Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-23MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M. Mayor Ferguson convened the meeting at 3:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilman Buford A. Crites Mayor Pro Tem Richard S. Kelly Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Jim Ferguson 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 Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Doug Van Gelder, Director of Information Systems Mark D. Greenwood, Director of Public Works David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment & Housing Frankie Riddle, Acting Director of Special Programs J. Luis Espinoza, Assistant Finance Director Walt Holloway, Battalion Chief, Palm Desert/Riverside County Fire Dept./CDF Craig Kilday, Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside County Sheriff's Dept. Steve Thetford, Asst. Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside County Sheriffs Dept. Grace L. Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk III. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Reauest for Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 1) Property: Right -of -Way Acquisition -Monterey Avenue (APN 653-260-024) Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Mark D. Greenwood/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: MC Properties Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 2) Property: Right -of -Way Acquisition -Monterey Avenue (APN 653-260-022) Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Mark D. Greenwood/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: MacLeod Couch Land Company Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment Upon a motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, and 5-0 vote of the City Council, the following Property Negotiation Item Nos. 3 and 4 were added to the Closed Session Agenda. 3) Property: 10 acres ±, NEC Country Club Drive/Desert Willow Drive Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Justin McCarthy/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: Sanderson J. Ray/Desert Springs Partners Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 4) Property: 8,800 acres — Joshua Hills (Sect. 27, T3S R6E; Sect. 35, T3S R6E; Government Lots 17, 18, 19, and 20; Portion Sect. 30, T3S R7E) Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: Friends of the Desert Mountains Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b): Number of potential cases: 2 With City Council concurrence, Mayor Ferguson adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 3:03 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. IV. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. None V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting of February 3, 2006, and the Regular City Council Meeting of February 9, 2006 Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 162, 163, 167, 168, and 169. Rec: Approve as presented. C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#5591 by Denisha Renee Minor in the Estimated Amount of $9,000. Rec: By Minute Motion, reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. D. CITY COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. 1. Historic Preservation Committee Meeting of November 28, 2005. 2. Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting of January 17, 2006. 3. Public Safety Commission Meeting of January 11, 2006. 4. Youth Committee Meeting of January 3, 2006. Rec: Receive and file. E. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Destroy Paper Records from the Department of Building & Safety that Have Been Digitally Imaged (September and October 2005). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt: 1) Resolution No. 06-17 - for September 2005 records; 2) Resolution No. 06-18 - for October 2005 records. F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Transfer of Contracts from Steven Burt & Associates, Inc., to Vintage Associates, Inc. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the transfer of contracts with Steven Burt & Associates, Inc., Bermuda Dunes, California, to Vintage Associates, Bermuda Dunes, California (Contract Nos. C20992, C22861, C23040A, and C23620) . 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C22690C — Professional Services Associated with Formation of the University Park Community Facilities District No. 2005-1. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Contract Amendment No. 2 to the subject contract with MuniFinancial, Temecula, California, in a total amount not to exceed $6,000 for additional professional services — funds are available in Trust Account No. 610-0000-228-2100. H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C23340 — Professional Services Associated with Formation of the Section 29 Assessment District. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Contract Amendment No. 1 to the subject contract with MuniFinancial, Temecula, California, in a total amount not to exceed $17,000 for additional professional services —funds are available in Trust Account No. 610-0000-228-2100. I. REQUEST for Ratification of the Submittal of the Waste Tire Cleanup and Amnesty Event Grant Application and Adoption of Resolution to Approve Said Submittal to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Rec: 1) By Minute Motion, ratify submittal of the Waste Tire Cleanup and Amnesty Event Grant Application; 2) waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-19, authorizing said application submittal; 3) by Minute Motion, authorize the appropriation and expenditure of funds in the amount of $2,854.76 from the Recycling Fund, Account No. 236-4195-454-3090, for this purpose. J. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Purchase of Computers for the Institute For Sales and Service Excellence at Westfield Palm Desert and Operated by the Center For Training and Development at College of the Desert. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Appropriate $35,000 from the Unobligated General Fund for the purchase of computers; 2) approve funding the computers in the lab at the Institute For Sales and Service Excellence operated by the Center For Training and Development at College of the Desert; 3) authorize acquisition of the computers through College of the Desert's purchasing process. 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 K. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the 2006 "Summer of Fun" Concert Schedule and Attendant Performing Arts Contracts (Nos. C24920A-G). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve the proposed line-up for the 2006 "Summer of Fun" Concert Series; 2) authorize the Mayor to enter into the following performing arts contracts as presented: a) Susie Hansen Latin Jazz Band - $4,000 b) Denise Cogan - Upstream - $2,200 c) Larry Tuttle - String Planet - $1,600 d) Redlands Symphony Orchestra - $12,000 e) Steve Madaio & Friends - $7,200 f) Derek Davis - Rockit Scientists - $1,700 g) Rick Joswick - The Jumpin' Joz Band -$2,200 Funds in the amount of $30,900 are available in Account No. 110-4416-414-3061. L. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Fireworks Display Contracts for the Independence Day Celebration and Final "Summer of Fun" Concert. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the following contracts with PyroSpectaculars, Rialto, California, for professional staff and pyrotechnic supplies and services: 1) Contract No. C24930A in the amount of $30,148 ($7,500 will be paid by the City of Rancho Mirage) for the annual Independence Day Celebration scheduled to be held on July 4, 2006; 2) Contract No. C24930B in the amount of $6,148 for the final "Summer of Fun" Concert scheduled to be held on August 31, 2006 — funds for the above have been budgeted in Account No. 110-4416-414-3061. M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out -of -State Travel for the Aspen Accord 2006 Conference. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the subject travel to Aspen, Colorado, for the Mayor and one staff member to attend the 2006 Conference, March 5-10. 5 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out -of -State Travel and Appropriation Requests for Sister Cities International's 50th Anniversary Conference. This item was removed for separate consideration. Please see Section VI I - Consent Items Held Over for subsequent discussion and action. O. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Report on Building & Safety Department's Nomination for Building Department of the Year by the California Building Officials Association (CALBO). 2. Report Concerning Animal Rescue in Emergency and Disaster Situations. Councilman Spiegel asked that Item N be separately considered. Upon a motion by Kelly, second by Spiegel, and 5-0 vote of the City Council, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out -of -State Travel and Appropriation Requests for Sister Cities International's 50th Anniversary Conference. Councilman Spiegel was concerned about the need for six people to attend the Sister Cities Conference. Although, he understood that a couple of the people were paying part of their own way. Mrs. Gilligan responded that staff had the same initial response; however, the City of Palm Desert was being recognized for having an outstanding Sister City Committee, and the following representatives were being honored for their exceptional leadership: Councilman Crites, Visitor Center Manager Donna Gomez, Committee Members Donna Jean Darby and Rose Mary Ortega. Therefore, some of the funding was coming from the Sister City budget, and it was felt the City should be well represented and assist in paying for the rest of the Committee to participate if they could. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the subject request for six (6) Palm Desert Sister Cities Committee Members, the Visitor Information Center Manager, and Councilman Crites to attend the 50th Anniversary Conference in Washington, D.C., July 13-15, 2006; 2) appropriate $5,550 from Account No. 110-4416-414-3126 for travel costs associated with attendance at the Conference; 3) appropriate $2,100 from Account No. 110-4110-410-3121 for registration fees for four (4) Palm Desert Sister Cities Committee Members to attend the Conference. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by 5-0 vote. 6 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 06-20 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT NO. 30795 (Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency, Applicant). Mayor Pro Tem Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-20. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by 5-0 vote. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None X. NEW BUSINESS A. HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE NO. 05-36543 - HEMPIE'S CANNABIS DISPENSARY (CANNAHELP). At the reconvening of this meeting at 4:00 p.m., Mayor Ferguson noted that business license revocation hearings were personal and involved the license holder, not the general public; this matter was not intended to be a public hearing. He went on to say that it was reported in the newspaper this morning that the City Attorney had requested a continuance in an effort to try to resolve issues concerning Cannahelp. Today City officials met with the business owner, Mr. Hochanadel, and had a resolution for his concerns. Therefore, he said the necessity for the revocation hearing was moot, and it would not be heard at this meeting; Cannahelp could continue doing business. There was no consideration of this item and no action taken. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO FORM THE ALESSANDRO ALLEY PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. Upon inquiry, Senior Management Analyst Martin Alvarez said that a petition was circulated in December, and 15 of the 22 affected property owners responded in favor. 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 In further response to question, Redevelopment Manager Lauri Aylaian stated that residential property owners on the other side of the Alley had not been contacted yet; a key part of the proposed improvement was that no one piece of residential property was necessary. If the Assessment District is approved, staff would be contacting residents to find out if they were interested in willingly selling property to the City that will provide for building parking area on their side of the Alley. She said for those who were not interested, City staff would not enter into negotiations to acquire that property. She further confirmed that the parking configuration would be perpendicular, which will provide for more spaces. She went on to explain that the engineering firm selection process was now underway, design was anticipated to begin in 60 days, and it would probably be a year before construction would begin. Responding to question about what happened if some of the businesses didn't want the District, Mr. Alvarez answered that there would be a vote of the entire District; and if no majority protest existed, all of them would have to go along with the assessment. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) Resolution No. 06-21, initiating proceedings for the formation of the District; 2) Resolution No. 06-22, describing the proposed improvements and services and approving the Preliminary Management District Plan for the District; 3) Resolution No. 06-23, granting preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report regarding formation of the District; 4) Resolution No. 06-24, declaring the intention to form the District, the levy of assessments, the call for an assessment ballot proceeding to submit to the qualified property owners within such District the question of levying such assessments and establishing an assessment range formula for said District, and the levy and collection of annual assessment related thereto commencing with Fiscal Year 2006/07. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by 5-0 vote. C. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION REGARDING DOG PARK ISSUES. Parks and Recreation Services Manager Janis Steele stated that both the Parks & Recreation Commission and staff believe there are problems that need to be addressed in the Civic Center Dog Park, which are generally related to the health, safety, and comfort of Palm Desert's citizens and their dogs. She said very successful dog parks around the country were contacted in an effort to find solutions to some of Palm Desert's issues; and the Commission asked her to investigate feasibility of a card system at Civic Center Park and to present such a recommendation to the City Council that this be considered. Four potential options were presented for consideration in the staff report, in response to concerns by both the Commission and citizens. Therefore, she said the City Council's direction was being requested on how to proceed. 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 Councilman Spiegel suggested that the issues be considered as two separate items: 1) Dogs at the Soccer Park; 2) Civic Center Dog Park. City Councilmembers concurred. Councilman Crites said after receiving the subject staff report, he visited and walked the Soccer Park on Hovley Lane on three different occasions. He saw dogs on leashes on two of those visits and saw no dogs off leash. He also talked to people who were jogging or using the picnic areas there, and their concern was for dogs being off leash. Therefore, he felt the biggest issue was making sure dogs are leashed. He found dog excrement on only one of the three visits made, so he didn't think dogs fouling the footpath seemed to be an enormous issue there. He pointed out that aside from a faded sign with some letters missing, the City wasn't doing a very good job of notifying the public of leash laws. He also suggested putting up a stand that makes the doggie do -do sacks conveniently available along with a receptacle for their disposal. He felt this type of action should be taken before going to the extreme of banning people with leashed pets from a public park. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly agreed. He related that in many places he's been, there are such sacks and containers, but he thought the biggest problem here was dog waste on the fields themselves. He believed it would be appropriate to prohibit all dogs from the fields, but didn't think it was right to deny people access to the open area overall; especially given all the surrounding residential and nice places to walk dogs there. Councilman Crites asked who did the landscape maintenance in the Soccer Park Area, and Ms. Steele said it was contracted. He went on to say that the landscaping around the perimeter path was shoddy, at best, and asked staff to perform some serious tidying up there. Councilmember Benson felt that restricting dogs totally would be wrong, especially with the number of apartments around there. Mayor Ferguson commented that he'd talked to lots and lots of soccer parents and asked if they had problems, and he hadn't gotten one yet. Further, he hadn't received a letter or e-mail or a phone call about any problems at the Soccer Park, and he wondered where the complaints were generated. Ms. Steele responded that she'd spoken with the head of the Youth Soccer Organization, who she felt received the majority of the complaints. He told her that before every practice, the volunteer coaches had resigned 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 themselves to going over the fields and picking them up before they start to play. MR. TERRY SCHUKART, resident of Hovley Lane and member of the Parks & Recreation Commission, said he jogs in the Park two or three mornings a week between 6:00 a.m. and 6:45 a.m. He's noticed on each occasion, around 30 times since middle of last summer, a good number of people with dogs off leash —early morning seems to be the prime time; he noted that there were also some people there with dogs on leash. He said his recommendation to the Commission was to find a way to enforce the leash law in the Soccer Park. Additionally, he was certain that to some degree, issues in the Civic Center Dog Park were encouraging some people to go to the Soccer Park with their unleashed dogs. Councilman Crites observed that Mr. Schukart had provided the window of violation that needed to be addressed. MR. SCHUKART added that he'd seen many dogs on leash along the perimeter of the Soccer Park, and as a resident of that neighborhood, he felt that was perfectly legitimate. He said owners who let their dogs run loose in the predawn hours were unable to see where the dogs had defecated, and the mess was left behind. Having seen this for himself, he brought it to the Commission as an issue. Councilman Spiegel noted a recent article in The Desert Sun by a St. Louis doctor, saying it has been determined that there are 1,407 viruses, bacteria, parasites, protozoa, and fungi in the world currently, and 58% of them come from animals. Therefore, he said the idea of dogs being on the soccer field and not being cleaned up after could really cause a problem for some of our children. He agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Kelly's wise suggestion to try to enforce the leash law and to make doggie pick-up bags more readily available with a specified receptacle for this waste. He also felt Animal Control should be asked to closely monitor this area, along with proper signage, including no dogs allowed on the soccer fields. He felt these measures would likely take care of the problem. Mayor Ferguson commented that there was a large green belt in front of his house, and he estimated there were 200 dog walkers in that area each morning. In his experience, dog owners were the best regulators of other dog owners, both for issues of leashes and bathroom habits. He said while the Soccer Park might not be as crowded, his children played in the aforementioned green belt and hadn't gotten sick from anything yet. He believed animals and people can coexist; it's the irresponsible dog owners that are the problem and not the dogs. So he said if there's an issue at the Soccer Park, the City should begin to address it and do as much as possible to take care of it and not start with a ban, which would deprive a lot of people 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 of the beneficial use of that park. He added that the park was designated for soccer, but it was also for open space, picnicking, and general recreation. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kelly's question about animal control services, Ms. Steele said staff contacted the City's present provider, Riverside County Animal Control, and they had made a couple of runs past the Soccer Park regarding this issue. She went on to say that since they've moved to the Animal Campus, there is a representative designated for Palm Desert; although, the eight -hour -per -day schedule for that officer is 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., five days per week. She said the activities included routine patrols, rescues, cruelty investigations, and court appearances. She said that resulted in their not being able to patrol around any given area as many times as they'd like, but there was someone on duty eight hours per day; emergency response was available for dangerous or loose dogs after 4:00 p.m. each day. Councilman Crites pointed out that when there's an issue requiring extra attention from the Police Department, their patrol schedule is adjusted to be the most effective to resolve it. He asked why the same thing couldn't be done with Animal Control for the subject problem. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly agreed. Mayor Ferguson also noted that one of the staff report's suggested remedies was deputizing the Park Patrol, and he wondered whether people like Commissioner Schukart would be eligible candidates for this purpose. Councilman Crites felt that would place people in an awkward position. He felt it was one thing for a person to let someone know they were out of compliance with City ordinance or regulation, but it was quite another to ask that person to begin issuing citations. He said if he were in that position, he would be very uncomfortable, having not had adequate training to perform such a responsibility, let alone the liability issue for the City. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly related that the City of Alameda, California, has a very strict leash law. The first offense generated a $50 fine; second offense was around $100, and the third resulted in a seizure of the dog. For that reason, he said there were no dogs off their leashes in Alameda. Councilmember Benson suggested the City's Citizens On Patrol (COPs) Program look at the issue to see if there was something they could do. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, refer the City Council's comments on dogs at the Soccer Park back to the Parks & Recreation Commission, including better signage, prohibition of dogs on the soccer fields themselves, and providing doggie pick-up bags and a specified receptacle for their disposal. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by 5-0 vote. 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 Mayor Ferguson said his comments back to the Commission would be to start out implementing the least restrictive measures first until the problem is solved. Councilman Spiegel said while he personally didn't spend much time in the Civic Center Dog Park, he was aware that many of its users were actually from cities other than Palm Desert; they have both shown up at Parks & Recreation Commission Meetings and written letters to The Desert Sun complaining about Palm Desert's Dog Park. He went on to say it was being overused but was tough to shut down because of the amount of people who brought their dogs every day. Councilmember Benson stated that she would oppose instituting a fee to use the dog park —it was for the community and its visitors —the City's parks were free for anyone wanting to use them. If there was a problem, she'd like to see it solved some other way. Councilman Crites asked how many of the various problems experienced at the Dog Park could be lessened by additional dog parks in the City, and Ms. Steele estimated 50%. She agreed that a lot of the issues resulted from overuse. He called further attention to the proposal of having all who wanted to use the Dog Park go through the required orientation in order to obtain the necessary card, pointing out that it would be a burdensome process for many who come to Palm Desert for a weekend or brief stay. Ms. Steele said it was an initial proposal, and thought was given to using some volunteers, some of the current dog park users, to provide orientations as needed. She agreed it would be difficult, but the intent was to educate Dog Park users. In response to further question about one violation resulting in immediate card revocation, she said it wasn't her full intent to be quite that severe. She had intended to provide some general guidelines, any of the suggested regulations could be refined. MS. CONNOR LIMONT, Palm Desert resident and member of the Parks & Recreation Commission, stated that she was very much involved in bringing the card system forward, because she takes her own dog to the Dog Park about five days a week. In her opinion, some of the things going on there needed to be brought to the City's attention, relating that recently two dogs got into an altercation; one of the owners picked up the other's dog and threw it. She said these types of situations needed guidelines, and there really weren't any currently; although, most reasonable people would know that was unacceptable. She said someone who witnessed the incident stood up and made it so known; however, there are times at the Dog Park when there are no guidelines —people get out of the car without the dog on a leash, 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 some are even without collars or tags. So she said if staff or any other group was asked to enforce the guidelines, there weren't any. Although there were signs, people tended to completely disregard them. Even when she reminded fellow dog owners about the leash law, she was ignored, adding that she didn't want to enforce it either. In response to question, she agreed that there didn't seem to be the willingness to ensure compliance with the existing guidelines, but she added that there were many good people who used the dog park, obeyed the rules, and were appreciative of the facility. She said the others just wanted to do whatever they wanted, and she further agreed that enforcement was necessary there, which is the reason she proposed the card system in an effort to level the playing field so that the rules could be enforced. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly commented that he felt the card system would really be overkill, reminding him of his experience at the telephone company and those who were more concerned about keeping the tools secure than getting the necessary work done. He said it would be complicated, time-consuming, and not a welcoming aspect for the tourists and visitors that were so vital to the City's well being. He was opposed to both charging to use the dog park and imposing a complicated system. He related that he's been to the dog park with his daughter's dog, and there seemed to be a virtual club of those who used it at the same time each day; they were also good at monitoring the activity. However, he said if there was a problem with the leash and collar law, the card wouldn't prevent that, but an Animal Control Officer would with periodic visits. Further, he felt that Palm Desert was large enough that it may be time to add more Animal Control Officers; and he also agreed that more dog parks were needed in the City. Councilman Spiegel said one of the problems that wasn't mentioned was people coming to the Dog Park to drop off their dog off and then go shopping, which was a particular problem on Street Fair days. He said it was a real concern, noting that when the Skate Board Park was built, the decision was made to monitor and control it. He added that there would be a dog park in Freedom Park when it is built and agreed that even more dog parks could be put in, but they have to be maintained. He didn't have a specific answer to the problem but felt there needed to be more control than there was currently; he wouldn't be very happy if he had a dog and there were other owners coming to the Park with their unvaccinated and unlicensed dogs. Councilman Crites observed that one issue was that the City needed to look for some alternate locations --dog parks don't take much land, and maybe they could be incorporated into existing area. Secondly, he agreed with the Commission's recommendation to create a "Pooch Park Guide Book," which could be made available with the same kind of signage used in National Parks or other similar venues that alert the visitor they are responsible for 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 knowing the regulations. And he agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Kelly that if more people were needed around the Dog Park to enforce the rules, it should be so, which would give a greater level of comfort to those using the Park. He further agreed that educating Park users was a good idea, but forcing them to have a card may just move them and their problems outside the park gate into a different part of the City. In some respects, he felt it was better having those people at the Park and educating them on the issues to achieve good compliance. Councilmember Benson agreed, adding that she liked the idea of a rack with brochures that could be picked up at the Park, as well as the idea of putting on more officers to monitor activity there. Mayor Ferguson said he, too, concurred with most of the comments, believing a sign to notify owners that all unattended dogs would be confiscated by Animal Control would take care of the weekend shoppers. He observed that for both the Soccer Park and Civic Center Dog Park, there seemed to be a problem, and residents were pretty good about letting the City Council know when there was one —he had not heard from either the Dog Park or Soccer Park people, while the previous Palm Desert Youth Soccer League President had no trouble letting him know whenever the grass was too long or when there was litter in the parking lot. He preferred having staff take a real careful look at what the problem was, its extent, and how it could be addressed with the least restrictive measures, after hearing his colleagues say they liked the City's parks open, unrestricted, and free for use by anyone living or visiting here. He felt that principle should be maintained and applied to this issue. Upon inquiry, he felt this matter should also be referred back to the Parks & Recreation Commission for further consideration. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, refer the City Council's comments on the Civic Center Dog Park back to the Parks & Recreation Commission, including emphasis that the least restrictive measures be considered first: a) better signage indicating the rules and suggested "Pooch Park Guidelines"; b) monitoring Park activity at specific times and implementing Animal Control enforcement as needed; c) investigate locations for more dog parks throughout the City. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by 5-0 vote. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES (CONTRACT NO. C24940). Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the subject agreement with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., Indian Wells, California, to provide project management and engineering support services in an amount not to exceed 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 $100,000, and authorize the Mayor to execute same — funds are available in Account No. 110-4300-413-3010. Motion was seconded by Ferguson. In response to question, Mr. Greenwood said it was difficult to get engineers because the profession wasn't as popular currently. He added that the technology boom soaked up all the good engineers into the electronics and computer fields, leaving those with expertise in other areas hard to find. Further responding, he answered that more pay would provide a greater attraction. Councilman Spiegel said he had no problem supporting this request, but he felt it was better if they were City employees. Mr. Greenwood offered that this contract would cover for three existing vacancies in the City's Engineering Department. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly said he had no problem contracting for services, it provided more workforce flexibility while these positions were being recruited. Councilman Crites agreed with both of his colleagues, providing there was a large enough, qualified, competent core staff, which may be the crux of the issue. He said without that, it has been the City's practice to contract for services. Upon further inquiry, Mr. Greenwood said the duration of the contract was unspecified, but there was a dollar limit that was expected to last about a year. He said the City could not hire three engineers for $100,000, the subject contract would fill in for part of those three. Mayor Ferguson called for the vote, and the motion carried 5-0. E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE FOR THE REPAIR OF EXPANSION JOINTS AT THE MONTEREY AVENUE BRIDGE OVER THE WHITEWATER CHANNEL (CONTRACT NO. C23900B, PROJECT NO. 643-05). Mr. Greenwood explained that the bridge had been in place for seven or eight years, and there had always been the complaint that a significant amount of tire noise was present as vehicles both entered and exited the bridge. Upon evaluating the structure, it was found the gap between the end of the bridge and the abutment holding it was wider than it should be. Therefore, it was both an issue for the structure itself that needs to be corrected, and it was hoped that this work would somewhat reduce the traffic noise as well. 15 XII. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute the subject Reimbursement Agreement with the City of Rancho Mirage for the repair of expansion joints at the Monterey Avenue Bridge Over the Whitewater Channel and appropriate $100,000 from Unobligated Fund 400 to a project account. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by vote of 5-0. F. CONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS TO EXPEDITE THE WIDENING OF MONTEREY AVENUE BETWEEN GERALD FORD AND DINAH SHORE DRIVES. Mr. Ortega noted the report and recommendations. He said by going forward with this project, the City will be able to move this part of the project ahead of the assessment district. He said staff could answer any questions. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-25, pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 3.30.070, delegating authority to the City Manager to make the immediate expenditure of public money in order to expedite the subject project; 2) by Minute Motion, authorize the City Manager to: a) Negotiate a construction contract up to $500,000 for construction of the water line and widening of the subject roadway (Contract No. C24950A); b) enter into the necessary agreements with Southern California Edison Company and pay the associated fees and costs for relocation of the electrical transmission lines (Contract No. C24950B); c) enter into related construction contracts as necessary. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by 5-0 vote. In answer to question, Mr. Greenwood said he understood Lowe's was holding a soft opening on March 14. XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT, REFLECTINGACHANGE IN PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN PALM DESERT (CONTRACT NO. C16920A). Mr. Ortega noted the report and that it represented a change in the schedule included in an existing agreement. He called attention to the report's depiction of the area where landscaping would be delayed. Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve of the proposed amendment to the subject Landscape Agreement with Westfield Corporation to reflect the change in plan to the redevelopment of Westfield Shoppingtown Palm Desert. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by 5-0 vote. 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR CONTRACT NO. C22870B — CONSTRUCTION OF THE PORTOLA AVENUE BRIDGE OVER THE WHITEWATER CHANNEL. In answer to question whether these items were related to the recent girder collapse, Mr. Greenwood said they were not. He went on to say the subject request represented extra traffic control requested by the City after seeing how things were operating and its desire to keep traffic flowing. Additionally, he said there were unknown subsurface structures that were found as soon as they began excavating the site. Further, he said the second Change Order was actually a credit back to the City for work that will not be performed. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the following Change Orders to the subject contract with Granite Construction Company, Indio, California: 1) No. 1 for traffic control and demolition in an amount not to exceed $80,000; 2) No. 2 for a change in the relocation of telephone conduits for an estimated credit to the City in the amount of $134,157. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR THE WESTERLY PORTION OF GREENE WAY (Continued from the meetings of January 12, and February 9, 2006). Mr. Greenwood explained that residents in the subject area requested a change to the street names in order to improve deliveries to their properties as well as emergency access. He called attention to the map on the last page of the staff report that illustrated the recommendation. Responding to question about reimbursing the church, he said the funds would be used to reimburse for actual costs in changing their stationery, web site, etc., up to $1,600. Upon inquiry, Mr. Erwin affirmed that it was possible for the City to make such a reimbursement. Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing to be open and invited testimony SUPPORTING or OPPOSING the street name change. MS. LORI GAGNON, resident of Edgehill Drive, said she was here for the second time to support the name change for Greene Way. She asked that if there were any further issues with the other two streets that were now part of this matter, that at least the Council act upon the Greene Way name change, as she and her neighbors were all in limbo between Edgehill and Willow since they really don't have street addresses that will work; the mail 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 doesn't get delivered to them, and emergency services can't find them. Therefore, they strongly encouraged the change to Tierra del Oro. With no further public testimony offered, Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Spiegel moved to : 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-26, approving a street name change for the westerly portion of Greene Way to Tierra del Oro and designating Vista de Flores and Tanque de Agua Road as street names for the roadways leading to the southeasterly two homes in the area; 2) by Minute Motion, approve reimbursement to Desert Cities Baptist Church for costs associated with the name change; 3) by Minute Motion, appropriate a not to exceed amount of $1,600 for said costs. Motion was seconded by Benson. Mayor Ferguson said he was troubled by the $1,600 reimbursement to Desert Cities Baptist Church. He wondered if anyone else was being reimbursed for changing their letterhead. Mr. Ortega replied that staff had a specific reason for recommending the reimbursement, which was due to a situation being caused by the City; it was not a gift. Mr. Greenwood added that the church was satisfied with the street naming as it currently exists, and although not adamantly opposed to the change, asked that they be reimbursed for their costs for reprinting literature, changing their website, etc. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly felt it was a reasonable request. Mayor Ferguson called for the vote, and the motion carried 5-0. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM S.I. (SERVICE INDUSTRIAL)TO PR-13 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, 13 UNITS PERACRE), A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 247 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON A 20-ACRE SITE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GATEWAY DRIVE AND 35T" AVENUE (73-600 35T" AVENUE) — PROJECT INCLUDES A HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR ROOF ELEMENTS TO A MAXIMUM OF 34-FEET 6-INCHES Case Nos. C/Z 05-03. PP/CUP 05-22, and TT 34179 (Summit Properties, Applicant) (Continued from the meeting of January 12, 2006). Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the report, noting that the 20-acre site was currently vacant, with significant slope from south to north and southwest to northeast. On the westerly side, it was bounded by the commercial development that includes Sam's Club and WalMart; to the north and east is Service Industrial, with properties on both sides currently under 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 development. Presently, the site is zoned Service Industrial (S.I.), and the 2004 General Plan Update designated it residential, medium -high, so the range is 4-22 units. He said the Applicant proposes to amend the zoning from S.I. to Planned Residential, 13 units per acre, thereby making the property consistent with the General Plan. Further, the Applicant seeks approval of a Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Height Exception, and Tentative Tract Map for 247 condominium units. He said on December 6, the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-0-1 vote; the Commission did have questions regarding the amount of on -site recreation and parks area, which the Applicant explained had, for the most part, been placed at the center of the site. He reported that due to the slope condition, the site plan required such a configuration, which includes a large pool area, clubhouse facilities, and further details could be obtained within the staff report. He went on to say that the Commission also discussed at length the requested height exception, and the general consensus was that it was warranted due to the location, surrounding uses, topography, and the project design; further details of this discussion were available in the Planning Commission Minutes attached to the report, as were the Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) Minutes on this project. He said the project was recommended for approval by Architectural Review prior to Planning Commission's consideration. He related that the site plan, parking, and architecture, had all been deemed acceptable; the architecture required the height exception —two-story buildings with some 60-70 of the units having a loft unit above, creating heights from 28-34 feet. He said ARC felt the architecture was improved with the loft units; other considerations were that due to the slope of the area, much of the site is below street level, site being surrounded by S.I. and Commercial, and lastly, there would be no impacts to surrounding properties due to the height. With regard to energy efficiency, he said the Applicant had his engineer work on those issues, and they now confirmed that the units will be between 10.8% and 20.9% above the new Title 24 requirements, depending upon the floor plan and the locations of the units. Units in the project will also comply with the updated energy requirements provided by the City's Office of Energy Management, and the Applicant has also agreed to additionally install photovoltaic panels on the roof of the model units; all units will be pre -wired to accept the panels, and the panels will then be marketed to purchasers as an option. He said the Office of Energy Management expressed support for this program. Mr. Smith further explained that pages 8, 9, and 10 of the staff report reflected the high -density review criteria issues. He said these units will all be condominiums, so they will be home ownership. Regarding convenient access to public transportation, he said Condition No. 12 was being proposed for addition to Resolution No. 06-27, which requires a bus turnout and shelter on Gateway Drive. He said the site is in close proximity to 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 schools, parks, and community services, and staff felt that as designed, the project helps to address housing needs for moderate -plus buyers, given the housing prices in the area, and after analyzing it, staff agreed with the Applicant's proposal for how to keep unit costs to the minimum. He went on to say that Condition No. 9 in the Resolution was also being amended to require that the Applicant enter into a Housing Agreement with the City to make 20% of the units available to the Housing Authority at a specified price based on the December 15, 2005, Proforma, with the intent that the Housing Authority may write down mortgages to make these units available to moderate income households and apply resale controls to keep them affordable into the future. He offered to answer questions. Responding to question about an analysis on energy efficiency, Mr. Smith said there was a letter from Aero Energy included in the report. Mayor Ferguson urged staff to include an eighth step in their high -density bonus analysis to address energy efficiency, adding that the high -density bonus criteria in the subject report was very good. Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony SUPPORTING or OPPOSING the proposed project. MR. STEVE LEVENSON, representing the Applicant, Summit Properties, said he'd had the opportunity to address the project with City Councilmembers, and he hoped they'd since been able to review the staff report and drawings that had been modified since he'd met with some of the Council previously. He went on to explain that his company was very sensitive to the City Council's concerns on various issues and felt they had been addressed, as follows: — Density of the Project — provided an open space plan to show that the site is covered by 33% with buildings, balance being landscaping and paved areas. A number of those paved areas could now be considered heavily landscaped areas, with the garage lanes that have been widened to accommodate large canopy trees. Pretty major modifications were made throughout the site to accommodate making the garage lanes more public spaces with these trees. — Project complied with criteria for the high -density overlay. — Affordability has been addressed with specific measures, but it was also felt that the entire development could be considered such, with anticipated sales prices lower than the bulk of what the market is currently charging. Although they felt the entire project was affordable, agreed to enter into the Housing Agreement for 20% of the units. — Energy Efficiency— Most of the units exceed the new Title 24 requirements by a substantial percentage. The worst -located unit as far as windows and glazing still exceeds Title 24 by 10.5%, with others ranging up to 21%; the clubhouse is actually 29%. They have also agreed to the other standards 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 imposed by the Office of Energy Management and the updated energy standards. The entire project would be wired for photovoltaic panels and will provide the panels on the models to give people an idea of what they look like and see the meter going backwards; materials will be generously provided in order to market that feature to the best of their ability. — Slope / Heights of Buildings — Liked the slope aspect of the site and plan to take advantage of it by stepping the buildings down the hill to create a nice elevation, keeping in mind that there were tilt -up concrete buildings on three sides of their project, two immediately adjacent. Site is below street level by eight to 12 feet in various locations, leading them to believe the heights of their buildings are reasonable. Of the 247 total units, about 65 of them have the loft feature, approximately 15% of the roof area, and they were typically located in the back of the building —not along the streets or interior drives. It was incorporated to enhance the look of the buildings and because of the lowered grade level, realizing up front that building height was an issue in Palm Desert. — Recreation Area — Currently propose two areas, one in the center and one in the northeast corner of the property that will consist of basketball and volleyball on the opposite side. Intent was to create a place of being, somewhere everyone would like to go, placed in the center for that reason. Additionally, because of the slope conditions, it was the most logical place; the clubhouse is about 12 feet higher than the pool location, with a series of tiers dropping down. Both the pool (4,300 square feet) and the clubhouse (7,000 square feet) would be very large —typical pool was around 800 square feet. There is also a putting green, tot lot, cabana building, all concentrated in one place as opposed to scattering them and placing them closer to the building areas, which was impractical given the slope. The recreation center area was about 400 feet from anywhere on the site. Councilman Spiegel felt the tot lot was a very good feature. He asked if there were any plans for providing a preschool. MR. LEVENSON said that was a consideration; but it's not a very large site, nor do they anticipate that many children to warrant an on -site preschool. In further response, he said if the need presents itself, they could use part of the 7,000 square foot clubhouse. Councilman Spiegel went on to say that the added volleyball and basketball court was also a great feature. He asked if it might be duplicated on the west side of the project. MR. LEVENSON said the primary reason they decided to locate the court in the northeast area was because it was also the location of an underground retention area, making it land that could not be used otherwise. Further, basketball tends to be a noisy sport, and they tried to locate it in an area where it would not be obtrusive to some of the neighbors. Upon question 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 about when they intended to start building the project if it is approved, he said they already had working drawings in process, with plans to be into the City for a grading permit within the next 30-40 days, and commencement of construction in early summer. With no further public testimony offered, Mayor Ferguson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Benson said she didn't have any specific problems with the project, felt the location of the lots justified the height exception, which she was always concerned about in this area of the City. She thought it was a good project and what the City envisioned during the General Plan Process. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly noted that he was very adamant about having the high - density criteria, and it looked like this Applicant had met them. He also noted the comment about the bus route, after yesterday seeing a preliminary future bus route that will be established within a year —going down Monterey, within walking distance of this project. Also liked the recreation area being within 400 feet of any resident. Felt the Applicant had done a good job. Mayor Ferguson commented that this was the third project considered with application of the high -density bonus; the first received was the inaugural review, the second was a little different (the City actually required the high density), leaving this one as the first full fledged project with an existing set of criteria. He felt it worked so well, it took all of the City Council's job out of it, and made it easy to review projects like this one. He thanked the Applicant for an excellent project. Councilmember Benson moved to waive further reading and: 1) Pass Ordinance No. 1110 to second reading, approving Case No. C/Z 05-03; 2) adopt Resolution No. 06-27, approving Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-22 and TT 34179, subject to conditions, and those added and amended at this hearing. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by 5-0 vote. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT) FINDINGS AND THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITIES CONSERVATION PLAN (CVMSHCP/NCCP) IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT AND ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE. Following is a verbatim transcript for Public Hearing C. 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 JF Jim Ferguson, Mayor RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem PD Philip Drell, Director of Community Development RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman IE Israel Esmeralda, Sr., resident of Thousand Palms DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney JMB Jean M. Benson, Councilmember BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman JF The next item involves the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Plan. I do represent developers that are trying to work with CVAG on that plan, so I have a conflict and, by law, have to leave the room. I'm going to turn it over to Mayor Pro Tem Kelly and give him the one blue card I received on this. RDK The last motion carries by unanimous vote. RSK Thank you. Guess we'll start with staff report. PD You have the staff report. Basically, the...you know, this is a program that I remember I started with it in 1994, and people joked in 1994 that surely we weren't going to take the 10 years that San Diego took to get it approved. And they were right. It didn't take us 10 years, it's taken us 12 years, and, as you probably heard in the newspaper some of the, you know, it's not over yet. Basically, the plan is to, you know, building on the concept that we used to create the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Fringe -toed lizard, is to designate areas throughout the Valley that contain habitat for endangered or sensitive species of both plants and animals, creating an approximately 750,000 square foot preserve system of which, most of which is actually in public ownership but will require significant expenditures for acquisition of more habitat. Again, this is a plan, as I say at the end of the staff report, which not only will go to a great extent to protect the unique animals and plants in the Coachella Valley, but I think will protect the entire environment for both the plants and inhabitants of this Valley. It'II, it'll preserve the essential character of this Valley as a desert, that when you drive over the San Gorgonio Pass, you'll finally realize you've left Los Angeles, because you will still see the desert. So...given the fact that...because of some of the negative reaction from some of the cities, and the fact that the final draft of the Plan approved by CVAG is actually not yet available, we're requesting a continuance...to the 9th. But in concept, again, I believe this is something the City should be very supportive of. This, again, helps, I believe, all the cities to preserve the character and the quality of our lives. RSK Council have any questions for staff? RAS I have one. Any reason why we can't approve it tonight? 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 PD Because the CVAG documents haven't been transferred to us from their approval on the 9th, in terms of they... RAS If memory serves me... PD ...they haven't published the...final draft. RAS ...one of the other cities out here in the Valley has approved it, as I understand. PD We...you can vote on it, and I'II, you know, so in terms of, on, you can go on record of...of approving it, and, but we'll have the...the actual...final, there's...there's an ordinance, which again, has not been, you know, I don't know how they approved the implement-, implementing ordinance, because it, it has some major problems with it that had to get corrected. So...but...you can...by Minute Motion...act on it, and...and, we'll be producing the final documents on the 9th RSK Well...all right if I ask a question? Somebody else have a question before...my question is...it's going to probably...there's probably going to be some changes yet... PD Correct. RSK So it seems to me we can...we can act on it tonight, and...and...there's going to be...you would have to come back with changes anyway. PD Correct. RSK Okay, that was my question. PD So, by...Minute Motion, you can...express your support for the Plan. RSK Are there any other questions for staff? Question? If there are no other questions, I'll open the public hearing, and I have...lsrael Esmeralda Senior would like to speak. IE Hello. My name is Israel Esmeralda Senior from Thousand Palms. And I'm here for one purpose tonight. There's a lot of issues that I'd like to discuss, but I'll leave it for other meetings. But tonight, I would like to thank the City of Palm Desert for doing a very good job right now, because within this month, you've published two legal notices, notifying the community here, the public, about a very important issue that's up ahead of us. And...anytime that I see our political leaders take the time and effort to notify us on pending issues like this, you have my support. We will disagree with you on many issues; there's a lot of issues in this problem with CVAG that we disagree with, but I have to say the public, and I, myself, support it because you do allow us to participate; you notified us. And, to me, that's very important, and I support all of you for now. Thank you. That's what I wanted to say. 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 RSK Thank you. Anyone else like to speak on this issue? Seeing none, Council... RAS I see no reason why we can't give direction that we agree with the Multi -Species Habitat Program, and if it's changed, it'll come back to us. But just to go on record, so with that, I will move to adopt it. DJE Could I make a suggestion, perhaps? I have no problem with your motion, I would ask that you include in that a continuance of this hearing, since it's still open, to your March 8th meeting...your March 9' meeting, with the idea that the final documents will be back to you so that you can then approve the required ordinance that goes along with it. JMB I'II second your motion. BAC If I could make a couple of quick comments, because I've spent a fair chunk of... RSK We'd be disappointed if you didn't. RAS Yes, we would. BAC Well, I've spent a couple of years interested in this project. And to start, I think this is a job of...l agree with what Phil said about it changing the future of our Valley in terms of the landscape and what people will see. But at the center of this is biology; and it's driven by biology, and the areas that are set aside are set aside because of biological values, and that ends up doing some good open space things. And it's remarkably disappointing to me to find the number of people who are out involved in what, I guess, could be characterized as the fraudulent politics of fear, and spreading rumor, innuendo, and, in many cases, absolute falsehoods...to serve some very specific supposed needs of...of a couple of individual projects. And then to call the process of talking about the consequences of passing and not passing something "extortion," is, I think, incredibly unfortunate. I think every time we sit here or any other city sits and makes policy decisions, we always know there are consequences. And in most cases, some of them are positive and some of them are negative; and to point out that approving this or not approving this has real consequences about our future in this Valley is not extortion, it's simply pointing out the reality that people have known for the last 10 years. And especially, I just want to take a second to say something that I've thought about, and I just want to say it -- and that is that to say that local officials are lacking in ethics because they talk about the responsible consequences of passage and not passage is, to me, the most tawdry, political theater designed for political advantage, and I think it's shameful. And I think it's especially shameful coming from my State Senator, who has had problems with understanding the word "ethics" from the day he was elected and ended up having his hotel room paid for by lobbyists, and got suits from lobbyists, and continues through the process of ending up trying to solicit contracts from Native American Tribes while sitting on committees that regulate them. And for someone who has had those issues and who has been firmly ensconced in the 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 troughs of special interests in Sacramento to come and talk about local elected officials and ethics is, to me, an appalling thing to see and hear. And I think the folks who've worked hard on this, and not myself, but the staff and other people around this Valley have done us all an incredible service, and I hate to see it tarnished. RSK Councilmember Benson, did you finish? JMB I seconded his motion, as Dave suggested. RSK I'd like to make a comment. I think there's been, we've seen a lot of negative comments from other cities in the newspaper, and I think about all the people that have worked really hard on this for several years, and including our colleague, and I'd like to thank them for doing that and CVAG. And I think it would be good for us to pass the motion to show our support so that there's something...some city, at least, is doing something positive. So I support the motion, and I hope...did you make it strong enough so that... BAC Yup. RAS About as strong as I could. BAC Mayor Pro Tem, I'd also note that...that there's a comment that some cities are favorable to this, because, you know, we don't have anything to lose, and I...knowing how long a number of my colleagues have been seated at this table, they'll remember that 20 years ago, we put together a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Fringe -toed lizard, and most of the lands conserved are directly to the north of our City. RSK In our sphere of influence. BAC Yup, and could have been, at some point, annexed, built, and everything else... RSK A lot of property is still in our sphere... BAC A huge chunk of that was out there for us... RSK ...sphere of influence. BAC ...so I think we have made, 20 years ago, a significant contribution to the bank of conservation that allowed development to go forward all over this Valley. And I would hope the people who are now looking at issues about what will or won't happen recognize that some of us have already done that, will continue to do everything we can, but we're not proposing this simply because it's in "our interest;" it's in our Valley's interest. 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 RAS Well I think you also might want to mention, Councilman Crites, the millions of dollars that we've spent in this City buying land on the west side of Highway 74 so that it was never developed. And I don't know how many million there are, maybe our City Manager can remember, but it was many millions of dollars that we spent buying land so it was never developed on the west side of Highway 74. BAC And on the east side at the south end of our City. RAS And the east side of the south end of our City, that's correct. JMB Well I think they're also overlooking the fact that we're making it easier for them all instead of more difficult, and going their lone, going on their own alone to try to do some of these things, they'll find out it's a long, long road. RSK Is there any need to restate the motion? We have a motion, would you please vote. RDK Motion carries, 4-0, with Mayor Ferguson ABSENT. BAC I will go retrieve... RSK Abstaining, oh, yeah, that's right, absent. BAC ...the Mayor. RSK Okay, you going to call the Mayor back in here? For Durposes of clarification, the followina action was taken: Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Endorse the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan as currently drafted; 2) continue the public hearing and presentation of the final documents for the implementation agreement and ordinance to the meeting of March 9, 2006. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 D. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF 11.87 ACRES INTO SEVEN (7) LOTS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ADJACENT TO THE "CANYONS AT BIGHORN GOLF CLUB," WEST OF INDIAN COVE AND SOUTH OF DEAD INDIAN CREEK; AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST ON THE SAME PROPERTY FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (STUDY ZONE) TO HILLSIDE RESERVE AND ZONE CHANGE FROM A COMBINATION OF PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, FIVE (5) UNITS PER ACRE AND HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, TO HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY Case Nos. TT 31676. GPA 6-1, C/Z 6-1 (Cornishe of Bighom, LLC, and City of Palm Desert, Applicants). Following is a verbatim transcript for Public Hearing D. Key RSK Richard S. Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman PD Philip Drell, Director of Community Development RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk JF Jim Ferguson, Mayor PJ Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner BAC Buford A. Crites, Councilman PP Patrick Perry, Attorney with Allen Matkins, on behalf of Cornishe of Bighorn RSK Okay, you going to call the Mayor back in here? RAS While we're waiting for him, has this gone before the Planning Commission? PD We...for reasons maybe Mr. Crites can explain, have simultaneously scheduled these together with the City Council and the Planning Commission on consecutive meetings, and so. RSK (Unclear) RAS No, I just wondered what the vote was at the Planning Commission. PD No, no, they continued it also, so we're recommending continuance here and...but before it comes back to you, hopefully, we'll have a recommendation, after the continuance, we'll have a recommendation from the Planning Commission. (Unclear)... RSK We have a map here... 28 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 RDK It's at that control, I think that's been messed with, evidently, because the brightness has...has been altered. JF Our last public hearing of the evening, "Consideration of a request for approval of a tentative tract map and environmental impact report to allow the subdivision of 11.87 acres into seven lots." PJ Yes, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this property is located in between the Canyons at Bighorn project and the Bighorn Sheep Institute. It's approximately 12 acres and about a quarter mile west of, excuse me, east of Highway 74 and surrounded by a 400-yard buffer that was instituted as part of the mitigation for the Canyons project from the bighorn sheep pens, the captive breeding pens on the site. The initial application was for a 57-unit project that did not meet the current zoning on the property, so it was scaled back to a 38-unit project, and that's when the El was prepared for the 38-unit project. The EIR also studied an 8-unit project and a 10-unit project also. Now the 38-unit project and an 8-unit project, and later a 4-unit project that's before you tonight, all...(unclear)...and develop the five -acre plateau area within the 12-acre piece of property (shown in that area). The...EIR found that there were significant, unavoidable, environmental impacts with both the 38-unit project and the 8-unit project, and the only project that was not...could be adopted was the 2-unit alternative; and that's not being requested at this time. Now the dark line across that site right there, that's the boundaries of a 2-unit alternative that would be, could be adopted. The impacts that were identified in the EIR had to do with air quality, noise, traffic, and biological impacts to the captive sheep at the Bighorn Sheep Institute. I can kind of...orient you to the site of it, again, a little bit. The...this is a plateau area, here; this is Dead Indian Creek to the north of the site, this is Indian Cove Drive over here where the main access would take place in between two lots. This easement was dedicated as part of the Canyons project to provide access to this 12-acre piece of property. If the...the 400-yard buffer is depicted as this line, here, and the 9,500 square foot area that was outside the buffer is this little triangle, here, which is, as you can see, is within, entirely within Dead Indian Creek. This area here, outside...the buffer line recommended by the environmental impact report is elevated above the creek. The site plan is prepared for this 8-unit, 4-unit alternative before you tonight shows this embankment along Dead Indian Creek. And this is elevated approximately 20 feet above the creek bed, and so it also has a slope going down to this area. So this area, here, would be approximately 20,000 square foot pad; and that's comparable to these homesites also within the Canyons adjacent to it. As we were saying, there's...the EIR recommends this buffer line, here, but there's no project before you, or has been submitted that meets this...recommended buffer by...by the, from the consultants have prepared the EIR. As you have all received...information from the Applicant on this project, and contained within that information is criteria relative to our takings ordinance that we had recently adopted. And as you can see, if we adopted the 400-yard buffer line, that would pretty much wipe out all development on the property. And as you remember, when the Canyons was approved, there was a separate Settlement Agreement that took place with that project that said that 29 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 we would look at this project separately, and we would not impose, we were not imposing that 400-yard buffer on this property, and we would look at this project separately. As you know, we're...recommending continuance item, continuance on this item tonight to study this no impact alternative a little bit further, and also to allow the City Attorney more time to review the...information relative to the takings claim, and also some more time...for the consultants to respond to the comments that were done on the EIR. The consultant, the biologist representing our consulting firm is here tonight to answer any kind of biological questions that you have on the project, and staff is also ready to answer any questions that you have concerning the project. PD If 1 could add one more thing, in that we are in discussion with representative of California Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Bighorn Institute... to, at least, get from them...a kind of a, contrary to what they indicated in their comments, I think we were able to convince them that...some degree of encroachment into the buffer area...was going to be required to...resolve this issue. And so we're in discussion with them to come up with what we feel is a reasonable project that meets their requirements. Hopefully, we'll have responses from that at the...next meeting. JF Mayor Pro Tem Kelly. RSK Why did we schedule that so close with the Planning Commission on Tuesday and then two days later we have it? BAC I had asked to look at it having to do with the Habitat Conservation Plan when I had originally thought the HCP, because there are some changes that do and don't happen with this, if the HCP does and doesn't happen. So that's my fault, Richard. It's that simple. RSK He's taking the blame. PD Yes. JF And we got it on tape. Okay, any other questions of staff? BAC I have, I have a couple of them. When the BLM first...brought the process forward to...use as a public purpose this land for the Bighorn Institute, there's a statement in that, that their use with this is compatible with all, I think the proper phrase was, "The Institute, the project will conform to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future uses of the surrounding property." Is that correct? PJ That's...the finding that BLM made. 30 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 BAC Okay. That's a finding that...that's the finding that predicates the Institute's use of the land is that they're compatible with surrounding properties. PJ That's correct. BAC Okay. And have they, in their correspondence with you on this issue, been compatible with the uses of the surrounding property? PJ Of the comments that we received on the EIR, all requested an imposition of the 400-yard buffer on this project. BAC So that means they are...that they are incompatible with surrounding property. PJ That's correct. BAC When you come back at the next hearing, can you tell me what the normal procedure, then, is when somebody is issued a permit based on compatibility, and they do not perform under those criteria? PJ Oh, boy, we can attempt to...find that out. We'II do our best. BAC I'd appreciate that. Second question. Under our current hillside zoning, how many units would be allowed on this property? PJ The proposed, and that's why I didn't elude to that earlier, and we have a proposed general plan amendment - hillside, change of zone to hillside on this proper-, property also. If the zone change were approved, this would be entitled to two units. BAC Okay, that would be consistent with the zoning on other, on our hillside zoning ordinance. PJ Yeah. You know, unless...some type of exceptions were granted. BAC Okay. In looking back, as a third question, over the testimony years ago when the Hayhoe project came, there are a number of comments from biologists, saying that the minimum buffer should be 600 to 1,200 yards or the sheep captive breeding program would not be able to continue to exist. They do not have that buffer, has their program continued to exist? PJ I'm sorry... BAC They don't have what the biologists said they had to have. PJ Oh, that's correct, yeah. BAC And has the program continued to exist? 31 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 PJ Yeah, that program, from all appearances, is going along very successfully with the 400-yard buffer. BAC Okay. And we don't really know, then, scientifically whether even 400 yards is necessary, given that, apparently, 600 and 1,200 aren't. PJ That's what we've received from the...consulting firm is that there's no...scientific exact number where the impact's going to occur. BAC Okay. Thank you. JF Other questions for staff? This is a public hearing, so I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and receive any testimony, and then we will, perhaps, leave the public hearing open and continue this matter, as requested. So, public hearing is open; please step forward to the lectern and give your name and address for the record. PP Good evening, Members of the City Council, my name is Patrick Perry, I'm an attorney with Allen Matkins. I'm here speaking on behalf of Cornishe of Bighom, the owner of the property. My address is 515 South Figueroa Street in Los Angeles, and I have spoken with all of you and given you some background...as to the nature of the project and how we actually got to where we are now with the four units. As Mr. Joy and Mr. Drell both indicated, the project originally consisted, was...proposed originally to consist of 57 units, which is what we understood to be the maximum number of units that could be placed on the property under the existing zoning, which is PR-5 (Planned Residential, 5 units per acre) over most of the property, with a small portion currently zoned hillside over the 12-acre parcel. And that was reduced, that proposal was withdrawn following the General Plan Update process that took place, roughly, concurrently with the submission of that application, originally, about three years ago. When the Council determined to designate this property as a Special Study Area within the General Plan, and my understanding at the time was that the appropriate density for the property would then be determined on the basis of the tract map as it came forward, and you would allow that to be the vehicle to determine the appropriate density rather than establish that through the General Plan Update process. And as I said, the 57-unit project was then withdrawn; the 38-unit project was then submitted, which looked like that. It was designed as five residential lots with seven structures, five of which would be six multi -family units, two of which would be four multi -family units, required two means of access for emergency ingress and egress due to the...density on the site. There's an existing easement of record that comes down from the north, and the secondary means of access was proposed to be through this street...that comes from the east, which is on the final map for the Canyons at Bighorn project. The Canyons at Bighorn representatives then initiated discussions with us. They were concerned by the fact that the northern access, the easement of record, which was established back in the 1950s, actually cuts right down through the middle of their golf course; and they, I think understandably, expressed concerns about that, asked 32 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 us if there was some way that we could try to accommodate those concerns. So we went and looked and tried to come back with a proposal, which was an eight -lot subdivision for eight single-family residential units...which was this proposal, eliminated the northerly access, which came down across Dead Indian Creek, thereby eliminating some of the...impacts that would have resulted on the watershed; retained the access from the east. 1 went to the Fire Marshal to see if this would be acceptable to the Fire Department, have a single means of access for eight units, and it was determined by the Fire Marshal to be an acceptable proposal as long as we complied with all of the requirements of the Fire Code in terms of the length of the road, the adequacy of the fire hydrants, fire flow, etc. So we asked for this to be considered as an alternative in the environmental impact report that was then prepared for the project in order to determine whether or not there would be any impacts associated with this project. One of the other concerns that the Canyons at Bighorn had was that they have no multi -family residential development within their project, and, therefore, did not want to see multi -family residential on this property, because it would not be compatible with all the single-family residential that they have. So that was another measure on their part that we sought to accommodate by coming up with this particular proposal. It turns out in the environmental impact report that notwithstanding the reduction in number of units in what we had hoped to be elimination of any impacts, it was determined there would still be impacts with the eight -lot subdivision; impacts being, as Mr. Joy mentioned, traffic, air quality during construction, noise, and biological resources. The traffic impact was an impact on the streets in the Canyons project. The...EIR stated that that impact could be eliminated if we were to do five or fewer single- family residential lots on the property. That's what, then, led to the concept of doing the four -lot subdivision so that it would eliminate the traffic impact entirely. We incorporated a number of the measures that applied, as well, to the two -lot altemative that was also studied, and for which the EIR identified no impacts...and got to what's before you tonight. The various features that were then incorporated was not only a reduction in the density but also the relocation of the road so that it would be shielded by the structures from the views from the Bighorn Institute, from the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute. That it would be all passive design, natural materials, native landscaping, drought -tolerant landscaping, and so forth, which could all be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the project. All of the mitigation measures that were proposed are acceptable to us for the construction of the project, in terms of not performing any construction during the lambing season, from January to June. We believe that the amount of grading here will be significantly reduced, thereby reducing the air quality impacts, we hope, to a lessened significant level, although we haven't done that quantification yet. Also...noise impacts would be reduced, the period of construction, we feel at least for the infrastructure, the roads, utilities, and grading, would be less than three months, as recommended in the EIR. So we have attempted to accommodate the concerns that were identified in the EIR, as well as the concerns of the neighboring property owners to the extent that we can and still have, what we feel, is a reasonable level of development on the property. As I said, we've been in extensive discussions with representatives of the Canyons. At this point, they're taking what's effectively a neutral position, I think, 33 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 with respect to this project; they have not come out and committed to us that they would be in support of the project, but at the same time, they have not raised any objections. We've made efforts to meet with representatives of the Bighorn Institute; we had a meeting scheduled for last Tuesday, which we were not able to accomplish simply because all of the people weren't able to...convene at the time that we had planned. But we do have a conference call scheduled for tomorrow afternoon to try to get their comments. The...brief conversation that I have had with their counsel...about a year ago or more...was that they would not like to see us develop any of the property that's within the buffer zone. That would leave us with a small triangle, as Mr. Drell pointed out, which is up in the corner...completely within the Creek, and we think completely undevelopable. And, therefore, if we were precluded from being able to do any development except outside the designated buffer area, we would be precluded from doing any development at all, and that's what led to the regulatory takings issues that Mr. Drell and Mr. Joy also eluded to and that we provided information on in the materials that we submitted to you —that if it completely precludes development on the property, it would deprive the property of all economically viable use, which is, essentially, the legal definition of a regulatory taking —and that's why we provided that information, as well. And we also understand that you have in front of you tonight the General Plan Amendment proposal and the rezoning the property to down -zone it, effectively, to hillside. We would oppose that designation, because as Mr. Joy pointed out, that would reduce the available density on the property to no more than two units. The hillside was, allows one unit per five acres, and on 12 acres would be effectively reduced to two units, and we would prefer to go forward with the four units. We feel that that is a reasonable level of development. One other issue that I think is worth pointing out is in the EIR, the biological resources impacts, those impacts were exclusively on the captive breeding herd at the Bighorn Institute. There were no impacts identified on free -roaming wildlife, whether it was desert tortoise, burrowing owls, bighorn sheep, Jerusalem crickets, or any of the plant species that...are currently on the site. That it's the operations of the Institute that would be affected and not necessarily wildlife free -roaming within...the area. I'm available for any questions that you might have. We do support the continuance for two weeks, and...l appreciate your time. JF Any questions for the Applicant? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody else wishing to address the Council at this time may do so. Seeing nobody, I will leave the public hearing open and ask for the pleasure of the Council. BAC (Inaudible) JF Motion to continue for two weeks by Councilmember Crites. RAS Second. JF Second by Councilmember Spiegel. Please vote. 34 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote. JF Okay, that's the end of our public hearings for this evening. That brings us to Reports and Remarks, beginning with the City Manager. For purposes of clarification. the followinu action was taken: Councilman Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this public hearing item to the meeting of March 9, 2006. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by 5-0 vote. XIV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. Status of the Portola Avenue Bridge at the Whitewater Channel. Mr. Ortega commented that the City Council should have received a written report on this matter, and Mr. Greenwood offered to answer any questions. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. CITY CLERK None D. PUBLIC SAFETY o Fire Department None o Police Department None E. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: 1. Councilman Crites noted the letter recently received from University of California, Riverside, Chancellor France Cordova, announcing that Vice Chancellor Michael Webster had retired. He asked that an appropriate letter of appreciation be forwarded to Dr. Webster for all he had done for the UCR 35 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 campus in Palm Desert and for the collaboration between the two University Systems here. 2. Councilman Spiegel asked for staff to take immediate action to improve/increase the amount of directional signage forthe new Visitor Information Center. He referred to the Center's annual report, showing that although website hits and overall sales were substantially increased, there was a dramatic decrease in walk-in traffic and associated activity. The Visitor Center was relocated because it was too small and difficult to access. He felt it was very unfortunate that visitors and residents alike had a great deal of difficulty finding the new, outstanding facility. Redevelopment Manager Lauri Aylaian reported that there was currently a contract in place for the on -site monument signage. Visitor Center Manager Donna Gomez said that early on, she and Mark Greenwood toured all the entrances to the City in order to address the directional signage, and she asked that the Center receive top billing on many of those signs. She said Mr. Greenwood accommodated much of that request throughout the City, and the signs were installed prior to the September opening. But it was felt that additional work on the project was necessary. Additionally, she said she arranged for some temporary signage at the site until the monument signs are installed, noting that beforehand as many as 40 people a day were quite upset because they had a hard time finding the Visitor Center; the number of complaints was down to about 12/day. With City Council concurrence, Councilman Spiegel and Mayor Ferguson were appointed to work with City staff to identify ways that this issue could be resolved. o City Council Committee Reports: None o City Council Comments: 1. Councilman Crites said he'd just gotten installation of one of the joint Coachella Valley Water District/City of Palm Desert evapotranspiration irrigation systems at his residence and was very excited about it; the device automatically sets itself from midsummer all through the year. He said the system was remarkably efficient and anticipated a 30% savings on his 36 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2006 water bill. He encouraged his colleagues to also participate and make Palm Desert's the first City Council to be completely on board with this program, having obtained four more applications for his colleagues. He said if once it was installed the owner decided they didn't like it, the automatic setting could be turned off, and then it operates just like a regular irrigation clock. He thanked his colleagues for approving the City's participation in the program; the Water District reported that Palm Desert was the number one place for requests to participate. Upon question, he said the interior -installed unit cost the homeowner $50, the exterior -installed unit cost the homeowner $100, with the District/City Program paying the remaining $50 or $100, respectively. He said it only took around 20 minutes for the Water District technician to install it. 2. Mayor Ferguson reported that on Tuesday, he'd met with the new manager of the Super WalMart, Tom Krause. He was impressed with Mr. Krause's community spirit and enthusiasm. During the meeting, he also invited City staff to talk with Mr. Krause about various City programs, and the result was a pledge to help create a Police Substation in the Super WalMart and to commit substantial grant funding for the City's Afterschool Program. Additionally, he wanted to promote Palm Desert by distributing its various marketing materials at the store. A grand opening event was being planned for April or May. XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C None XVI. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Spiegel, second by Crites, and 5-0 ite • the City Council, Mayor Ferguson adjoumed the meeting at 6:15 p.m. ATTEST: RAAHEL E D. KLASS I, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA JI1�•;T�t�IN, MAYOR 37