Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-104k MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M. Mayor Crites convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Mayor Pro Tem Jim Ferguson Councilman Richard S. Kelly Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Buford A. Crites Also Present: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director David J. Erwin, City Attomey (arrived at 5:00 p.m.) Robert W. Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney (present from 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.) Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Michael J. Errante, Director of Public Works David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment & Housing Walt Holloway, Battalion Chief, Palm Desert/Riverside County Fire Dept./CDF Steve Thetford, Asst. Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside Co. Sheriff's Dept. Grace L. Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk III. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Request for Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): a) Indian Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Desert, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 053903 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54956.9(b): Number of potential cases: 2 Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant potential to initiate litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c): Number of potential cases: 1 Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: Negotiating Party: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert Upon a motion by Ferguson, second by Kelly, and 5-0 vote of the City Council, the following item was added to this agenda for Closed Session consideration: Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1) Property: APN 653-280-035/036 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Mark D. Greenwood/City of Palm Desert/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Matthew Johnson Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment With City Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 3:03 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. IV. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. None V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINTMENT OF AN ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE PALM DESERT YOUTH COMMITTEE. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Ryan Sheehy as an alternate member of the Palm Desert Youth Committee. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 B. APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE AS ITS REPRESENTATIVE ON THE PALM SPRINGS DESERT RESORTS CONVENTION AND VISITORS AUTHORITY (CVA). Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Councilman Spiegel to serve as the City's designated representative to the CVA. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by 4-0-1 vote, with Spiegel ABSTAINING. With City Council concurrence, Mayor Crites appointed Councilman Kelly as the alternate representative to the CVA. C. APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE AS ITS LIAISON TO THE PALM DESERT MARKETING COMMITTEE. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Councilman Kelly to serve as a liaison to the Marketing Committee. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Kelly ABSTAINING. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting of October 27, 2005, and the Regular City Council Meeting of October 27, 2005. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 93, 97, and 100. Rec: Approve as presented. C. CITY'S/AGENCY'S COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS and Investment Reports for July, August, and September 2005 (Joint Consideration with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency). Rec: Receive and file. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Successor Trustee (Contract No. C24550) (Joint Consideration with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency and the Palm Desert Financing Authority). Rec: By Minute Motion, terminate the City's trust relationship with Bank of New York and approve Wells Fargo & Company as a successor trustee for a five-year term, commencing January 1, 2006. 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 E. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Deni Fulton Curtis and Monique Jacqueline Curtis for The Market On El Paseo, 73-375 El Paseo, Suite F, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. F. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Guadalupe Martinez and Ruben V. Martinez for IL Bambino's Pizzeria, 74-478 Highway 111, #C, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. G. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE byJames E. Choi and Susan Y. Choi for Seoul Garden Plaza, Inc., 74-695 Highway 111, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of an Increase in Visitor Center Cash Register Funds. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a $100 increase in the Visitor Center cash register fund, as managed by the Visitor Center Manager. I. CITY COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. 1. Marketing Committee Meeting of September 20, 2005. 2. Sister Cities Committee Meeting of September 15, 2005. Rec: Receive and file. J. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION of the City Manager's Authorization of Slurry Seal Application on the Parking Lot at Desert Willow Golf Resort. Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify the City Manager's authorization of hiring I P S, Inc., for the subject work in the amount of $14,860. K. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Various Vendors for Equipment Rental Services. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the use of United Rentals, Clairemont Equipment Co., and Elms Equipment Rental to provide equipment rental services to the City of Palm Desert for Fiscal Year 2005/06. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 L. CONSIDERATION of the Reimbursement of Art In Public Places Fees to The Fountains At Carlotta, 41-505 Carlotta, Palm Desert. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the reimbursement of Art In Public Places fees in the amount of $18,957.50 to The Fountains At Carlotta for its placement of the bronze sculpture "Friendship Bench" by John Kennedy — funds are available in Account No. 436-0000-228-9900. M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Agreement for Printing of the 2006 Annual Community Calendar (Contract No. C24560). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject agreement with Coachella Valley Printing Group in the amount of $27,135 — funds are available in Account No. 110-4417-414-3091. NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS LISTED ON AN AGENDA ADDENDUM POSTED AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. N. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Repair the City's John Deere Skip Loader. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize repair of the subject equipment by RDO Equipment Company, Riverside, California, for the estimated amount of $28,121.98. Upon a motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, and 5-0 vote of the City Council, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 05-97 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ITS RESOLUTION NO. 81-61, CLARIFYING PROVISIONS FOR CHECK SIGNATURES AND COLLECTING MATURED INACTIVE DEPOSITS OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson asked how the original check -signing policy came to be and what initiated the subject change. Mr. Gibson answered that he wasn't here when the policy was originally established. However, the subject resolution was being provided in response 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 to a time earlier this year when both the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem were attending an out-of-state meeting. After discussing the matter with the Mayor, the subject resolution was being considered to account for such future instances. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson said he thought the City should have the legal flexibility to execute checks in situations that very rarely occur, like last summer. But he felt the policy of having one person execute all the checks during their term was important from an accountability safeguard standard. He believed if there was a deviation from that standard, the primary signatory should be notified and provide consent; then there would be four other officials in the order of Mayor Pro Tem and on down the line to obtain signatures. Councilman Spiegel agreed and moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-97. Councilman Kelly said he agreed but wondered how it would work, as he also felt a definite order should be maintained. Mayor Crites stated the policy should reflect that the Mayor would have the primary responsibility of approving and signing checks; in his/her absence, it would then fall to the Mayor Pro Tem. He said each year when the new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are appointed, an order of the next three City Councilmembers will be set for the signatory of record in instances where both the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem were absent. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion, and it carried by 5-0 vote. B. RESOLUTION NO. 05-98 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT NO. 30438 (Stone Eagle Development, Applicant). Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson noted for the record that he would be abstaining on this matter. Mr. Ortega commented that in accordance with recent City Council directive, even though this is a final map, staff had included all the maps and conditions of approval in the agenda packets. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-98. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. 6 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 C. RESOLUTION NO. 05-99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT NO. 30438-3 (Stone Eagle Development, Applicant). Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson noted for the record that he would be abstaining on this matter. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-99. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None X. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS FOR WIDENING AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION FOR FRED WARING DRIVE FROM CALIFORNIA AVENUE TO WASHINGTON STREET (CONTRACT NO. C24570, PROJECT NO. 655-01). Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute the. subject MOU with the City of Indian Wells. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by 5-0 vote. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE WAIVER FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON PARCEL MAP NO. 31515 — THE VILLAGE AT UNIVERSITY PARK (The Evans Company, Applicant). Upon question, Mr. Errante agreed that the recommended action would acknowledge the Applicant's installation of the traffic signal and waive the signalization fees that would otherwise be charged. He went on to explain that this project was conditioned to construct a signal, which was estimated to cost approximately $330,000. The signalization fee was estimated at $165,000; therefore, he said it was a benefit to the City to approve the request. 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the request to waive traffic signalization fees for Parcel Map No. 31515, The Village at University Park. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW "RECYCLE BINNEY" COMMERCIALS AND MEDIA PURCHASES TO PROMOTE RECYCLING IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve a contract with The Lawrence Company, El Segundo, California, in the amount of $144,700 and authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $14,400 (Contract No. C24580) for creation of the next three recycling commercials (e.g. Commercial Recycling, E-waste, and Universal Waste Recycling) and the Spanish translation of the Introduction of "Recycle Binney" Commercial; 2) authorize staff to advertise spots on Time Warner, KESQ, KMIR, KPSP, and other media as appropriate in the amount of $71,750 and authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $7,175; 3) authorize the expenditure of budgeted funds in the total amount of $238,025 from Account No. 236-4195-454-3090. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a vote of 5-0. Councilmembers agreed that this was both a great promotional effort and use of monies collected in the recycling fund. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF GRANT FUNDING FOR MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF THE DESERT, PALM DESERT, FROM THE CITY'S CHILD CARE DEVELOPMENT FEES FUND 228 FOR PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS. In response to inquiry, Mr. Erwin answered that the Montessori School was nonsectarian. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve a $43,000 grant to - Montessori School for playground and facility upgrades; 2) appropriate $43,000 from the Child Care Mitigation Fund 228; 3) authorize the City Manager to execute the required agreement (Contract No. C24590). Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CURATOR SERVICES FOR THE 2006/07 EL PASEO EXHIBITION (CONTRACT NO. C24600). Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve Russell Jacques as curator of the 2006/07 El Paseo Exhibition; 2) award him a $5,000 honorarium. Motion was seconded by Spiegel. Responding to question, Public Arts Manager Richard Twedt said the current Exhibition will be changed out beginning in October 2006. Mayor Crites called for the vote, and the motion carried 5-0. 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 F. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR SPONSORSHIP OF FASHION WEEK EL PASEO, MARCH 20 - 26, 2006. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Concur with the recommendation of the Marketing Committee to sponsor the 2006 Fashion Week El Paseo Event in the amount of $50,000; 2) appropriate said funds from the Unobligated General Fund to Account No. 110-4417-414-3222. Councilman Spiegel seconded the motion, adding that he felt it was an excellent program that would bring additional people to Palm Desert to buy merchandise on El Paseo. The motion carried by 5-0 vote. G. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID FOR PAINT STENCIL TRUCK. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, award purchase of a paint stencil truck to Fritts Ford, Riverside, California, in the amount of $65,997.48 —funds are available in the FY 2005/06 Vehicle Replacement Fund. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a vote of 5-0. H. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO IDENTIFYING A POTENTIAL HISTORIC SITE, PALM DESERT LODGE, 74-527 HIGHWAY 111. Mr. Ortega stated that the Historic Preservation Committee did not yet agree on a recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council. Therefore, a continuance was recommended. Councilman Kelly moved to continue this matter to the meeting of December 8, 2005. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote. XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS None XII. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C23090 — CIVIC CENTER PARK PUMP STATION PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 720-01). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $76,054.31 to the subject contract with Cora Constructors, Palm Desert, California, and authorize the Mayor to execute same; 2) transfer $7,752.91 from contingency to base for the subject project; 3) appropriate $68,301.40 from Unobligated Fund 400 to Account No. 400-4674-454-4001 for the subject contract. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by 5-0 vote. 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF THE CLOSURE OF ALASKA AVENUE AT FRED WARING DRIVE. Mr. Errante reported that as part of the process of widening Fred Waring Drive, a sound wall was being installed along the roadway. Staff discovered that by constructing a wall adjacent to Alaska Avenue, it would cause a sight distance problem for vehicles attempting to make either a safe left or right turn there. He said it was determined that the best way to otherwise modify circulation was by: 1) Installing a traffic signal at California Avenue to allow people to make safe left and right turns there; 2) leaving Tennessee Avenue open for people to negotiate right tums. However, he said it was impossible to make any adjustments to the wall at Alaska; and since the traffic volumes at this intersection were so low, closure was the best solution. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony on this matter. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-100, authorizing closure of Alaska Avenue at Fred Waring Drive. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AFFECTING LOTS 122 & 123, AS SHOWN ON THE COUNTRY CLUB VILLAGE NO. 1 SUBDIVISION MAP (SHERYLAVENUE) UNDER PROVISIONS OF PART 3, DIVISION 9, OF THE STREETS & HIGHWAYS CODE (Travis Bunker, Applicant). Mr. Errante explained that some utilities have been relocated and new easements had been established in this area. Therefore, since the utilities were no longer in this easement, the property owner requested that it be abandoned. With the new easements in place, staff concurred that the abandonment was appropriate. Councilman Kelly asked about any effect on the entrance to the Golf Center in this area. Mr. Errante said he didn't think there was any impact. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-101, authorizing abandonment of the subject public utility easement. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A COMMON LOT, CREATING A HOME SITE AND COMPLIANCE WITH AN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT AT THE CORNER OF METATE PLACE WITHIN THE "MOUNTAINS AT BIGHORN" GOLF CLUB Case No. PM 33996 (Bighom Development, Applicant). Associate Transportation Planner Phil Joy stated that the subject parcel map application probably involved more consideration than given to any other lot in the Bighorn development over the years. He called attention to the map provided in the City Council's agenda packets, which delineated how this lot was being split off from the common strip of property that runs along Metate Place. He went on to say that this particular parcel had been left undeveloped because of uncertainty over what to do with it; a parking lot was originally proposed at the bottom of the hill, which created quite a bit of controversy in the area and resulted in the subject application. He said it was determined that the best use of this property was to create a home site of approximately 12,000 square feet that would blend in with other similar home sites in the area. Staff believed in working with the Applicant to extensively re -naturalize the hillsides, which will make the project blend in with the surrounding area and not impact the neighborhood at all, it recommended approval. He offered to answer questions. Responding to question about the enhanced photograph perspective, Mr. Joy said it illustrated the approximate three-foot fill slope that will be re - naturalized. He went on to say the house in the foreground was owned by Ms. Ann Cooper, who had submitted a letter of support for the project, and it was included in the staff report. He said the subject pad ran along the top of the photograph and was approximately 20 feet lower than another Bighorn home site also shown on the photo. In answer to question whether or not this site was the one that was illegally - graded and worked on by Bighorn, Mr. Joy said it was. Further responding, he said Bighom had been diligently working with adjacent property owners to make the subject application, and staff had been very patient in waiting for it. He agreed that the Applicant had not really tended to what had been done illegally. Additionally, he answered that staff would have likely recommended approval of the grading had Bighorn come in for an application initially, and staff did seriously consider the earlier disregard shown for the regulations and reviewed everything carefully before recommending approval now. Upon inquiry about whether the subject case met pad size under the current City Hillside Ordinance, Mr. Drell stated that Bighorn was not governed by the Hillside Ordinance but by an implementation agreement. He said that agreement provides for pad sizes up to 15,000 square feet, which the subject case meets as compared to similar situations at Bighorn; although, it was different than what would be allowed under the current Hillside Ordinance. 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 He clarified that the subject pad was larger than would be allowed by the standard under the current Hillside Ordinance but noted that there were also provisions for exceptions therein. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony SUPPORTING or OPPOSING the subject case. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-102, approving Case No. PM 33996 and determining the application to comply with the implementation agreement. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a vote of 4-1, with Crites voting NO. D. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT, REMOVING OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (C-OP) FROM 13 LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND DE ANZA WAY Case No. GPA 05-01 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Mr. Ortega stated that the subject case resulted from previous City Council action asking City staff to look at this area. He noted that communication regarding this item had also been received for the record. Assistant Planner Tony Bagato recalled that last February, staff was directed to consider removing Office Professional (OP) from the 13 lots between De Anza Way and Fred Waring Drive. Over the past couple of months, he said the area was restudied, particularly the traffic situation. He noted that the current traffic levels actually exceeded the General Plan's 2020 projection, resulting in unsafe driveways, increased road noise, and the need for a potential road widening to improve safety. He said the goal for the General Plan was to provide a long-term compatible land use for Portola Avenue, as well as for the residents and the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that the matter was presented to the Planning Commission on September 6, and a couple of the Commissioners' comments included that low -density use did not work well on Portola because of the homes with driveways that back out onto this very busy street. He said another Commissioner, who lived in the area at one time, said that the road is currently dangerous for kids, and the best thing would be to widen the road and move the sidewalk back from the street to create a safer environment. Therefore, after reviewing the strengths/weaknesses of three land use possibilities along Portola, he said the Planning Commission decided to recommend OP pursuant to the current residential standards and/or open space as a possible solution for the future. Staff studied both for this report, and it was determined that office development could reduce the number of driveways on Portola, as shared driveways would be required for such projects. He added that most of the lots in this area were relatively small, 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 and converting them to small office use would only increase traffic by about 1.49% to the current traffic levels, which staff believed would be minimum impact to the surrounding residential streets. Additionally, he said a benefit of office development would be required dedication of the right-of-way and cost of any potential improvements that the City may need in the future to accommodate street widening for a safer environment. He went on to say staff also considered open space and the opportunity it afforded would be a park similar to Baja Park along Fred Waring Drive; however, the City would be responsible for purchasing 11 lots (the Redevelopment Agency currently owns two) with a present-day cost of about $3.3 million in addition to the cost of park construction and maintenance. Following reconsideration of all this information, staff was recommending Office Professional (OP) pursuant to the City's single -story, residential -scale ordinance as the most compatible Tong -term solution for Portola Avenue. In the meantime, he said people would be able to continue living there as low -density, providing legal, conforming properties, for as long as they wanted to, with opportunity to sell in the future as an office property. He explained that this could be accomplished with a dual designation in the General Plan of open space/residential, low -density, 0-4 units per acre, and it was staffs recommendation in addition to removal of the current medium -density land use category, as this cannot be achieved without undesirable two-story development along Portola Avenue. Additionally, the requested action is to initiate a mixed -use change of zone (R-1/OP) to provide conformance with the General Plan, allowing residents to continue living there in a single-family home or go through a precise plan application to pursue an office that complied with the single -story standards. Mayor Crites recalled the previous office professional application, single - story, which was denied. If Portola Avenue was widened to its logical extent here, he asked whether or not an office professional building in this area could be required to provide streetside parking as opposed to the residential side. Mr. Bagato said it was possible; although, it would change the residential character of Portola Avenue with parking in front of the structures. Mayor Crites observed that this was the conundrum —if vehicles were parked in the rear of the office buildings here, they were against someone else's backyard, which was undesirable for some of those residents. Although, if they're parked in the front, it resulted in a residential building with cars in front of it. He also asked if it could be required that any driveways had to open onto Portola versus any of the side streets. Mr. Bagato responded that without a master plan coming through as one development for all the parcels together, it would be hard to implement. 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson observed that the Office Professional (OP) overlay was approved to benefit the 11 lot owners on Portola, recognizing that as the traffic volumes increase, the home values there would decrease. He said this would provide these property owners with an economic parachute. However, he noticed that all the letters of opposition to this case received by the City Council were from people who didn't live along Portola, and there was no communication from people actually living there. Mr. Bagato said he'd spoken with a gentleman present tonight who'd previously shared with him that he'd been rear -ended backing out of his driveway. Additionally, when he does pull out, it has to be into the median; and oncoming traffic tends to brake anticipating that he'll run into them. He said it's also noisy in front of this man's residence, and he was looking at trying to add a room to the front of the house to try to make it quieter. He went on to say that he hadn't heard from too many of these people, with part of the issue being that some of those properties were rented, meaning that the landlord received notification, but he affirmed that all the property owners of record here had been notified. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony SUPPORTING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court, Palm Desert, said her backyard faced Portola. She said that although her previous correspondence indicated support for this case, which was entitled "Removing Office Professional," in studying how the issue was presented, she determined that she actually opposed it. She wanted removal of the Office Professional (OP) overlay. The subject area did not include any surrounding commercial or office professional; it was strictly longtime residential, and she felt changing it to office professional would only intensify the traffic pressure and related impacts to all surrounding residents. She asked that she and her neighborhood be left alone. MR. DOUGLAS WALKER, 74-539 Monte Verde Way, Palm Desert, said he owned property at 44-326 San Jose Avenue, which is half a block in from Portola, and the home there is currently occupied by his daughter and son in-law. He thought that Ms. Fletcher had very nicely stated the feelings of a significant number of residents in that area. He asked about the different designations shown on the map being displayed at this meeting, since a large area of Palma Village shows R-M. Mr. Drell responded that the R-M designation represented the existing General Plan designation: Residential, Medium -density, 5-10 units/acre. He added that staff was also recommending that it be changed to Residential, Low -density, to match what is already there and due to the lack of physical potential to make it medium density. 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 MR. WALKER went on to comment that they thought this would be a technical follow-up to the City Council's previous directives and residents' preference that specified lots on Portola would be changed back to their original R-1 designations, and that OP would go away. He, too, cited additional traffic issues associated with OP, child safety in the neighborhood where there are no sidewalks presently and a significant number of schoolchildren travel this route, and property values forthose residences that would be adjacent to any OP changes on Portola. He encouraged the City Council to stick with R-1 for the Palma Village area, as that was their understanding of the two previous denials for OP projects in this vicinity. He added that if some open space were to be gained on some of the vacant lots for a small park like area, it would be very welcomed as well. He asked that the residential neighborhood here be retained as it's always been and that any indications of OP be removed, in support of the wishes of the people here. MRS. ANNE WALKER, 74-539 Monte Verde Way, Palm Desert, said she also was shocked by the recommendation being made by staff after having attended many meetings on this issue. She questioned the number of driveways that accessed Portola Avenue from the subject 13 lots. She thought it was only about five or six, with the corner lots being accessed from the side streets instead, adding that she felt OP would increase the number of driveways and the amount of traffic. She further asked for an explanation of the change in direction on this issue from the previous considerations earlier this year. She opposed any OP in this area. MR. ANTHONY PYTEL, 44-399 Lingo Lane, Palm Desert, said he owned the last two lots on his street. He commented about the reaction he observed when the staff report suggested buying up the subject lots for open space. But he noted that if the 13 lots were turned into OP, they would basically be an island of businesses in the middle of a neighborhood —the center of this town, a historic area —which would make it unlike anywhere else in Palm Desert; businesses were located along Fred Waring Drive, Highway 111, and on Monterey Avenue. He disagreed that there would be minimal impacts on the side streets, noting that was how his children walked to school. He felt the neighborhood was being revitalized and urged everyone to appreciate it as such; it wasn't a business area. MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue, Palm Desert, noted the letter she'd submitted prior to the meeting. She, too, asked that she and her neighbors be left alone; they wanted to remain a family -oriented neighborhood. MR. EDDIE GRANADOS, 44-551 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, said the four -lane street is noisy and dangerous for him entering and exiting his property. He'd been hit once, and as he attempts to exit his property, many 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 vehicles overreact, often swerving and hitting the curb there. He said this was especially dangerous when he transported his children back and forth to school twice a day. In December 2004 he applied for an addition to his house to help insulate it from the street noise and vibration but didn't go through with it because of the proposed zoning change. He left the permit open to see what would happen, but it has expired now. He asked for a response on what was going to happen with the zoning here. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Crites declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Kelly said he'd always felt that this area should remain residential; he didn't understand why a sliver of it would be taken for Office Professional (OP). He believed it should remain low density, 0-4 units/acre, like the rest of the surrounding area. Councilman Spiegel noted that the residents had spoken, and generally the City Council goes along with what the residents wanted. He agreed with Councilman Kelly. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson said the change in designation was made during the General Plan process to try and benefit the property owners along Portola that will disproportionately suffer the burdens of the traffic, noise, etc. He recalled Mr. McFadden's two-story office building application, which was incompatible and unreasonable. However, he felt the Ford's application was in keeping with City Council's direction, but it was tumed down. Therefore, he was struggling with the issue of something that made good planning sense, but none of the people that live around it wanted it, and none of the property owners that the City was trying to benefit have ever spoken up to support it. He was convinced at some point in the future, those property owners will come to the City to ask for assistance; but right now they weren't, leaving him to agree with Councilmen Kelly and Spiegel that the OP and medium -density designations should be removed. He also felt that the City should look at acquiring more lots as they come up for sale here, in anticipation of the future widening of Portola Avenue. He added that OP overlays had worked in other parts of the City —Monterey Avenue, Fred Waring, Deep Canyon, but he also acknowledged the large commercial developments or uses directly across from them (i.e., College of the Desert, Albertsons). He agreed that the subject proposal would amount to an island in the middle of a residential area, and it shouldn't be pursued at this time. Councilmember Benson agreed with the previous comments, adding that it had been decided to return it to residential zoning. She concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson that in about 10 years, the owners may want to come in and sell it for commercial, and it will have to be looked at again at that time; but this is what they want for the time being. 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Mayor Crites commented that it was a sea of residential here, but the situation wasn't quite the same on the east side of Portola—many of those properties had already been addressed by widening or faced the side street, and there were deeper setbacks further to the north. He, too, would be entirely in favor of leaving this residential if he were a resident of San Jose; the negative impacts weren't experienced there the same as having a home on Portola and trying to get in and out of it. But he was also concerned that the Portola residents weren't present to protest; he didn't think it was quality residential living along Portola and that it would worsen as the street was widened. He said when that day comes, it will have to be Office Professional (OP). Councilmembers explained that the residents' wishes had been heard and a new resolution would be coming back to confirm that fact. It was further explained that the reason the recommendation had come forward as it had was that both staff and the Planning Commission had to use their best judgment and professional expertise in forwarding a justifiable recommendation to the City Council, which resulted in continuing to recommend OP. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, deny the subject case and refer the matter back to staff for preparation of an appropriate resolution that will designate the subject property as residential, low -density (R-L). Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote. E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE, PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, INCLUDING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR THE APARTMENT PORTION OF THE PROJECT, PARCEL MAP, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A 758-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (608 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 150 APARTMENT UNITS) ON 79.6 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND GERALD FORD DRIVE (76-000 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE - EXISTING EMERALD DESERT RV PARK) Case Nos. GPA 05-02. C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 (Taylor Woodrow, Inc., and Emerald Brooks LLC, Applicants). Mr. Drell stated that when the City completed its General Plan Update last year, the concept for the University Park area was to create a residential community around the campus. He said at that time, the subject site had just completed the final phase of improvements for the recreational vehicle (RV) park; therefore, no one felt it would be reasonable to think that it would be immediately converted to a residential use. He commented that the state of the housing market since that time, evidently, had economically justified the purchase of that property and the demolition and removal of all the improvements from the RV park that were put in just two or three years ago. He said had it been vacant property, staff would have recommended that it 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 be medium -density residential during the General Plan Update. Therefore, it was felt the proposed re -designation to medium -density and high -density was consistent with intentions for design of the University Park area. He said the specific zoning for the predominant use is nine units per acre/medium- density, all of which would be ownership, with the goal of providing the highest variety of residential product and great neighborhoods to serve both students and employees in proximity to the campus as it grows, thereby reducing both traffic around the campus and the need for on -site parking. He went on to say the second component would be an apartment project, the result of a direct request from the officials from both Cal State and UCR (University of California, Riverside); the developer wasn't interested in building apartments. He noted that after reviewing the pro forma for that element of the project, it was evident that the current market for rental housing produces far less value in income to a developer than ownership single-family; but to complete the mix for the campus, it required a rental housing component. There was a project condition requiring that unless the City decides otherwise, it will always be rental housing; and the Applicant had agreed to enter into agreement to preserve 20% of the units for moderate income affordability. He commented that this project was one of the more highly designed with the greatest variety of residential units of any kind of permanent residential product proposed in the City, and he thought it was quite compatible and fulfills the needs set forth when the University Plan was developed. In answer to question, Mr. Drell affirmed that the 608 units were not included in the General Plan Update density projections. Further responding, he said that in the areas that were projected for medium- to high -density, predominantly medium -density had been proposed. High -density that's been proposed has been at the lower end of the scale, 10-15 units/acre instead of 15-20 units/acre. He explained that even with the subject additional properties, the total yield would be less than projected as the maximum; although, it exceeds what was projected as the minimum, and this project will help. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing to be open for public testimony SUPPORTING or OPPOSING the subject cases. With City Council concurrence, the Applicant was first requested to answer the City Council's questions about the proposed project. Councilman Spiegel was concerned that one pool wouldn't be sufficient to serve the type of younger middle-aged, new family -type purchaser in the 608-unit Spanish Walk element of the project. A representative of the Applicant responded that there were a number of recreational areas designed in the project, and they also anticipated a wide variety of people to be attracted to it — move -down, younger people 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 associated with the University, first-time buyers, etc. He said there was a large park area centrally located in the project; and there were recreational amenities provided in each of the five different sub -neighborhoods. He said there were four public pools total, with the largest being in the park (large Olympic size), one on the east side near the freeway (Junior Olympic size) and two in the westerly/northwesterly areas. He added that the two products south of the large pool could also accommodate dipping pools within their yard space. In further answer to Councilman Spiegel's question about providing child care facilities, he said they hadn't really explored nor planned for any dedicated facility on site. Councilman Spiegel went on to comment that it appeared there were more recreational facilities in the apartment complex —a volleyball area and fairly large pool —with fewer units. The developer of the apartment site affirmed that their site would have a pool area and a volleyball court, there was also a gym, but he pointed out that the scale of the drawings for Spanish Walk may not be doing justice to the actual size of the pools and recreational areas being discussed. He commented that a Junior -size Olympic pool was pretty large; the pool shown on the renderings for the apartments was drawn on a different scale, and therefore appeared to be larger. Councilman Spiegel asked that the apartment project also look at child care facilities. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson noted that the zoning for the single-family component was PR-9 (medium -density); the zoning for the apartments was PR-19 (high -density). He asked if any analysis had been done against the City's high -density bonus guideline, as he didn't find that calculation in the staff report. -. Mr. Drell answered that staff felt the project did meet the bonus requirement, but a calculation was not included. He reiterated that the project was in proximity to the campus and that developer actually would prefer to build more medium -density condominiums on the site, but the apartments were included in response to a direct request the project was located in proximity to probably the largest single destination, it had high design and will include an affordable component. Therefore, staff felt it met the requirement. Mayor Crites observed that he didn't see any mention of the public art component and was disappointed that in a project of this scale, it wasn't being considered on the front-end. He felt strongly that it should be. Mr. Drell answered that the project would be conditioned for this requirement, and the Applicant is working on it. 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Responding to further question, Mr. Drell said the mobile home park originally approved for this site included the stacked -car garage design, but he said it was not ideal and had not been approved anywhere else in the City. He would not object to the elimination of this feature. Additionally, he agreed that the proposed garages that required a high level of maneuvering to exit were not ideal, but in analyzing these two situations, the developer is often allowed to make his own choices if they do not ultimately impact surrounding properties. He observed that the units with these features would probably be somewhat discounted compared to the other units, with the buyer having the final say. Mayor Crites commented that there were 20 on -site worker parking spaces, noting that there were none in the original proposal. He asked if staff felt that would be enough. Mr. Drell answered that staff wasn't sure they would need any on -site worker parking spaces at all. He said this was not a country club -type project with a large on -site employed staff; all the maintenance workers would be contracted and parking directly adjacent to the work site. Additionally, he noted that condition was actually deleted by the Planning Commission; if it appeared in the City Council Resolution, it was in error. Although, he pointed out that the City Council could reinstate it. Mayor Crites acknowledged that it may be attributed to the scale of the renderings, but he agreed with Councilman Spiegel that the amenities didn't appear to match up with the density of the project. Further, he was concerned that there was only one tot lot shown in the main park area. The Applicant's representative responded that the main park covered two acres, which was felt to be fairly large for this size of site. He noted that one area was a defined tot lot, and there were several opportunities to include amenities like sand boxes or various things for smaller children in the other half -acre -size open areas that were interspersed throughout the project. He said that part of the design of the project included things like garages behind the residences to encourage a lot of walking throughout the neighborhoods. Councilman Spiegel suggested the Applicant review their recreational plans with the City's Parks & Recreation Service Manager to get a better understanding of the City's overall program and coordinate it with this project. In response to Councilman Kelly's question, the Applicant said the proposed project included wedge -type curbs, and Mr. Drell added that these were all private streets. The Applicant went on to respond that the wedge -curb allows access without a particular transition for driveway access, noting that this project was designed for common shared driveways between units. 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Mr. Drell explained that the project did not include traditional driveways; they were rear -loaded drives that were just like a street. Then there was a smooth transition between that street and the driveway. It was agreed that an illustration of this design would be provided to the City Council. Councilman Spiegel was concerned that there was enough consideration given to transition lanes and stacking capacity for vehicles entering and exiting the project from either Gerald Ford Drive or from Frank Sinatra Drive. He wondered if the City's traffic experts had studied this. The Applicant answered that it was thought to be sufficient with 100 feet of stacking capacity at the card -activated gate entrances; the apartments had one access point, and it was ungated. He added that there was a secondary emergency access through the larger project. Mayor Crites noticed in the sound study information that after Southern Pacific completes its dual tracks project, there was an assumption of a maximum of two trains/hour. He wondered how the consultant arrived at that number, as he was uncomfortable that it would be the maximum future train Toad. MR. JEREMY LOUDDEN, author of the sound study for the project, said he'd talked to the rail line and learned there was currently one train/hour through this segment. Therefore, with installation of the second track, it was assumed that movements along this track would also double. Responding to question about what would happen if the movements more than doubled, he said in order to be perceivable, it would have to increased by four times. In answer to Mayor Crites' question about how future residents of this development would be made aware of the impacts of the nearby railroad, MR. GIL MILTENBERGER of Taylor Woodrow said this issue was addressed_ very early on with staff, and the Planning Commission had the same concern. He said his organization provides full disclosure with documents to be signed acknowledging this fact; it would also be included in the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions). A recorded disclosure can be made on the properties; if a different organization assumes the project in the future, a subsequent buyer will be alerted to this issue in the title report in bold print. Mayor Crites went on to ask staff about how the City's new program with Edison and The Gas Company for energy efficiency could be incorporated with this proposal. Mr. Ortega said staff was preparing the types of programs and activities it would be pursuing, particularly for new construction. He said a list of those ideas would be developed at a meeting scheduled for Wednesday next week. Thereafter, it will be shared with the City's Planning and Building Departments, and the developer to see what could be incorporated in this project. 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 With regard to the requested height exception, Mr. Drell said it was an increase of two feet. At this location, he noted that the adjacent zone was industrial, with a height limit of 30 feet; the campus would have a height limit of more than 30 feet. Staff felt the type of architectural quality being achieved with the two foot exception was appropriate in this location. There was no height exception requested for the single-family portion. MR. HUTAN HASHEMI, 73-535 Joshua Tree Street, Palm Desert, said since he was currently renting, he looked forward to a project like the subject one in order to become a home owner. His parents were also nearing retirement age, and he felt they would also be interested in a home such as is being planned in this project. MR. BILL BUCHANAN, resident of Los Angeles and owner of home in Avondale Country Club, Palm Desert, said he thought this was a decent project; although, he was concerned about the density. He was also concerned about: 1) Privacy issues if the height of the subject project would allow people to see into his backyard; 2) marketability of the project with noise from the train; 3) environmental concerns for existing landscaping and trees on the site; 4) more traffic in the area; 5) what effect the price of these units will have on neighboring property values. He urged careful consideration. MR. ALI OMID, 73-535 Joshua Tree Street, Palm Desert, supported the project as an opportunity for the younger demographic in this area to obtain affordable housing. He felt the density was ideal, particularly being near the University, and he also favored its easy access to the freeway. MR. MARK TANSEY, 74-602 Lavender Way, Palm Desert, said he was currently both a homeowner and a business owner here. He felt affordable housing was a dangerous barrier to the growth of Palm Desert and its future: He said the subject project was forward -thinking and vital —both in density and the nature of the proposed development —it was the highest and best use for this land. He said it was necessary in order to attract young families to live here permanently, and its strategic location next to the campus served to further enhance this important educational resource. He fully supported the project. MS. NICOLE KING, 110 Batista Court, Palm Desert, said she lived in the in the Brenna Project near the proposed development. Although she is a homeowner now, when she was in college a few years ago, she would have appreciated an apartment complex close to school. She supported this project. There was no further public comment offered at this meeting. Councilmembers had the following comments about the project: 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Councilman Kelly— liked the pedestrian path near the railroad enough that it may be an acceptable trade-off for the wedge curbs he opposed. Noted he and Councilmember Benson toured a similar project in Oxnard with tandem garages, and they seemed to work well for those residents. Agreed with Councilman Spiegel's concem for the amount of swimming pools provided for the number of residents. Asked about the City's General Plan objective to retain some open space at arterial intersections, as this project looks like it's completely built to the corners. Foresaw problems with: 1) Train noise that wouldn't be resolved with a sound barrier; 2) vehicle ingress/egress-- project of this size should include acceleration and deceleration lanes. Councilman Spiegel— wanted to hear the City Engineer's opinion about the traffic impacts on Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, the ingress and egress points. Strongly recommended that developer's representative meet with the City's Parks & Recreation Services Manager to provide the most beneficial amenities, particularly the tot lot. Felt both the single-family component and the apartments needed child care facilities. Councilmember Benson— felt the project was way too much for the area. Agreed housing and apartments were needed in this area, but not all in one place. Felt it was abominable as designed and didn't match the vision for the North Sphere; all the other future developments reflect a sea of houses. Believed the railroad would come back to haunt everybody, no matter what the tests show or what they're told, the first buyers will come to the City and complain about the noise. The density of this project was not a compliment to existing developments in the area; believed there was more need for the Emerald Desert Park concept. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson— wondered whether the developer was aware of the City's Density Bonus Policy, noting that there was a vigorous debate about density during the City's General Plan process. Explained the density guidelines provided that as density increased, the City would obtain certain benefits in return —access to public transportation, additional landscaping, open space buffers, proximity to public facilities, public art, daycare, extra recreational facilities, energy efficiency, and ownership opportunities. Disappointed that none of that analysis provided in the staff report but thought there was a connection between all those items and the comments given here. Felt it was a good project from a quality developer and represented the new "urbanism" sense of development. Hoped it would be affordable, noting that a previous similar case promised affordability but initial offerings started at $500,000. Perhaps a high -density analysis could demonstrate this fact. Agreed that incorporating a daycare facility would be wonderful in an area where young families in their first home would likely have two wage-earners with a need for child care that would also be attractive to home buyers. This time instead of hoping all these things would 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 be addressed, wanted to fine-tune at this stage in order to make it a great project. Mayor Crites— reviewed all the information provided, including the DVD, noting the sound study was particularly complex. Felt the architecture was impressive in its thoughtfulness and detail. Noted it was the University area and called for a different kind of product than what's been done traditionally in the City. Added that if current residents of traditional country club -type projects had to buy their home today, one-half to three -fourths of them would be priced out of the market. Although not opposed to the density of this project, agreed that it should be measured against the City's density guidelines to demonstrate the other necessary objectives. Agreed that Councilmen Kelly and Spiegel identified critical points for recreation and child care, and that more time to consider them, as well as the public art component for the project's most important corner, were warranted. Acknowledged that train noise was a factor but probably would be no matter what was approved here; along with disclosure, curious about the specific measures proposed for noise. Recognized the neighboring resident's concern for view and privacy, believing it would be easy for Planning Staff to address. Also thought Mr. Greenwood's analysis and comfort level for traffic flow would be critical to a final decision. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson anticipated a continuance for this matter, and, therefore, felt it would be very appropriate and urged the Applicant to visit with the City's Art In Public Places Program, Landscape Beautification Committee, Parks & Recreation Commission, and the Office of Energy Management about this project. The Applicant's representative agreed that a 30-day continuance would be sufficient. He went on to respond to some of the issues raised: 1) A line of sight study was performed, demonstrating that no one in this project will be able to look over into the neighboring resident's home; 2) after numerous discussions with City Landscaping staff, determined that many ofthe existing species of trees and plants were undesirable by the City's standards —some will be retained; 3) a number of the units (approx. one-third) afforded opportunity for a private pool in the yard, and the Junior Olympic -size pool serves 150 homes —agreeing to meet with Parks & Recreation Commission for additional ideas; 4) tandem garages were a very desirable element in some of their other projects; 5) setback at Frank Sinatra/Gerald Ford was fairly substantial, 39 feet from curb at Gerald Ford, 44 feet at Frank Sinatra. He felt all the issues would be easily addressed. Mr. Drell offered that the developer would probably also be willing to provide tours of some other similar projects. i 1 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Councilman Spiegel moved to continue this public hearing to the City Council Meeting of December 8, 2005. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. F. CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, ADDING SECTION 25.112 TO THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING "EXCEPTIONS BASED ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKINGS" Case No. ZOA 5-3 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Mr. Drell reported that this was a proposed revision to the City Municipal Code at the City Attorney's advice. It would require that any applicant who would ultimately claim that a zoning action diminishes value to the point of a taking would be required to make that case to the City during the administrative process. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony SUPPORTING or OPPOSING the matter. With no public testimony offered, he declared the public hearing to be closed. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson observed that an Unconstitutional Takings case amounted to a regulatory confiscation. He asked whether or not this provision would force an applicant to both seek entitlements and threaten to sue the City at the same. Mr. Erwin didn't think so; the applicant would have to provide specific details that could be reviewed to see if something inappropriate had been done and then be able reverse it. He agreed that the argument would be if the applicant did not raise those details at that point, his ability to do so in the future would be waived. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1104 to second reading, approving Case No. ZOA 5-3. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Ferguson voting NO. G. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALCULATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66006, DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AS OF JUNE 30, 2005. Mayor Crites noted the staff report provided in the packets. He declared the public hearing to be open and invited public testimony on the matter. In answer to question, staff confirmed that the information had been provided to the Building Industry Association for its review. 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-106, making certain findings pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66001 and 66006. Motion was seconded by Spiegel. Responding to question about the New Construction Tax Fund balance, Mr. Gibson answered that the five years' worth of revenue should have been spent; however, it was committed to future expenditure on capital projects, such as the current Corporation Yard expansion, which meets the requirement. Further responding to question about the $563,000 loan from the General Fund into the New Construction Tax Fund, he said this Government Code Section required a notation whenever monies were loaned to or from the account. Mayor Crites called for the vote, and the motion carried by a vote of 5-0. XIV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER Mr. Ortega commented that at the last meeting, staff was directed to prepare a letter of opposition to the City of Rancho Mirage's proposal to rezone the intersection of Monterey Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive as general commercial. He said the letter was now ready for the Mayor's signature and distributed copies of it to City Councilmembers for their review. He noted that the Rancho Mirage City Council would be meeting on November 16 to consider its General Plan Amendment, including the aforementioned rezoning, and the letter would be timely delivered prior to their meeting. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. CITY CLERK 1. Reminder of Special City Council Meeting, Thursday, November 17, 2005, 2:00 p.m. — Public Hearing for the Art Smith to Mirage Trail Environmental Assessment. Mayor Crites affirmed this information. 2. Reminder of Committee/Commission Applicant Interview Study Sessions on Monday, November 28, 2005, and on Friday, December 2, 2005. Mayor Crites noted that the Friday, December 2, session was acceptable to everyone. However, it was discovered that the 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 November 28 session would not be convenient for his colleagues; therefore, he asked each to look at their calendars and try to come up with an alternate date for that purpose. 3. December 2005 Meeting Schedule Mrs. Klassen asked the City Council about its preference for holding the second regular meeting in December, which would occur on Thursday, December 22. With City Council concurrence, staff was directed/to reserve the regular meeting time on December 22 for any urgent business that needs to be conducted prior to what would be the next regular City Council Meeting on January 12; otherwise, there would be no secondneeting in December. D. PUBLIC SAFETY o Fire Department None o Police Department None E. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Reauests for Action: None o City Council Committee Reports: None o City Council Comments: 1. Coachella Valley Animal Campus — Councilmember Benson stated that the soft opening planned for the Animal Campus on December 8 was being postponed to sometime in January. XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C None 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2005 XVI. ADJOURNMENT With City Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting at 7:12 p.m. ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA ;. BUFORD'A. CRITES, MAYOR 28