818 Mass Grading (Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Applicant).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to release the subject
improvement security for Tract No. 28818 for Marriott Shadow Ridge.
S. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Release Improvement Security for
Tract No. 30025 (World Development, Applicant).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to release the subject
improvement security for Tract No. 30025 and accept the
accompanying 10% Maintenance Bond for same.
T. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Vacate a Portion of Restricted Access
Rights on Country Club Drive at Desert Country Plaza (Country Club East,
LLC, Applicant)
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute a Quitclaim Deed
to vacate the subject property.
U. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Report on Fred Waring Drive Widening from Deep Canyon to
Washington Street.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked that Items 0 and Q be removed for separate
consideration under Section XI, Consent Items Held Over.
Upon motion by Ferguson, second by Kelly, the remainder of the Consent Calendar
was approved as presented by a 5-0 vote.
Xl. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
O. CONSIDERATION of Action by the Legislative Review Committee— AB2702
(Steinberg) — Housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated this was the latest version of the ordinance that
would require the City to potentially double the density of housing within the
City. He asked what else was being done aside from sending a letter of
opposition.
Senior Management Analyst Pat Scully responded that this bill as being
heard by Local Government Committee on April 21s`, and she would be in
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
Sacramento to testify. She noted that an additional letter had been sent as
well.
Councilman Ferguson added that the City's lobbyist was also working on this
issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by
the Legislative Review Committee at its March 16, 2004, Meeting, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to AB2702 (Steinberg).
Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
Q. CONSIDERATION of Action by the Legislative Review Committee —
SB1641 (Alarcon) — Local Government.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked that the letter of opposition note the City's
opposition to having a financial impact report on "big box" retail is related to
the matter of local control rather than State mandate because the City is
already doing this.
Councilman Kelly said he wanted to be sure the message sent to the State
Legislature is that the City wants to run its own city rather than having the
State run the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by
the Legislative Review Committee at its March 16, 2004, Meeting, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to SB1641 (Alarcon).,
with staff to also convey that the City already requires a financial impact report when it
considers "big box" retail projects; City's opposition is related to the matter of local control
rather than State mandates. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XII. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 04-23 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN CITY VOLUNTEERS
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3363.5 OF THE
LABOR CODE (SISTER CITIES COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES).
Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report, noting that this would formalize that
when members of the Sister Cities Committee are acting on behalf of the
City, they will be covered by Workers Compensation.
Upon question by Councilman Kelly relative to the fiscal impact, Mr. Ortega
responded there would be no impact. The City works through a Joint Powers
Insurance Authority, and it is provided for.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
Risk Manager Gary Rosenblum also noted that there was no direct cost and
no premium paid by the City. In the event a volunteer was injured while
acting under a City program, they would be considered to be on the job and
would be covered under the Workers Compensation program rather than
through liability. Any cost incurred would be related to the injury involved.
This would actually provide the City with lower risk coverage and lower cost
coverage in the event of an injury because the injury would be covered
through the Workers Comp system, which is no-fault, no -liability system
rather than having a volunteer use the liability process to recover damages.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 04-23. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XIII. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 1064 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTIONS 11.01.010 AND 11.01.120 OF THE PALM DESERT
MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATIVE TO CONTROL OF DOGS AT THE
HOMME/ADAMS AND CAHUILLA HILLS PARKS.
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Councilman Ferguson asked if there were enforcement provisions if
someone has a dog not under voice control that creates problems.
Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck responded that
this would allow the Sheriffs Department and/or Bureau of Land
Management to deal with situations where someone has a dog that is out of
control.
Councilman Ferguson moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1064
to second reading. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
For Adoption:
None
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
XIV. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
THE CITY'S PUBLIC ART COLLECTION AND THE EL PASEO EXHIBITION
(CONTRACT NO. C22590).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Mayor Spiegel asked why this was not on an as -needed basis rather than
paying so much per year.
Public Arts Manager Richard Twedt responded that these sculptures needed
constant attention because of the conditions in the desert. The sculptures
get dirty really fast, and they need to be cleaned monthly. He said he had
attempted last year to clean the sculptures less frequently, but he had
received several complaints from gallery owners about how dirty the pieces
looked.
Upon further question by Mayor Spiegel, Mr. Twedt responded that this
contract would also cover the art in the City's park, but the City would not be
responsible for private artwork approved by the City but installed by
developers — those private owners would be responsible for their own
maintenance.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject contract with
Michael Volpone, Cathedral City, California, in the amount of $52,000 for a period of one
year and authorize the Mayor to execute said contract. Motion was seconded by Ferguson
and carried b a 5-0 vote.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR
ADVERTISING SERVICES FOR THE EL PASEO BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CONTRACT NO. C21051).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Upon question by Councilman Ferguson, Business Support Manager
Ruth Ann Moore confirmed that this was pass -through funding.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve an amendment to the
subject contract with Stephanie D. Green d.b.a. Creative i Group, Palm Desert, California,
extending the contract from May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005, in an amount not to
exceed $220,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded by
Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
SPECIAL COUNSEL DR. KENNETH K. BAAR RELATIVE TO
AMENDMENTS TO THE MOBILE HOME RENT CONTROL REGULATIONS
(Continued from the meeting of February 26, 2004).
Councilman Ferguson stated that he would abstain from participation in this
discussion as he represented a mobilehome park soon to be in the City.
Councilmember Benson also abstained from the discussion as she is a
resident at one of the mobilehome parks.
DR. KENNETH BAAR stated that he had prepared a list of proposed
changes to the City's rent control ordinance, which had been included in the
Council packets. This list also noted whether these proposed changes were
opposed or unopposed. Of 21 recommendations, approximately 17 were
unopposed. While there were some issues that were strongly disputed, the
vast majority were undisputed. Some of the changes were legally required
pursuant to recent judicial doctrine or were preempted by State legislation;
others he had proposed because he felt they were absolutely necessary to
make the fair return standard work in a logical manner. Still others were just
mechanical, moving things around the ordinance to make it clearer. He
reviewed disputed issues as follows:
— CPI Increase — He indicated in his report that some cities give 100%
of the CPI increase annually, while Palm Desert gives 75%. This is
a policy issue. A representative of the park owners proposed the
standard be 100%. He noted the newspaper reported that he had
proposed making the increase standard 100% of the CPI; however,
page 11 of his report in essence stated that there are arguments for
and against changing that standard, but he did not make a
recommendation.
Capital Improvement Increases — He said one of his proposals was
that when capital improvement increases are granted, an interest
allowance should also be given for those capital improvement
increases. He felt this was required by judicial fair return doctrine —
basically, if someone puts out money and is getting it back over time,
they are entitled to some return above just getting the same amount
of money back in order to get a fair return.
Attorney Fees — In the existing ordinance, the prevailing party has
the right to be reimbursed for attorney fees when a case goes to
court. This raised considerable concern because it resulted in cases
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
where the City not only had to pay its legal expenses but also those
of the prevailing party as well. He proposed taking that out. On the
other hand, fair return doctrine indicates that when a park owner
applies for a fair return adjustment, legal expenses become a
business expense that should be considered in order to receive a fair
return. Basically, if someone has to go through the fair return process
and gets an increase as a result of it, that is seen as a justified
expense. Judicial doctrine indicates that has to be considered as an
expense. One objection from the residents was that this provision
should be reciprocal; if the residents have to pay if they lose, why
shouldn't they be reimbursed if they win in a fair return proceeding?
There were arguments both ways about this. He felt this ordinance
provided a very important coverage to mobilehome owners because
there can't be increases when a mobilehome is sold; if that provision
were not there, basically the mobilehome owner's equity could be
extinguished because if rents could be raised without limit when a
mobilehome is sold, the mobilehome could become worthless. He
said of the hundred or so cities and jurisdictions in the State that have
some form of mobilehome rent control, he was only aware of a few
that had provisions that if the residents prevail in a fair return hearing
they are entitled to recover their legal expenses. He had also been
an expert for numerous cities in fair return cases, there were
numerous cases where the park owner has not prevailed and where
the residents have expended legal fees, and he had never seen a
case where the residents were reimbursed for their legal fees. He
was not recommending that the provision be reciprocal because it
would be an innovative type of measure, and we are already in a
situation where there is a lot of litigation and a lot of dispute about the
legitimacy of mobilehome rent regulations in the courts.
He amended his recommendation for Section C1c on page 19 of his report
to reflect that this attorney fee provision would be limited to fair return cases.
In addition, Section 5 on the page 20 of his report cited "Section 1947.8...",
and he said this should not be included as it was not applicable to
mobilehome rent controls.
In summary, Dr. Baar said most of the recommended changes had no
opposition, and most of them were important either to comply with judicial
doctrine or to make the fair return standard work in a rational fashion. Other
changes were policy issues that could be debated.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted there was a set of recommendations from
Dr. Baar, a number of which were not subject to dispute and some of which
were potentially subject to dispute. He said the City had not, to the best of
his knowledge, made sure that every person in one of the affected
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
communities had received knowledge of the proposed changes. He said by
law the City was not required to have a public hearing on this issue; however,
he felt by good sense, the City should make sure that notification is sent to
every affected resident and that an evening is set aside to go over the
recommendations one at a time. He felt this was important to make sure that
at the end of the process no none, whether park owner or resident, would be
able to say they did not have the opportunity for input.
Councilman Kelly and Mayor Spiegel agreed.
Mr. Kohn suggested that staff send a packet of information to each resident
in the affected parks with a cover letter summarizing the proposed changes
so the would not have to try to read and understand each and every section.
He also suggested that one meeting be held very soon before a lot of the
snow birds leave for the summer and that residents of all three parks be
invited to attend and provide input.
Mayor Spiegel invited public testimony, noting there would be no decision on
this matter by the Council at this meeting.
MS. PAT BELL, 49-305 Highway 74, Palm Desert, read a prepared
statement and distributed copies to the Council and City Clerk (attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A").
MR. STANLEY "GLEN" WIESNER, 49-305 Highway 74, #112, Palm Desert,
read a prepared statement (attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Exhibit "B").
MS. MARY JANE SMITH, 49-305 Highway 74, #171, Palm Desert, said she
wanted to impress on the Council how important it is to them to have the
protection of rent control.
MR. JAMES E. KIRWAN, 49-305 Highway 74, #160, Palm Desert, said that
in his review of the proposed changes, it seemed most of the changes were
in the form of the elimination or alteration of the expenses that were allowed
the land owner to pass through to the residents. Last week they found out
that their park was going to be converted. What this meant to him was that
it was possible, if this ordinance were passed the way it stands, the land
owner could pass the cost to the residents. The land, having been improved
prior to conversion, would then be increased in value at the expense of the
residents. The land would then be sold to the residents at this increased
value. He said it appeared the residents were without any recourse, and all
the weight of this new ordinance as proposed would be in favor of the land
owners, who have unlimited sources, legal advice, and funds, while all the
residents have is the City Council to stand and speak for them.
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted that the Council had been looking at changes
to the ordinance for approximately a year because a number of things in the
City's ordinance no longer complied with State law and various court
decisions. The Council has no control, input, knowledge, or anything else
about a park owner's desire to change to condominiums or something else.
MS. MARI SCHMIDT, 49-305 Highway 74, #86, Palm Desert, asked whether
the absence and abstention of Councilmembers Benson and Ferguson
meant they would not be voting on the ordinance when that time comes, and
Mayor Spiegel agreed. She submitted and read a prepared statement
(attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C").
MR. GEORGE REX, 49-305 Highway 74, Palm Desert, thanked Council,
staff, and Dr. Baar for the efforts put forth at this point. He said he supported
everything just presented by Mari Schmidt. He felt overall that Dr. Baar's
analysis provided more control to the City, which he felt was good. The park
owner would also have more control, but the homeowners' ability to file a
petition and seek recourse would be less, more restrictive, and more
expensive. He discussed the notice residents had received on March 29th
regarding a meeting on April 1 St to discuss conversion of the Indian Springs
Mobilehome Park to condominiums. He felt this was done without proper
notice, and the parties asking for the meeting were in violation of the
California Civil Code Chapter 2.5, Section 798.53, which requires
management to provide to the homeowners of the community a minimum of
ten days prior written notice. He said his understanding was that the park
owner actually filed a petition April 1st. The letter from the management
company was dated April 2"d and was posted April 1st, the day of the
meeting. He felt a decision had already been made to move forward with the
conversion, and management was not asking residents for feedback.
Another meeting was taking place right now, with no notice under the same
provisions cited above, to request that those who did not attend this meeting
should attend a meeting with legal representation and the management
company at the park while the rest of the homeowners were at the City
Council meeting. He felt this placed another issue in motion at a very
inappropriate time when the rent control ordinance has not been resolved,
and it further colored and confused the issues involved. Secondly, the rent
control ordinance and the petitions for a condo conversion are intimately
related, just as stated by Dr. Baar on page 1 of his report that, "This report
does not address issues related to the potential conversion of mobilehome
parks to condominium ownership or to other uses." Another issue was the
meaning of fair return for rent increases versus discretionary hardship return
for the park owner. He said there were no provisions or guidelines that he
saw in the recommended proposal of the rent control ordinance for the park
owner such as requirement for disclosure. When financial information and
fiscal disclosure was requested, it was not presented, and to the best of his
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
knowledge, it had not been presented in any of the cases where it was
requested. Based on past experience, the park owner has never provided
this information. In addition, there were no guidelines for the monitoring of
the annual rent increases made by the park owner or capital pass -through
on improvements, nor were there any guidelines to verify or certify capital
improvements versus deferred maintenance. With regard to the rent
increases and the CPI annual rent increases, he said he had done a cursory
review of the rent rolls some time ago and found mathematical errors on
increases of rent, calculation errors on the CPI, and possibly two capital
pass-throughs that were still on the rent rolls that should have been paid off
in the 1980's and were still being collected. At the time he did this review, he
had contacted Charles Prawdzik, the homeowners' attorney at the time, who
had done a similar study, and they agreed there was an issue to be attended
to, although it had still not been resolved to this date. He added that he felt
more time was needed, and he asked that additional time be given to
address these issues.
MS. TONI EGGEBRAATEN, 77-564 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert,
Attorney, said she was at the Council meeting on behalf of the tenants at
Indian Springs Mobilehome Park. She said the message she wanted to
communicate tonight more than anything was that the tenants are
concerned, and they don't understand the text or the changes. She added
that there were sections that she also could not understand after reading
several times. More than anything, she asked for a dialog, although she was
not certain having such a dialog in a meeting with 300 residents would work
very well. She said she had made several suggestions that were "no harm,
no foul" to the City and which she did not believe the landlord would object
to but that would specifically protect the tenants with respect to procedural
rights, and those suggestions were just ignored. With regard to the issue of
attorney fees, there was a section in the ordinance that provided that the
prevailing party was entitled to attorney fees. Pursuant to that section, the
homeowners association had previously recovered fees from the City;
however, all the City has to do to cure that is put some language in there that
it doesn't apply to the City. The tenants could still recover against the
landlord. Tenants need that recourse and need to be able to be reimbursed
their attorney fees if they are right. The way it is written now, the City can
recover fees and the landlord can recover fees. The only ones who cannot
recover fees are the tenants.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites suggested that attorneys and/or "interested parties"
may work with City staff and Dr. Baar prior to the public meeting. He said
Ms. Eggebraaten's point was well taken that a lot of these issues are issues
that need, if possible, to be resolved not at a large public meeting.
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
MR. ED DIFANI, 49-305 Highway 74, #132, Palm Desert, said when he first
moved to Indian Springs, the clubhouse and the streets were in complete
disarray. The park owner fixed the building and the streets and then tried to
charge a quarter of a million dollars to the tenants for those improvements.
He lost the case, and now the tenants were afraid that is what the land owner
is trying to do now.
MR. CLAY HAGE, 661 Brea Canyon Road, #7, Walnut, California, spoke as
the property manager for Palm Desert Mobile Estates. He said he had not
received Dr. Baar's packet until yesterday and like the residents had a tough
time digesting it. He appreciated the fact that the Council would be
postponing any action on the recommendations for a time period. He said
he hoped the Council would also extend the invitation to representatives of
the park owners. He cited an April 1st ruling from the United States District
Court of Appeals relative to the rent issue. He said it was almost on point to
mobilehome rent control, and it addressed the issue of what happens to rent
when the ownership of the home changes. He said they had always
believed that because rent control has benefitted an individual for a certain
period of time, the next person coming in should not enjoy that lower rent if
it increases the value of the home.
MR. RICHARD UNITAN, 73-450 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, said he
had appeared before Council with regard to annexation of Suncrest Country
Club and Palm Desert Greens. He was at this meeting because he saw a
notice in the newspaper and wanted to know, now that they had been
annexed into the City, whether this rent control issue would affect either of
those two developments.
City Attorney David Erwin responded that once Suncrest and Palm Desert
Greens are annexed to the City on July 1, they will be subject to all City
ordinances.
Mr. Kohn added that Palm Desert Greens is a resident -owned park, so the
rent control ordinance would not apply there. With regard to Suncrest, it was
his understanding that most of those units are long-term leases, and rent
control would not apply to those either, although there were a few in
Suncrest that were on month -to -month leases.
MS. ANNE GOOKIN, resident of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park, said she
would like to hold her comments until another time.
MS. PAT BELL stated that with regard to the gentleman who spoke as a
representative of a park owner and asked to be included in these hearings,
this was a rent control hearing for the ordinance. She felt it had been largely
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
stacked in favor of the park owners, not tenants. She personally objected to
park owners being part of future sessions.
Councilman Kelly said there seemed to be a little suspicion and criticism of
the Council relative to due process. He said he was on the City Council
when the first ordinance was adopted dealing with rent control, and he felt
very strongly that the Council had to adopt the ordinance. He understood the
tenants do not own the property on which their mobilehomes sit and
homeowners cannot just pick up and move. He said he felt the Council
would do its very best to make sure everyone is heard, that there is a fair
decision made, and that the tenants will be protected so they are not at the
mercy of park owners who want to take advantage of them. The Council was
concerned that everyone receive proper notice, and that is why the
suggestion was made to hold another meeting and receive input.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites disagreed with Ms. Bell and said he felt park owners
had every right to come and make their points of view known as part of a
public dialog, just as the residents had the right to do the same. The Council
will do its very best to listen to all points of view and try to craft something
they believe is good for the City of Palm Desert.
Mayor Spiegel agreed with comments made by his colleagues.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, ask staff to engage in a process
of public notification to all residents in affected parks, ensuring first that ample opportunity
for dialog with residents and/or representatives of residents' associations and attorneys
from various points of view is provided, followed by setting a date and time for a public
meeting on the issue of proposed changes to the Mobile Home Rent Control regulations.
Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Councilmembers Benson
and Ferguson ABSENT.
With Council concurrence, Mayor Spiegel recessed the meeting at 5:50 p.m. He
reconvened the meeting at 5:56 p.m.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ENERGY CONSERVATION AND
CO -GENERATION PROJECT FOR THE CIVIC CENTER AS PROPOSED
BY NORESCO (Continued from the meeting of March 25, 2004).
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, continue to the meeting of
May 13, 2004. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Pro
Tem Crites and Councilman Kelly ABSENT.
XVI. OLD BUSINESS
None
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO A CHANGE OF ZONE
FROM PR-5 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, 5 UNITS PER ACRE) TO PR-13
(PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, 13 UNITS PER ACRE), A PRECISE
PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR
CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 320 RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON A 25-ACRE SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
GERALD FORD DRIVE, 636 FEET EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE
(73-240 GERALD FORD DRIVE, APN 653-260-029) — PROJECT
INCLUDES A HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR TOWER ELEMENTS 27 FEET IN
HEIGHT AND A HOUSING AGREEMENT (IDENTIFIED AS DA 03-02),
WHICH WILL INCLUDE, AMONG OTHER MATTERS, PROVISIONS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS Case Nos. C/Z 03-04, TT 31363,
PP/CUP 03-06. and DA 03-02 (Sares Regis Group c/o Greg Albert,
Applicant).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report and
recommendation. He noted that some of the tower elements go to as high
as 27 feet, hence the need for the requested height exception. Maximum
height in the PR zone is prescribed at 24 feet. In the past, Council has
granted exceptions to the height limit in instances where there is no impact
on adjacent properties and if the design of the buildings is enhanced with the
additional height. He stated that the report indicated the applicant was
looking at renting the project for ten years and then converting it to
condominium. In discussions today, the applicant indicated that whether the
time frame gets condensed will be driven by the marketplace, and they do
not have any commitment to the ten years. He noted that in the General
Plan recently adopted, the Council established a series of performance
criteria in order to achieve the high density development potential. Staff
outlined findings on page 7 of the staff report. He stated that although the
fiscal impact report was not ready at the time the staff report was written, it
was received and distributed to Council earlier today, and Nicole Criste was
available to provide a brief synopsis of said fiscal impact report. Staff felt the
findings necessary for the high density residential had been met. Staff also
felt this was an architecturally attractive residential complex with a
townhouse feel. The developer had added quality touches to the project
including more than 50% of the units having direct access from the garages
into the units, balconies, enhanced paving in the auto courts, etc. With
regard to the height exception, staff felt the improvements in the architecture
supported the exception for the tower elements. He said the housing
agreement was attached, and it would provide for 20% of the units to be
affordable to moderate income households. Staff felt the 13 units per acre
was an appropriate land use given the surrounding land uses.
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
Upon question by Councilman Ferguson and Mayor Pro Tem Crites, Mr. Drell
responded that the Landscape Committee looks at public projects, and
private projects are routinely reviewed by Architectural Review Commission.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked that this project be reviewed by the Landscape
Committee. He also noted that Mr. Drell, when asked in one of the earlier
Planning Commission meetings about the interior auto courts, had
responded that asphalt would be horrible because it would end up being an
oven and so on. He asked whether there would be stamped concrete and
other types of treatments on these interior auto courts.
Mr. Drell responded that it would be enhanced paving, and the applicant
could describe what it is.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked whether anything was being done, not just with
this project but with future projects, to make sure what we get in those
projects as far as enhanced paving stays looking that way. He expressed
concern that it does not stay looking nice for very long.
Mr. Drell responded that maintenance must be done on this decorative
paving to keep it that way. He added that there was no expressed provision
other than normal property maintenance requirements.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked that such provision be added so that one of the
things that helps sell this project remains something that is part of this
project.
Councilman Ferguson noted that this is the first time for the performance
criteria to be applied to a project. He said he had seen this project during the
General Plan stage and felt it would be a good role model for setting
precedent as to what the Council meant when it implemented these criteria.
With regard to the ten-year wait on the affordability component, he said he
understood the applicant was going to address this. With regard to the
SunLine bus stop, he deferred to Councilman Kelly.
Councilman Kelly said he had checked and did not know who the applicant
had talked to about the bus stop.
Councilman Ferguson noted a statement in the staff report that this project
can affirm all seven criteria and, therefore, was deemed eligible. He said he
was not sure Council said the project would have to meet all seven, although
that was a goal. With regard to the criteria about landscaping, he said his
idea of a landscape plan was one that gave him the specimens and showed
what exactly would go where. He said perhaps the Landscape Committee
could do that when they take a look at it. He asked if there was any kind of
public art component to this project.
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
Mr. Smith responded that there is a condition requiring participation. Upon
question by Councilman Ferguson as to whether that was participation in the
fund or actually putting public art on the property. Mr. Smith responded that
it could be either way.
With regard to the housing agreement referenced in the staff report as
recommended by the Planning Commission, Councilman Ferguson asked
whether it had come from the Planning Commission or from the City's
housing folks in conjunction with the developer. Mr. Smith responded that
it was discussed with the housing folks back in November/December,
although it was not generated by them. Councilman Ferguson asked
whether the 20% to be reserved for moderate income households was an
adequate number in their estimation.
With regard to open space, Councilman Ferguson asked the developer to
address issues such as view corridors and things that provide visual relief.
He also asked Mrs. Criste to address the issue of fiscal impact to the City.
He added that he felt the architecture of the project was fantastic.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted that in the Planning Commission meeting in
August, Commissioner Sonia Campbell made some comments about this
project attracting families and whether or not there was sufficient parking and
whether or not the parking would, in essence, take up most of the on -street
space around that. Subsequent to that, he asked if there were things the
applicant and/or staff had done to attempt to address the concerns of
Commissioner Campbell.
Mr. Smith responded that because Commissioner Campbell supported the
project in December, he felt the issue must have been resolved.
Upon question by Councilman Kelly regarding the chart which showed fees
such as franchise fees and motor vehicle fees, Ms. Criste responded that
those were assigned by the State based on first census and then
Department of Finance over the years. She said the State allocates per
capita revenues based on Department of Finance in years in between the
census. Mr. Drell added that every year the Department of Finance sends
a survey to the City, and a census estimate is done every year which
determines revenue.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR
of or in OPPOSITION to this request.
MR. BRETT HARVEY, 45-670 Sugar Loaf Mountain Trail, Indian Wells,
spoke as managing director for Merrill Lynch and said he recruits a number
of young executives to come down to the desert area. One of the problems
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
is affordable housing for those young men and women as they are looking
for places to live. He felt this project would be an advantage to some of
those people he recruits and brings into the area. He said he also serves as
the Bishop in the Latter Day Saints Church, Palm Desert Ward, and one of
the big problems he had as a clergyman was finding affordable housing for
young members. This project would be a benefit to the Palm Desert Ward
for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
MR. MIKE WEINER, Sares Regis Group, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine,
spoke as the developer and said they had been working with the City for
almost two years on developing this project, Lomas de Arena, this 320-unit,
high -quality residential community in front of the Council. As part of their
planning process, they had held several focus groups and presented the
project to many interested Palm Desert citizens, business leaders, and
educational groups. They also received unanimous approval from the
Architectural Review Commission on July 8, 2003. In addition, they had
presented the project to the Planning Commission on several occasions.
They had improved the plan and ultimately received unanimous Planning
Commission approval on December2, 2003. He said they wanted to present
to the Council at this time the approved plan that incorporated the
suggestions of the Planning Commission and answered questions regarding
the project. He added that Ed Eyerman, their new Business Development
Director, would show a Powerpoint presentation. After that, Scott Monroe,
Senior Vice President of Property Management, would address property
operations, which could include landscape and paving maintenance issues.
Mike Boyd, Architect, could answer any questions regarding design, and
Rich Cremwoody could answer questions about landscape design, the
enhanced paving, view corridors, and visual relief.
Mayor Spiegel asked how soon the developer planned on breaking ground
after approval and whether Gateway Drive would be at that time.
MR. WEINER responded they anticipated breaking ground toward the end
of 2004, and they would construct Gateway Drive with the project. Upon
further question, he responded that Gateway Drive would be four lanes.
Mayor Spiegel added that he personally felt Gateway Drive should be at least
four lanes.
MR. ED IREMAN, Business Development Director for Sares Regis, 18825
Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, California, showed a Powerpoint presentation.
Mayor Spiegel asked if the developer planned to keep control of the
apartments or if they would have another company come in and buy the
apartments. Mr. Ireman responded that this would be for their own portfolio.
He noted that on August 19, 2003, the Planning Commission raised several
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
separate issues such as parking ratio, lack of pools, density and open space,
and drive aisles and their width. Each of these issues was addressed in the
subsequent meetings. Regarding parking ratios, the project would have a
2.42 parking spaces per unit ratio. Within that ratio, 50% of the community
would receive direct access to their garages, and every single unit would
have a garage available to them. He said they would have two pools totaling
4800 square feet and two spas totaling 450 square feet. They also
addressed the concern with regard to street width and showed they were well
within the needs of the project as well as meeting the needs of the Fire
Department. Courtyards would be enhanced paving with no asphalt, and a
sealant would be applied that would help preserve the finish.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked whether there was any objection to a separate
listing of criteria that the developer will maintain those in a way that continues
their initial beauty.
MR. IREMAN responded that that would be okay as a condition of approval.
He showed the proposed architecture of the project, noting it would be a
combination of "Frank Lloyd Wright meets Craftsman in the desert." He
noted that after taking into account many of the comments and concerns
presented by the Planning Commission, they were able to revise the
recreation area to include a greater percentage of the community, and the
revised plan allowed for a more spread out recreation space, increased pool
areas, separation of a tot lot from nearby buildings, and addition of a
community garden.
Mayor Spiegel asked how long it would take to do the buildout on this project
if it is started at the end of this year.
MR. WEINER responded that the project would take approximately two years
to build out, and they planned to build it all at one time rather than
piecemeal.
MR. SCOTT MONROE, Senior Vice President of Sares Regis Group, gave
some background information about Sares Regis Group. He noted that
there was a fiduciary obligation to ensure that they maintained the project.
With regard to maintaining the motor courtyards and the aesthetic
appearance of those courtyards and the landscaped areas with pocket
planters up against the garages, he said there was an obligation which his
management team has to preserve the integrity of the asset, the project. He
said when the put together their proformas and secure their partner, they
ensure there is adequate funding available to maintain the asset at its
highest standard.
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
MR. MONROE stated that with the rent structure they anticipated, the
average household income would need to be roughly $43,000, with the
exception of the affordable component, in order to qualify to live in the
project. They did not envision at this juncture to see this as a first-time renter
type community; it would be more of a step up community. Also, having
individual garages for each of the units would help to maintain the overall
aesthetics of the property on a daily basis. As far as qualifying to live in the
project, they had screening criteria, the majority based on a FICA scoring
method similar to when one applies for a home. He said they want to ensure
there are credit -worthy applicants coming through the door; in addition, they
want to make sure they not only pay the rent on time but that they respect
the property and realize that if they create damage, there will be a financial
consequence and perhaps a consequence to their credit. Upon question by
Mayor Spiegel, he responded that they do not do police background checks.
In the State of California right now, they are not completely computerized for
these background checks, and they cannot get a report back in a timely
fashion from every jurisdiction that perspective candidate might have resided
in.
Mayor Spiegel suggested that Mr. Monroe contact the Palm Desert Police
Department about this.
MR. MONROE added that in a community of this size, he would anticipate
the full-time employee count to be six to begin with, going up to eight as the
property matures.
Mayor Spiegel asked whether there was any thought given to having a
preschool where the children are taken care of if both parents or a single
parent is working.
MR. MONROE responded that the State of California allows day-care within
apartments, although there are certain limitations to that. He added that they
typically did not find in their residential communities of this size that there is
enough need among the residents to support an independent day care
operation. He noted that it was extremely difficult to get consensus among
the ownership when you have an institution partner on the insurance
requirements; institutions are really risk -averse, and while it would be
enjoyable to have that benefit, typically the institutional clients shy away from
it because of the risk associated with having a day-care facility.
MR. MIKE BOYD, Architect/Planner, summarized the project.
MR. GEORGE MARZICOLA, 71-876 Vista Del Rio, Rancho Mirage, asked
that the Council look forward and consider where Palm Desert land use will
go from here. He said working men and women will soon not be able to
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
afford the cost of maintaining a $350,000 residence. He said one practical
answer was this project before Council for evaluation and approval. He
asked for Council's support and approval of this well -planned and timely
project.
MS. NICOLE CRISTE stated she wished to address Councilman Ferguson's
question with regard to costs. In each of the scenarios in the fiscal impact
analysis, the third to the last line was the cost analysis, and that included
both general funds and public safety expenses. She said it was the same
per capita costs that were applied to the overall analysis done for the
General Plan.
MR. ROSS VEESER, 74-401 Hovley Lane East, Apartment #728, Palm
Desert, stated that as a resident of Palm Desert, he would like to see more
quality apartments built such as this.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Ferguson asked who had drafted the housing agreement.
The applicant responded that the draft was provided by staff and was revised
several times to refine it to this particular project. He said he thought it was
an agreement that has been used by the City in the past.
Mr. Drell stated it had been staff's experience, with projects that have been
built in the City and in which the City has participated with density bonuses,
that density bonuses alone do not produce affordable housing. When One
Quail Place was built, the developer was not only given 22 units per acre, the
City issued taxes and bond financing for it. That generated 20% low and 80%
medium/low income housing. Subsequently, the housing market has
changed and gotten much worse in terms of cost. This particular project was
one that is being proposed at a relatively low density at slightly more than
half of what One Quail Place was. Right now the City is not offering any
financial incentives. Under the density bonus law, technically to require low
income housing, the City has to provide both density and financial incentives.
The applicant is making the 20% units available at moderate income levels,
which is the proforma can allow without any incentives. It is now up to the
City to provide those financial incentives to lower that moderate level to the
low level, and the applicant is willing to participate, but the economics of the
project doesn't allow him to do it himself.
Upon further question by Councilman Ferguson, Director of Housing Teresa
LaRocca responded that she had seen the original agreement and had made
some recommendations. She said it was her suggestion that the affordable
units be at a lower income. She said she was convinced at that time that
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
given the nature of this project and the level of the project, perhaps it would
not be feasible.
With regard to the issue of the bus stop, Mr. Drell said there had been
numerous discussions in general about the future bus route which will occur
throughout the University Park area. Unfortunately, bus routes are not
planned until there are riders, and there are no riders until there are
residents. He said there had been discussions about an isolated loop which
will extend from Cook Street to Monterey, Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore and
back. They are aware and agree that at some point in time, that route will be
appropriate, but until there are people living there and until businesses
develop, it will not happen.
Councilman Ferguson stated he would like to see this public hearing
continued. With regard to the seven criteria and the applicant not having to
meet all of them, he said he had gone through all seven of them and gave
a ranking of one to five. For example, he gave fiscal impact four points
because that is exactly what the City is asking for. Architecture he gave five
points because he felt there were a lot of unique elements, and he was very
impressed by it. Proximity to school he gave a five because the project is
right across the street. He said he still had a question about SunLine.
Ownership and affordability were two areas he scored the lowest because
the applicant's team sat through months of discussions about the Council
making a fundamental policy commitment to providing affordable housing
and higher densities to house more workers here. While this is a great
quality project, if a person has to earn $42,000 or more to live there, that is
not affordable. If someone has to go to Indio in order to afford to buy a
house, he did not feel the ownership element was met. He was concerned
with the housing agreement allowing the developer to basically buy out of it
for $3,000 per unit, and he asked why the developer wouldn't just buy his
way out of it and take higher rents, particularly if the market is good. He
added that he did not see this meeting any of the objectives, which is what
drove the whole high density bonus to begin with. He said he would like the
developer to take a look at all five of these areas and perhaps try to
strengthen them up a little bit, particularly the ones he just discussed.
Councilman Kelly agreed with Councilman Ferguson. He said while no one
said the applicant had to meet all seven criteria, the idea was that those
would be used as a gauge as to what kind of job the developer did in the
planning. If the density is going to be raised, the developer ought to do
better job. He said he had always objected to increased density out there.
He added that he would agree with continuing this public hearing to allow the
developer time to work out some of the areas of concern.
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated that with regard to planning, fiscal impact and
transportation, he felt the developer had done a good job. With regard to
landscaping, the developer will either do the job or not get out of that group.
With regard to the issue of percentage of residential units available for home
ownership, he said he was caught in a quandary. If, over time, all of this
converts to ownership, the City was back to the issue of not providing much
availability of rental units. He said he would prefer to see these projects as
half rental/half ownership or something like that. He was left with just the
issue of affordability and the 20% at moderate income, which he was willing
to continue talking about.
Councilman Ferguson stated that with regard to ownership, the developer is
going to wait ten years before they look at any ownership.
The developer stated that the ten years was in response to a question about
a typical time line on a conversion. Most developers wait ten years because
of the construction liability. That would not necessarily be the case on this
project, and these could go to home ownership sooner than ten years.
Councilman Ferguson expressed concern that this is the first project, and
other projects will come after and want the same thing. He said with regard
to the landscape, the developer will look at open space and some of the
configuration issues there. Ms. LaRocca will have some time to work with
the developer on the affordability aspect, which is vitally important to him.
With regard to ownership, he said he was willing to discuss this. He also
said he would like the developer to call SunLine and find out whether or not
a route was being planned, what the time line is for that route, where the
closest route was projected to be, etc., rather than just being told by Planning
staff that at some point there will be a bus line.
Councilman Kelly said his encouragement for ownership would be that the
project would be designed for ownership from the beginning, not half rental
and half ownership, which he felt was a potential problem. If this developer
has experience doing that somewhere else and it is very successful, he said
he would like to see it and hear some comments from people that live there,
half owners and half renters.
The applicant noted that typically, it would be all rental or all ownership.
Councilman Kelly said it looked like the developer was developing a rental,
but because the City was encouraging ownership, the developer added the
ownership in there so they would rate better in the seven categories.
The applicant responded that the intention was to develop a condominium
project for rent. Currently their intention was to rent it; however, they were
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
evaluating that with the market, and it could change to ownership much
sooner than the ten years depending on the market requirements.
The applicant stated that to build a project of this quality and the density they
had come up with, they could certainly subsidize the affordable housing
component, although they would need some help with that. He said they had
spent a lot of time working with staff and Ms. LaRocca to see what they could
do. He said they came up with a program they felt would be acceptable, and
they would lock in 20% of the project at the moderate income level for 55
years.
Councilmember Benson moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of
May 13, 2004, in order to provide Applicant with time to further refine issues, including
landscaping/open space, affordability, and SunLine route access. Motion was seconded
by Ferguson.
Councilman Ferguson commented to the developer that they had done an
outstanding project. Unfortunately, this is the first one where the Council is
trying to grapple with the seven high density issues. He said his fear was
that the next person that comes in with a project is going to pencil out a
maximum return on investment with a high quality project and no affordability
and basically say this developer did it. He felt the developer could fine tune
this at not a great deal of expense and come back with something that is
really and truly first-class.
MR. WEINER noted that one of the issues he was dealing with was a
financial commitment on the project which was going to run out shortly.
Councilman Kelly said he did not deny that there need to be rentals, but he
felt ownership was the ambition of everyone. He did not think it made sense
to try to mix rentals and ownership. He added that one of the problems in
the City was absentee ownership with rentals, and people who own their own
homes was not where the City's Code Enforcement staff are having
problems.
Mayor Spiegel called for the vote, and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
B. CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING SECOND READING TO AN
— ORDINANCE FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 97-2,
EXPANDING PLANNING AREA #3 OF THE WONDER PALMS MASTER
PLAN, AND A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
FOR 122,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE OFFICE SPACE,
110,880 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE RETAIL, INCLUDING
ONE DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT ADJACENT TO GERALD FORD DRIVE,
A THREE-STORY HOTEL WITH UP TO 130 ROOMS, A HEIGHT
EXCEPTION FOR TOWER ELEMENTS, AND A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES
THERETO FOR 23.6 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE (37-001 COOK STREET)
Case Nos. C/Z 03-10. PP 03-11. and DA 03-03 (Rick Evans, Applicant).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report in detail.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked whether there was any structural reason for not
having an acceleration lane and pedestrian bridge over Cook Street south
of the mid block entry on Cook Street, as stated in the staff report.
Mr. Smith responded that there was nothing physically there at this point in
— time that would bar that. He said the plan would need to be amended in
order to accomplish that.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated there was another way to get that lane and
bridge, and that would be to modify the building footprints.
Mr. Smith stated that the plan was the footprints, and he agreed that would
have to be modified to accommodate the lane and bridge at that location.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated one of the concerns he raised at the last
meeting was about heights of the towers that are on the corner across from
the Arco station. He said he did not see any comments in the staff report
about that.
Mr. Smith responded that the tower elements were not discussed or altered.
Upon question by Councilmember Benson, he confirmed that the Hampton
Inn was three-story. He continued with the staff report, noting that part of
this request before Council was a project identification sign which would be
approximately 84 square feet. The applicant was proposing that
identification sign in lieu of the smaller signs which are permitted under code
but are limited to 40 square feet in area each. The sign would have the
photo simulation of the project on it with some copy over it. A similar sign
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
was done for Desert Crossing, and it seemed to work fine, and staff would
support that request. He offered to answer any questions.
With regard to entrance #1 as shown on the circulation element, Mayor Pro
Tem Crites asked if there was any reason why there couldn't be a
deceleration lane to the north and an acceleration lane to the south.
Mr. Smith responded there was nothing that would prevent this being done;
however, he said he would defer to City Engineer Mark Greenwood.
Mr. Greenwood stated that with the recent widening of Highway 111 at the
Cuistot Restaurant, the subject had come up with regard to the traffic that is
turning right further up ahead and whether they should be trapped into that
driveway or allowed to bypass that driveway in the auxiliary lane. He said he
felt it was better to let them bypass that lane. They had the option of turning
into that driveway or to bypass it and make the right turn. With regard to
whether this would affect the ability to build a pedestrian bridge, he said it
would not. Upon further question by Mayor Pro Tem Crites as to whether he
would rather have it go straight through and allow people to use it as a
turning lane, he said he would rather have the traffic use it as an auxiliary
lane where they can either turn right at the driveway they are nearest to or
bypass that driveway and make a right turn at the next driveway.
Councilman Ferguson stated he thought when the City was doing the
General Plan and this project in particular, there was discussion about a
tunnel rather than a bridge, something that could accommodate a bike or a
golf cart. It was discussed to do one at Gerald Ford and Portola and then
one here so that folks from the apartments at that end of town could ride
their bikes to school and not have to cross major north/south arterials.
Mayor Spiegel said discussions were about ways to get across. He said he
personally would be opposed to a tunnel.
Mr. Drell stated that discussions were held regarding a tunnel linking Desert
Willow II with Desert Willow III, but he did not think there had been
discussions about a pedestrian tunnel. Upon question by Councilman
Ferguson, he said this bridge would accommodate a bike.
Councilman Kelly said his experience with tunnels were that they were
dangerous places where lots of bad things happen. It was also not pleasant
for people having to clean up the tunnels, and he would not recommend one.
Mr. Drell noted that in terms of the bike path, staff was proposing that
bicyclists would either be directed down Technology to the Spine Road to the
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
University or directed through the project itself and bypass to a great extent
-- Gerald Ford and Cook Street intersection.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR
of or in OPPOSITION to this request.
MR. RICK EVANS, 74000 Country Club Drive, Suite H-2, spoke as the
developer of the project.
With regard to the entrance sign area, Councilman Crites said he wanted to
be sure there would be sufficient room for public art at the entrance to the
City, as was done at the entrances from Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage
into Palm Desert.
Mr. Drell responded that there would be approximately 12-14 feet of
horizontal space after leaving three feet on either side between the artwork
and the sidewalks.
Mayor Spiegel asked for the time line on this project.
MR. EVANS responded that he had hoped to start construction in late
summer or early fall, with the first phase to open in spring. With respect to
the question of the pedestrian bridge and the subsequent effect of the
acceleration/deceleration lane, he pointed out that there is enough room
between the current building and the required setback to have the
acceleration lane continuous. If the acceleration lane were to be continuous,
the design for that entrance would need to be redesigned. He said he was
not in favor of an acceleration lane because he felt the current design was
a little bit safer. With regard to the bridge, he preferred the proposed
location because he felt it would be more logical and more convenient for the
students. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, he responded that all
of the office buildings are one-story in the back, and there are two two-story
buildings in the retail office stage. Upon question by Councilman Ferguson,
he said the temporary marketing sign was designed to go right at the corner
of the project, set back sufficiently to be comfortable at that location. He said
it would have reflective materials to be better seen at night.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites expressed concern about the height of the two towers
at Gerald Ford and Cook. Mr. Evans stated they had looked at that concern
and felt that bringing the elevation down would destroy the overall look of the
project. He said they were not intended to be signage locations but were
really intended to be architectural features. Upon further question by Mayor
Pro Tem Crites, he said he believed these towers would be 34 feet tall.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing closed.
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
Councilman Ferguson said he felt this was a good site plan when he first saw
it and felt it was still a good site plan.
Councilman Ferguson moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance
No. 1059, relating to C/Z 03-10 and DA 03-03; 2) waive further reading and adopt
Resolution No. 04-26, approving PP 03-11, subject to conditions; 3) by Minute Motion,
approve the project marketing sign, as requested by the Applicant; 4) include provision for
an acceleration lane out of the main entrance to the project. Motion was seconded by
Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
C. CONSIDERATION OF A CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY NEXTEL
COMMUNICATIONS AND CINGULAR WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT A
75-FOOT HIGH MONOPINE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TOWER WITH TWO ADJACENT EQUIPMENT SHELTER BUILDINGS
WITHIN A 25-FOOT X 60-FOOT FENCED AREA — PROJECT SITE IS
LOCATED 300 FEET SOUTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND
1,300 FEET EAST OF EL DORADO DRIVE, AND IS PART OF A
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SUBSTATION Case No. CUP 04-01
(Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless, Applicants).
Associate Planner Francisco Urbina reviewed the staff report, noting that
surrounding land uses included the Indian Ridge Country Club golf course
to the south and to the east and the maintenance facility for the Indian Ridge
Country Club to the west. To the north across Country Club Drive as Palm
Valley Country Club. He said the Architectural Review Commission reviewed
the new 75-foot-high monopine and concluded that due to the existence of
several mature, 35-foot-high Mondale pines, 30-foot-high evergreen bottle
trees, and several evergreen shrubs at 7-10 feet high, they did not see the
need to require planting of any additional pine trees. The Commission
thought the cell tower would be adequately camouflaged by this monopine
appearance. However, at the Planning Commission meeting, there was a
resident from Indian Ridge Country Club who objected to the new monopine
because it would be 12 feet higher than the existing 63-foot-high monopine
and the new one would be located 40 feet closer to homes to the south at
Indian Ridge Country Club. This homeowner said he was trying to sell his
house and claimed the real estate agent told him because of the existing
monopine, he might have to lower the price $10,000 of $15,000 in order to
sell it. Also at the Planning Commission meeting, there were letters of
opposition presented from the Indian Ridge Homeowners Association Board
of Directors and the Indian Ridge Homeowners Association Manager stating
their opposition. The manager stated in her letter that after the existing 63-
foot-high monopine was constructed last year, the Homeowners Association
started receiving letters from Indian Ridge homeowners complaining about
the appearance. Since that time, staff had received three letters of
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
opposition from homeowners who were concerned not only with the impact
on views to homeowners at Indian Ridge but also the impact on views to
golfers using the golf course. The applicant chose the site because there is
existing poor cell phone coverage for Nextel and Cingular customers. He
said they did not have much of an alternative as far as locating the cell tower
on a commercially zoned or industrially zoned property because the nearest
commercial property to the west is at the northwest corner of Cook Street
and Country Club in the Ralph's shopping center. Locating the cell tower
there would not completely solve the poor cell phone coverage for this area
between Washington and Cook Street. Although the property and
surrounding properties were zoned planned residential, the existing site was
used for public utilities, the Edison substation and the existing 63-foot-high
monopine which serves Verizon Wireless and Sprint PCS. The monopine
design was chosen over monopalm in order to accommodate co -location,
allowing two carriers on one monopine pole instead of requiring construction
of two monopalms if they had chosen the monopalm design. In granting
approval of the 75-foot-high monopine, the Planning Commission granted an
exception to allow a wireless cell tower to locate on residentially zoned
property. Staff's recommendation was that the Council affirm the Planning
Commission approval of the conditional use permit.
Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mr. Urbina responded that the
reason for the different heights between the existing cell tower and the
proposed cell tower was that there needs to be vertical separation distances
achieved between the two existing carriers' and the two proposed carriers'
antennas so that there is not signal interference.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked whether staff had independently verified the
need for the 12-foot increase or if staff had accepted what the applicant's
had advised. Mr. Urbina responded that staff had accepted what the
applicant had advised. Mayor Pro Tem Crites said he would want to know
independently if what they tell us actually needs to be done. He also asked
whether staff had any data indicating whether the height could be reduced
and perhaps have the tower at 50 feet in height. Mr. Urbina responded that
staff did not have independent data.
Councilman Ferguson stated it was his understanding that during the
comprehensive zoning ordinance review, a cell phone tower ordinance was
worked on, and there was an independent consultant at that time who was
providing assistance.
Mr. Drell responded that this was correct. He said the height was a
combination of the applicant getting the coverage they want and the issue of
separation. He said it would be pretty easy for the applicant to show what
the coverage difference would be if they lowered them and the impact that
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
would have on their coverage. He said he believed they did not have the
desire to make the towers any taller than they have to be because it would
cost more money.
Councilman Kelly said he felt before hiring a consultant to tell the Council
whether the tower has to be that tall, the Council should first determine if it
would approve that height anyway. He added that he was not prepared to
approve that height.
Councilman Ferguson stated that included in the packets was a letter from
Marc Pevers which seemed to indicate that the Planning Commission was
sold a bill of goods on what the Homeowners Association position was at
Indian Ridge. He asked what was the representation made with the position
of the HOA to the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell responded that it was
opposition. The conclusion was that there were not any good alternatives
short of saying they could not serve this area. Councilman Ferguson stated
that with one Commissioner absent and one abstaining, the vote was 2-1,
and that did not sit well with him, especially since the one who was absent
seemed to indicate the vote would have been 2-2 had she not been ill.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated that he had gone out to look at the existing cell
phone tower earlier that day and felt it Tess than met any kind of aesthetic
criteria. Another thing he felt the applicant needed to look at was the type of
palm trees that are used at St. Margaret's which he felt were light years
ahead of the old phone palm trees.
Mayor Spiegel agreed the two towers at St. Margaret's were very well
camouflaged and people really don't see them because they look so much
like palm trees.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR
of or in OPPOSITION to this request.
MR. STEVE STACKHOUSE, representing Cingular Wireless, said he was
with a company called VelociTel, 18071 Fitch Avenue, Suite 200, Irvine, CA
92614. He said as it had been stated, what they were trying to do was
accomplish some coverage that was unfortunately in the middle of a
residential area with not a lot of commercial or industrial or alternative
opportunities. When their site acquisition team went out and tried to secure
an appropriate candidate, given the constraints of the search range that the
carriers provide saying this is where we need to go, find us a site, they took
that map, went out to the area, and started identifying candidates. In this
instance, that list of candidates became a very short list very quickly because
there were no other alternative candidates. He said they initially looked at
the Indian Ridge Homeowners Association maintenance yard, and they
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
inquired as to whether there might be the possibility of locating there. That
was not pursued because it was quickly realized that with the Edison
substation, that is where they needed to go. They also realized that given
all of their maintenance vehicles and the equipment in their maintenance
yard, it did not appear they had much in the way of any viable space where
the tower could be located. They then pursued the Edison substation site as
the very best candidate for their coverage objectives.
Councilman Ferguson asked whether Mr. Stackhouse had discussed with
the folks at Indian Ridge about doing a monopalm like Mayor Pro Tem Crites
suggested. Mr. Stackhouse said he did not believe this had been discussed.
Councilman Ferguson stated that by Federal law, the Council could not
prohibit cell phone towers, but the City can regulate whether companies co -
locate or not and can dictate aesthetic design standards on the structure
itself. He said if he were on the Indian Ridge Board of Directors and had a
choice of looking at this tower, even if it is shorter, he felt it would just
compound the ugliness of it. He said the City was working with the applicant
to find a place to put a grove of natural palms with a monopalm, which would
cost the applicant a little bit more money, but this is not a cheap
development. The applicant made reference to the industrial use that Edison
has here, but the applicant's own photograph shows it is completely
screened with landscaping. Residents of Indian Ridge had investment -
backed expectations in their homes, in this property, and while it might be
cheaper to co -locate, the law allows the City to deny that. Perhaps the
applicant's option is to talk with Indian Ridge about a better location.
MR. STACKHOUSE stated one of the reasons Nextel and Cingular, as well
as Verizon and Sprint before them, went with the Edison substation is that
Edison, being the top utility company they are, has what they refer to as a
master lease agreement with all the carriers. What that means is Edison has
already worked with and hammered out an agreement with all the carriers so
that if there is a site that is their property that is suitable to his clients' siting
criteria, they know Edison is a willing landlord they can go to and advise they
need to locate in this area. They know Edison would be agreeable to that
given the design aspects of it. That is a big part of being able to secure a
site when, in fact, oftentimes if you pursue an HOA, they may have little or
no interest, they may be indifferent, or it may be that the management might
allow a company to located there but the membership or the board may say
they are not interested and vote it down. The fact that there was already a
monopalm there set precedent, and they thought, as had been directed by
City staff, that when not possible to locate in a commercial/industrial,
consideration should be given to co -location. He noted they had another site
where they were looking at going on one side of the street with an HOA, but
the HOA was not interested and were not willing to work with them. They
considered a municipal water district property, but upon investigating that
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
with staff, staff said they would rather they go on the other side of the street
because Verizon was just approved at this location, and staff wanted his
client to co -locate adjacent to them. He added that he felt they had been
going by the direction provided by City staff towards a co -location effort. He
said were they to be required to go with separate monopalm structures, that
would take additional time to even evaluate whether or not this site could
facilitate that or if Indian Ridge Homeowners Association would even be
willing to allow them to locate on its property. His understanding was that the
response given to staff by Indian Ridge Homeowners Association thus far
was not only no, it was "absolutely not."
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked if it was Mr. Stackhouse's desire this evening
to have a decision made at this meeting as to the proposal. Mr. Stackhouse
responded that his desire would be to have a yes vote on the proposal;
however, if the vote was not going to be approval, he would rather have the
matter continued to sort out some details.
Councilman Kelly stated there was a comment in the staff report relative to
the need for a microwave, and the purpose for that was to use microwave
instead of hardwire. He said this was another area where the applicant could
not require that much height because hardwire could be used.
MR. STACKHOUSE stated one of the reasons the monopine was so tall was
that they were offering a ten -foot additional cone to the tree to increase the
appearance of the monopine and make it look as realistic as possible,
whereby Sprint only had about a five-foot cone above their antennas. If so
desired, and in an effort to reach a compromise, he said they could reduce
the height of their monopine by at least five feet by reducing that cone to
where they have five feet above the antennas and make it 70 feet instead of
the 75 feet. Because this is a substation with high voltage, and because
there was such a relatively smaller area that was permissible for Sprint and
Verizon to pull their hard copper lines into the site, Edison already put them
on notice that it would be difficult to have Nextel and Cingular put their lines
in on top of or beside or anywhere in close vicinity to the existing lines.
Cingular, as an alternative design, had decided that it would bring telco lines
into their site via the microwave dish rather than hard copper wires because
if they were to do copper wire or fiber, they would have to implement a
positron and/or huffman box, which is kind of a filter, so that there couldn't
be any electrical surges that might come through the telco lines and into the
systems that would cause damage. Upon further question by Councilman
Kelly, he said it was his understanding it could be done with hardwire but with
great difficulty if at all.
Councilman Ferguson said he felt this was a horrible location, even if the
tower is 10 or 20 feet shorter. Having the first tower there he felt was a
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
nightmare, but adding a second one was even worse. He said he would like
Mr. Stackhouse to go back to square one, take a look at the maintenance
yard at Palm Desert Resorter, look at the substation in Indian Wells, work
with Indian Ridge if they are willing to and listen to them, look at St.
Margaret's and the monopalm and what is attractive about it, and try to do
something that is aesthetically compatible with Palm Desert's community
standards and not just take the quick and easy route. He asked if Mr.
Stackhouse would rather have a no vote tonight or if he was willing to make
that effort which he feels the applicant should have done in the first place.
MR. STACKHOUSE responded that he would prefer consideration, favorable
hopefully, but if not, they were willing to have the matter continued to see
what they can sort out. He noted that they really could not go a mile in one
direction or another; this is where they need to provide the coverage. If the
matter is continued and the applicant is not able to reach agreement with any
of the surrounding homeowners associations, that would leave them no
choice but to come back to this site.
Mayor Spiegel noted that the photo of the substation showed the existing
monopalm; however, he saw in the foreground five palm trees, which looked
to be on the other side of a fence. A monopalm in there would not be seen
at all because of the existing palm trees. He also felt the applicant should
pursue the possibility of locating the tower at the Indian Ridge maintenance
yard. Additionally, if the Indian Ridge Homeowners Association does not
want this pine tree, he did not believe it was going to happen.
Councilman Ferguson said if the residents of Indian Ridge look at the
monopalms at St. Margaret's, he was comfortable something could be
worked out so that a place could be found to put these monopalms. He
added that he personally felt Edison was the worst possible site, and
perhaps Indian Ridge could use some of that revenue as opposed to giving
it to Edison.
MR. JAMES LEE, 1590 Milliken, Unit H, Ontario, California, said he worked
for a company that was contracted to work for Nextel Wireless. He noted
that it was not a cost issue that made them want to co -locate with Cingular,
but the City encouraged them to do so. Whether it is a co -location with a
cluster of palms or a co -location with two antennas on one pole, that wasn't
the driving force. The driving force was that there was only one area they
could go, and there was only one space for one pole. The City encouraged
Cingular to work with Nextel.
MR. RON POGUE, 907 Box Canyon Trail, President of the Indian Ridge
Country Club Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition to the addition
of the tower. He said they had a landscaping committee and an architectural
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
committee at Indian Ridge. They had standards and a landscaping palette
which was the original design intent for Indian Ridge. Homeowners
purchased there for that reason, and things like this were very disruptive.
The property adjacent to the Edison property was part of the country club
rather than part of the Homeowners Association, so the adjacent
maintenance yard that was discussed and the landscape that surrounds the
Edison substation was all golf course maintenance and part of the country
club. He was sure they would be willing to meet and discuss this further with
the representatives from Nextel and Cingular. He said this was a high -end
residential area, and the zoning ordinance encourages locations outside of
residential areas in commercial areas. He said the other picture that was
shown that showed several palm trees was really the north boundary of the
Edison substation on Country Club Drive, and that was the furthest point
away from the golf course and the homes. He said he would rather see the
tower moved that direction and maybe brought down a little so at least from
the residential area and the golf course it wouldn't be as obtrusive. He
added that concerns raised by Council at this meeting were also concerns
of residents of Indian Ridge.
MS. DANA BROWN, Indian Ridge Homeowners Association Manager,
stated that no one had come to their office and speak to anyone regarding
the 75-foot-high tower. They had not received notice of the first Planning
Commission meeting until after the fact. Only a few of the homeowners on
White Horse Trail received notice from the City. He said Mr. Urbina had
received a letter from Will Gill, who is the General Manager for the country
club rather than the Homeowners Association, and they were in opposition
as well.
MR. ALIBABA FARZANEH, 39902 Newcastle Drive, Palm Desert, said he
was only a few yards away from this tower. He said he had spent two years
as a consultant for GTE, and he agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Crites that the
tower does not need to be as tall as proposed. He said all the radio waves
will travel as low as even ground level. He did not feel the first antenna
should be there, and it certainly was not necessary to have another one at
a greater height.
With no furthertestimony offered, Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing closed.
Upon question by Mayor Spiegel, Mr. Stackhouse responded that he did not
want Council to vote on this matter tonight and would rather Council continue
the matter.
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
-- Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of
May 27, 2004, in order to provide Applicants with time to find a potential different location
and possibly utilizing different equipment or technology (e.g. monopalm vs. monopine;
hardwire vs. microwave). Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
1. Fred Warina Widening --Neaative Declaration of Environmental Impact
Mr. Ortega advised the City Council that the subject Negative
Declaration was being circulated, with comments due prior to the next
City Council Meeting. He said that City staff had been meeting with
impacted homeowners, two more meetings have been scheduled,
and the primary issue being raised was noise on Fred Waring.
However, one of the issues is related to design --whether or not to
permit traffic into Palm Desert Country Club --asking City Council to
think about this issue. He asked the City Council to forward its
comments on the Negative Declaration as soon as possible.
2. Senator Duchenv — Hertzberg Initiative — Mr. Ortega commented that
Senator Ducheny was part of a group floating a bill that may
implement the Hertzberg Initiative, and the City is very concerned. He
explained the bill would shift VLF (Vehicle License Fees) away from
cities to schools and would swap sales tax. He said Senator Ducheny
agreed to engage in a conference call on Monday, April 12, at
4:00 p.m., and he asked for two City Councilmembers to participate
with him and Redevelopment Agency staff in his office.
With City Council concurrence, members of the Legislative Review Committee
(Councilmen Ferguson and Kelly) were authorized to participate in Monday's
Conference Call.
B. CITY ATTORNEY
None
C. CITY CLERK
None
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
1. Parkina Alona Country Club Drive — Councilmember Benson
reiterated her request for staff to investigate the issue of
parking along Country Club drive in the vicinity of Manor Care.
She had counted 12 cars there today and believed they were
Manor Care employees. She said the person who contacted
her with the concern had to park beyond the cars that were
already along Country Club and walk in traffic in order to get to
the facility to visit her mother there. The reason there was
overcrowded on -site parking was because Manor Care had
initiated an outpatient orthopedic treatment center. The
constituent mentioned her situation to the manager, who
replied it was because the City wouldn't sell any property for
them to add on to their parking. Councilmember Benson
asked staff to again explore red -curbing Country Club Drive in
this area.
City Councilmembers concurred.
2. Grapevine Street Traffic Concerns, — Councilman Kelly asked
his colleagues if they would consider adding consideration of
the residents' concerns to this agenda so measures could be
taken immediately.
Councilman Kelly moved to add consideration of this matter to the Agenda. Motion
was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize: 1) Mayor Pro Tem Crites
and Councilman Kelly to work with staff to identify at least one location for an additional
stop sign and place same; 2) painting a double yellow line on the entirety of the street and
place "No Commercial Traffic" signage as needed; 3) additional traffic enforcement on
Grapevine Street. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote.
3. Fred Warina/Deep Canyon Accident — Mayor Pro Tem Crites
noted that a suspect had been apprehended in the recent hit
and run vehicular fatality at the subject intersection. However,
he wondered how a driver with numerous repeated violations
was still driving. He asked the Police Department to look into
why this driver hadn't been suspended earlier.
40
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
o City Council Committee Reports:
None
o City Council Comments:
1. City Council Liaison Reports.
None
2. Prevailina Waae — Mayor Pro Tem Crites said he'd just read
an article about an issue with the Department of Labor
Relations, requiring prevailing wage for all volunteer programs
in the State of California. He felt this would have a substantial
impact on grants from the State and how the City works with
them. He would provide a copy of the article to Mr. Ortega.
XIX. ADJOURNMENT
With Council concurrence, Mayor Spiegel adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.,
noting that there would be a City Council Study Session regarding Highway 74
traffic issues on Monday, April 12, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. in the Administrative Services
Conference Room.
ATTEST:
RA HELLE D. KLASSEIV, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ROBERT A. SPIEGE7. MAYOR
41
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
EXHIBIT "A"
GOOD AFTERNOON MR MAYOR,
COUNCILLORS...
MY NAME IS PAT BELL, PRESIDENT OF THE
INDIAN SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
I AM HERE TO REPRESENT THE
MEMBERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE HERE
TODAY.
THE LAST TIME I SPOKE TO YOU ON THEIR in I k
BEHALF, MY APPEAL WAS FOR YOU TO N.
REALLY LOOK AT THE CHANGES THAT ;\ b-01
WERE MADE TO THE ORDINANCE
THIS HUGE DOCUMENT WAS FAR TOO ,R
COMPLEX FOR MOST OF US TO DIGEST
WE DID TRY.. OUR HOA LEGAL COUNSEL
WILL SPEAK TO SOME ISSUES TODAY AND ?All
RESIDENTS, TO OTHER CONCERNS THAT
THEY HAVE.
LET ME FIRST MAKE YOU AWARE THAT
WITHIN A 6 —WEEK PERIOD, INDIAN
SPRINGS RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN HIT WITH
TWO MAJOR LEGAL PETITIONS?
,j
1. THE RENT CONTROL REVISIONS:
WE BELIEVE MANY OF THESE
SERIOUSLY ERODE (AND IN ONE
INSTANCE, DELETE) THE PROTECTION
THAT THIS CITY PROVIDED FOR
MOBILEHOME RESIDENTS UNDER THE
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE....
2. A PETITION TO CHANGE THE STATUS
OF THIS PARK TO CONDOMINIUM (i.e.
RESIDENT -OWNED) PROPERTY.
MANY SENIORS IN THIS PARK HAVE
BEEN HERE SINCE IT WAS BUILT IN THE
EARLY 70'S..THEY ARE WELL INTO
THEIR 80'S AND 90'S NOW
MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE ARE
WIDOWS
MANY ARE ON LIMITED OR RESTRICTED
INCOME
PEOPLE OF THIS AGE AND IN THESE
INCOME BRACKETS HAVE CONCRETE
RESTRICTIONS ON THEM...THEIR
FAILING HEALTH AND UNREAL
PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS, THEIR
LIMITED ABILITY TO GET AROUND AND
TO RESPOND TO NEW AND FRIGHTENING
SITUATIONS....
.....MUCH LESS PROPOSITIONS SUCH AS
THE TWO MENTIONED ABOVE.
THIS REALLY OUGHT TO BE A TIME
WHEN THINGS GET A LITLE EASIER
FACED AS THEY ARE WITH THE RENT
CONTROL CHANGES AND NOW, THE
CONVERSION OF THE VERY LAND THEY
HAVE BEEN LIVING ON,
WE HAVE TO ADMIRE THE EXTREME
DEGREE OF CIVILITY AND DECORUM THEY
HAVE SHOWN
THEY ARE HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO
LISTEN TO THEM AND TO HELP THEM.
ON THEIR BEHALF, I ASK YOU TO:
TABLE THIS ORDINANCE UNTIL THERE IS A
CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACT
THE CHANGES WILL HAVE ON THESE
SENIORS.
ON MY OWN BEHALF, I ASK YOU TO:
CHANGE: THE NO.5 ISSUE (IN DR. BAAR'S
REGULATIONS- HERE ATTACHED) TO
INCLUDE A RECIPROCAL PROVISION
FOR RESIDENTS.
WE MUST NOT BE DISENFRANCHISED
IN CONCLUSION, I WANT TO THANK DR.
BAAR FOR LISTENING TO OUR
IDEAS(EVEN WHERE HE DID NOT
IMPLEMENT THEM) AS WE WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN PRIVY TO THIS DOCUMENT
HAD HE NOT DONE SO, AND TO BOB
KOHN AND HIS STAFF FOR THEIR
ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING RECORDS
AND BEING GENERALLY HELPFUL AND
AVAILABLE TO US.
Issue No. Issue
in Report
Changes in Regulations
Repeal Discretonary Rent Increase
Standard, Replace with
General Authorization to
Provide a Fair Return
2. Replace Presumption that
management expenses equal 5% of
gross with presumption that
management expense ratio remains
constant in "mnoi standard"
(`mnoi standard" = maintenance of net
operating income fair return standard
3. Exclude consideration of master -
metered utility expenses in mnoi
standard
4. Adopt interest allowance for all
capital improvements
5. Legal costs in fair return proceeding
can be passed through to residents in
mnoi standard
6. Change methods of calculating park
owners income in fair return hearings,
interest on deposits in mnoi standard,
no longer imputed to be 5%.
7. Readjust allowance for park owners
for self -labor in mnoi standard
previously set in 1983
8. Remove allowance for park
depreciation from mnoi standard
Opposed, or
Unopposed
(lack of opposition
does not indicate
affirmative approval)
Unopposed
Unopposed
Unopposed
Opposed by
residents
(see Eggebraatan
memo, p.3)
Opposed
Residents want the
provision to be
reciprocal
Unopposed
Unopposed
Unopposed
Comment
Legally required
pursuant to
judicial doctrine
Legally required
pursuant to
judicial doctrine
Legally required
pursuant to
judicial doctrine
THANK YOU MR MAYOR AND
COUNCILLORS....
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THIS BE
SUBMITTED INTO THE PERMANENT
RECORD,
PATRICIA K. BELL, PRESIDENT
INDIAN SPRINGS HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION
49305 HIWAY 74 #171
PALM DESERT, CA. 92260
760-773-3771
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
EXHIBIT "B"
Rent Control! Now, that seems to be a "title" of
any rent action to help protect the renter from being
forced into a financial problem, especially we elderly
seniors. Most of us settle down to our final years in a
place like the "Indian Springs Mobilehome Park,
being accepted by the Owner and those physically in
charge of the park. But, some of the Mobilehome
owners in this park are not loaded with financial
reserves, as some of us live on a small income plus
Social Security. We need a decent "Rental Control"
to maintain our Mental & Financial Equilibrium.
Some of us were denied "Rental Control" when
we bought our Mobilehome, and signed a 5 year
Lease, and after 5 years the lease was not renewed.
But, our monthly rent was and still is a $100 or more,
than most of those renters who never signed a
lease. And all our rents are still increasing every
year. So, that makes "Rental Control" much more
important, to us, the residents of this Park. Again, do
I assume that all of you on this City Council,
represent residents and taxpayers of Indian Springs
Mobilehome Park in Palm Desert, the majority
involved in this litigation of "Rental Control"
/a)/
Stanley' len" Wiesner - 4 / 8 / 04
Rec'd 4
/I
CcAJ i D.
Fmk -.�-
MINUTES
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2004
EXHIBIT "C"
TO: PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL - MEETING TIME: 4PM APRIL 08, 2004
COMMENTS BY MARI SCH DT, RESID I T O a CH OWNER AT INDI SPJRINGS
_ MOBILE HOME PARK . ..�Y o4L74)(1)`F
PLEASE INCLUDE THESE COMMENTS IN THE PERMANENT RECORD OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS.
My name is Mari Schmidt and I am a full time resident coach owner in Indian
Springs Mobile Home Park.
am speaking on my own behalf and for 81 other coach owners
(approximately 43% of the residency) who have given me permission to
speak for them. Some are here, some are infirmed and unable to get to any
meeting let alone this one and, some are working and can not be here.
May I take a moment to personally thank Dr. Baar and Robert Kohn of the
City's staff, for alerting the Homeowners' Association that these revisions
were underway and including us in the disbursement of two (2) draft
documents? Were it not for that, we would not have been aware that this
"revision" process was occurring. We were informed that no notice of these
hearings is called out in the Palm Desert Ordinances governing Public
Hearings other than posting a notice on the front door of the City Hall and, in
addition, any notices found in the newspaper are simply a courtesy. if this is
so, I find it appalling. I would also note that I have had access to two (2) draft
documents, one of which is undated and, I assume supersedes the first draft
document dated "February 2004". Quite honestly, I'm still not sure I'm
reading the correct or latest documents which is seriously unnerving to me.
In any case...
One week ago, almost to the hour, our peace and quiet enjoyment as
residence coach owners at Indian Springs Mobile Home Park was shattered
by a hastily called general meeting by the land owner's representatives which
announced to us that the land owner was initiating the conversion application
of the Park to Single Family Condominium status with the City. It is
inconceivable to me that the City of Palm Desert has not been aware of this
intended conversion for sometime. However, if you were unaware, you
should be furious. Interestingly, Dr. Baar in one sentence in his Introduction
(Page 1), says - "This report does not address issues related to the potential
meeting
Co NJ iD.,Et us.
conversion of mobile home parks to condominium ownership or to other
uses"
Be that as it may, for several months we've been following as closely as
possible the proposed changes to the existing Rent Review Ordinance under
Title 9 - PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE. For the life of me, 1
couldn't justify the purported reason for these changes. Now, of course, we
understand.
Several things have become patently clear. The proposed changes to name
but a few:
- dramatically "loosen" the intent of the ordinance,
- do not in any way mitigate the exposure of the City to litigation,
- restrict, if not obliterate, an individual's or Homeowner's Association
redress or recourse to speak to unfair or wrongful space rent
increases
- is vague in the wording regarding a land owner's ability to seek a "fair
return" pass-thru while seeking the conversion of a mobile home park
- gives the land owner prior approval to proceed under a new section
entitled -"Advance Determination of Allowable Increase (Page 18 - D)
Just think of this last one, if you will, just from a legal standpoint - "OK, Mr.
Land owner, you can do these capital improvements or replacement
improvements and, when they're finished and you verify their costs, we may
or may not grant you a fair return increase".... If that wording isn't inviting
litigation, I'm do not know what would! But, above all, the proposed
Ordinance and, as well, the existing Ordinance do not in any way, shape or
form speak to the QUALITY of the Capital Improvements." the cost of which
might be passed through to us. I can personally attest to the street
resurfacing issue involved in a prior litigation in which our Homeowners'
Association prevailed. The streets received what was tantamount to a "slurry
coat", and a poor one at that, but the bill came through in the form of a
resurfacing for some outrageous sum. Is there any checking by the City to
see if these things actually even happened or, if so, happened well? if the
pricing is consistent with industry standards? You can begin to see our
concern.
We do not want to embarrass anyone. We definitely do not want to spend 8
more years in expensive court battles. People often stand before you and
moan and groan about this and that.. you listen and sometimes those
speakers do not share with you what they really want you to do. I'm not one
of those people - I want you to slow down regarding changes to this
Ordinance, take it back for more study, reconsider your position, take time to
look at the proposals and changes and look at it from the peoples' side.. the
people whom you represent. And, remember that the intent of this Ordinance
is not to ke,'p the City out of legal travail.. it is to protect the people `Yrhich it is
intended to serve. You must not content yourselves in thinking that the
proposed changes to this ordinance will in any sense lessen the City's
exposure to lawsuits. I see it as quite the opposite. The proposed changes,
uc•-• i I LI i I I, I I 1 .1ii'.' 1L V II LLAuiiy ii iipv�JiLI fvr tI iN viiy to turri dId'/11 I u fuir
return'. rent increase. That simply just isn't right. Please don't rush this thing
through. Please take a long, long look at what you're about to do. Thank you.