HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrelim Minutes - City 06/24/2004PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2004
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M.
Mayor Spiegel convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Mayor Pro Tem Buford A. Crites
Councilman Jim Ferguson
Councilman Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Robert A. Spiegel
Also Present:
Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community 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
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Teresa L. La Rocca, Director of Housing
Michael J. Errante, Director of Public Works
David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment
Steve Smith, Planning Manager
Richard Twedt, Public Arts Manager
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A (CLOSED SESSION ITEMS)
None
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2004
IV. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Request for Closed Session:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
1) Property: Lease Property - Parkview Professional Office Complex -
73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite No. 102, Palm Desert
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Paul S. Gibson/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: City of Palm Desert
Other Parties: Cove Communities Service Commission
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
2) Property: Lease Property - Parkview Professional Office Complex -
73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite No. 222, Palm Desert
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Paul S. Gibson/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: City of Palm Desert
Other Parties: County of Riverside/Supervisor Roy Wilson
Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEM OF PROPERTY NEGOTIATION WAS LISTED ON AN
AGENDA ADDENDUM POSTED AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
3) Property: Lease Property - 42-305 Washington Street, Palm Desert
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: David J. Erwin/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: FKC Palm Desert Parcel 1 LLC
Under Negotiation: n/a Price x Terms of Payment
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
a) City of Cerritos, et al., v. State Board of Equalization, Alameda County
Superior Court
b) City of Palm Desert v. Michaud, Riverside County Superior Court Case
No. INC 041793
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b):
Number of potential cases: 2
2
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
Upon motion by Benson, second by Crites, Mayor Spiegel adjourned the meeting
to Closed Session at 3:02 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
V. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M.
A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION.
None
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Robert A. Spiegel
VII. INVOCATION - Councilmember Jean M. Benson
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
At the reconvening of the meeting, Mayor Spiegel announced that as of one week
from today, the City would grow by about 4,000 people — July 1 was the official date
of the Palm Desert Greens and Suncrest Country Clubs' annexation into the City.
MS. VERNA SMITH, MS. EMMA DOE, AND MS. DOTTIE MILLS, residents of the
area to be annexed, each addressed the City Council in appreciation of its efforts
that made their annexation to Palm Desert possible. They introduced some of the
other residents of the area also in attendance, all of whom looked forward to
becoming part of Palm Desert after a long process.
MS. SANDRA KELEMAN, 41-612 Aventine Court, Palm Desert, spoke to the City
Council about her concerns for the noise from construction on the project that was
immediately adjacent to her home, especially when it now began at 6:00 a.m. She
said her neighborhood was comprised of many elderly residents who were impacted
by the early hour when noise from trucks and heavy equipment began each day.
She hoped her coming forward would help alert City officials to the concern; she
wasn't sure whether it was a local or a State regulation that permitted this activity
and wondered whether something could be done to modify the daily starting time.
Mayor Spiegel asked Ms. Keleman to provide her information to Mr. Ortega for
follow-up.
MR. MICHAEL BRACKEN, 40-112 Sagewood Drive, Palm Desert, said he'd been
pleased to represent his alma mater as Tournament Director of this year's California
State University, San Bernardino, Scholarship Golf Tournament held at BIGHORN
on May 3. He said a full field participated, raising $49,000 for college scholarships
for CSUSB's Palm Desert Campus. Because of their appreciation for the City's
sponsorship, he presented Mayor Spiegel and the City Council with a framed copy
of the Desert Sun ad that thanked all sponsors on May 19.
3
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
IX. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE CITY OF PALM DESERT EMPLOYEES
FOR EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE — JUNE 2004.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Spiegel and Mr. Ortega recognized the
following employees for outstanding work: Lauri Aylaian, Tony Bagato,
Jay Niemczak, Deborah Schwartz, Richard Twedt, Marco Zamudio, and
Ernie Owens.
X. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of June 10, 2004.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant
Nos. 238 and 241.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. CITY COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
1. Housing Commission Meeting of May 12, 2004.
2. Investment & Finance Committee Meeting of April 28, 2004.
3. Public Safety Commission Meeting of May 12, 2004.
4. Technology Committee Meeting of April 6, 2004.
Rec: Receive and file.
D. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Dispose of Paper Records from the
Department of Building & Safety that Have Been Digitized (December 2003;
January, February, March, April, and May 2004).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt: 1) Resolution No. 04-53 - for
December 2003 Records; 2) Resolution No. 04-54 - for January 2004
Records; 3) Resolution No. 04-55 - for February 2004 Records;
4) Resolution No. 04-56 - for March 2004 Records; 5) Resolution
No. 04-57 - for April 2004 Records; 6) Resolution No. 04-58 - for
May 2004 Records.
4
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Agreement for the City's Participation in
Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc. (TIP) (Contract No. C22890).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject agreement between the City of
Palm Desert and Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc., authorizing the
City's participation in TIP for FY 2004/05 in the amount of $5,082
($0.12 per resident).
F. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase New Postage/Mailing
System (Contract No. C22900).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize staff to negotiate a contract with Pitney
Bowes for a new postage/mailing system in the amount of $24,459
plus sales tax and annual maintenance.
G. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase New AS400 Hardware and
Software for the City's Computer System (Contract No. C22910).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize: 1) Staff to negotiate a contract with
Logical Design, Inc., Mesa, Arizona, in the amount of $50,000 to
provide a new AS400 computer system; 2) appropriate $50,000 from
General Fund Reserves for the purchase of a new IBM iSeries
(AS400) computer system.
H. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Sweeping Services for
City -maintained Parking Lots (Contract No. C22770).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to M & M Sweeping,
Inc., Thousand Palms, California, in the amount of $9,120;
2) authorize the Mayor to execute the contract — funds are available
in the FY 2004/05 accounts for annual services.
I. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Accept Street Sweeping Services for
State Highways in Palm Desert (Contract No. C22560A).
Rec: By Minute Motion, accept street sweeping services by CleanStreet,
Gardena, California, for the State Highways in Palm Desert at a rate
of $28.70 per curb mile.
5
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
J. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Landscape Design for the
Country Club Median East of Tamarisk Row Drive to Oasis Club Drive
(Contract No. C22920, Project No. 713-04).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to David Volz Design,
La Quinta, California, in the amount of $12,520; 2) authorize a 10%
contingency for the project in the amount of $1,252; 3) authorize the
Mayor to execute said agreement — funds are available in Account
No. 400-4614-433-4001.
K. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the First Amendment to Agreement for
Contract Plan Review Services with California Code Check (Contract
No. C21441B).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for
Contract Plan Review Services with California Code Check, Newbury
Park, California, extending the term of services for one year — July 1,
2004, to June 30, 2005 — funds are available in Account
No. 110-4420-422-3010.
L. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the First Amendment to Agreement for
Contract Plan Review Services with Esgil Corporation (Contract
No. C21441A).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for
Contract Plan Review Services with Esgil Corporation, San Diego,
California, extending the term of services for one year — July 1, 2004,
to June 30, 2005 — funds are available in Account
N o . 110-4420-422-3010.
M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of an Increase in the Monthly Retainer for
Legislative Lobbying Services (Contract No. CO2996).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a $400/month increase (from
$2,600/month to $3,000/month) in the retainer paid to
Joe A. Gonsalves & Sons, Inc., for legislative lobbying services —
funds are available in Account No. 110-4112-410-3090.
N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the 2005/06 El Paseo Exhibition (Contract
Nos. C22930A-R).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve of the 2005/06 El Paseo Exhibition, as
presented; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute contracts with the
respective artists or their representatives for the Exhibition — funds are
allocated in the FY 2004/05 Budget, Account No. 436-4650-454-4002.
6
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
Upon motion by Ferguson, second by Kelly, the Consent Calendar was approved
as presented by a 5-0 vote of the Council.
XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
XII. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 04-59 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING THE DATE OF
ITS CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH
TIME WARNER CABLE FROM JUNE 30, 2004, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005.
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 04-59.
Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 04-60 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS
TO VACATE A PUBLIC STREET KNOWN AS LOT A
(FRANKONIA COURT) OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28448-1 UNDER
PROVISIONS OF PART 3, DIVISION 9, OF THE STREETS & HIGHWAYS
CODE, AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR THE HEARING OF ALL
PERSONS INTERESTED IN OR OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED
ABANDONMENT (J. W. Design & Construction, Inc., Applicant).
Mr. Ortega clarified that this action by itself did not vacate the street.
Instead, it would set a public hearing to consider said vacation.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 04-60.
Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XIII. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
For Adoption:
None
7
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
XIV. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIONS RELATIVE TO THE
2004 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2.
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Mr. Erwin stated that Resolution No. 04-61, a proposition to be submitted to
the voters, needed to be clarified to reflect that "shall the City of Palm Desert
Ordinance No. 679, passed in 1992, be ratified, which increased the
Transient Occupancy Tax (the hotel bed tax) from eight percent (8%) to nine
percent (9%), be approved?"
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to waive further reading and: 1) Adopt Resolution
No. 04-61, calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, for the election of certain officers as required by the
provisions of the Laws of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Palm Desert,
and for the submission to the voters a question relating to Transient Occupancy Tax, as
amended to read: "Shall the City of Palm Desert ratify an ordinance passed in 1992,
its Ordinance No. 679, which increased the Transient Occupancy Tax (the hotel bed
tax) from eight percent (8%) to nine percent (9%)?"; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 04-62,
requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside to consolidate a General
Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, with the Statewide General
Election to be held on the date pursuant to § 10403 of the Elections Code; 3) Adopt
Resolution No. 04-63, adopting regulations for candidates for elective office, pertaining to
candidates' statements submitted to the voters at an election to be held on Tuesday,
November 2, 2004; 4) Adopt Resolution No. 04-64, providing for the filing of rebuttal
arguments for City Measures submitted at Municipal Elections; 5) Adopt Resolution
No. 04-65, setting priorities for filing a written argument regarding a City Measure and
directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis; 6) Pass Ordinance No. 1071
to second reading, pending majority vote of the electors of the City of Palm Desert at its
General Municipal Election to be held Tuesday, November 2, 2004. Motion was seconded
by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENTS' PLAZA I
(EAST/WEST) BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004/05.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) Resolution
No. 04-66, approving the Presidents' Plaza I Business Improvement District Budget for
FY 2004/05; 2) Resolution No. 04-67, ordering the levy and collection of assessments for
the Presidents' Plaza I Property and Business Improvement District for FY 2004/05.
Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
8
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENTS' PLAZA III BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004/05.
Councilman Ferguson noted that he would be abstaining from this item
because his office is within that assessment district.
Councilmember Benson moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) Resolution
No. 04-68, approving the Presidents' Plaza III Business Improvement District Budget for
FY 2004/05; 2) Resolution No. 04-69, ordering the levy and collection of assessments for
FY 2004/05. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman
Ferguson ABSTAINING.
D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR MONTHLY PRINTING
OF THE CITY'S BRIGHT SIDE NEWSLETTER (CONTRACT NO. C22940).
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the agreement with
Coachella Valley Printing Group, Indio, California, for monthly printing of the Bright Side
newsletter in the amount of $4,770.64/month for FY 2004/05 and $4,995/month for FY
2005/06. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PRINTING OF
THE PALM DESERT TABLETOP BOOK (CONTRACT NO. C22950).
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the agreement with
Papillon Graphics, Palm Desert, California, for printing of 7,500 newly created Palm Desert
Tabletop Books in the amount of $69,719 — funds are available in the FY 2003/04 Budget
for this purpose. Motion was seconded by Kelly.
Mayor Spiegel asked for the price of these books.
Mrs. Gilligan noted that two versions would be printed, paperback and hard
bound.
Marketing Manager Kristy Kneiding added that the final price had not yet
been determined, although it would be reasonable for visitors to purchase.
She said it was anticipated to be approximately $20.
Mayor Spiegel asked whether the books would be discounted for residents
of Palm Desert, and Ms. Kneiding responded that this could be done.
Upon question by Mayor Pro Tem Crites as to how far along the books were
in the design process, Ms. Kneiding responded that they were currently in the
design process, and the printing contract needed to be approved in order to
start scanning the photos that will go into the book. She added that the book
was probably 90% complete as far as design, although they were still
9
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
finalizing photo choices. Upon further question, she said staff would be
happy to have Council review the final draft and provide input prior to
printing.
Mayor Spiegel called for the vote. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONING OF AN ARTIST
TO CREATE A MURAL FOR THE PALM DESERT LIBRARY
COMMUNITY ROOM (CONTRACT NO. C22080) (Continued from the
meetings of May 13, and June 10, 2004).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the recommendation
of the Art In Public Places Commission to approve a $1,000 honorarium each for the three
artist finalists to provide further design refinement — funds are available in Account No.
436-4650-454-3092. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XVI. OLD BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN INCREASED SCOPE OF WORK FOR
THE PROJECT OF DESIGNING THE PORTOLA AVENUE,
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, AND COOK STREET STORM DRAIN AND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE MONTEREY AVENUE
STORM DRAIN (CONTRACT NO. C22300, PROJECT NO. 508-04).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Increase the scope of the
subject contract with Harris & Associates, Irvine, California, to include the engineering
hydrology study for the Monterey Avenue Storm Drain between Fred Waring Drive and the
Whitewater Channel; 2) appropriate $82,830 from Unobligated Fund 420 to the project
account; 3) approve an increase of the subject contract in the amount of $75,300; 4) set
aside a 10% contingency for same. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 5-0
vote.
10
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2004
B. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS AS THEY
RELATE TO THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE HILLSIDE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 25.15, AND THE WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN Case
Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Following is a verbatim transcript of discussion and testimony for the subject item.
Kgy•
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor
BAC Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro Tem
SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager
JF Jim Ferguson, Councilman
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
JMB Jean M. Benson, Councilmember
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
RAS Again, under Old Business, "Consideration of Amending Legislative Documents as
They Relate to the Approval of an Amendment to the Hillside Planned Residential
District, Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.15, and the West Hills Specific
Plan." The staff report, please.
BAC I will abstain on this item.
RAS All right, then you're going to have to leave the room.
BAC Well I will.
RAS Okay. If there's anything on the agenda, just for (inaudible) that affects anybody on
the Council, and it just so happens that our Mayor Pro Tem lives in the area that
we're talking about, they not only have to abstain, they have to leave the room.
That's not our idea, that's Sacramento's idea, so we're just doing what...(inaudible)
May I have a staff report, please.
SS Good afternoon. You have in your packet a revised ordinance as...and resolution
as you had directed at your meeting of June the 1st or June the 10`h. It does
incorporate the 4,000 square feet of dwelling, accessory structure, and garage
provision; maximum 10,000 square feet of pad area, maximum of 3,000 square feet
of driveway area, and then it provides for an exception to all of the above where the
applicant can show that they're still maintaining the purpose of the zone district. So,
with that, I would conclude and be prepared to respond to questions.
RAS Do you have any questions?
11
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
JF Nope.
DJE Mr. Mayor, if you would, and I have not had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Smith, but
did look at the amendments again, and I would ask the Council's consideration of
perhaps being a little more specific with regard to the renaturalization and the
exception. And, if I may, just make a comment on how I would like to see it read.
When we're talking about the renaturalization, that "...all cuts, fills, or other areas
temporarily disturbed shall be renaturalized, colored, and landscaped to blend with
the adjacent natural terrain to the satisfaction of the City." I would like to have
whoever's going to make that judgment be the City, and that the renaturalized areas
may, in the discretion of the Council, not be considered disturbed so long as they
are approved as blending with the natural terrain — I'd like to add that to the end.
And in addition on the exception, when we're talking about taking into consideration
any and all circumstances, I'd like to add, "...such as viewshed, topography, and the
profiles of any structures and colors." I think that, perhaps, will be a little more
specific than we have, and I think really address the concerns that are talked about
in the preamble of this ordinance.
RAS Thank you.
JF Could we, as to the first point, I got a revised ordinance from Mr. Smith, and I think
he put language in there that, "...renaturalization shall occur and not be considered
disturbed at the discretion of the Council." And as to the second one, can we just
add those magic words, "including, but not limited to"?
DJE Yes.
JF Okay.
RAS Other comments from Council?
JMB I'd move approval of Resolution No. 04-43, with the designated changes.
RAS With those changes that were designated by Councilman Ferguson and our
attorney, Dave Erwin?
JF And I will second with a thank you to Mr. Smith for being so diligent with this.
RAS Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Hillside Ordinance?
(Pause) Seeing no one, please vote.
JMB Do we need a separate motion on passing 1-0-4-6-A, then?
RDK No, they're recommended together, so it's up to you...if you want different...
12
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
RAS They're recommended together.
JMB All right.
RAS Please vote.
RDK Motion carries 3-1, with Councilman Kelly voting NO, Mayor Pro Tem Crites
ABSENT.
XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF A CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY NEXTEL
COMMUNICATIONS AND CINGULAR WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT A
75-FOOT HIGH MONOPINE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TOWER WITH TWO ADJACENT EQUIPMENT SHELTER BUILDINGS
WITHIN A 25-FOOT X 60-FOOT FENCED AREA — PROJECT SITE IS
LOCATED 300 FEET SOUTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND
1,300 FEET EAST OF EL DORADO DRIVE, AND IS PART OF A
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SUBSTATION Case No. CUP 04-01
(Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless, Applicants) (Continued from
the meetings of April 8, and May 27, 2004).
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the
audience. No testimony was offered.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, continue matter to the meeting
of August 26, 2004. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
13
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM OPEN
SPACE TO R-1, 9000 FOR 41 LOTS AROUND THE GOLF COURSE
PERIMETER; A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM OPEN SPACE TO PR-6 FOR
9.68 ACRES IN THE AREA OF THE EXISTING DRIVING RANGE; A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 95 RESIDENTIAL LOTS; A
PRECISE PLAN; A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL
PROVIDE FOR, AMONG OTHER MATTERS, MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT GOLF COURSE
IMPROVEMENTS BE CARRIED OUT IN A TIMELY MANNER; AND A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT
RELATES TO THE ABOVE — ALL PROPERTY BEING A PORTION OF
SECTION 13 AND 14, T5S R6E (PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB)
Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01, and DA 04-01
(PDCC Development, LLC, and Dahoon Investment Company, Inc.,
Applicants) (Continued from the meetings of May 13, and June 10, 2004).
Planning Manager Steve Smith stated that at the May 13' meeting, Council
outlined six issues to be addressed:
Planning Commission comment on relocation of the maintenance
facility. This was done June 1, 2004, at which time Mr. Case, the
applicant, described the project and responded to questions. Teresa
Pawley, an area resident, spoke in opposition. Staffs report
summarized Commissioner comments, and the Minutes distributed to
Council provided greater detail. Essentially, Planning Commission
supported the relocation and felt the new location would reduce traffic
through the residential community.
Fiscal analysis of the project. This had been done and would be
reported by Mr. McCarthy.
Time line on the project. The project time line was provided in the
staff report and showed the project beginning in September 2004 and
concluding in July 2006.
Floor plan of the remodeled clubhouse. The plan was provided in the
packets and showed cart storage for 72 carts and expansion of the
restaurant facility with an outdoor patio.
Discussion on the open space easement. This would be covered by
in Mr. McCarthy's report and also by the City Attorney.
Installation of story poles. These were installed, and Council had the
opportunity to view them.
14
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
He noted that at the May 13th hearing and in correspondence received
subsequently, reference was made to a recent court case involving
Monticello Water District. That case was reviewed by staff, and it was felt
this project was not analogous to the M.W.D. project. View impacts in this
project will not be significant, and with the improvements on the golf course,
the views of the golf course should be improved.
With regard to Tennessee, there was a request to relocate a lot, and the
applicant had agreed to do so, and Lot 71 would be moved north about 20
feet, with the cart path located to the south of Lot 71. He noted that staff had
distributed revised resolutions and ordinances to the Council relating to the
environmental documentation, the tentative map, the precise plan, and the
development agreement. In addition, staff distributed an acoustical analysis
prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates, which examined noise impacts
associated with vehicles entering and exiting the maintenance facility.
Mr. Smith suggested a series of additional conditions to be added to the
precise plan resolution as follows:
Condition #17 — "that routine movement of golf course maintenance
equipment in and out of the new golf course maintenance facility shall
be via a path system to be established between the 13' and 14th
fairways". He said the idea was to keep the movement of vehicles
away from the homes on California and Michigan.
Condition #18 — "that lot 71 be relocated 20 feet to the north"
Condition #19 — "that the developer shall provide appropriate fencing
in the rear yard of dwelling at 77-190 Indiana"
Condition #20 — "that the access driveway to the maintenance facility
be expanded by ten feet to the east into the park and that any excess
land not needed for the driveway be offered to the property owner to
the west of the driveway"
Condition #21 — "that pursuant to the noise mitigation measures
identified in the acoustical analysis prepared by Gordon Bricken &
Associates, the developer shall provide an eight -foot high wall along
the west side of the access driveway and that trash trucks serving the
facility shall be limited to the house of 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m."
Condition #22 — "that four window areas in the dwelling west of the
access driveway, known as 77-880 California, be dual glazed"
15
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
Mr. Smith added that staff would like to clarify that the last sentence in Public
Works Condition #2 should read "the maintenance of the retention areas
shall be by the golf course owner/developer." He noted that questions had
been raised with respect to the traffic study, and Mr. Diercks with Public
Works staff was prepared to discuss that if Council so wished. With respect
to the development agreement, he said the City Attorney's office and staff
had continued to work on issues as they came up, and the City Attorney
would describe some recent changes in the language of the agreement.
Assistant City Manager for Redevelopment Justin McCarthy reviewed the
fiscal analysis of the project, noting they had challenged and negotiated with
the developer to identify approximately $1.8 million in increases in the capital
improvement budget. These were either increases in items or clarification
of items staff felt needed to be done as well as a more realistic assessment
of certain improvements that needed to be done with respect to the golf
course proper, the new or proposed maintenance facility, and the clubhouse.
Staff recommended that the existing $5 million budget be increased to
approximately $6.823 million, and that was incorporated into the
development agreement. With regard to operational feasibility, staffs basic
assessment was that if the improvements were made as proposed, this
would be considered a very good, moderately priced golf course. It was also
felt there was a need in the marketplace for a good, quality golf course that
would be moderately priced. Staff also recommended that if this is approved
and a maintenance agreement is subsequently negotiated, consideration
should be given for some special provisions in terms of identifying long-term
budgetary items with respect to maintenance of the golf course at
approximately $1.1 million to be escalated and slightly increasing the
proposed capital improvement reserve budget number. Staff felt these
would be necessary to ensure the long-term maintenance of the facility.
One issue that had arisen was the essentiality of the proposed Conservation
Easement. Staff looked at that from a financial perspective and felt that
easement was absolutely essential for the financial feasibility of this project.
He said the Redevelopment staff, in conjunction with the developer, had
prepared a new Exhibit "C", the golf course renovation summary, which had
been provided to the City Attorney for incorporation in the development
agreement. This new Exhibit "C" was much more detailed and specific with
respect to the improvements that are supposed to be done on the project
(golf course renovation, clubhouse, and maintenance facility).
City Attorney Dave Erwin stated that the Conservation Easement was a type
of document that is even more restrictive than the City's zoning of open
space. It is a permanent document and is in perpetuity, and it is extremely
difficult to change. This easement would permanently restrict the use of the
land and would provide it as open space. It must be held by a qualified
16
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
organization, and the Internal Revenue Code was very specific as to the
types of organizations that could qualify to hold it, and it must be exclusively
for conservation purposes on a qualified real property interest. He said this
particular golf course does qualify, and it was his understanding that the
developer intended to do this, and he felt it was a decided benefit. He added
that he felt it should be the choice of the developer to place such an
easement; while the City would like to see the easement, he would not
recommend that the Council require it because it would create a problem for
them in so doing.
With regard to the Exhibit "C" mentioned by Mr. McCarthy, it was his
understanding it was satisfactory to the developer. In addition, Exhibit "D"
showed the improvements and the $6.823 million expenditures. From that
standpoint, he felt the developer had complied with the recommendations.
He said there was a request in the latest development agreement that had
been put forth about providing some form of bonding for Phase I. He was
not prepared to recommend that but said this was something he was willing
to discuss with the developer. Other than that, he was satisfied with the
other modifications that had been made and that were included in the
document.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked if the maintenance agreement was something
that would be negotiated with the developer. Mr. McCarthy agreed and said
staff had identified a 60-day window in which to negotiate that and bring it
back for consideration by the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked if that
maintenance agreement had to ultimately be approved before the project
could do anything. Mr. McCarthy responded that that was his understanding.
Mr. Erwin added that the terminology said the development agreement was
not in effect until the maintenance agreement was done and approved by the
Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked if the negotiation of that would ensure funds for
the long-term care/maintenance/operation, etc. of the golf course, and Mr.
Erwin agreed. Mr. McCarthy added that, assuming that the enterprise works
as proposed and as staff believed it would, the developer would earmark
funds within its budget for those purposes. Upon question regarding
enforcement mechanism on that maintenance agreement, Mr. McCarthy
responded that he did not believe that had been negotiated or contemplated
yet. Mr. Erwin added that there would be some kind of enforcement
mechanism.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites thanked City staff, the developer, and citizens for their
hard work on this project and said he felt this was a significantly improved
project.
17
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR
of or in OPPOSITION to this matter.
MR. LARRY KOSMONT, partner in Palm Desert Development, LLC, stated
that he had no presentation at this time but concurred with the staff report,
the recommendations, and the additional conditions. He said they were also
fine with the recommendation of the City Attorney in terms of the
development agreement and the exclusion of the last request, which he said
was not an issue for them. He said they were confident this was a better
project and thanked everyone for working on it. He offered to answer any
questions and asked for an opportunity to address any comments.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated that with regard to the residence that is
adjacent to the proposed access to the maintenance facility, he had been
given assurances by the developer that that person was in favor of or was
comfortable with the project. However, the Council had letters that indicated
that person was opposed.
Mr. Kosmont responded that he did not think the occupant preferred the
access where it is and was fundamentally opposed to that. However, they
felt they had accommodated his concerns, should this access be approved,
and that those accommodations (the sound wall, window attenuation,
landscape) worked for him and he was fine with it and concurred with that
solution. He added that moving the entrance over was fine with the
developer, and the resident would prefer that because it would be moved 10
to 15 feet away from the resident.
The following individuals spoke in FAVOR:
MR. GARY HOUTZ said he had been asked by a majority of the individuals
present who were in favor of the project to speak on their behalf rather than
having a lot of people speak. He thanked Council for the time and effort in
coming out to the project site to physically see the conditions of the golf
course, etc. at Palm Desert Country Club. He also thanked them for being
in support of the best interests of the homeowners. He felt the project was
for the good of the vast majority of the homeowners, and he asked that
Council approve the project tonight.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated that when he looked at the map and what is
being proposed, the vast majority of people who live in the Palm Desert
Country Club area, whether on the golf course or not, will not see their views
changed a bit and will receive a wonderful bonus by having a renovated golf
course. They come out winners, with zero down side, and bear no burden.
A fairly small number of people will have some impact and bear most of the
18
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
burden. He asked what responsibility the majority who bear no burden owe
to the minority who bear all the burden.
MR. HOUTZ responded that with regard to bearing the burden, everyone in
the community will bear the burden of the construction as it progresses. The
minority as stated by Mayor Pro Tem Crites will realize the appreciation of
their property values and will also realize an actual improvement in their
views because they will see green grass and trees on a nice golf course,
which they do not have now.
MR. CHARLIE ASH, 77-130 New York Avenue.
MR. RAY OLVEUS (sp?), 77-365 Missouri Drive.
MS. LEE CAROSELLI, 42-465 Tennessee, said her brother owns a home on
New York, and both of them had homes without a golf course view. Both
were in favor of the project, and their neighbors on each side were also in
favor. With regard to the burden that will be on 10% of the people, she
agreed their views would be impacted, but they would have the same view
she does with her home on Florida. She said 100% of the homeowners are
being impacted when they have a clubhouse which is closed down by the
Health Department and a golf course that is becoming unplayable.
The following individuals spoke in OPPOSITION:
MS. ANNETTE DiMAGGIO, 77-011 California Avenue (Lot #399 on the
plan), said she had been advised by her realtor as late as last week that the
home proposed to be built directly behind their new home had been removed
from the plan. Their home sale closed on Friday, and they found out on
Saturday from their neighbor that that was not the case. She expressed
concern with the potential loss of view, privacy, and feeling of safety for her
children. She asked for a delay in approval of this project so that she can
have a discussion with the developer about the situation. She said she was
not in opposition to the plan overall and felt something needed to be done
with the golf course. She noted that according to their residential design
parameters, they were going to introduce and locate new homes in a manner
that protect and replicate existing golf course views. However, according to
the plan, her golf course view would be gone, and she was opposed to that
because the view was one of the main reasons they purchased the home.
Another page in the developers' presentation talked about reconfiguring the
proposed homes to maximize privacy of existing residences, and she did not
feel this would maximize her privacy and instead would completely take it
away. She was also concerned with the negative impact on her property
values.
19
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
burden. He asked what responsibility the majority who bear no burden owe
to the minority who bear all the burden.
Mr. Houtz responded that with regard to bearing the burden, everyone in the
community will bear the burden of the construction as it progresses. The
minority as stated by Mayor Pro Tem Crites will realize the appreciation of
their property values and will also realize an actual improvement in their
views because they will see green grass and trees on a nice golf course,
which they do not have now.
MR. CHARLIE ASH, 77-130 New York Avenue.
MR. RAY OLVEUS (sp?), 77-365 Missouri Drive.
MS. LEE CAROSELLI, 42-465 Tennessee, said her brother owns a home on
New York, and both of them had homes without a golf course view. Both
were in favor of the project, and their neighbors on each side were also in
favor. With regard to the burden that will be on 10% of the people, she
agreed their views would be impacted, but they would have the same view
she does with her home on Florida. She said 100% of the homeowners are
being impacted when they have a clubhouse which is closed down by the
Health Department and a golf course that is becoming unplayable.
The following individuals spoke in OPPOSITION:
MS. ANNETTE DiMAGGIO, 77-011 California Avenue (Lot #399 on the
plan), said she had been advised by her realtor as late as last week that the
home proposed to be built directly behind their new home had been removed
from the plan. Their home sale closed on Friday, and they found out on
Saturday from their neighbor that that was not the case. She expressed
concem with the potential loss of view, privacy, and feeling of safety for her
children. She asked for a delay in approval of this project so that she can
have a discussion with the developer about the situation. She said she was
not in opposition to the plan overall and felt something needed to be done
with the golf course. She noted that according to their residential design
parameters, they were going to introduce and locate new homes in a manner
that protect and replicate existing golf course views. However, according to
the plan, her golf course view would be gone, and she was opposed to that
because the view was one of the main reasons they purchased the home.
Another page in the developers' presentation talked about reconfiguring the
proposed homes to maximize privacy of existing residences, and she did not
feel this would maximize her privacy and instead would completely take it
away. She was also concerned with the negative impact on her property
values.
19
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
Mr. Smith noted that Mrs. DiMaggio's lot was shown as Lot 72 on Insert #5.
MS. LOLA GREEN, 42-025 Tennessee Avenue, stated that of the 1,800
homes in the development, 1,000 of them were not on the golf course, and
she was unofficially representing those homes. She disputed staffs
statement that the views that will be lost on the numerous streets where
there are going to be new homes is not significant. She felt it was extremely
significant, and there was no mitigation whatsoever for those 1,000
homeowners. There had been no story poles or signs put up to show people
what the actual impacts will be, which she felt was very important. She was
also concerned with the Conservation Easement and said she felt it was very
important to know who will hold that easement and the effects of said
easement.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted that with regard to the Conservation Easement,
the City would have input on the organization that will be the holder, and a
condition could be added to that effect.
MR. JOHN GREY, 76-963 New York Avenue, said he was speaking for
himself and also on behalf of his neighbors, Sherrie Brooks at 76-975 New
York Avenue, Oody Rays (sp?) At 76-985 New York Avenue, and Holly
Escobedo at 76-983 New York Avenue. He said they still had many
unanswered questions about this project. They were opposed to the building
of any new homes and felt the lots directly across from them would detract
from enjoyment of their homes and back yards. He said the plan included
digging down seven feet in portions of the driving range so that the
foundations would be seven feet below the existing grades, and he
expressed concern with the possible impact on the water table and
environment. He was also concerned with the selling prices of the new
homes.
MS. LISA THEODORATUS, 77-040 Utah Circle, said she and the other
homeowners had hoped that tonight there would be a different development
map, one that moved homes in the driving range away from the existing back
yards and removed the road access at Tennessee; however, it appeared no
changes had been made at all. She said they had asked for relief from the
developers again and again, only to be told not one new homesite could be
removed for them, although many homes were removed for others. She
again expressed concern with the removal of Condition #17, which she felt
was very vital to their community. She asked the Council not to approve this
project. She felt the community, with the help of the City, could use an
assessment district to rebuild the water system or to guarantee maintenance
funding on a yearly basis. She believed that with a new water system and
a new golf course owner, willing to maintain the property, they would
20
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
accomplish most of the desired improvements in a short amount of time
without losing any open space.
MS. EVELYN KANE, 43-380 Tennessee Avenue, read a newspaper article
which she had had for almost 20 years. According to the article, the Board
of Supervisors had denied the building of 44 new homes along the Palm
Desert Country Club golf course because a protective covenant was
approved by the County when the golf course and surrounding homes were
built and prohibited any further construction that was not directly related to
the golf course until 1992. She asked that the City Council follow the action
of the Board of Supervisors.
MS. SUZANNE TRACY, 77-020 Utah Circle, was opposed to the
development because it would remove her view, change her neighborhood,
and increase traffic, noise, and night time Tight pollution. She said she would
be in favor of this project if it did not affect her view because it would help the
golfers, who are her neighbors. She also urged the Council to reinstate
Condition #17 to protect the future of Palm Desert Country Club.
MS. VERONIQUE PINEAU, 77-510 California Drive, said she was
representing her husband, Jerome Pineau, and the Palm Desert Country
Club Preservation Society. She said she hoped the Council would deny this
project tonight so that the Society could focus on a plan to restore the golf
course and its facilities without anyone being impacted.
MS. JANET MULLER, 43-160 Texas Avenue, said she did not have a golf
course view but was still opposed to the project. She questioned why the
maintenance facility was being moved to the park area. She said it was also
her understanding that it was the size of an airplane hangar, and she asked
whether it could be seen from the park where the children play or from the
pool area. She felt the project would bring property values down. She also
asked if the developer would consider some type of compromise and
perhaps only put homes in the open lots that are currently there and not on
the golf course.
MS. HOLLY ESCOBEDO asked that the Council carefully consider
everything before voting on the project, including blueprints, monies, CC&Rs,
previous records of the developer, boundary lines with the story poles, etc.
MS. THERESA PAWLEY, 77-670 California Drive, stated that the residents
along the 13th and 14th fairways had paid a premium to live on a fairway and
did not want to be adjacent to a maintenance facility. Many homeowners
had concerns with the project for a variety of reasons, but the resounding
point was the absence of disclosure. In an effort to get the project passed,
homeowners had been left to their own devices to find out a number of
21
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
things, including the relocation of the maintenance facility; the last-minute
submittal of documents for the Council packets where residents have not
been able to review and make comment on them; deletion of Condition #17;
installation of the story poles being deceptive because there are no stakes
to indicate the new construction closest to the existing homes; traffic analysis
done in January surveyed eight intersections surrounding the periphery of
Palm Desert Country Club, but the main entrance at Washington and
Avenue of the States was completely ignored. She said at its June 1st
meeting, the Planning Commission added a recommendation for the
proposed maintenance facility and specified that all maintenance facility
traffic must use the Washington/Avenue of the States entrance and exit. She
said knowingly adding further congestion of industrial and commercial
vehicles to the most traffic burdened site in the entirety of Palm Desert
Country Club seemed unconscionable. If the Council approves this project,
she said she would hope the burden would be distributed equitably on the
developer and all the homeowners.
Mayor Spiegel invited rebuttal from the developer.
MR. KOSMONT noted that when the application for this project was
submitted, 95 homes already had included a cut of 17 other homes, and
many of those homes were in the some of the view areas. Overall, views will
improve because they will be improving 27 holes of golf. In terms of
conservation, he said they will be bringing to the City a full detailed
conservation program before a decision has to be made with regard to a
maintenance agreement. He said they had a very qualified non-profit who
they had worked hard to select, and they had been working on getting the
entitlements approved, etc. Once they have that and the ability to secure the
course, they will have the ability to engage fully the contract and bring the
plan of conservation in great detail. In terms of the comment on the County
article, he said the City of Palm Desert was sovereign and could make its
own decisions.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing closed.
With Council concurrence, Mayor Spiegel recessed the meeting at 5:40 p.m. He
reconvened the meeting at 5:49 p.m.
Councilman Ferguson said his biggest concern going into this was the views
of the residents. He said there was no common law right to a view; the
exception to that is a homeowners association which can provide for a right
for a view. Palm Desert Country Club has a homeowners association which
had a right to a view. It began in the early 1960's and lasted for 30 years and
expired. They had five-year extensions and were in the second or third
extension now. In meeting with the developer, one of the first questions he
22
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2004
asked was if there are 800 or 900 people in favor of doing this, why not
follow the CC&Rs and go back and terminate that extension so that this
issue of a view is not an issue. The developer did not do this at first,
although it was his understanding he is now doing it. The City looked at this
legally and got an opinion from the City Attorney, and it was consistent with
the policy the City has with all of its homeowners associations — to let the
homeowners associations govern themselves, and the Council governs the
City. Zoning is a matter for the City to take into account, and the
homeowners associations CC&Rs are something for the residents to take
into account. He said the City was taking a look at the views as a matter of
just being decent people, recognizing that neighbors buy their homes
because they enjoy what they can look at. However, he said it is not going
to be that way forever for a lot of people, and at least as contemplated by the
homeowners association, it was to be there for 30 years and then by a
majority of the ownership in five-year increments thereafter. He said he
knows the two gentleman who developed Palm Desert Country Club in 1961,
and he knew a lot of thought and detail had been put into this area. It is a
community that resides primarily around a golf course. While a lot of
residents are not golfers, that does not mean they do not have a community
of interest in the clubhouse, and it does not mean they do not enjoy walks
along the fairways. It brings the residents together as one group of people,
and that community has existed successfully for many decades now. With
regard to Mayor Pro Tem Crites' point about the majority versus minority, he
said the Council had seen time after time that it easy for a large majority of
people who are benefitted by something, and he was not saying they did this,
to sort of shout down the minority who are seeing changes and are impacted
in one degree or another. The developer has spent 18 months trying to
come up with a project that minimizes the impact to the fewest number of
people possible. The City annexed Palm Desert Country Club six to seven
years ago and spent millions of dollars on improvements, including storm
drains and roads, so the City does have a very strong interest in this
community. He said the City has a 30-plus year track record of not bending
to the will of the majority but genuinely trying to do the best for the residents.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he felt the Council had scrutinized this
project from all aspects, including financial, and he was comfortable this was
a viable project. With regard to the conservation easement, he said he had
spent the last week trying to make sure there is a mechanism to assure that
if the developer did not voluntarily do that conservation easement, that the
City would not have to voluntarily do things thereafter to make the project
successful. He said his final observation went back to an old fishing adage —
"A rising tide raises all boats" — and he viewed this development as a tide
that is going to improve the standards of all of Palm Desert Country Club.
The homes being built will have substantial value and will raise the values of
the existing homes, and residents will have a newer golf course. He said that
23
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
does not do much for the resident who is going to look out her patio and see
an eight -foot wall some number of feet from her patio. However, this is not
the end of the process. The City of Palm Desert was committed to working
with people. While the developer may get his zoning at this meeting, that did
not mean that all the decisions after that would be automatic. For example,
if the City has a problem with the access to the maintenance road or people
using the pads, it has the ability to go back to the developer and make
changes and further mitigate impacts. He said he was personally at the point
where he felt the City could give the developer the zoning. He was in favor
of the development as proposed based on all the testimony received, and he
said he would be voting in support of the project.
Councilman Kelly said he had three main concerns at the meeting where this
was last discussed: 1) Could the golf course be improved for $5 million; 2)
could the golf course be maintained so it would not go downhill and be right
back where it is today; 3) residents with impacted views. He said he was
satisfied the developer was willing to increase the project by $1.823 for the
golf course rehabilitation, and he felt that was a more reasonable amount
than $5 million. An outside consultant had looked over the project and had
advised that as long as it is managed properly, it can actually be maintained
kept up. With regard to views, he felt the Council needed to look at the
views for the whole area and what the project will do for the entire area.
Even though it is possible some views might not be as good as they are
today, a lot of views will be improved overall. The City has
controls/conditions in place to make sure the developer follows through with
what he says he will do. He said he felt the City had done a lot to upgrade
Palm Desert Country Club, and this was another step in that direction. He
added that he felt the next step would be to underground the utility poles on
California Avenue.
Councilmember Benson complimented the developer for doing everything
the Council had asked and for their willingness to continue to work with the
City. She felt this project would be good for Palm Desert Country Club and
the entire City of Palm Desert. She thanked City staff for being cooperative
and her colleagues for taking the interest they did in this project.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites proposed the addition of two conditions:
Condition #23 — Should a Conservation Easement come to exist, the
City shall have the right to provide input on the organization that will
become the holder of said Easement.
Mr. Erwin stated that while the City could have input as to the
organization, he would be reluctant to require City approval of the
24
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
organization. He noted that the organization would be approved by
the Internal Revenue Service.
Condition #24 — That the golf course plans, as per a letter from Mr.
Case, would go before the City's Landscape Beautification Committee
for its input and approval at the appropriate stages of the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated that there were many people who were very
unhappy that this public hearing had been continued for a month. He said
a month ago, he would have voted against this project; a month had done a
lot in terms of answering the questions he had. He did not believe the
problems on this golf course started with the current owner. The City was
approached to purchase the golf course several times over the past ten
years because of problems there, and he felt these problems were not going
to be resolved by having a new owner. There were significant issues, and
the easiest one was that it was still on manual irrigation, which does not do
a good job of using water, a scarce resource. He said he did not think
anyone disagreed about the fact that the problems have to be fixed, and the
question is how to do that. He said most golf course homeowners
associations assess the homeowners when they need to do repairs, and he
felt that was the way it should be done, and that would put the burden on
everyone who has a benefit, which would be the most equitable. He also
knew that would not and could not happen here. With regard to the story
poles, he said he had asked staff about the accuracy and placement and
whether they showed ridge lines, etc. He had staffs opinion that they were
accurate. He agreed the proposed homes would change the views of some
residents, although they would not obliterate the views. He felt most of the
Councilmembers were pleasantly surprised at both the distance and the
views, which in most cases was below the power lines that go along toward
the clubhouse as viewed from Utah Circle and Tennessee. He added that
he felt this was the only alternative at this pont; while it puts more burden on
a few than he felt was the way a community ought to operate, he felt it was
the only opportunity to fix a problem that has to be fixed.
Mayor Spiegel stated that people in Palm Desert Country Club are taking
more pride in their homes than there has been in the past, changing the look
of their front yards, etc., and property values are increasing. Everyone on
the Council has taken a lot of time and talked to everyone on either side of
the issue in Palm Desert Country Club. The developer has answered every
one of the questions. Staff has also spent a lot of time answering Council
questions, and he trusted that staffs answers were correct. He said he
would be voting in favor of the project.
25
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
Mr. Erwin stated he wished to add a resolution for Council's consideration,
a resolution approving the declaration of environmental impact. He said that
modifies Ordinance No. 1067 by taking that out of the ordinance.
Councilman Ferguson moved to waive further reading and: 1) Pass Ordinance
No. 1067 to second reading, relating to C/Z 04-01; 2) Pass Ordinance No. 1068 to second
reading, relating to DA 04-01; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 04-42, approving PP 04-01 and
TT 31836, subject to condition; 4) Adopt Resolution No. 04-75, certifying a negative
declaration of environmental impact as it relates to Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, and
PP 04-01, all as amended per the direction and discussion at this meeting. Motion was
seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
With Council concurrence, Mayor Spiegel recessed the meeting for dinner at
6:10 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 12,450 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
FRED WARING DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 368 FEET EAST OF
SAN PABLO AVENUE Case No. PP 03-22 (Patel Architecture, Applicant)
(Continued from the meeting of June 10, 2004).
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the
audience. No testimony was offered.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, continue to the meeting of
July 8, 2004. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote.
D. CONSIDERATION OF A CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF A
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW ROC'S FIREHOUSE GRILLE, 73-405 EL PASEO, #32A, TO
OPERATE FROM 9:00 A.M. UNTIL 2:00 A.M. DAILY
Case No. CUP 93-7 Amendment #3 (Roc's Firehouse Grille, Applicant).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report, noting that Roc's
Firehouse Grille, for the past 19 months, had been operating from 11:00 a.m.
until 2:00 a.m. daily. The applicant was apparently unaware that the current
conditional use permit limited his hours until 11:00 p.m. The Planning
Commission reviewed the matter and heard a considerable amount of
testimony, with 18 people speaking in favor and 4 in opposition. Ultimately,
the Commission determined that Roc's was a well -run business which
contributed to the success of El Paseo and allowing this business to stay
open until 2:00 a.m. addressed the need of late -night service workers and
that the additional three hours from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. represented 34%
26
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
of the restaurant's gross revenue, without which the business could not
survive. On that basis, the Commission unanimously (5-0) approved the
requested amendment, subject to conditions. He offered to answer any
questions.
Councilmember Benson stated that she had called this matter up because
of other businesses along El Paseo which were disturbing residents in the
area. She said she did not know that this business had been operating
those later hours for the past 19 months and thought this was something
they wanted to start doing. When she read the reports that came in after she
called the matter up, she said she felt this was probably an error on the part
of the City from the beginning for not informing them of the conditional use
permit limiting the hours of operation. She said if she had known this, she
would not have called it up.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites said in the past there has been no way of knowing
whether or not someone receives the CUP conditions when they take out a
business license. He asked if that was something that could be corrected so
that a similar situation does not come up with a different business saying
they did not know they couldn't do something.
Mr. Smith responded that this was something that had been addressed.
When business licenses come through for Planning Department sign -off,
staff will be attaching a copy of any conditions of approval to that sign -off.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR
of or in OPPOSITION to this matter.
MR. STEVEN PLANT, 44-821 Santa Ynez, said he felt this business was an
asset to Palm Desert, and he spoke in favor of allowing the restaurant to
operate from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. He expressed concern that
denying the requested hours would force this business to relocate out of
Palm Desert.
MR. SEAN FLYNN, 44-821 Santa Ynez, also spoke in favor.
MR. MARIO BAEZ, 73-180 El Paseo, said he worked on El Paseo, and a lot
of the merchants held this business in high regard. He was in favor of the
extended hours.
MS. ROBIN SWANSON, 44-245 E. Sundown Crest, La Quinta, spoke as the
manager for Carol Dean on El Paseo, a clothing boutique next door to Roc's
Firehouse Grille. She noted they had determined that approximately 40% of
their business was now coming from customers of Roc's Firehouse. She
had started closing her shop until 12:00 p.m. or 1:00 p.m. and then staying
27
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
open until 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. She spoke highly of Roc's Firehouse
and said there had never been a single time when the area was not spotless
when she arrived at work in the morning.
MR. ROLAND COOK, 73-405 El Paseo, Suite 32-A, spoke as the owner of
Roc's Firehouse Grille and offered to answer any questions.
MR. JOHNNY ANDREASEN, 45-421 Lupine Lane, Unit #3, directly across
from Roc's Firehouse Grille, also spoke in favor of this business.
MR. CHADWICK BRADBURY, 76-784 Ascot Circle, spoke as legal counsel
for Roc's Firehouse Grille and as a personal friend of the owners. He said
he felt it would be tragic if the Council saw fit to undermine the enterprise
established by these owners.
MR. JIM GREULICH, 45-405 Lupine Lane, #13, spoke as President of the
Sand Rock Homeowners Association. On behalf of many of the residents
in this association, he expressed concern with the noise level from this
business. He said they did appreciate the red curb that was put in because
it did cut down on the amount of traffic. He noted that immediately following
the Planning Commission meeting, the amplified music stopped because
Roc did not understand there was a covenant that came with the property
that said he could not have amplified sound. That had made a lot of
difference at night to the residents. He said he and other residents were
concemed about some of the discussions/suggestions about these mostly
senior residents going over at 1:00 in the morning and complaining about the
noise. He was concerned that one of the recommendations made by the
Planning Commission was that Roc assume the responsibility for keeping
peace in the parking lot and out in the public street, and he felt that was the
responsibility of local law enforcement. He said they had never suggested
that this business be dispensed with. They just asked that the noise level be
kept down, especially late at night. He asked that the Council read the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and look at some of the
suggestions that were made. He also expressed concern with the types of
things that normally happen when groups of people begin to disperse after
midnight, and he felt this was not appropriate so close to an expensive
residential area.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Benson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 04-70, affirming the Planning Commission decision and adding a condition reserving
the right to impose future conditions necessary to mitigate identified impacts. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson.
28
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
Councilman Ferguson stated that the Council had received the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting, which he had read. He said he carefully
reviewed comments made by the four people in opposition. He noted that
Council had from time to time imposed monitoring requirements on owners
of establishments to monitor their own parking lots and the streets. One of
the ladies who spoke that night indicated she had called the police on a
number of occasions. He also noted in the report that the City's Police
Department indicated they did not have any problem with the establishment
staying open until 3:00 a.m. Planning staff also indicated there had not been
any complaints in 18 months. These things all seemed to conflict, and he
had asked the City's Police Lieutenant to do an analysis of those bars where
the City has imposed monitoring conditions in other similar establishments.
He said he had shared the report with Mr. Greulich prior to the meeting and
would make a copy available to him so he could show it to residents if they
are interested. Roc's Firehouse was tied with one other establishment that
is open until 2:00 a.m. for the fewest number of calls to the Police
Department. The establishment the City is imposing monitoring sanctions
on now was six times higher than Roc's. Roc's had five calls, while the other
establishment, Bananaz, had 30 calls. He said he did not see the need to
have a monitoring requirement for the parking lot, and it seemed that the
owner of Roc's was very attentive to wanting to meet the needs of the nearby
residents and to be a good neighbor. He said he did not have a problem with
the hours.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites said if issues and problems do arise, the Council can
go back and do what needs to be done to mitigate them.
Mayor Spiegel called for the vote, and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
E. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY MANAGER'S AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
AND PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004/05
(JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND THE PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Mayor/Chairman Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in
FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this matter. With no testimony offered, he
declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Crites stated that on the Redevelopment
Agency program, on behalf of the Palm Desert Trails Program, he was
29
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
looking for approximately $200,000 to at least be set aside, not allocated, for
possible use.
Councilman/Member Ferguson also noted that as part of finishing a review
of the City Manager, there may be an adjustment to compensation for cost
of living and some other things. He said it did not need to be done at this
time, but it would come back to Council shortly.
Councilman/Member Ferguson moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) City
Council Resolution No. 04-71, adopting a City Program and Financial Plan for the Fiscal
Year July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005; 2) City Council Resolution No. 04-72,
establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2004/05; 3) Redevelopment Agency
Resolution No. 493, adopting a Redevelopment Agency Program and Financial Plan for
the Fiscal Year July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005; 4) Housing Authority Resolution
No. HA-24, adopting a Housing Authority Program and Financial Plan for the Fiscal Year
July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005; 5) City Council Resolution No. 04-73, setting the
Salary Schedule, Salary Ranges, and Allocated Classifications; 6) City Council Resolution
No. 04-74, setting the Mileage Reimbursement Rate. Motion was seconded by Crites and
carried by a 5-0 vote.
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS LISTED ON AN AGENDA ADDENDUM POSTED
AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PALM DESERT CONSOLIDATED
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, AND GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL FOR THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004/05.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR
of or in OPPOSITION to this matter. With no testimony offered, he declared the
public hearing closed.
Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, continue the hearing to the meeting
of July 8, 2004. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
30
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
Mayor Spiegel moved to add the following item to the Agenda for discussion and
action. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
1. Request for Approval of a Contract for Tenant Improvements at the
Parkview Office Complex, 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite No. 222
(Contract No. C22880).
Mr. Ortega noted that this was discussed in Closed Session.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject contract
with Doug Wall Construction, Inc., Bermuda Dunes, California, in the amount of $34,453,
and authorized the City Manager to execute same. Motion was seconded by Benson and
carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. CITY ATTORNEY
None
C. CITY CLERK
1. Reminder of July 8, 2004, Study Session at 12:30 p.m. for the Project
Dealing with Area Known as "Wonder Palms" — Case
Nos. C/Z 03-013 and DA 04-02 (American Realty Trust,
Desert Wells 237, LLC, and RBF Consulting, Applicants).
Mrs. Klassen reminded Council of this Study Session.
Mayor Spiegel said he did not believe this was necessary.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he and Mayor Spiegel met with the
developer who said he would proceed with exactly what he wants to
do on a development agreement basis rather than on a zoning basis.
Everything will come to Council with the blueprints and everything else
the Council likes to look at when it considers these types of projects.
With City Council concurrence, it was determined that the July 8 Study Session was
not necessary.
31
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
None
o City Council Committee Reports:
See below.
o City Council Comments:
1. City Council Liaison Reports.
a) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority —
Councilman Ferguson commented that he attended CJPIA's
Councilmember and Mayor's Conference last week, and he
now felt he had a good working understanding of the insurance
coverage and its function. He came away from the
Conference feeling extremely comfortable that the City is doing
the wisest thing it can as far as insuring itself against liability
through the JPIA's pool and was reassured that it has already
put into place the recommended procedures for risk
management.
b) Advanced Mediation Skills Seminar — Councilman Ferguson
also reported that he'd attended the subject seminar at
Pepperdine University. He said 130 people participated; half
were judges, the other half were older attorneys who were
going into a mediation practice. In sharing with the other
participants, he found that much of what they were teaching
about how to resolve large disputes, the City Council already
practices with its residents, developers, and anytime
differences occur.
c) SunLine — Councilman Kelly noted that although it had gone
through somewhat of a rough year, he was pleased to report
SunLine's activities would come in below budget this year.
Additionally, he'd been reelected as Chairman of the Board,
and he looked forward to another year of success.
•
d) Historic Site Preservation Board — Councilmember Benson
commented that she and Mayor Spiegel met with Hal Rover
and Jan Holmlund from the Historical Society Board and City
staff. The group would be formulating plans and gearing up to
32
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 2004
accept applications for appointment to this body. Mayor
Spiegel added that the group would be working with the City's
Art In Public Places to design a distinctive identification plaque
for approved historic sites. Councilmember Benson said the
group would also be proposing an amendment to the existing
ordinance that would provide not only for interested residents
to be appointed to the Board, but also non-residents with a
specific expertise. It was decided that Mr. Rover will be first
Chairman, during the organizational process, to be followed by
annual elections to the post. Initially, meetings would be held
monthly, tapering to at least quarterly after becoming fully
established. Mr. Rover will be meeting with representatives
from Jillian's as one of the first sites to be considered, asking
them not to make any significant changes to the location until
the new Historic Preservation Board can meet on it. Staff
already had a list of suggested sites from the Historical Society
and would make copies for the City Council.
XIX. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Benson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Motion was
seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, MAYOR
33