HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrelim Minutes - City 06/10/2004PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2004
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M.
Mayor Spiegel convened the meeting at 3:02 p.m.
I1. 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
Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services
Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment
Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
Mark D. Greenwood, City Engineer
Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Michael J. Errante, Director of Public Works
Robert P. Kohn, Director of Special Programs
Richard Twedt, Public Arts Manager
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A (CLOSED SESSION ITEMS)
None
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
IV. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Request for Closed Session:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
1) Property: Section 27, T3S R6E; Sections 27 & 35, T3S R6E;
Portion of Section 30, T3S R7E
Negotiating Parties:
Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert
Property Owner: Cathton, Inc.
Other Parties: Friends of the Desert Mountains
Under Negotiation: x 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
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b):
Number of potential cases: 2
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant potential to initiate
litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c):
Number of potential cases: 1
Upon motion by Ferguson, second by Kelly, and unanimous vote of the Council,
Mayor Spiegel adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 3:03 p.m. He reconvened the
meeting at 4:04 p.m.
V. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M.
A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION.
None
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Richard S. Kelly
VII. INVOCATION - Councilman Jim Ferguson
2
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
MR. TONY LENNON addressed the City Council to introduce the Palm Desert
Titans, which he felt were some of its finest 10-year-old baseball players, if not the
entire Coachella Valley's, their Coach, Scott Ventura, as well as several of the
parents and grandparents, who also worked hard to support this team. He said they
had earned the privilege of being invited to the American Youth Baseball Hall of
Fame Tournament in Cooperstown, New York (home of the Baseball Hall of Fame),
the week of June 18-25. He said the Titans were one of 64 teams from throughout
the United States and Canada that would be participating. They had been raising
their own funds for this trip over the past several months and just wanted to let the
City Council know that they would be traveling across the country proudly
representing Palm Desert.
On behalf of the City Council, Councilman Ferguson offered the City's very best
wishes and presented Mr. Lennon and the team with a key to the City, which could
be shared with the appropriate officials in Cooperstown.
IX. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER KATHLEEN J. DEROSA RELATIVE
TO CURRENT APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION.
MS. DEROSA said she understood the City Council had some questions
regarding a proposed application for rate increase. She reported that on
April 1, Southern California Edison (SCE) filed for a rate increase application
with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) based on two issues,
first being the Palo Verde Nuclear Incentive procedure. She said SCE is a
part owner of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, and there is a
procedure in place that if it meets 80% or better of its fuel factor, because it
saves the rate payer so much money (in this case roughly $18 million), SCE
gets to share in part of that. It was actually able to meet the rate factor of
95.5%, so they were looking to, hopefully, collect back some revenue. She
went on to say that the other part of this filing has to do with the Electric
Energy Transaction Administration cost, having to do with the day-to-day
scheduling/dispatching functions for the Department of Water and Power
Resources contracts, which the State got us into during the Energy Crisis.
She said the State has been taken out of the business, and SCE has been
asked to administer its portion of those bills. The increase would probably
affect Palm Desert residents somewhere between $0.23 - $0.55 per month.
If the application is approved, the City of Palm Desert may see an increase
of roughly $500 per year.
3
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
She said the second application with the CPUC was filed on May 10, pointing
out that the CPUC always has the final say on rates. If the second
application goes through, and the Commission chooses to change Edison's
current rates, it will then lower the rates by $0.20 per month. She said until
the CPUC makes it determination, this was the information she had to share.
Lastly, Ms. DeRosa said she wanted to share with the City Council SCE's
New Electric Rate Assistance Program available to customers. She left a
copy of the information with the City Clerk and asked that it be shared with
the City's Housing Department, as it can help all customers that qualify by
income to receive some assistance, particularly with their summer bills.
With City Council concurrence, Mayor Spiegel suspended the Agenda at this
point to take up Item XVII. Public Hearings, Item A. Please see that portion of
the Minutes for discussion and subsequent action.
X. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 27, 2004.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant
Nos. 233 and 234.
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. CITY COMMITTEE/COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
1. Citizens' Advisory Committee for Project Area No. 4 Meeting of
April 19, 2004.
2. Library Promotion Committee Meetings of February 18, and April 21,
2004.
3. Marketing Committee Meeting of April 20, 2004.
4. Sister Cities Committee Meetings of March 18, and April 15, 2004.
5. Youth Committee Meeting of April 7, 2004.
Rec: Receive and file.
4
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
D. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Accept Proposal for Growing of
Annual Color for El Paseo Medians and the Civic Center Park (Contract
No. C22840).
Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the proposal submitted by
Progressive Growers, Vista, California, in the amount of $18,769.40
(including tax and delivery) for contract growing of annual color —
funds are available in Account Nos. 110-4610-453-2190 and
110-4611-453-3320.
E. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Release Improvement Bond and
Record Performance Release for Katz/Broz Partners (Contract No. C18420).
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize: 1) Execution and recording of the
Performance Release for KatzlBroz Partners; 2) release of payment
security bond for the above contract.
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out -of -State Travel for Sister Cities
Committee Representatives to Attend the Sister Cities International Annual
Conference.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the subject out-of-state travel for two
Sister Cities Committee representatives to attend the Conference,
July 14-18, 2004, in Fort Worth, Texas — funds are available in
Account No. 110-4416-414-3126.
G. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase Printing Hardware and
Software for Finance Department Applications.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize: 1) Staff to negotiate a contract with
ACOM Solutions, Duluth, Georgia, to provide a printing solution for
payroll and accounts payable checks; 2) the Mayor to sign the
Licensing Agreement for same (Contract No. C22850); 3) appropriate
$28,626 from the Unobligated General Fund Reserves to Account
No. 110-4150-414-4040.
H. CONSIDERATION of Action by Legislative Review Committee —
AB3037 (Yee) — Employment.
Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative
Review Committee at its meeting of May 25, 2004, and direct staff to
prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to
AB3037 (Yee).
5
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
I. REQUEST FOR DECLARATION of Surplus Property Formerly Utilized by
the Desert Willow Golf Resort and Authorization for Disposal.
Rec: By Minute Motion, declare the items listed on the accompanying staff
report (Exhibit "A") as surplus property and authorize its disposal by
any of the recommended methods.
J. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Perform Biennial Review of the
City's Conflict of Interest Code.
Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize staff to make a formal review of the City's
Conflict of Interest Code and, if necessary, prepare a resolution to be
adopted by the City Council that would make the necessary
amendments at the appropriate time.
K. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Construction Management
Services for the Aztec Road at Cook Street Intersection Improvements
Project (Contract No. C22100A, Project No. 602-02).
Removed for separate consideration under Section XI, Consent Items Held
Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Council discussion and
action.
L. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase Traffic Signal Controller
Equipment for the Intersection of Portola Avenue and Quicksilver.
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Econolite Control Products, Anaheim,
California, as the sole source vendor of traffic signal controller
equipment for the City of Palm Desert; 2) ratify the purchase of
replacement traffic signal controller cabinet for the subject intersection
from Econolite in the amount of $17,794.91 — Account
No. 110-4250-433-3325.
M. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Rental and Service of
Uniforms and Other Supplies (Contract No. C21330A).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to Prudential Overall
Supply, Riverside, California, in the amount of $166 per week;
2) authorize the Mayor to execute said contract — funds are available
in Account No. 110-4310-433-2140.
N. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Update on Screened Fence at 47762 Silver Spur Trail
6
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Councilman Ferguson asked that Item K be removed for separate consideration
under Section XI, Consent Items Held Over.
Upon motion by Ferguson, second by Crites, the remainder of the Consent Calendar
was approved as presented by a 5-0 vote of the Council.
XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
K. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for Construction Management
Services for the Aztec Road at Cook Street Intersection Improvements
Project (Contract No. C22100A, Project No. 602-02).
Councilman Ferguson noted that both the staff report and the Agenda
indicated this was a contract for $35,000; however, page 5 of the contract
itself indicated $45,000. He asked staff for clarification.
City Engineer Mark Greenwood responded that the contract was for $35,000.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, award the subject contract to
Coachella Valley Construction Services, LLC, Indio, California, in the amount of $35,000
and authorize the Mayor to execute same — funds are available in the Project Account,
No. 213-4623-433-4001. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XII. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 04-48 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEES (TUMF) PURSUANT
TO ITS ORDINANCE NO. 573, AND AMENDING ITS RESOLUTION
NO. 89-51 TO REFLECT SAME.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 04-48.
Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 04-49 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE NEW
ADJUSTED RATE SCHEDULE OF FEES (EXHIBIT 5) FOR THE
COLLECTION, RECYCLING, AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE AND RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL RECYCLING AS DEFINED
AND CONTAINED IN CONTRACT NO. C17230 — SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
Councilman Ferguson noted that he would be abstaining from the discussion
and vote on this matter.
7
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No. 04-49.
Upon question by Councilman Kelly, Waste Management District Manager
Frank Orlett responded that the transfer of the recyclables had nothing to do
with the transfer station rate, which was strictly for disposal. The recyclable
material, whether it is brought to the Palm Desert yard or taken to the
transfer station, would create no additional charge to Palm Desert. The
transfer station rate is strictly for trash disposal only, not recycling.
Councilmember Benson seconded the motion, and the motion carried by a 4-0 vote,
with Councilman Ferguson ABSENT.
XIII. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
For Adoption:
None
XIV. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CITYWIDE ROADWAY
STRIPING (CONTRACT NO. C22750, PROJECT NO. 564-04).
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize: 1) Award of the subject
contract to C-18, Inc., Beaumont, California, in the amount of $89,331; 2) setting aside a
10% contingency for the project in the amount of $8,933; 3) the Mayor to execute said
contract — funds are available in Account No. 110-4315-433-3320. Motion was seconded
by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
FRED WARING DRIVE SOUNDWALL BETWEEN DEEP CANYON ROAD
AND YELLOW SAGE COURT (CONTRACT NO. C22760, PROJECT
NO. 653-01).
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize: 1) Award of the
subject contract to Parsam Construction, Inc., Glendale, California, in the amount of
$1,385,420; 2) setting aside a 10% contingency for the project in the amount of $138,542;
3) the Mayor to execute said contract — funds are available in Account
No. 400-4399-433-4001. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
8
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Councilman Kelly asked for the status of the restriping of the area from San
Pablo west. Mr. Errante responded that it was just approved today as part
of the City-wide striping and should be done some time in August.
C. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CITY ADVERTISING
COORDINATOR SERVICES (CONTRACT NO. C19223).
Mrs. Gilligan reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the Marketing
Committee's recommendation and award the subject contract to Full Gallop Marketing
Communications, Rancho Mirage, California, in the amount of $78,000 for Fiscal Year
2004/05, and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded by Benson and
carried by a 5-0 vote.
D. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR FUNDING OF
BIGHORN GOLF CLUB'S SAMSUNG WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS LPGA'S
TOURNAMENT.
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Concur with the Marketing
Committee's recommendation and approve funding for the subject event in the amount of
$125,000; 2) appropriate said funds from the Unobligated General Fund Reserves to
Account No. 110-4417-414-3222 for same. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by
a 5-0 vote.
E. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR FUNDING OF THE SANTA ROSA
AND SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS NATIONAL MONUMENT
DOCUMENTARY.
Mrs. Gilligan noted that this had been reviewed and approved by the
Marketing Committee and would be the first time the Coachella Valley had
taken the opportunity to tout its being home to the Santa Rosa and
San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
Responding to question, Mr. Frank Jones of Palm Springs Life Magazine
answered the overall documentary cost is $250,000. Contributors to date
were the Bureau of Land Management, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians, City of Indian Wells, City of La Quinta, City of Rancho Mirage,
Range Rover, and Wells Fargo Bank. He said the contribution levels varied;
however, Wells Fargo Bank was considering a $100,000 donation.
9
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Councilmember Benson noted that today's tourists wanted to take something
back with them that was native to the area, and this documentary would be
a good promotional tool for Palm Desert and the entire area.
Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Concur with the Marketing
Committee's recommendation and approve funding of the subject project in the amount
of $50,000; 2) appropriate said funds from the Unobligated General Fund Reserves to
Account No. 110-4417-414-3222 for this purpose. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and
carried by a 5-0 vote.
F. CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO LEVY AND
COLLECT ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CONSOLIDATED
PALM DESERT LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, AND
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004/05.
Senior Management Analyst Martin Alvarez reviewed the staff report and
recommendation and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) Resolution
No. 04-50, initiating the proceedings to levy and collect annual assessments within the
Consolidated Palm Desert Landscaping and Lighting District, FY 2004/05; 2) Resolution
No. 04-51, declaring the City's intent to levy and collect annual assessments and granting
preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for FY 2004/05. Motion was seconded by
Kelly and 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
meeting of May 13, 2004).
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the
meeting of June 24, 2004. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. CONSIDERATION OF THE SELECTION OF TWO SCULPTURES TO BE
INTEGRATED WITH THE SMALL STONE EL PASEO MONUMENT SIGNS
BETWEEN HIGHWAY 111 AND PORTOLA AVENUE, AND EL PASEO
WEST OF HIGHWAY 74 (CONTRACT NO. C22670) (Continued from the
meeting of May 13, 2004).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets.
10
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve Sculpture Choice
Nos. 1 and 2 from the staff report, each commission in an amount not to exceed $35,000
and appropriate $70,000 from Account No. 436-4650-454-4001 for same. Motion was
seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
C. CONSIDERATION OF RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE TO
INVESTIGATE PARKING SHORTAGE AT LENNON PLACE AND
ECLECTIC STREET (Continued from the meeting of May 13, 2004).
Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report and recommendation.
Mayor Spiegel commended Waste Management of the Desert for offering
space inside their yard for some of the disposal people to park so that the
gentleman who owns the restaurant has space for his customers to park.
With regard to the recommended six-month extension on the issue to allow
both Time Warner and Waste Management time to consider potential
solutions in locating off-street parking for their employees, Councilmember
Benson said she did not feel it should take that long.
MS. RAYLENE CLARK, employee of Clark Pools, 74-866 Lennon Place,
stated that a lot could happen to businesses in that area in six months. The
parking situation in that area had been a problem for the last six to seven
years, and the problem continues to grow at the same rate as the area
grows. During the recommended six-month extension of time to look into the
situation, several businesses in the area could actually be closed down
during that time due to those parking problems.
Mayor Spiegel stated it was his understanding that Waste Management
planned to implement its moving of employees immediately. Mr. Frank Orlett
responded that Waste Management was looking at creating additional
parking on the inside of their yard by moving some containers. He said it
would probably take about 60 days. Mayor Spiegel added that staff was also
looking at some City -owned land next to the Corporate Yard.
Councilmember Benson said she would like to see this done by the first of
September.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked Mr. Orlett if there were things the City could do
to help expedite Waste Management's process. Mr. Orlett responded that
he felt the City was moving as fast as it could; he added that he believed
they could have it done within 60 days. He noted that the long-term solution
was to look at additional property, and the short-term solution was to create
additional parking within the structure they currently have.
11
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Upon further question by Mayor Pro Tem Crites regarding what Time Warner
is going to do, Mr. Ortega responded that Time Warner had come to the
conclusion that they had outgrown their space. Within the next six months,
they planned to bring the matter to their Board of Directors for authority to
move. Mayor Pro Tem Crites said he felt Time Warner should have some
kind of plan in place by the first of September such as shuttling cars down to
a parking lot, etc.
Councilman Kelly stated that with Waste Management's new transfer station,
he felt it would be beneficial for them operationally if they could so something
about relocating the trucks, thus freeing up some space.
Mayor Spiegel noted that St. Margaret's Episcopal Church parking lot is used
by employees of BigHorn to park during the week. He suggested that
something along that line could be done by Time Warner, perhaps utilizing
the parking at the City's soccer field and shuttling employees to and from the
Time Warner location.
Mr. Ortega noted that this had been discussed with Time Warner, and that
was not a desirable solution for them.
MS. KATHI JACOBS, Time Warner Cable, stated they had already taken a
number of steps to help mitigate the problem of parking at that location. She
said they had leased space on Mediterranean where they had moved
approximately 35-40 employees. They also had some of their employees
taking vehicles home so they are actually dispatched from their homes and
no longer bring their personal vehicles to work. They had also leased space
adjacent to their building at the corner of Hovley and Cook, so they had eight
parking spaces over there being utilized. She said they were willing to work
with the City in any way possible. With regard to the soccer field, she said
this was something they would take under consideration, although it was not
the most desirable solution for their employees. She added they were in the
process of investigating another larger location so they could relocate their
offices. If they are not able to find a facility large enough that is already
constructed, they would have to build a facility, which would take longer due
to waiting for approval from the Corporate Office, etc.
Mayor Spiegel suggested that the City continue to monitor this situation
during the six-month period.
Councilmember Benson suggested that the Council revisit this in September
to see what has been done.
Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Receive and file the report;
2) approve a six-month extension on this issue to allow Time Warner Cable and Waste
12
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Management of the Desert adequate time to consider potential solutions in locating
additional off-street parking for their employees, with the understanding that the City will
continue monitoring the situation during the six-month period, including a progress update
as of September 1, 2004. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0 vote, with
Councilman Ferguson ABSENT.
D. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 13, 2004
(Continued from the meeting of May 27, 2004).
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
E. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PORTOLA AVENUE SIDEWALK FROM MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE TO
QUICKSILVER DRIVE (CONTRACT NO. C22610) (Continued from the
meeting of May 27, 2004).
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to remove this item from the Agenda. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to add the following item to the Agenda. Motion
was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
F. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE THE PORTOLA AVENUE
BRIDGE PROJECT.
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report in the packets.
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize re -prioritization of the City's
Capital Improvement Projects Budget to include the Portola Avenue Bridge:
1) Appropriating $700,000 for Design, Environmental Impact Report, and Right -of -Way
acquisition FY 2004/05, and authorizing staff to seek proposals for the bridge design
(Contract No. C22870); 2) scheduling construction of the project in FYs 2005/06 and
2006/07, with funding of approximately $5,300,000 for same. Motion was seconded by
Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XVI. OLD BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE
INSTALLATION ON PORTOLA AVENUE AND THE HOVLEY LANE EAST
MEDIAN ISLAND (CONTRACT NO. C22360, PROJECT NO. 915-04).
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to
Hort Tech Landscape Inc., La Quinta, California, in the amount of $103,515; 2) authorize
setting aside $10,351.50 as a 10% contingency for the project; 3) authorize the Mayor to
13
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
execute said contract — funds are available in Account No. 400-4614-433-4001. Motion
was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE CREATION OF ARTISTIC
BENCH, LILY PAD, FOR EL PASEO (CONTRACT NO. C22660).
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the Art In Public
Places Commission recommendation to commission Los Angeles Artist Michael Todd to
create Lily Pad, an artistic bench for the El Paseo Artistic Bench Project, in an amount not
to exceed $10,000 —funds are available in Account No. 436-4650-454-4001. Motion was
seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Spiegel voting NO.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT
NO. C21200 — CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Authorize transfer of $14,910
of contingency funds to base contract for the subject project; 2) allocate $51,490 from
Unobligated Funds in Account No. 110-4311-433-3320 for same; 3) approve Change Order
No. 1 in the amount of $66,400 to the subject contract with PetroChem Marketing, Inc.,
Santa Ana, California, and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Motion was seconded
by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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 meeting of May 13, 2004).
Mayor Spiegel noted that the Council would not be addressing this matter
tonight, and the public hearing would be continued to the meeting of
June 24, 2004, so that additional research could be conducted.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony.
14
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
MS. EVELYN KANE, 43-380 Tennessee Avenue, Palm Desert, on the
perimeter of the driving range. She said she was disappointed with the poles
and the schematics on the course because she felt the poles were not
anywhere near the houses that would be affected by the building. She felt
this would not adequately show the effect the proposed project would have
on the existing homes.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to continue this matter to the meeting of June 24,
2004, asking staff in the interim to be sure the story poles are located appropriately to the
proximity of view lines of residential lots. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by
a 5-0 vote.
B. CONSIDERATION OF 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)
(Continued from the meeting of May 13, 2004).
Following is a verbatim transcript of discussion and testimony for the subject public
hearing.
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor
BAC Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro Tem
SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager
JF Jim Ferguson, Councilman
PD Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
DN David Nelson
BK Bruce Kuykendall
DC Dori Cree
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Councilman
JMB Jean M. Benson, Councilmember
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
RAS Our second public hearing is "Consideration of the Approval of an Amendment to
the Hillside Planned Residential District, Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 25.15, and the West Hills Specific Plan;" continued from the meeting of
May 13 and many times before.
BAC And I will excuse myself...(unclear)
RAS I think you should.
15
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
SS Good evening. As the Mayor mentioned, this has been continued off and on for
about 14 months. Most recently when we had discussion on this was back in June
of 2003. At that point, there were three issues unresolved; that was whether the
parcels with Tess than 10% slope should receive the same five -acre minimum lot
size as steeper parcels. Two, whether the five -acre parcels between 10 and 35%
would be entitled to 15,000 square feet of grading or be limited to the 10,000 square
feet. And third, whether there should be a limit on the size of the homes. In
March of this year, the Council completed its review of the General Plan Update.
The hillside area is designated "Residential - Hillside Reserve," with a maximum of
one unit per five acres. We have included in the report that we distributed a copy
of what was described last year as "Alternative B," which limits density regardless
of slope to one unit for five acres. All existing lots would be entitled to at least one
unit, and this alternative would be consistent with the updated General Plan.
Alternative B limits the grading to a maximum of 10,000 square feet plus 3,000
square feet of access for the driveway. Alternative B does not distinguish between
areas with different levels of slope, and it does not impose a house limit size. Staff
is recommending that the Council approve a modified version of Alternative B,
which will allow up to 20,000 square feet of grading on lots with an average slope
of less than 10%. Lots with an average slope in excess of 10% would be limited to
10,000 square feet of grading. Relative to house size limit, we continue to believe
that with appropriate siting, design, color, and texture, that those issues are more
important than the size of the house. However, if we need to impose a house limit,
we would suggest that 5,000 square foot limit, including garages and accessory
buildings, could represent a reasonable compromise. If you have any questions,
we'd be pleased to try and answer them.
RAS You say 5,000 square feet including garage. What size of home would that be?
SS A typical garage is about 400 square feet.
RAS Okay.
SS A two -car garage is 400. Three would be six.
RAS Any other questions of staff?
JF Yeah. Has any thought been given to adopting a minimum standard, such as the
one originally articulated, with a provision of an exception, given the variables that
factor into it. I mean, it's all good and well to say where you put the home, how it's
situated, what the architecture looks like, dictates how big or small a house should
be, and I agree with all that. But it seems to me we've been wrestling with coming
up with a blanket rule that covers everything, and we could always find exceptions
for why that blanket rule ought not to apply. So why don't we just come up with
minimum standards with an exception so that somebody can come in and say this
is why I think my home can be bigger and still not hurt anything. I know
16
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Councilmember Benson and I met with Mr. Nelson, who has some lots that probably
would easily qualify for such an exemption, and I know other homes' sites in the "flat
land" that are on knolls that are quite visible, and, you know, I would be
uncomfortable with going with 5,000. At least this way, we'd retain the flexibility
to...has any thought been given to that?
SS It has, and we've done it in other zones where in the basic R-1 zone, where you
have a maximum coverage limit.
JF Right.
SS And then through the architectural review process, you can achieve a greater
coverage, up to, in that instance, up to 50%. And that was part of our earlier
analysis. So we could certainty come back with a basic minimum or maximum size,
whatever you want to prescribe, and then allow for creating an exceptions process
based on certain criteria.
JF Well, I mean we have 10,000 square feet grading, with 4,000 square foot house
size with garage. If we were to just adopt that, irrespective of 10% slope or not, for
everything west of 74, with a process for exceptions — so if Mrs. Cree comes in with
a home that is larger than that or has more grading, but it basically satisfies all of
our requirements for preserving the hillside, we could say okay. But if it doesn't, we
don't have to say okay.
SS Correct.
JF Why would we need to come back? Couldn't we just do that now?
SS Yeah.
PD (Inaudible)
SS We could just plug in the numbers.
PD Basically, all our planned residential zones have a little sentence at the end that
says, "All these standards shall apply unless other standards are approved by the
Planning Commission or City Council." So, in essence...
JF Okay.
RAS We do it all the time.
PD We do it all the time.
17
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
JF Well I guess my proposal would be to go with the 10,000/4,000, with a process for
an exception, and, in other words, to get the larger sizes just like our high density
bonus, you'd have to come in and show us that you meet all the criteria.
PD And you'll just see it second rea-...that will be the language, and as long as you
concur with it at second reading, then that will be fine.
RAS Any other questions of staff? This is a public hearing. I will open the public hearing
and ask Mr. David Nelson if he'd like to address the Council.
DN Honorable Mayor, Members of Council, David Nelson on Beavertail in Palm Desert.
I am for, I have been said that the 5,000 square foot maximum is fine with me, as
long as we do have a stipulation that that can be increased. Four thousand square
feet maximum would not be okay with me, but 5,000 maximum, as staff has
suggested, would be fine, as long as we do have an increase, I think that increase
will help people think about putting their homes down in gulleys and behind ridges,
and help create Tess of a visual impact to preserve our hills, which I think is what we
all want. So, basically, 10,000 square foot pad size on the hill with a maximum
5,000 square foot coverage...
RAS Which would include garage and any other buildings.
DN Yeah, 5,000 square foot coverage on...
RAS So 5,000 square foot home with a garage would probably be not much more than
3,500 square feet.
DN Well, as I understand it, it's coverage. Basically, if you have a basement or loft or
something inside that you don't see, it's not the actual living square footage. So it
would be the coverage of the garage and the living area. That's the way all the
coverages in all the other ordinances are, and that's the way I understand that to be.
RAS But what Councilman Ferguson is suggesting is that we put some limit, whatever...
DN Right.
RAS ...and then if a project comes to the City that's beyond that limit, we'll take a look at
it. If it looks like it fits in, it fits in.
DN Yeah. I think that's a great idea. I think that basically gives people the flexibility and
works with trying to minimize any visual impact on the hill. That's why I said 5,000
square foot maximum, and then if somebody comes in with a great design, and you
can't see most of the house, and it's a little bigger, then each one could be looked
at individually that way. Thank you.
18
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
RAS Any other questions of Mr. Nelson? Is there anybody else that would like to address
us? I figured Ms. Cree would. Oh, I'm sorry.
BK Hi, my name is Bruce Kuykendall. I purchased a property that's on the hillside on
Upper Way West, a five -acre section. Just adjacent to where I'd like to build, I'll be
looking down on the clubhouse of Stone Eagle, the golf maintenance facility, the
parking lot, the lakes, the 44 units, and for the last 15 years I"ve been developing
hillside lots in Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and Bighorn, the last 18 estate lots
that they've done. And there are numerous ways, which you know, that without
taking away from it...I bought the property based on the fact with no restrictions at
this point that I could build one home. I've submitted for a conditional use permit
for a lot size of roughly 14,000 square foot, which, unless you're in a helicopter, you
wouldn't be able to see that 14,000 square foot. And as far as the corridor which
I'm seeking, which is the City lights from my main view corridor, if I set the house
back and it's 22 foot high at the roofline, I set it back 45 feet off the edge, the City
will not be able to see it. And it could easily be built and not in view, and
naturalization could also be in effect to hide portions of it, as well as non -reflective
glass, earth tones, all the conditions which were applied to the people in Bighorn on
their estate lots. So 1 just appreciate the opportunity to speak to you and let you
know that hillside development can be done in a very well manner, a very good
manner, and I appreciate your time.
RAS Thank you.
JF I also want to point out to Mr. Kuykendall and Mr. Nelson and Ms. Cree that
Jean and I talked about this, and it's not so much the people that own property that
we deal with on a day-to-day basis, because we work with you, and you want to
work with the City, and that's not the issue. It's when you have multiple lots that are
going to be sold, and we don't know who the downstream owners are going to be,
and to give an entitlement as of right, for example, the size of home you're going to
build, gives the City really no control in flexibility in trying to make sure that we do
environmentally friendly development on the hillside. So the exception, you know,
you certainly sound, from what you just told me, would qualify, Mr. Nelson would
qualify, I haven't seen any plans from Ms. Cree, but the exception process allows
us to keep a string on the development so that the one rogue developer that ruins
it for everybody, we have the ability to corral that person and make sure that they're
sensitive to the hillside.
RAS Now Mrs. Cree.
DC Mayor Spiegel and City Council, I agree, in essence, with what you're proposing.
I would like to have you differentiate, though, between the areas that are Tess than
10% in the hillside. I think the areas that are less than 10% with the one acre
zoning, which I have down on the bottom, should be allowed to have more than a
10,000 square foot building pad. I think the original building pad on those lots was
19
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
20,000, and I would like to recommend that we keep that. And also up on the
hillside, I think reviewing it on a lot by lot basis, as you suggested, is the way we've
been wanting to go all along, because each five -acre parcel is different. And here
again, I even think a 10,000 square foot building pad is small, considering some of
those five -acre pads. As for the size of the house, again, if it can't be seen, it
doesn't matter. I think the object here is not to have something unsightly from the
City. By the way, a three -car garage (my son is building houses) is 800 square feet,
and in a big house like that, you'd want a three- or a four -car garage. So here, too,
I would like to see something a little larger than a base of 5,000 square feet. Thank
you.
RAS Thank you. Any other...anyone else want to address the Council? Seeing no one,
I will close the public hearing and ask for comments from Council.
RSK Check your board there?
RAS I'm sorry?
RSK Check your board?
RAS My board went off. Next speaker. You're not on there.
RSK I pushed my button, now if I push it twice, I'm afraid...
RAS Now you...no, now Jim Ferguson's on there.
JF I beat ya'.
RAS Councilman Ferguson, you want to speak?
JF I'll give my time to Mr. Kelly.
RAS All right.
RSK That'll be the day.
RAS Councilman Kelly.
RSK I agree with Councilman Ferguson about the sizes and all those kind of things. My
problem that I have is I don't see why if you're west of the Channel and you're on
flat land, it shouldn't be any different than flat land that's on the east side of the
Channel. So because of that, I prefer Exhibit "A" to Exhibit "B." Why should flat
land be treated different if it's on the west side of the Channel than if it's on the east
side of the Channel?
20
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
JF Well I guess in my view, it is different. It's a rural hillside zone. It's got a character
and charm of a rural setting. It's not amenable for a standard subdivision with curb,
gutter, and sewer, and I think most of the folks that bought over there bought over
there because it is what it is, and I, for one, don't want to turn it into just an R-1
neighborhood. And there's very few parcels left. I think Mrs. Cree, Mr. Nelson, and
Judge Slaughter, probably the only developable property owners over there, and I
think this is a way to give them...Mr. Kuykendall, you're on the flat land, as well?
BK (Inaudible)
JF This is just the flat land we're talking about, not the hillside. Okay. Well, then,
think we've got the community of people here, and a mechanism that will allow you
to do what you want, but I do think they're different. And I guess that's just a
philosophical...
RAS Councilwoman Benson, do you have any comments?
JMB No, I agree with Jim, if he likes to make a motion, I'll second it.
RSK I pushed my button to speak again.
RAS Oh you did, by golly, and I'm going to take it. Councilman Kelly.
RSK I'm still going to need a balloon, aren't I?
RAS No you won't, no you won't.
RSK If you stand in Homme Park and look at the view looking east, it's not a good view.
So...
RAS You can see the Episcopal Church.
RSK No, it's the back end of your garage at the Episcopal Church. I still feel that it's flat
land, it's not going to be seen from the highway, and certainly what's across from
it, across the wash, is not view property, if you go take a look at what you view
there. So I still think that flat land should be treated different.
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
JF Well, I would make a motion that everything west of 74 be included with the
development criteria of 10,000...maximum 10,000 square foot of grading, 4,000
maximum home with a garage, with exceptions to both of those so that we can
consider on a case -by -case basis going larger where it's appropriate.
21
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
JMB I'll second that.
RAS Any other discussion?
RSK Well what you just moved didn't talk about lot size — A or B.
JF It would all be, well it has to be in conformance with our General Plan, which is one
per five acres.
RSK Included in the ordinance it talks about A or B, and it talks about Exhibit "A" and "B."
JF I don't really care about Exhibit "A" and "B."
RSK Well if you're going to make a motion, the ordinance, you're passing an ordinance
that does refer to "B" here.
JMB I thought staff would come back with another...
JF Just because somebody gives me two options doesn't mean I can't come up with
a third one.
RSK No, but the ordinance that you just moved that we pass refers to it.
JF My motion was that we come back with an ordinance that covers all of 74 west of
the Storm Channel.
RSK Will they come back with a different ordinance than they propose here?
JF Mmm hmm.
RSK Oh, okay.
JMB (Inaudible)
JF With a maximum 10,000 square foot grading plus the additional for the driveway,
and then 4,000 on the home, with an exception process to both of those.
RSK What about the size of their lot? Five acres or...
JF To me, it doesn't matter. Mrs. Cree's got hers in at one acre, our new General Plan
says they're five acres. It would be the same to both. If somebody's got a five -acre
piece and they want to go larger, that will, obviously...
RSK But what if somebody wants to cut...is on the flat land and wants to cut the five
acres in two?
22
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
JF They can't now under our General Plan.
RSK I say that it addresses this in here, and that the motion needs to address that
whether it's with the General Plan or not with the General Plan, in other words,
you're going to pass a motion and an ordinance that you want to reflect the General
Plan.
JF It has to by law.
RSK Not necessarily. You could pass an ordinance that does not and amend it.
JF Let me ask our City Attorney, because my understanding is that if you pass an
ordinance that doesn't conform with your General Plan, it's a void ordinance.
DJE The ordinances currently, zoning ordinances, are required to comply with the
General Plan, and they are voidable if they're not.
JF So I'II rest on my motion, and if you don't like it...
RSK I can lump it.
JF Yup, or vote against it.
RAS Let me ask you a question. Mr. Nelson wants to build a house on flat land. You're
suggesting that he needs five acres for each one of those houses.
JF No, he and Mrs. Cree are already grandfathered in, they've got their parcel splits,
and this doesn't affect them at all.
RAS Okay.
(Inaudible)
RAS Sure. Yes. We're not that formal.
BK I don't understand the urgency of this after watching Stone Eagle be approved and
their total usage of their lower land, their 44 units, their clubhouse, their saturation
of that lower property down there. And we have this invisible property line, I'm on
the ridge right above, right at their entry here. And when I bought the property, I
was told that I could build one house on that five acres, and so I envisioned an
8,000 square foot house, somebody that's going to want to buy that house, done
right, enter from the back, overlooking the club that they're going to join, and they
don't want to live in one of those little villas, and they want to live on a five -acre
piece and be able to go up and play golf. Now all of a sudden, my property value's
being demised by 50% if I can only grade 10,000 square feet, and I want a pool —
23
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
800 square foot pool, I want a waterfall, I'd like some greenbelt, I'd like a nice
driveway going in there, just my driveway alone is 5,000 square foot going in — it's
roughly 110 feet long by 18 foot wide. These restrictions that you're bringing up —
Stone Eagle did not have to adhere to them, and I don't understand why I would if
I can place a beautiful home of say 6,000 - 8,000 square feet, you might see 30 foot
of it, and maybe six foot high of that, at the least if done properly, I just don't see
this random footage that's...and if I could, could I get an explanation on why, I have
five acres and I can only grade 10,000 square feet, that's just...that's not enough,
that's not even half enough.
JF And maybe I didn't speak clearly, so I'll try to explain it, at least from my point of
view, Mr. Kelly may have a different one. That is the...
RSK I'm not dealing with...l'm dealing with the flat land, my disagreement.
JF Okay. That, to me, is the maximum that you can do as of right. You could go in,
get permits over the counter, and go do whatever you're going to do. If you want
to go larger than that, as you do, I want to have a mechanism in place that we can
take a look at your plans and make sure that everything you're saying is true, and
if it is, you can qualify for an exception. So we're not limiting you, we're just adding
an extra layer of review to make sure that folks that own property in sensitive areas,
both ecologically, environmentally, and view -wise, aesthetically, treat the hillsides
the way the City would like to see them treated without taking away your property
rights or your ability to build. So that is built into my motion, I'm not prohibiting you
from doing anything. If anything, you may have to come to Architectural Review and
Planning Commission to get an approval, but it's not saying that you can't do what
you want to do.
BK Okay. I'm okay with that then. I don't mind going through the process, and I'd like
to let Mr. Kelly know that I agree with you — I don't think that somebody could make
a move on the flat land down there. Those lower, flat -land Tots over there by
Homme Park and going up to Upper Way West have no views, whatsoever. But,
thank you for your time.
RAS Thank you. Other comments from the Council?
RSK Another one - I pushed my button, but it doesn't look like...
RAS It's not on here.
RSK I know, it's not turning up here, either.
RAS The darn thing's broken again.
24
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
RSK It's not showing here that it's working, either. I just want to make it clear, because
it doesn't, it sounds like Councilman Ferguson misunderstood me, and I want to
make it clear. My objections, and the reason I'II probably be voting no, has to do
with the flat land; it has not anything to do with what your motion is as far as the
hillside. I'm only the flat land.
JF Okay.
RSK We're clear?
JF Mmm hmm.
RSK It didn't sound like you understood.
JF I do now if I didn't.
RAS Will not affect Mr. Nelson at all, we can go ahead with his road, he can start
developing his property. Is that correct?
JF Correct.
RAS (Inaudible) I guess not.
PD He can do that, he will have to go through a process if he wants to grade more than
10,000 square feet or want a house that's greater than 4,000 square feet. But,
technically, in the ordinance, all houses in the zone require that Planning
Commission process regardless of whether they comply or not, since architecture
is still something we look at regardless of how the standards...whether...
JF So we're not adding anything that he doesn't already have to get?
PD No. The review standard is something that is inherent in every home.
RAS All right. We have a motion and a second, please vote.
(Inaudible)
RDK If you would do an oral vote, that would be helpful.
JF Okay.
RSK There's nobody working?
JF She needs an oral vote.
25
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
RSK Am I the only one not working, or is everybody not working?
RDK No. I can't...
RAS Those in favor.
JMB Yes
RAS Yes
JF Yes
RSK No
RAS Motion carried 3-1.
PD And just to confirm with the City Attorney, I believe the motion was explicit enough
that we can come back with this as a second reading.
DJE No.
PD No. Okay.
DJE No, we'll come back with an ordinance for first reading.
PD Okay.
For purposes of clarification:
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to incorporate the
following into new legislative documents for Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06 that will
specify development criteria for everything west of the Storm Channel west of Highway 74
be a maximum of 10,000 square foot of grading, 4,000 maximum home square footage
with a garage, plus an appropriate additional amount for driveway, with exceptions to both
so that they can be considered on a case -by -case basis going larger where it's
appropriate — amended Resolution No. 04-43 and Ordinance No. 1046A to be brought
back to the City Council for reintroduction. Motion was seconded by Councilmember
Benson and carried by a 3-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO, and Mayor Pro Tem
Crites ABSENT.
26
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
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).
Mayor Spiegel 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 Kelly moved to continue this matter to the meeting of June 24, 2004.
Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Crites and
Councilman Ferguson ABSENT.
D. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM
PR-5 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO
PCD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT), A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT TO SUPERSEDE THE EXISTING WONDER PALMS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO EXPAND PLANNING AREA NO. 5, A MASTER
PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NEW PLANNING AREA NO. 5, AND
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT
PERTAINS THERETO — PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF GERALD FORD DRIVE BETWEEN PORTOLA AVENUE AND
COOK STREET (37-500 COOK STREET) Case Nos. C/Z 03-013 and
DA 04-02 (American Realty Trust, Desert Wells 237, LLC, and
RBF Consulting, Applicants).
Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report and recommendation and offered to
answer any questions.
Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mr. Drell responded that three-
story is mentioned as a possible exception under high density if it can be
shown that it is the best land use or site plan solution, but it was not a matter
of right.
Councilman Ferguson stated that he had just that day received the minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting. He expressed concern with being
asked to approve a whole set of standards without a site plan and without
actually seeing what will be done. He said he would like a little more
information and perhaps a bit more time to consider. He would also like to
see laid out in a graph format all the standards for low density next to all the
recommended standards for medium density next to all the recommended
standards for high standards and what is being done with front, side, and
rear setbacks and building heights, etc. He asked if there was anything like
that in the report.
27
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Mr. Drell responded that in the packet of Planning Commission material were
side by side charts that compared what was proposed with the existing
standards as best as staff could make comparisons, although some of the
standards they were proposing were issues that the City's current ordinance
does not address. All the changes recommended by the Planning
Commission had been incorporated into the new document with the
exception of those issues.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the
developer.
MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Consulting, 74-410 Highway 111, Palm Desert, spoke
as the engineer for both applicants. He said University Park was envisioned
to be really unique, and he did not think there was any other development in
the entire Coachella Valley that would have a mixture of low, medium and
potentially high density projects as well as commercial and potentially mixed
use projects. The goal was to create a guideline that would implement
principles and standards for the entire project. He reviewed the University
Park project, noting that it had been divided into 17 different planning areas.
He noted that the project included 161/2 acres of public spaces, which
includes parks, community areas, fire station, library site, day care, etc.,
linked by bikeways, pathways, and trails. The circulation element matched
the recently approved general plan, and they were looking at implementing
some traffic calming devices to slow down the traffic. In the low density, they
were requesting a 60-foot wide lot and a minimum lot size of 7,200. He said
they had laid out single-family lots ranging from 60 to 80 feet wide in various
layouts. With the slope, the one that worked the best was the 60-foot wide
which creates a depth of at least 120 feet for the minimum. Because of the
slope on the downhill side, those lots were much larger. The average lot size
of the 269 lots was 9,200 square feet. A large number of the lots were over
10,000 square feet, but the buildable area was 7,200. Overall, the density
was 3.35 units per acre which was less than the four units per acre
designated by the General Plan. The medium density created standards
where there were not any in the City. The high density commercial was
identical to the City standards today. With regard to the possible three-story,
he said they were only asking for approval of two-story.
Mayor Spiegel invited additional testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this
project. With no further testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites said he would like to ask the City Manager to have
City staff work with the applicant to discuss new and potentially useful ideas
with regard to energy consumption that could fit into this project, such as
photovoltaics and making sure the City's standards are not just met on
paper. Other concerns were as follows:
28
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Page 1-3 — Whether or not the park would be public. Mr. Drell
responded that this would be a public park.
Page 1-5 — What is normally done on the throat on Cook Street into
the project would be to have a landscape buffer on both sides. He
asked staff and the applicant to look at usable open space on one
side of that street.
Page 1-6 — Item B — look at making that entire thing mixed use
rather than purely commercial, which would add more flexibility to the
project.
Page 1-6 where the term "public parks" is used — he felt fire stations
and things of that nature were not public parks.
Page 1-7 regarding streets, there was a two-lane street, six-foot
parkway, etc. He did not feel it was necessary to have such a deep
parkway adjacent to the curb. Mr. Drell stated the purpose of having
the parkway adjacent to the curb allows for street trees. He said
these were basically the sections that were adopted in the General
Plan Circulation Element which allows a request for this amount of
right-of-way, and the design could be varied internally as is fitting.
Page 1-12 — He liked the idea of having pop outs along residential
streets to slow down traffic, and he liked some of the things on the
following page which showed roundabouts, etc. He asked about
speed bumps. Mr. Drell responded that he would not recommend
speed bumps.
Page 1-14 — He felt some of the ideas of having landscape to create
scale of street showed excellent urban planning skills.
Page 2-11 — He felt some of the maximum heights and architectural
features were issues that needed to have more discussion.
Councilman Kelly said he did not care for the idea of approving something
where he cannot see the actual density that is being proposed and whether
it matches the City's General Plan. He disagreed with Mayor Pro Tem Crites
regarding installation of speed bumps and said he would not be in favor of
that. With regard to maintenance of common areas, he would like to see
exactly what is being proposed so that the City does not end up having to
deal with an assessment district in the future. Another issue was a
statement that wood fences would not be allowed on slopes, and he did not
think they should be allowed anywhere. Mr. Drell responded that wooden
fences were currently allowed within the City. Councilman Kelly said he felt
29
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
the project could be improved by not allowing wooden fences. He also
expressed opposition to the possible three-story height, and he would not
vote in favor of anything that would have three stories connected with it. He
also felt he had not had sufficient time to review the documentation.
Councilman Ferguson said he had a lot of questions on the land use part of
this project. He added that while he did want to have a chance to review the
Minutes in greater detail, he was also uncomfortable with the entire process.
He said he likes to see on paper what the project will be in terms of
architecture, landscape, building layout, heights, view corridor, street
spacing, etc. He said he did not want to approve just a book of guidelines
because he does not have any kind of hands-on feel for what is being
approved.
Mr. Drell responded that this land use plan is identical to the land use plan
of the General Plan. What Council would be doing is taking the General
Plan designation and turning it into a zoning document. Upon question by
Councilman Ferguson as to why the Council was only doing the zoning for
this 96 acres rather than the entire North Sphere, Mr. Drell responded that
the zoning would eventually be done for the remainder as well. He said
there were only two areas that would be changing, and this was half of it.
The other half would hopefully be before Council in the next few months. He
added that this document was a guide to future developers who would be
coming to the City and provided a toolbox of design solutions to achieve the
goals articulated in the General Plan.
Councilman Ferguson stated the problem he had with adopting a standard
in a vacuum, which was what this was for him, was when the developer goes
and spends money, following this guideline, and comes back with something
the Council does not like. He asked where the City would be then.
Mr. Drell responded this is the same thing that is done with every project.
Each project comes in following basic guidelines and standards in whatever
zone their project is in. Planning Commission, Architectural Commission,
staff, etc. work with the developer to get a project the City likes. He said the
format of this document had fundamental standards which were almost
identical to what is in the existing zoning ordinance.
Councilman Ferguson referred to the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting where Commissioner Finerty noted the City's existing system has
worked quite well, and we have a low density zone, we have a medium
density zone, we have a high density zone, we have the standards that we
have all worked with and are comfortable with, so why the need to now
suddenly create something new. He said he understood that the City had
done the new General Plan.
30
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Mr. Drell responded that most of the great projects the City has seen had
diverged from the standards, and they had diverged to a great extent by
virtue of the creativity of staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites said he felt the Councilmembers' issues should be to
go through the document to find out if there are things they do not like, such
as three-story, or things that should be included that are not.
Councilman Kelly agreed with Councilman Ferguson. There is already a
guideline in the General Plan for all these issues.
Mayor Spiegel asked whether Parks & Recreation Commission had an
opportunity to look at this plan because it shows three parks going in and
another large park going in. He asked whether it was necessary to have all
of these pocket parks.
Mr. Drell responded that Parks & Recreation Commission had an opportunity
to look at it during the General Plan process. Neighborhood parks fulfill
completely different functions than regional parks and fulfill different urban
design goals.
Mayor Spiegel said while he understood the development at Cook Street and
Gerald Ford, he did not understand this one. He said at Cook Street and
Frank Sinatra is office professional, and he did not see any landscaping on
the corner.
Mr. Drell responded that the plan should reflect the expanded landscape
parkways included in the plan. He stated that this should be thought of as
a zoning map. There are general plan maps and zoning maps. Zoning
maps are ordinances, and ordinances are what the City enforces on a daily
basis. General plans are policy documents. For better or worse, the way
planning is implemented in California, there is a separation between policy
documents (general plans) and implementation ordinances (zoning).
Mayor Spiegel stated that these are going to come back to Council as they
develop, like the corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford, and he did not see
any problem with that.
Councilman Ferguson agreed. He said the City has a medium density zone,
and there is medium density designation; there is a low density zone and a
low density designation. He asked why he should think of this as a zoning
document when there are already zones.
Mr. Drell responded that those zones are not currently out there.
31
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Mr. Erwin stated that the General Plan is a constitution -type of document.
It is not necessarily a regulatory document or one that is used as restrictions
or enforcement. The zoning is required under current California law to be
consistent with the General Plan. Basically, when there is a General Plan
that has been adopted, as is the case with Palm Desert's General Plan, the
zoning ordinances have to be put into place that get into more specifics and
are consistent with the General Plan designations. The General Plan
designation of medium density residential, for example, does not have
anything to do with setbacks and does not have any of the normal
regulations found in a zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance gets into
more specifics with regard to lot coverage, setbacks, all of those sorts of
things. You work from the General Plan to the zoning ordinances, and from
the zoning ordinances you can still have other items that come back for
review of the specific detail of what goes on to the property, such as
Architectural Review Commission and those sorts of regulatory agencies.
Councilman Ferguson stated there were red flags for him. If the Council
were going to come back and simply change the zones from PR-5, why
wouldn't it be done for the whole North Sphere? Why is it being done for one
project, for one developer?
Mr. Erwin responded that it is because the developer applied for it. Mr. Drell
added that there is a mechanism in the City's zoning ordinance, called the
PCD zone, which tries to encourage comprehensive master planning for
large areas under their control, and it gives them the opportunity and
requires them to create documents like this and go beyond the minimum
standards and the minimum language in the City's current zoning ordinance.
Councilman Ferguson asked if these would become, in effect, the standards
for all medium density or if this was a tailor-made zoning for this developer.
Mr. Drell responded that this was a tailor-made zoning for this development.
The PCD zone encourages gives those owners who want to go through that
creative process of proposing them, developing them, and selling them to the
City the ability to do this on a neighborhood basis.
Councilman Ferguson said that meant medium density would mean one
thing for Mr. Allred and something else for another developer.
Mr. Drell agreed and said this would be just like standards for BigHorn are
different than standards in other areas of the City. The PCD zone was
created for areas where there is a diversity of uses, where you don't exactly
know who is going to be developing all of them because you typically have
different developers for medium density, commercial, etc.
32
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Councilmember Benson said if the Council does not start and do this section
and get it right, then it is unclear what will go out there, and projects will
come in as individual pieces.
Councilman Ferguson said it was no secret that the General Plan debate
was approached with a philosophical difference among the Council about
densities, high density in particular, and philosophies of land use,
responsibilities for housing, etc. A compromise was reached where a little
bit of both was decided upon, with medium density with a high density bonus.
He did not understand the document before the Council, and he was leery
of approving anything that he did not completely understand. In addition, if
this is going to handcuff him into doing a land use development scheme that
he was philosophically opposed to from the beginning, he was not wild about
that. He said he hoped when that compromise was reached that projects
would be taken on a case by case basis. If this is the case, he would like to
see the actual plans showing what the community actually looks like rather
than just saying this is how we're going to go about building a community.
Mayor Spiegel suggested that perhaps this should be a Study Session prior
to a Council meeting where the Council can ask all the questions they have
and try to get everything out in the open.
Councilman Kelly said one of his primary objections was that he had no idea
what the density is going to be when this reaches final approval. He did not
agree with the kind of densities that are in the document.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites stated one of the questions to ask staff is: If we pass
this verbatim, does that change the upper or the lower or the average or any
other kind of potential units per acre as a right?
Mr. Drell responded that the map and the ranges were identical to what was
adopted by the General Plan. Council is reserving the ability to approve or
disapprove anything within those ranges.
Mayor Spiegel asked Council if they felt a Study Session would be beneficial.
Councilman Ferguson said he felt it would be beneficial and that this needed
to be gone over more carefully than the General Plan was.
Councilman Kelly agreed that with a Study Session, Council could go
through and discuss it section by section.
Councilman Ferguson stated that for the Study Session, he would like to see
a side by side comparison of the existing zones and the proposed zones for
this project. He said the debate was not about the density that the General
33
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Plan approved because there is a swing of 2,000 homes in there. He said
there were probably several Councilmembers who would like to see it closer
to 4,000 and some who would like it closer to 6,000. He said he would like
to see, based on these calculations, whether this was a plan that would
accommodate the maximum density if approved.
Mr. Drell said it would if the Council chose to do that.
On the reverse side, Mayor Pro Tem Crites asked whether this document
would accommodate the minimum if that is what the Council chose to do,
and Mr. Drell responded that it would.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to continue this matter to the meeting of July 8, 2004,
which will be preceded that day by a Study Session on the matter at 12:30 p.m. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO 6,213 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDINGS AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFFICE
PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY —PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND THE NORTH SIDE
OF SANTA ROSA WAY, APPROXIMATELY 265 FEET EAST OF
SAN ANSELMO AVENUE Case No. PP/CUP 04-08 (T. Michael Hadley,
Applicant).
Mr. Steve Smith reviewed the staff and recommendation and offered to
answer any questions.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the
applicant.
MR. T. MICHAEL HADLEY, Architect for the project, 25 Calle Bonita,
Sedona, Arizona, offered to answer any questions about the project. He
noted that rather than do one larger building, they had opted to do two
buildings to make it scaled smaller in an area that is somewhat residential on
the Santa Rosa side. They tried to do something with a high degree of
articulation. The front elevation has ins and outs, the building varies in
height, and the corner elements of the building on Fred Waring have tall
pyramid roofs. The two buildings would be essentially identical but with
slightly different colors. The pitched roof comprised 8% of the floor area of
the building, and the second floor area, where the pointed roof would occur,
was deeply set back from the first story of the building. The intention was to
provide relief, both vertically and horizontally, to the facade of the building.
34
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
Mayor Spiegel invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request.
With no further testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 04-52.
Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
VIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
Mayor Spiegel moved to add the following item to the Agenda. Motion was
seconded by Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote.
1. Consideration of the Approval of a Loan to the Coachella Valley
Mosquito and Vector Control District for the Red Imported Fire Ant
Program.
Mr. Ortega stated that the recommendation was that the City loan the
Mosquito Abatement District $36,019 to be repaid when the District
forms a Benefit District.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject loan in the
amount of $36,019 to the District, to be repaid upon its formation of a Benefit Assessment
for the purpose of controlling Red Imported Fire Ants in the Coachella Valley. Motion was
seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. CITY ATTORNEY
None
C. CITY CLERK
None
D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
o City Council Requests for Action:
1. Consideration of Request from the Children's Discovery
Museum of the Desert for Sponsorship of the Annual
"Duck Pluck" (Mayor Robert A. Spiegel).
Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve sponsorship in the
amount of $2,500. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
35
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 2004
o City Council Committee Reports:
1. Pavilion #1 Misting System — Mayor Spiegel reported from the
Parks & Recreation Commission that the misting system for
Pavilion #1 would cost approximately $10,000 and would be
installed by July 1.
o City Council Comments:
1. City Council Liaison Reports.
See above.
XIX. ADJOURNMENT
Councilman Ferguson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:42 p.m. Motion was
seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, MAYOR
36