1 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, June 14, 2023
9:00 a.m.
City Hall Council Chamber
44950 Eldorado Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210
Present: Mayor Griffith
Mayor Pro Tem Sanders
Council Member Peabody
Council Member Whitman
Chair Snellenberger
Vice Chair Conway
Commissioner Welch
Absent: Council Member Reed
Commissioner Schleimer
Commissioner Bahneman
A.CONVENE THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Griffith convened the Special Joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission at 9:01 a.m. on June 14, 2023 in the City Hall Council Chamber.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Sanders, seconded by Council Member Whitman to excuse Council Member Reed, Commissioner Schleimer and Commissioner Bahneman from today's Special Joint meeting. The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 7 - Griffith, Peabody, Sanders, Whitman, Conway, Snellenberger, Welch
NOES: 0 -
EXCUSED: 3 - Bahneman, Reed, Schleimer
2 B. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL AGENDA
Mayor Griffith requested Item #D.1 - Discussion on Water Efficient Landscape Regulations be heard prior to Item # C- Public Comments.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Sanders, seconded by Commissioner Welch to Approve the Agenda as Amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 7 - Griffith, Peabody, Sanders, Whitman, Conway, Snellenberger, Welch
NOES: 0 -
EXCUSED: 3 - Bahneman, Reed, Schleimer
D. STUDY SESSION
D.1 Discussion on Water Efficient Landscape Regulations Community Development Director Jon Berg provided a background on the City’s landscape ordinance and gave an overview of the 80/20 landscape regulation.
City Attorney Todd Leishman reminded the legislative body and the public to discuss only items listed on the posted Special meeting agenda, and stated no specific properties or violation cases would be discussed.
There was clarification relating to the landscape design and entitlement process for Homeowners Association (HOA) covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's).
City Attorney Todd Leishman stated HOA's are required to follow City ordinances; however, Mr. Leishman stated what is done between private parties and CC&R's are amongst themselves.
Mr. Berg outlined the landscape application review process, including the review by City staff and the Design Review Committee.
C. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Jim Craig, resident, expressed concerns relating to receiving a notice of violation for not complying with the City’s 80/20 landscape ordinance and encouraged the Council consider a moratorium that is reasonable that includes a grandfathered clause. Ms. Mayleen Taylor, resident, stated the landscape at her residence was permitted 15 years ago and expressed concerns relating to the time given to comply with the landscape violation.
3 Ms. Diane Dykema, resident, expressed concerns relating to notice of violation received, the procedure to appeal the violation, and urged the City consider environment concerns as a new landscape ordinance is established. Mr. Glenn Schubert, resident, questioned the calculations used to determine the 80/20 landscape model, recommended the Planning Commission be delegated review of the ordinance, and suggested the ordinance include example of what is allowed. Mr. Terry Curtis, resident, requested a timeframe for desert landscape inspections on properties be given as the 80/20 ordinance is under review. Mr. Bruce Underwood, resident, requested clarification on the method used when enforcing the landscape ordinance and cautioned the City on unfunded mandates. Mr.
Douglas Hanson, resident, expressed concerns relating to seasonal residents that are gone for the summer unable to participate in the landscape ordinance discussion, suggested exceptions be made for residents who changed to desert landscape, and spoke in support of keeping Indian Wells green. Ms. Natasha Burton Podell, resident, expressed concerns relating to notice of violation, the compliance process, and requested clarification on the 80/20 landscape enforcement. Ms. Cleo Coates, resident, stated the City adhere to Sate rules as Homeowners Associations adhere to the City’s rules.
There were concerns expressed relating to the landscape notice of violations mailed and the compliance timeframes given to residents. There were suggestions to allow additional time to submit plans for residents that are in violation. There were recommendations to delegate the landscape ordinance review to the Planning Commission and provide the Council with recommendations at a future meeting. There was clarification relating to the permits issued to turf rebate applicants.
There were concerns relating to the review process for minor landscape modifications. Mayor Griffith recommended having a focus group of experts to develop standards and identify plants.
City Attorney Todd Leishman stated the compliance timeline relating to the landscape violations was an error and recommends residents with violations to work with the City’s code enforcement.
There was discussion to delay the enforcement of landscape violations and notify the residents of the extension. There was clarification relating to City requirements when submitting landscape plans.
4 It was the CONSENSUS of the City Council and Planning Commission to provide notice to residents who received notice of violations of the forthcoming landscape ordinance review, extend the violation compliance date to the end of the year, provide residents with options to comply with the current 80/20 standards or residents can delay until the new standards are implemented; and
DIRECT the Planning Commission to schedule community Study Sessions, hire a landscape architect to assist with the process, review the landscape ordinance and make recommendations to the City Council in October.
E.ADJOURNMENT
At 10:46 a.m. Mayor Griffith ADJOURNED the Special Joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
Angelica Avila, CMC
City Clerk