HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-27MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2006
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M.
Mayor Ferguson convened the meeting at 3:01 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilman Buford A. Crites
Mayor Pro Tem Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Jim Ferguson
Excused Absence:
Councilman Robert A. Spiegel
Also Present:
Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director
David J. Erwin, City Attomey
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
Doug Van Gelder, Director of Information Systems
Mark D. Greenwood, Director of Public Works
David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment & Housing
Frankie Riddle, Acting Director of Special Programs
J. Luis Espinoza, Assistant Finance Director
Craig Kilday, Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside Co. Sheriff's Dept.
Steve Thetford, Asst. Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside Co. Sheriffs Dept.
Walt Holloway, Battalion Chief, Palm Desert Fire/Riverside Co. Fire Dept./CDF
Grace L. Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk
III. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Reauest for Closed Session:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
1) Property: 15.62 acres, APNs 624-160-001/002
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert/
Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency
Property Owner: Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
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
Upon motion by Benson, second by Kelly, and 4-0 vote of the City Council, with
Spiegel ABSENT, an additional case of potential litigation under Government Code Section
54956.9(b) was added to the Closed Session agenda.
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b):
Number of potential cases: 2 + 1
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant potential to initiate litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c):
Number of potential cases: 2
Public Employment pursuant to Government Code Section 54957:
Title of Position: City Attorney
With City Council concurrence, Mayor Ferguson adjourned the meeting to Closed
Session at 3:02 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 4:01 p.m.
IV. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M.
A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION.
None
2
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. APPOINTMENT TO THE YOUTH COMMITTEE.
APRIL 27, 2006
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Kevin Park to the
Palm Desert Youth Committee (term 12/31/06). Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried
by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of April 13, 2006.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant
Nos. 201, 205, 206, and 207.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. CITY'S/AGENCY'S COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS and Investment Reports for
January 2006 and February 2006 (Joint Consideration with the
Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency).
Rec: Receive and file.
D. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by JRR Food
Service, Inc., for Angelina's Pizza & Pasta, 72-785 Highway 111, Suite G2,
Palm Desert.
Rec: Receive and file.
E. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by SC
Restaurants, Inc., for Inn On El Paseo, 73-445 El Paseo, Suite 11A,
Palm Desert.
Rec: Receive and file.
F. CITY COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
1. Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting of March 21, 2006.
2. Public Safety Commission Meeting of February 8, 2006.
3. Sister Cities Committee Meeting of February 16, 2006.
4. Youth Committee Meeting of March 7, 2006.
Rec: Receive and file.
3
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
G. RESOLUTION NO. 06-58 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Palm Desert, California, Setting Forth its Findings and Authorizing the
Destruction of Paper Files from the Department of Building & Safety that
Have Been Digitally Imaged (January 2006).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt.
H. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID for Purchase of a Cold Planer Attachment
for the City's Skid -steer Loader.
Rec: By Minute Motion, award the subject bid to D3 Equipment, Fontana,
California, in the amount of $7,455.23 — funds are available in
Account No. 110-4310-433-4045.
I. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review Committee Action on AB 2089
(Tran) — Tax Levies.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its meeting of April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to
AB 2089 (Tran).
J. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review Committee Action on AB 2096
(Parra) — Tax Levies.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its meeting of April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to
AB 2096 (Parra).
K. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review Committee Action on
AB 2139 (Garcia) — Emergency Protective Orders.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its meeting of April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of support for the Mayor's signature with regard to
AB 2139 (Garcia).
L. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review Committee Action on AB 2197
(DeVore) — Tax Increment Financing.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its meeting of April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to
AB 2197 (DeVore).
4
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
M. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review
(Torrico) — Tax Levies.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the
Review Committee at its meeting of
prepare a letter of opposition for the
AB 2218 (Torrico).
N. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review
(Torrico) — Political Reform Act of 1974.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the
Review Committee at its meeting of
prepare a letter of opposition for the
AB 2219 (Torrico).
O. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review
(Leno) — Tax Levies.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the
Review Committee at its meeting of
prepare a letter of opposition for the
AB 2533 (Leno).
Committee Action on AB 2218
action taken by the Legislative
April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
Mayor's signature with regard to
Committee Action on AB 2219
P. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review
(Jones) — Low and Moderate Income Hous
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the
Review Committee at its meeting of
prepare a letter of opposition for the
AB 2922 (Jones).
Q. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review
(Alquist) — Tax Levies.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the
Review Committee at its meeting of
prepare a letter of opposition for the
SB 1291 (Alquist).
action taken by the Legislative
April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
Mayor's signature with regard to
Committee Action on AB 2533
action taken by the Legislative
April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
Mayor's signature with regard to
Committee Action on AB 2922
ing Fund.
action taken by the Legislative
April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
Mayor's signature with regard to
Committee Action on SB 1291
action taken by the Legislative
April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
Mayor's signature with regard to
5
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
R. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review Committee Action on SB 1643
(Runner) — Sales and Use Tax Exemptions.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its meeting of April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to
SB 1643 (Runner).
S. CONSIDERATION of Legislative Review Committee Action on SB 1832
(Kehoe) — Fee Waivers.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its meeting of April 5, 2006, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to
SB 1832 (Kehoe).
T. CONSIDERATION of Request to Serve Wine at Sister Cities Firefighters'
Recognition Event.
Rec: By Minute Motion, permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on
City -owned property in connection with a special event, the Sister
Cities Firefighters' Recognition, scheduled to be held at the
Palm Desert Civic Center Park on May 10, 2006.
U. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out -of -State Travel for the International
H.T.E. Users' Group (HUG) Conference.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject travel to the five-day, Annual
International H.T.E. HUG Conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida,
June 5-9, 2006, for one additional Building & Safety Department staff
person — funds are available in Account No. 110-4420-422-3120.
V. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID for the Purchase of Two Replacement
Pickup Trucks.
Rec: By Minute Motion, award the purchase of two Ford F-150 Pickup
Trucks to Moss Bros. Ford, Colton, California, in the amount of
$35,655.24 and appropriate same to Fund 530 — vehicles to be used
by City Code Compliance staff and will be purchased with Abandoned
Vehicle Authority Funds.
6
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
W. REPORT on History of the Abandoned Florida Avenue Sidewalk Related to
the Fred Waring Drive Widening Project.
Rec: Receive and file.
Upon motion by Crites, second by Kelly, the Consent Calendar was approved as
presented by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
VIII. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 06-59 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL
SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT NO. 32655-1 AND APPROVING THE
AGREEMENT RELATING THERETO (Hover Development Company, Inc.,
Applicant).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 06-59. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman
Spiegel ABSENT.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 06-60 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL
SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT NO. 33837-1 AND THE AGREEMENT
RELATING THERETO (Taylor Woodrow, Inc., Applicant).
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly noted that he had questioned, after the developer
made a presentation at a Landscape Committee meeting, whether there
would be a bike/pedestrian path along the railroad. He said he felt this was
something that needed to be done up front; however, the developer did not
see that need. He noted the project at the southwest corner of Portola and
Country Club, where construction has been ongoing for two or three years.
There is still ugly fencing, and the project will not be completed for another
few years because, evidently, the City did not make it a requirement that the
developer do it in a reasonable amount of time. He was concerned the same
thing might happen with the pedestrian path along the railroad track in this
case.
Councilman Crites asked whether the City could require the bike/pedestrian
path be done as part of the project's Phase 1. Mr. Greenwood responded
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
that he did not believe the conditions had specific requirements for phasing.
He stated it was his understanding was that this was more a cooperative
approach rather than a set condition of approval.
MR. TIM DAY, Senior Project Manager for Taylor Woodrow Homes, noted
that this particular subdivision map was for half of the existing RV park. He
said as part of the initial phase of development, they were going to create the
barrier and grade that area. He said they would work closely with Public
Works staff on the implementation of the trail; however, at this point, without
some discussion with the owner of the remainder of the park, which would
remain open for one more season, he was not sure how it would continue,
and it may just dead end. Upon question by Mayor Ferguson, he said the
park would be north/south, basically split almost down the middle from 1-10
to 500-600 feet west of Eldorado. He said he did not think they had a
problem going forward and doing improvements, and they certainly did not
want to leave that in its current condition. He said they would improve that
half of the area with a barrier/fence once they begin construction of the
homes in the first half of the project because that trail is open to the public,
and they will want to have the security; however, they did not at this time own
the property further to the east at the end of the entire existing resort. Upon
question by Mayor Ferguson, he said he anticipated they would own the
remaining parcel in approximately one year, March 2007.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly asked if he understood Mr. Day to say that Taylor
Woodrow would do just half of the path with the first phase. Mr. Day
confirmed that to be the case and said there would be some resurfacing of
the existing wall, some noise barrier work, and the barrier fence. They would
also work with Public Works staff on how to handle irrigation, landscape
maintenance, etc.
Mr. Greenwood added that the pedestrian and bicycle easement was on the
map the Council was being asked to approve. He said Public Works staff
would work with the developer to get the first phase of the path done along
with completion of the project's first phase; although, the path would end at
the easterly terminus of the first phase.
Councilman Crites said it could also be noted that upon the acquisition of the
Phase 2 land, completion of the linkage would become a priority. Mr. Day
responded that he was very comfortable with that. Councilman Crites stated
that the City was looking at a variety of real estate issues with this property
and asked if everyone was comfortable with those issues.
Mr. Ortega responded that the issue the City was looking at was whether
there was some additional land for another use, and the answer was that
8
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
there was not; therefore, the City sought other properties, and staff was
comfortable with that.
Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-60.
Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-1 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Kelly
voting NO and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
IX. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
For Adoption:
None
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. UPDATE ON THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'S (CVWD)
SEWER INSTALLATION PROJECT.
Mr. Ortega noted this was a project that would impact the City's light
industrial area. He said there was a request and recommendation to close
several streets, but there was no provision for the City Manager to allow that;
therefore, the matter was before Council for authorization.
Upon question by Councilman Crites, Mr. Greenwood responded that the
City's cooperation with CVWD would greatly facilitate the work on this large
project. Councilman Crites asked whether the City was receiving the same
kind of cooperation from CVWD with regard to the City's widening project on
Monterey Avenue.
Mr. Greenwood responded that he did not believe the City was receiving that
cooperation. He said staff had asked CVWD to compromise somewhat in
order to minimize cost, as the Water District was asking the City to build a
water line that staff did not think was necessary. He added that the sole
reason to replace the existing water line was so that it would not be under a
raised, landscaped, median island. Staff was certain there were other ways
to mitigate the issue that were far more cost-effective than building a
$200,000 water line.
Councilman Crites suggested that the City's approval on this night closure
of streets request be attached to the satisfactory resolution of the concerns
about the water line matter on Monterey Avenue.
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Receive and file the report;
2) authorize nighttime closure of 42nd Avenue and Corporate Way for installation of sewer
along those streets, subject to the satisfactory resolution of concerns about the water line
matter on Monterey Avenue. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote, with
Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE ASSIGNMENT FROM
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF THE DESERT TO BURRTEC WASTE
INDUSTRIES FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES TO THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT.
For the record, Mayor Ferguson noted his past legal representation for
Waste Management; therefore, he would be recusing himself from the
discussion and action on this item. He left the Council Chamber and asked
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly to preside over the matter.
Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report, noting the consultant's report and
recommendations for amendment to the existing agreement, including
performance provisions. If the Council authorized the transfer, those would
be incorporated into the agreement. He said staff and the consultant were
available to answer any questions.
Councilman Crites noted items listed in Finding No. 7 in the staff report,
which were suggested for inclusion or revision in the contract, and he asked
whether this would be done as a result of Council's approval of the
assignment to Burrtec.
Mr. Ortega responded that the recommendation was that Council would
approve the assignment, with directive to the City Attorney to include those
in the new agreement.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly asked whether all the problems had been resolved with
regard to walk-in service and gated communities.
Acting Director of Special Programs Frankie Riddle responded that those
issues had been negotiated and resolved. She said the cost would be $8.22
per month, to include one trash bin and one recycling bin. Upon further
question by Mayor Pro Tem Kelly, she said there would be additional costs
for a green waste bin or another trash bin.
Upon question by Councilman Crites, Ms. Riddle responded that staff had no
additional issues on this contract other than those listed in the staff report.
Councilman Crites noted that there were relatively few complaints about the
City's trash franchise, with only one or two telephone calls a year. He said
10
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
the City had a good system, staff does a good job, the waste company is a
good partner, etc.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly noted that this approval was assuming that Burrtec
would do the same good job that Waste Management had been doing.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve of the assignment of the
Solid Waste Franchise (Contract No. C17230) to Burrtec Waste Industries with the
provisions of Findings Nos. 6 and 7 and as stipulated within the HFH Report. Motion was
seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Ferguson and Councilman
Spiegel ABSENT.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND
SARES REGIS, ALSO KNOWN AS LOMAS DE ARENA, L.P.
Housing Authority Administrator Janet Moore noted that the developer of
Sares Regis had approached the City about a first amendment, in order to
include an in -lieu fee that was not included in the original agreement. She
said this was originally supposed to be a rental project, with 20 percent
(64 units) dedicated to moderate income households. The developer had
opted for an immediate conversion, and these units would now be for -sale
condominiums. She reviewed the report in detail.
Upon question by Councilman Crites, she responded that the $9.6 million
in -lieu fee was not adjusted for CPI. Councilman Crites noted the reason for
the fee was so that the City could turn around and buy more affordable
housing. However, given the cost of housing, by the time the City receives
that money, the amount of housing it would buy is not what it would buy
today. For that reason, he suggested the amount should be adjusted by the
increase in the housing market; otherwise, the City would be losing money
on this. He noted that if it took three years for this to happen, given
experience of the last three years, the amount of housing the City would be
left with would be 20 to 30 percent lower than what it would buy right now.
MR. GREG ALBERT, Vice President/Senior Project Manager for Sares
Regis, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612, said they intended to bring
units on-line beginning in November 2006. As far as there being any
appreciation in the prices of homes, he did not see that being an issue. With
regard to timing, he felt the project would be built out, at the most, in two
years rather than three, and the entire $9.6 million would have been paid by
then. Although, he agreed Councilman Crites made a valid point about
whether or not the market will continue to be this strong over the next two
years, as most people were under the impression that it would not. He felt
the proposal was fair at $30,000 per unit.
11
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
Mr. McCarthy stated that if what Mr. Albert was saying was correct, and it
would happen very quickly, then the CPI would be very nominal; however, if
for some reason they get delayed, then the CPI would not be nominal. If that
was the condition of Council's approval, staff would proceed in that manner.
MR. ALBERT said he felt that would be fair.
Councilman Crites said he was not sure the Council was really looking at CPI
or buying something that was based on the average increase across the
economy — this was about buying housing. He felt whatever index this is tied
to ought to be tied to housing.
Mr. McCarthy asked Finance staff if it was possible to break out in the CPI
index what the inflator is for housing. Assistant Finance Director Luis
Espinoza responded that he would have to look into it.
Councilman Crites observed that if housing is going up as it is, the Council
should make sure the City is net -even at the end.
MR. ALBERT asked if it would be fair to request that Sares Regis be given
some sort of time limit (i.e., a two-year window) to complete everything. After
that point, they could go back and review the balance of the fee to be paid
and adjust it accordingly, upward or downward, if necessary.
Mayor Ferguson asked what affordability, if any, was left with this condo
conversion. Ms. Moore responded there would be none in this project.
Mayor Ferguson said his concern was that this was the first developer to take
advantage of the City's high density bonus, and a major component of
obtaining that bonus was affordability. When the developer was doing
apartments, there was some discussion about ownership opportunities over
time for people who pay rent. If the affordability the City was getting
permanently with this project was taken away, he wondered whether
$9.6 million was enough to replace it.
Ms. Moore responded that preliminarily, staff had looked at what was done
as an agency in the recent past. It was determined that the City can do
similar housing and possibly bring it down to a lower affordability level, which
is the reason the request was brought forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly said he understood the concern but noted that he felt
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was probably going to go up no matter what;
however, housing had more of a chance to go down with saturation. He saw
this as a good thing and felt very strongly that it was an opportunity for the
City to use the money to accomplish more with affordable housing.
12
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
Councilman Crites suggested that staff be directed to bring back a report on
how the City will be made net whole through the use of these monies and
what mechanism should/should not be adopted with the agreement of the
developer.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly said that to him, this becoming an ownership -type
project was incentive to move ahead and follow staffs recommendation.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting
of May 11, 2006, with staff directed to provide a report on how the City will be made whole
with the use of said funds and what provisions would be required to accomplish same.
Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel
ABSENT.
D. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL PREEMPTION
SYSTEM FOR LAS PALMAS COUNTRY CLUB EMERGENCY GATE ON
MONTEREY AVENUE (City of Rancho Mirage, Applicant).
Mayor Ferguson noted that he had discussed this matter with subcommittee
members Mayor Pro Tem Kelly and City Manager Carlos Ortega. In light of
the fact that the City of Rancho Mirage is moving forward next Thursday with
a consulting agreement on its agenda, the subcommittee suggested passing
this issue on to the consultant the City of Palm Desert hires and have him
analyze the best possible temporary solution before continuing this matter
indefinitely and perhaps thereby sending the wrong message to
Palm Desert's neighbors. Mr. Greenwood agreed.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize staff to work with
Rancho Mirage's consultant studying the Monterey Avenue corridor in order to consider a
temporary solution for the preemption system until the comprehensive study is completed.
Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel
ABSENT.
XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION DECISION, DENYING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF
14-FOOT HIGH SOUND BARRIER WALL SYSTEM (GLASS BLOCK TYPE)
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND PAINTER'S
PATH (72-191 HIGHWAY 111), PALM DESERT Case No. MISC. 06-04
(South Beach Restaurant & Nightclub, Applicant) (Continued from the
meetings of March 9, March 23, and April 13, 2006).
Mr. Erwin asked that the Council continue this matter to the next meeting.
13
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this item to the meeting
of May 11, 2006. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote, with
Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
With City Council concurrence, Continued Business Item B was considered
jointly with Public Hearing Item E.
B. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO HISTORIC SITE CLASS
DESIGNATION OF PALM DESERT LODGE, LOCATED AT
74-527 HIGHWAY 111 (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND
DEEP CANYON ROAD), PALM DESERT Case No. HPC 06-01 (Palm Desert
Lodge, LLC, Michael Noto, and George Demos as Trustee of the Demos
Trust, and Daniel Brush as Trustee of the Peter Demos Living Trust,
Appellants) (Continued from the meeting of March 23, 2006).
Please see discussion and action taken with Public Hearing Item E.
C. REPORT ON THE HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
(Continued from the meeting of March 23, 2006).
Mr. Hamidzadeh noted that the contract was in the hands of the City's
consultant and was being reviewed for return to the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly said he felt the ordinance was a good one and that
staff should not go with the direction of just one Councilmember.
With City Council concurrence, the report was received and filed.
With City Council concurrence, Continued Business Item D was considered
jointly with Public Hearing Item E.
D. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO IDENTIFYING A
POTENTIAL HISTORIC SITE, PALM DESERT LODGE,
74-527 HIGHWAY 111 (Continued from the meetings of November 10 and
December 8, 2005; February 9, and March 23, 2006).
Please see discussion and action taken with Public Hearing Item E.
XII. OLD BUSINESS
None
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
APRIL 27, 2006
With Agency Board/Authority Board/City Council concurrence, Public Hearing
Items A and B were considered jointly with Financing Authority New Business
Items A and B and Public Hearing Items A and B, as well as Redevelopment
Agency New Business Items D and E.
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIONS RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF TAX ALLOCATION REVENUE BONDS (PROJECT AREA
NO. 1, AS AMENDED), 2006 SERIES A (TAX-EXEMPT), AND TAX
ALLOCATION REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (PROJECT AREA NO. 1,
AS AMENDED), 2006 SERIES B (TAXABLE), OF THE PALM DESERT
FINANCING AUTHORITY (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE
PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY).
Considered jointly with Redevelopment Agency New Business Items D and
E, Financing Authority New Business Items A and B, and Public Hearing
Items A and B; and City Council Public Hearing Item B below.
Mayor/Chairman/President Ferguson declared the public hearings open and asked
anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject to do so at this time.
With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearings closed.
Director of Redevelopment/Housing Dave Yrigoyen introduced Fiscal
Consultant Ken Dieker and Bond Counsel Teresa Ho-Urano, who had done
a lot of work on this project.
Mayor Pro TemNice President Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt:
1) City Council Resolution No. 06-56, making findings of significant public benefit in
connection with the issuance and sale of Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Project Area
No. 1, As Amended), 2006 Series A (Tax -Exempt), and Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue
Bonds (Project Area No. 1, As Amended), 2006 Series B (Taxable), of the Palm Desert
Financing Authority; 2) Financing Authority Resolution No. FA-53, acknowledging finding
of significant public benefit in connection with the issuance and sale of the Authority's Tax
Allocation Revenue Bonds (Project Area No. 1, As Amended), 2006 Series A (Tax -
Exempt), and Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds (Project Area No. 1, As
Amended), 2006 Series B (Taxable), and approving the issuance, sale, and delivery of
such bonds. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with
Councilman/Commissioner Spiegel ABSENT.
With Agency Board/Authority Board/City Council concurrence, Public Hearing
Items A and B were considered jointly with Financing Authority New Business
Items A and B and Public Hearing Items A and B, as well as Redevelopment
Agency New Business Items D and E.
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIONS RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF SUBORDINATE TAX ALLOCATION REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS (PROJECT AREA NO. 2), 2006 SERIES A, AND
SUBORDINATE TAX ALLOCATION REVENUE CAPITAL APPRECIATION
BONDS (PROJECT AREA NO. 2), 2006 SERIES B, OF THE
PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH
THE PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY).
Considered jointly with Redevelopment Agency New Business Items D and
E, Financing Authority New Business Items A and B, and Public Hearing
Items A and B; and City Council Public Hearing Item A above.
Mayor/Chairman/President Ferguson declared the public hearings open and asked
anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject to do so at this time.
With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearings closed.
Director of Redevelopment/Housing Dave Yrigoyen introduced Fiscal
Consultant Ken Dieker and Bond Counsel Teresa Ho-Urano, who had done
a lot of work on this project.
Mayor Pro TemNice President Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt:
1) City Council Resolution No. 06-57, making findings of significant public benefit in
connection with the issuance and sale of Subordinate Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue
Bonds (Project Area No. 2), 2006 Series A, and Subordinate Tax Allocation Revenue
Capital Appreciation Bonds (Project Area No. 2), 2006 Series B, of the Palm Desert
Financing Authority; 2) Financing Authority Resolution No. FA-54, acknowledging finding
of significant public benefit in connection with the issuance and sale of the Authority's
Subordinate Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds (Project Area No. 2), 2006 Series
A, and Subordinate Tax Allocation Revenue Capital Appreciation Bonds (Project Area No.
2), 2006 Series B, and approving the issuance, sale, and delivery of such bonds. Motion
was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman/Commissioner
Spiegel ABSENT.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A POLICY FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT
OF STAFF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND -BASED FINANCING
DISTRICTS.
Mr. McCarthy noted that the City Manager had requested this item be
continued.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from
the audience. No testimony was offered.
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this public hearing to the
meeting of May 11, 2006. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with
Mayor Ferguson and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
D. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF 11.87 ACRES INTO SEVEN (7) LOTS TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ADJACENT TO
THE "CANYONS AT BIGHORN GOLF CLUB," WEST OF INDIAN COVE
AND SOUTH OF DEAD INDIAN CREEK; AND CONSIDERATION OF
REQUEST ON THE SAME PROPERTY FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (STUDY ZONE) TO
HILLSIDE RESERVE AND ZONE CHANGE FROM A COMBINATION OF
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, FIVE (5) UNITS PER ACRE AND HILLSIDE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, TO HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ON THE
ENTIRE PROPERTY Case Nos. TT 31676. GPA 6-1. C/Z 6-1 (Cornishe of
Bighorn, LLC, and City of Palm Desert, Applicants) (Continued from the
meetings of February 23 and March 9, 2006).
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from
members of the audience. No testimony was offered.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this public hearing to a
date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor
Ferguson and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
E. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION BY THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO IDENTIFYING A
POTENTIAL HISTORIC SITE CLASSIFICATION FOR PALM DESERT
LODGE, 74-527 HIGHWAY 111, PALM DESERT Case No. HPC 06-01
(Palm Desert Lodge, LLC, Michael Noto, George Demos as Trustee of the
Demos Trust, and Daniel Brush as Trustee of the Peter Demos Living Trust,
Appellants).
The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Council minutes.
Key
JF Jim Ferguson, Mayor
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
AH Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety
BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman
JMB Jean M. Benson, Councilmember
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem
TS Tom Slovak, representing the Appellant
DB Dick Baxley, representing the Appellant
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
(Key, cont.)
KR Kent Routh, member of the Palm Desert Historic Preservation Committee
JH Jan Holmlund, member of the Palm Desert Historic Preservation Committee
JF Now, I'm going to need a little help on this next one because we've got one, two,
three, four items on the Agenda for what looks like consideration of the same thing.
RDK You would be correct.
JF Ali, what would you like us to do first?
AH We would like to combine all of them and consider all of them under Item E of the
Public Hearings.
JF Okay, Item E is a public hearing, so why don't I just go ahead and open it. Is there
any staff report prior to the public hearing that you'd like to give?
AH All of them probably would go at the same time. I could give it right now, if you
want.
JF Okay. Any questions of staff? Okay, then I'll go ahead and...well, let me call the
item first. It's Consideration of a Recommendation by the Historic Preservation
Committee Relative to Identifying a Potential Historic Site Classification for Palm
Desert Lodge located at 74-527 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, California. I will go
ahead and open the public hearing.
BAC And is he going to give a staff report?
JF I asked you if you wanted one...
BAC No, you asked if I had questions.
JF I asked if he had a staff report.
AH Again, it's a little bit confusing, but the four items...let me go on by describing that
first. The four items are...even though they're almost the same project, but...one of
which has been continued since November, and it's just been continued since. The
other item is a recommendation by the Historic Preservation Committee for a
classification for Palm Desert Lodge. The third item is an item for our consultant to
do the ordinance and (unclear) and an update...I believe the City Attorney has that
update. And the fourth item is an appeal to the recommendation by the Historic
Preservation Committee.
JF Okay, and what's the one that we've just been continuing since November?
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
AH That item was the original item we wanted to recommend to the City Council a
recommendation by the Historic Preservation Committee, but we never...we found
out that we do not have the time to research it enough, so it was always continued
to actually do the research.
JF One and two kind of collapse together, then.
AH Yes.
JF Well, why don't we start with the appeal, which might give us enough information
from all interested parties to help us form a recommendation and what we should
do with the consultant.
AH Okay. The Historic Preservation Committee met on February 2r and voted
unanimously on Palm Desert Lodge being classified as Class 5, Class 5 being that
the Palm Desert Lodge can be identified as a local...can be recognized on the local
level, and there is no stay of demolition...there is just photography and some
archiving of documentation, local level, and thus Class 5, which is the
recommendation by the Historic Preservation Committee as well as staff. The
appellant has appealed that decision. I believe they are here for their
recommendation for why they're appealing it, but they recognize the site as no
historic value and...
JF Well, we'll let them make their own arguments.
AH ...make their own arguments, absolutely.
JF Okay, then why don't I start with the appellant, since it is his hearing.
JMB Can I ask...I don't know if this is the time or not, but in establishing all of this, is
there any provision that...and I understand that they can tear it down...but is there
anything in here that says they have to put a plaque on the property someplace
showing what it is because some places you go, and you go into old buildings, and
they'll say this was formerly the...
AH I believe our ordinance for Class 5 asks for archiving and photography on it. I don't
believe a plaque is required on this particular classification.
JMB But could it be?
AH No, I don't think it is required for...
JMB No, but could it be?
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
AH Of course, we can al ways require a plaque, absolutely. And by the way, as we are
revising the ordinance, that might be one of the items that we are trying to address
in the new ordinance.
JMB Well, I, for one, would like to see that because of the fact that I understand the
tearing it down and all that, but it's also nice when you see a plaque, which can
certainly be inserted someplace "This was formerly such and such" because as
people come back and visit the area, they know what that was at one time....oh, my
folks honeymooned here or something, you know. I just think it's nice to let people
know, and it's not hurting any new building in any sense to put up something, so if
that's the time to consider it, I think that's something we should do.
AH Absolutely.
RSK We might want to consider going other places and putting plaques up for places we
know that the City could (unclear) I could think of some right now that would be
interesting if there's a plaque there.
JMB Right.
JF Okay, why don't we start with the appellant, who can state his reasons for the
appeal, and then I'll invite anybody who wishes to comment on the appeal or have
other opinions about all three of these, now three of these issues to step forward as
part of an overall public hearing.
TS Good evening, my name is Tom Slovak, and I am the attorney for the owners of the
Palm Desert Lodge. And just for the record, the owners are Peter Demos Trust
(Michael Noto, Trustee), Demos Trust (Daniel Noto, Trustee), and George Demos
as his sole and separate property. This is a family -owned property, and the reason
we are here is that there was a recommendation from the Historic Preservation
Committee, and there is now a report recommendation to the Council under the
present ordinance, called the Historic Preservation Ordinance for short. To
understand why we're appealing, you really have to read the ordinance and
understand it, and you also have to understand what the motions are. To get to the
end first, we are taking the position that the evidence before the committee, or the
board, we presented to the Preservation Committee, established without any
question that this building did not meet the criteria of the ordinance to be designated
historic. And that the recommendation that it be designated as Class 5, which on
its face has been suggestive to only have an adverse impact to the extent of having
to archive certain things, take pictures, which we have no opposition to. By reason
of the ordinance as written, and by reason of the motion, which is now being sought
to be recommended by the Building & Safety Department, there are additional
restrictions. And the way to begin understanding that is...if I may, is to hand out to
the committee the motion that was adopted and then also the Building & Safety
Department recommendation. We can begin there, because without that
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
understanding, I think there's confusion as to what we're talking about...if I could
begin with that and hand it out. If there's an (unclear), I can put it up for all to see,
but I do have copies for the Council and the City Attorney, if you'd like.
JF Why don't you hand out copies, and we'll get the overhead as well.
TS Before commencing that discussion, as they work on the (unclear), let me just make
two other brief preliminary remarks. I believe that the owners of Palm Desert Lodge
are the first property owners (unclear) are the first property owners who have
walked through this procedure, and I believe that in the process, we have come to
understand and look at this ordinance as carefully as anyone. I've looked at every
ordinance in the Coachella Valley. I have some of them here. I've looked at every
case in the United States on the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and I've studied
this ordinance, and what...there are major problems with this ordinance, not the
least of which is there are ambiguities in definitions. Most historic preservation
ordinances, just so you know, say it's not historic, and then they put restrictions on
those that are historic. As I will point out to you here, if you go through the process,
there's a Class 1 site not qualified for designations, but this is not eligible for review
for two years. So you never have a final end to this process. If you look at Class
5 (unclear) which is of no legal consequence, the State enabling act statute puts
restrictions on a historic site where a city can have the same restrictions on its
usage. Mr. Baxley is here, and (unclear) designated historic (unclear) has the same
adverse impact (unclear)....to the extent that we designate it Class 5, go through
this entire appeal process, which I'll talk about in a second because the appeal
process is an appeal from a recommendation, which is intemally inconsistent within
the ordinance. We are subject to uncertainty, and what we are asking is that the
property be designated not historic, and the only restrictions be placed upon this
property be that of any other zoning on property in the area. If you look at the
recommendation now (unclear)...Class 5 and so on and so forth, and then it is also
recommended that in the event that the owner should ever decide to cease the
operation of this facility, that every reasonable effort be made for adaptive reuse of
this property and/or select features. Now, at this moment, we've lost two sales.
Speaking to the issue of property appreciation and depreciation, by reason of this
designation and originally by a committee of the City, not its Council, we lost a major
sale. We are now here six months later. We hope to be able to sell the property,
but I can represent to this committee, we will lose six or seven figures by this delay.
Having said that, we now have a recommendation that the...it be Class 5. The
evidence before the committee, unrebutted in the record, through the testimony of
John Criste and that of Mr. Baxley, to that of the owner...the owner's accountant
was here also present, Mr. Brush, was that none (unclear) none of the standards
by which one would normally designate a property historic were met. Secondly, the
property itself is of really two parts. The portion that seems to be most...most
people seem to be enamored with, if you could ever be enamored with that property
architecturally, is the front portion, which is, by the way, less than 50 years old. The
minimum criteria for designation is, at a minimum, it must be 50 years old. It's the
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
back portion that's 50. The front portion, that people seem to think is interesting
architecturally, is less than 50 years old. Next, one of the issues, legally, that is of
serious concern in any city, since I do a fair amount of condemnation work, is this.
When a city goes out and seeks to condemn real property, Council is involved, very
serious assessments are made by Council in the procedures before a city goes out
and condemns property. The legal consequence of improperly designating the city
as historic when it does not meet the standards is to engage in an act of inverse
condemnation, which then results, obviously, in contested issues. I would submit
for the general point that the ordinance itself is unconstitutional as written and as
applied. I would submit as a general matter that a committee going out and
designating 160 pieces of property in the City, which has to be disclosed by
anybody seeking to sell those properties...it's a matter of law, otherwise you commit
fraud...impacts their marketability. This is done without a study. It's done without
legal counsel review, and it's done without any financial assessment as to its
consequences to the City. I've presented the packet of materials that we submitted
and the transcript of the hearing in my appeal. I would note, and I do thank the
Council and the Mayorforthe continuance lasttime...on my way here, I had a family
emergency that I won't go into, and it was realized, unfortunately. So I appreciate
the consideration given. I really would be willing to answer any questions. I don't
want to go on too long, as lawyers are wont to do, and repeat the written materials,
but if people have not really studied this and read our statements by John Criste
and read the evidence that was presented, I'd be happy to summarize if briefly, if
anyone has an interest in my doing so.
JF Let me ask you a quick question if I can try and summarize your argument. You
believe that any historic designation whatsoever will impair the value and the
marketability of your property, you're willing to archive and photo and do whatever
it is, but it's the stamp of "historic" even in any category that you believe clouds your
title and devalues your land.
TS That is true....as this ordinance is written, yes.
JF Okay. Any questions for the appellant? Okay, thank you. Others wishing to speak
on this matter may...
TS Just for the record, I did have Mr. Baxley here if you wish to have evidence put forth
on the conclusion that I just represented.
JF If you wish him to, that is up to you. Anybody else wishing to speak at this time?
DB Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dick Baxley, 73-712
Alessandro, here in Palm Desert. If the property was designated as a historic site,
it will have a strong impact, negatively, on the valuation for any perspective buyer
and is likely to kill the transaction. You should be aware of that. The degree is
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
always how impacfful it is, but that will definitely have a negative impact. Thank you
for your time. Any questions?
JF Nope.
KR My name is Kent Routh. I'm at 73-310 Palm Desert Drive, and I'm on the
Committee for Historic Preservation. The issue that has been raised indicates to
me that we do need...
JF Would you pull the mic a little bit closer.
KR ...we do need to redo our City ordinance in this matter. We took the
recommendation of staff for the category 5, figuring in that way that we would not
be a burden to the owners and that we would not, in fact, delay any of their
commercial transactions, as the category does not...does allow them to demolish
the...that was my understanding of it. We are, at the moment, asking the City
Council to provide us with a consultant to change the ordinance so that it reads
internally and that we all know what page we're on. If the Council has any more
questions of me, I'm happy to answer them.
JF Any questions? I would only note that we appreciate the efforts of the Committee,
and I think a lot of the problems that we're having are a result of the ordinance, so
we'll be getting to that next.
KR Thank you, Your Honor.
JF Anybody else wishing to speak at this public hearing on the appeal?
JH My name is Jan Holmlund, and I'm on the Committee for Historic Preservation. I
wanted to speak to the issue of plaguing. The City Council at any time can
determine whether or not they wish to have a plaque put on any building with the
ordinance as it now stands. I have in my possession 26 California ordinances. The
ordinance from the City of Palm Desert is as good as the majority of those
ordinances, and I've spent a number of years in historic preservation planning. I
would say that I am somewhat confused by the presentation from the attorney in
that we understood this property was not for sale, it was to be leased and the
buildings demolished. That was what we were given to understand when it was
presented to us. So I don't think that we even considered that we might be standing
in the way of a property sale. But be that as it may, this is still a community, and
that businessman is still doing business in this community, and as such, he needs
to live with the issues and the rules and the regulations that all the people want for
their community. So when we went through the choices we had, I was inclined,
actually, to give it a Class 6 and did so, made a motion to that effect, the reason
being the first motel built on that property is actually 50 years old, and it does meet
the Federal and State criteria. But after further discussion and looking at the
23
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
property and listening to the reasoning by the attorneys and the property owner, we
felt that we were far better able to achieve something wonderful for that corner with
classification number 5. The other element that entered into our thinking is that we
really did not know what the City planning was for Highway 111, and that makes a
very big difference when you're suggesting what to build on a corner on that
particular highway. So having said that, I would like to urge you to think in terms of
this not being a confusing issue on classification number 5 and historic preservation
but possibly a confusing issue as to what the City can demand of its property
owners. Thank you.
JF Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak at this time? Seeing no one, I will then
close the public hearing and ask for comments/suggestions from the Council. Mr.
Kelly.
RSK You want me to go first?
JF I thought you raised your hand.
RSK No, I was signifying to my colleague that he could proceed if he would like to, but
whatever...
BAC No, I was just going to say I listened to the comments. We often hear comments
about everything that we do that someone doesn't agree with...it depreciates their
property, and those are usually remarkably subjective judgments. This category 5
notes that the person can demolish it as long as they photograph it and do
documentation and that, if possible, you try to use some of the existing features in
a new building, which seems like a reasonable thing. And it does not appear to be
in the list bit onerous, in spite of the legal caterwauling that we have heard, and so
I, for one, am going to move to have it as a Class 5 designation, or would be
supportive of such a motion, noting that it does not intend to hold back the owners
from future uses that have nothing to do with the existing use.
RSK Seems to me that Class 5 is a very fair class to be labeled. It doesn't stop them
from proceeding. I have a difficult time seeing how that would affect the sale, and
it seems to me that any good citizen would want to do exactly what Class 5 says
that they should do, so I have a difficult time understanding where the problem is
if you want to be a good citizen and a part of the City of Palm Desert.
JMB (unclear) comment I think they're all right on.
JF Well, I...
RSK I'd second your motion.
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
JF Okay, there's a motion and a second, and I'II put my footnote in at the end. I don't
like our ordinance. I haven't looked at 26 or every case in the country, but I see
what the appellant has gone through, right, wrong, or indifferent, and I do believe
that before we impair or at least perceivably impair somebody's property rights, it
ought to come to the Council, and this has gone on since November, as Ali
said...we're now coming into May, and....good Lord, we handle Planning
Commission appeals and Architectural Review appeals within 14 days, typically,
and I just...I don't think the ordinance is right as crafted. I think it ought to be
reviewed. I think everybody at the Study Session that I was at the Historic
Preservation Committee pointed out flaws in the ordinance. Our City Attorney has
reviewed it and said it needs some fixing. But if the goal of the Committee and the
goal of this community and the goal of this Council is to preserve photographic
records of that building and put a plaque saying this is once where the Palm Desert
Motor Lodge is, I don't see why we can't do that. And if the applicant thinks
stamping it "historic" is going to impair his property value, I don't see why we have
to stamp it "historic." That way, it seems to me the appellant wins, the Preservation
Committee gets what it wanted, we wind up with a better ordinance in the process,
and hopefully the next person who goes through this process will understand the
rules of the game. So I'm personally not going to vote in favor (unclear) against
recognizing the historic significance of the Palm Desert Motor Lodge...I just would
like to do so in a way that doesn't harm or at least in the appellant's eyes harm his
property value. Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Please vote.
RDK Motion carries 3-1, Mayor Ferguson voting NO.
JF And with that, I'm going to have to excuse myself. I've got to be out of...down in
Mexicali by seven o'clock tonight, so I'm going to turn the balance of the meeting
over to Mayor Pro Tem Dick Kelly.
For clarification purposes, Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve
a Class 5 Designation for the Palm Desert Lodge, with the understanding that it is not
intended to hold back the owners from future uses that have nothing to do with the existing
use. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by 3-1 vote, with Mayor Ferguson voting
NO and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
NOTE: Mayor Ferguson left the meeting at 5:13 p.m.
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE UNIVERSITY PARK MASTER
PLAN (UPMP), CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (PCD) TO THE EXISTING PR-5
ZONING, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AS IT RELATES THERETO FOR 190 +/- ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE AND EAST OF PORTOLA AVENUE
(74-500 COLLEGE DRIVE) Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park
Master Plan (Palm Desert Funding Company, LP, and Desert Wells 237,
LLC, Applicants).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report in detail and offered
to answer any questions.
Upon question by Councilmember Benson, he responded that the Master
Plan provided for a basic height limit of 24 feet, with the ability through an
exception to go to 28 feet upon approval of the Architectural Review
Commission and Planning Commission.
Councilman Crites noted that under the existing ordinance, one story has 18
feet, with the developer having the ability to request 24 feet; two-story is a
maximum of 24 feet under the existing ordinance, with the ability to request
an exception if there is something meritorious. Mr. Smith agreed.
Councilman Crites asked why staff felt that should be changed and why a
one-story house should be guaranteed to be 24 feet.
Mr. Smith responded that the intent was not to have one-story buildings at
24 feet; however, they could be approved up to that height.
Councilman Crites asked if there was any reason not to use what the City
has right now, and if the developers feel they have something really
incredibly architecturally wonderful, they can come in and request the
additional height. Mr. Smith stated that staff would have no problem with
that. With regard to the parks area, Councilman Crites said he noticed that
nowhere in the various set of parks was there a community garden, and with
the density of this project, he felt that was something that should be included.
With regard to energy conservation, he felt it was important to make sure
that whatever roofing they do is compatible with economical installation of
solar panels and that the home is designed to maximize appropriate roof
orientation.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly suggested removing the two odd -shaped lots at the
southeast corner of Portola and Gerald Ford and putting two lots back in at
Pacific Avenue and Gerald Ford so as to maximize open space without the
developer losing any Tots. Councilman Crites also asked whether that linear
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
area at Pacific and Gerald Ford was a drainage area. Mr. Smith responded
that it was a retention area, which needed to be at a certain capacity. He
said that while staff would have no problem with the developer doing as
suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Kelly; it was something that needed to be
looked at closely to make sure the necessary capacity was maintained, and
perhaps only one lot could be added at that location.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony
SUPPORTING or OPPOSING this request.
MR. TOM HOVER, representing Palm Desert Funding Company, noted the
retention basins were needed on -site to handle the water runoff. In response
to Mayor Pro Tem Kelly's suggestion relative to increasing open space by
removing lots at the southeast corner of Portola and Gerald Ford, he said
that area had just been redesigned to create more open space on the corner.
With regard to the parks, he noted they had been working for the last eight
months with the City's Parks Department, and what was before Council was
a result of these discussions to include the amenities and designs that
Department wanted to see.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly declared the public hearing
closed.
Upon question by Councilman Crites, Mr. Smith responded that it was the
current City policy that height exceptions come to the City Council for review.
Councilman Crites added that any action of the Planning Commission can
come to the Council on a call-up. With regard to the issue of extra density,
he suggested that applicants be given some idea of what the City is looking
for (criteria) should they want to come in asking for height exceptions.
Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1116
to second reading, approving the University Park Master Plan and Planned Community
Development Overlay Zone (PCD), Case No. C/Z 06-04, as amended with regard to the
Master Plan, as follows: 1) Revise the Master Plan to use existing height provisions with
ability for height exceptions to be considered in keeping with present policy, along with
providing a set of criteria for such exceptions; 2) Energy Conservation Component to
provide one roof design so as to accommodate solar panels and home design to maximize
appropriate roof orientation for solar panels; 3) provision for a Community Garden in one
of the existing drainage basin or park areas; 4) maximize open space area at the southeast
comer of the intersection of Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive. Motion was seconded
by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Ferguson and Councilman Spiegel
ABSENT.
27
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2006
G. CONSIDERATION OF PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST
FOR APPROVAL OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) FUNDING
PROPOSAL FOR TARGET TEAM BICYCLES, VIDEO CAMERA, AND
DIGITAL CAMERAS FOR PATROL OPERATIONS.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in
FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request. With no testimony offered, he
declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the Palm Desert Police
Department's proposal to accept approximately $11,000 in Edward Byrne
Memorial - Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Funds for 2006 to fund the purchase of Target
Team bicycles, a video camera, and three digital cameras for patrol operations. Motion
was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Ferguson and Councilman
Spiegel ABSENT.
XIV. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
None
B. CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Erwin asked the City Council to consider adding the following matter to
its agenda.
Upon motion by Crites, second by Benson, and 3-0 vote of the City Council, with
Spiegel and Ferguson ABSENT, the following consideration was added to the agenda.
1. Consideration of a Street Vacation for the Southerly Half of New York
Avenue West of Virginia Avenue.
Mr. Erwin distributed a copy of a letter from Habitat for Humanity of
the Coachella Valley, Inc. He said the City Council was being asked
to set a public hearing for its second meeting in May to consider
vacating a portion of New York Avenue west of Virginia
Avenue —a very short street, Tess than 100 feet long. He said this will
allow Habitat for Humanity to construct a single-family home on the
lot there, which was donated to them by the City, as they want to
participate in Habitat International's Blitz Build Event during the first
week in June.
28
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, set a public hearing for the meeting
of May 25, 2006, to consider the subject street vacation. Motion was seconded by Kelly
and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Ferguson and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
C. CITY CLERK
1. Reminder of Special City Council/University Planning Committee
Meeting, Tuesday, May9, 2006, 2:00 p.m., Administrative Conference
Room.
Councilman Crites noted that neither he nor Mayor Ferguson would
be able to attend the May 9`h Council meeting.
In addition, he said Mayor Ferguson had noted he would be attending
the May 16`h Cal State Board of Regents meeting in Long Beach.
After further discussion, it was determined that at least three
Councilmembers planned to attend said meeting (Crites, Kelly, and
Ferguson), and consideration would be given to traveling to
Long Beach the evening before.
D. PUBLIC SAFETY
o Fire Department
None
o Police Department
None
E. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
1. Portofino —Councilman Crites asked staff to take all necessary
steps to address the state of the undeveloped area at this
project site, especially the fence along the west side of
Portola Avenue. He felt it was an embarrassment and that the
City should be pursuing an enforcement action.
Mr. Croy responded that section of property had been sold by
Portofino's owner to another party. Staff had been trying to get
in touch with the party for that reason but would now pursue
the matter with greater urgency.
City Councilmembers concurred.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
o City Council Committee Reports:
None
o City Council Comments:
None
XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C
None
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
APRIL 27, 2006
Councilmember Benson moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:46 p.m. Motion was
seconded by Crites and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Ferguson and Councilman
Spiegel ABSENT.
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN; CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
JIM''F.ER
SON, MAYOR
30