Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRELIM 12/14/06 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2006 CNIC 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 Councilmember-elect Cindy Finerty 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 Patrick Conlon, Director of Office of Energy Management Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Doug Van Gelder, Director of Information Systems Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment & Housing Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs Jorge Rodriguez, Fire Marshal/Battalion Chief, Palm Desert Fire Dept./Riv. Co. Fire Frank Taylor, Asst. Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside Co. Sheriff's Dept. Grace L. Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk III. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Request for Closed Session: PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1) Property: Lease Property - Parkview Professional Office Complex - 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite No. 108, Palm Desert Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Paul S. Gibson/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: City of Palm Desert Other Parties: Assembly Committee on Rules, State of California 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: 3 Mr. Erwin requested the City Council's consideration of adding a case of existing litigation to the Closed Session due to information that had presented itself following posting of the agenda. Upon a motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, and 4-0 vote of the City Council, the following matter was added to the agenda. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): a) Indian Springs, Ltd., v. City of Palm Desert, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 053903 Upon a motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, and 4-0 vote of the City Council, Mayor Ferguson adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 3:04 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 4:01 p.m. IV. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. None V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None 2 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Note: Mayor Kelly thanked Planning Director Phil Drell for his 26 '/ years of service with the City, noting it was his last official City Council Meeting. He expressed appreciation for his dedication and recognized him as the most knowledgeable person he ever met with regards to planning. Mr. Drell thanked everyone and stated "it was a great ride." VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting of November 16, and the Regular City Council Meeting of November 23, 2006. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 90, 91, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 107, 108, and 113. Rec: Approve as presented. C. CITY'S/AGENCY'S COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS AND INVESTMENT REPORT for October 2006 (Joint Consideration with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency). Rec: Receive and file. D. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Jose Manuel Esparza and Luz Maria Teresa Esparza for Atoyac Market #2, 44-795 San Pablo Avenue, #1, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. E. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Bristol Farms Store 2319, 73-101 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. F. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by The Cork Tree, Inc., 74-950 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert. Rec: Receive and file. G. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE by Clifford Mark Peek and Lisa Diane Peek for Napa Sandwich Company, 73-770 EI Paseo, Palm Desert. 3 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Rec: Receive and file. 4 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 H. CITY COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. 1. Historic Preservation Committee Meeting of October 30, 2006. 2. Marketing Committee Meeting of October 17, 2006. 3. Parks & Recreation Commission Meetings of October 3, October 17, and November 7, 2006. 4. Public Safety Commission Meeting of September 13, 2006. 5. Sister Cities Committee Meeting of October 19, 2006. 6. Youth Committee Meetings of September 26, and October 3, 2006. Rec: Receive and file. I. REQUEST FOR ADOPTION of Resolutions, Authorizing the Destruction of Building &Safety Closed Code Cases Files that Have Been Digitally Imaged Onto CDs (2002 and 2003 Cases). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution Nos. 06-156 (2002 Cases) and 06-157 (2003 Cases). J. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Purchase and Award of Bid for Two F-150 Pick-up Trucks. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the purchase of two pick-up trucks to Fairview Ford, San Bernardino, California, for the sum of $32,121; 2) reject the bid from Don Kott Ford, Carson, California, as non- responsive; 3) appropriate $2,121 from Fund 530-4195-415-4030 Unobligated balance. K. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION of the City Manager's Approval of the Purchase and Installation of New Apparatus Bay Doors, Tracks, and Motors at Fire Station No. 67 (Mesa View). Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify the City Manager's approval of the subject purchase and installation from Precision Garage Doors & Gates, Yucca Valley, California, totaling $16,680 from Account N o. 230-4220-422-4040. L. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Extension of Contract for Janitorial Services at the City of Palm Desert Parkview Office Complex (Contract No. C22163). 5 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Rec: By Minute Motion, approve extension of the subject contract with D. W. Nicholson, LLC, d.b.a. Desert Building Services, Rancho Mirage, California, and authorize the Mayorto execute same. M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 5 to Contract No. C22870B — Construction of the Whitewater Bridge at Portola Avenue (Project No. 647-04). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $29,004 to the subject contract with Granite Construction Company, Indio, California, for added and deleted work required for the project; 2) appropriate $48,619 to Project Account No. 400-4359-433-4001; 3) authorize transfer of $29,004 from contingency to base for this Change Order. N. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Release Improvement Security for Parcel Map No. 28780 (ART Palm, LLC/American Realty Trust, Inc., Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to release the subject improvement security. O. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Release Improvement Security for Parcel Map Nos. 31012 and 31013 (Judane Clark d.b.a. Desert Resorts Design Center, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to release the subject improvement security. P. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Release Improvement Security for Parcel Map No. 32930 (Desert Gateway Self Storage, L.P., Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to release the subject improvement security. Q. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Proposal for the Restoration of "Desert Dessert" Sculpture (Contract No. C26070). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to Michael Volpone, Cathedral City, California, in an amount not to exceed $17,000; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute said contract—funds are available in Account No. 240-4650-454-3372. 6 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 7 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 R. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contract for Legislative Tracking Services (Contract No. C26080). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the subject contract with StateNet, Sacramento, California, in the amount of$1,890 to provide legislative and regulatory reporting services and authorize the Mayor to execute same —funds are available in Account No. 110-4112-410-3060. S. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Video Surveillance Pilot Program. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the implementation of a video surveillance pilot program in the City of Palm Desert. T. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of City Sponsorship of the Virginia Waring Piano Competition's Black & White Ball to be Held on February 11, 2007. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve sponsorship of $35,000 for the Virginia Waring Piano Competition Black&White Ball; 2) appropriate $35,000 from the Unobligated General Fund to Special Events Account No. 110-4416-414-3061. U. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Two Beer Concessions and Additional Activities to be Held in the Public Right-of-Way in Conjunction with the 2007 Palm Desert Golf Cart Parade. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Permit the sale, possession, and consumption of beer and wine on City-owned property in connection with a special event, the Palm Desert Golf Cart Parade, scheduled to be held on January 14, 2007; 2) authorize a golf car agility challenge and golf car show to be held in the public right-of-way in connection with the 2007 Golf Cart Parade. V. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEES for the Palm Desert Senior Softball League. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the Palm Desert Senior Softball League request for field usage and waive field preparation fees. 8 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 W. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEES Associated with the Historical Society of Palm Desert's Founders' Day Celebration. Rec: By Minute Motion, waive fees associated with the Historical Society of Palm Desert's annual Founders' Day Celebration, scheduled to be held on Saturday, May 19, 2007, in the Council Chamber located at the Palm Desert Civic Center. X. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out-of-State travel to New York for Public Relations Promotions. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Out-of-State Travel for Assistant City Manager and Marketing Manager to participate in public relations promotions in New York, New York, January 8-12, 2007 —funds are available in Account Nos. 110-4132-411 -3120 and 110-4417-414-3120. Y. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION of Proposal and Addendum for Consulting Services Related to the City of Palm Desert's Application to the California Energy Commission and for the Energy Ordinance (Contract No. C26090). Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify the City Manager's approval of the May 10, 2006, proposal by Gabel Associates, LLC, Berkeley, California, and the November 21, 2006, Addendum thereto, in the total amount of $33,000 for technical analysis, California Energy Commission (CEC) application, follow-up analysis requested by the Building Industry Association (BIA), and training for implementation of the Palm Desert Energy Ordinance, No. 1124 — funds are available in Account Nos. 110-4130-411-3090 and 110-4511-442-3090. Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Ferguson, the Consent Calendarwas approved as presented by a 5-0 vote of the City Council. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None 9 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 06-158 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDED APPENDIX TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-158. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: A. ORDINANCE NO. 1130 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING ORDINANCE NOS. 526, 526A, 546, 774, 780, 797, 804, 815, 831, 832, 834, 835, 836, 844, 845, 876, 877, 878, 879, 910, 911, 913, 921, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1002, AND 1005, AND AMENDING SECTION 10.36.010 OF TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RELATIVE TO SPEED ZONES. MR. GREG VAKA, Desert Falls Drive, Palm Desert, stated he was representing the residents that signed a petition in March 2006 addressing the same concerns regarding the increase of speed limits and the narrowing of lanes to add a third for the widening of Cook Street. He believed the addition of a third lane was a huge safety problem because of the close proximity to the high school, and it didn't make sense to increase the speed limit to 50 mph where parents drove their children to school every day. He said there were currently no traffic problems with traffic flowing quite freely. He noted between Frank Sinatra Drive and Country Club Drive, the speed limit was 50 mph and 45 mph continuing up through Fred Waring Drive. He said taking out the bicycle lane to add the third lane would make right-hand turns onto the side streets difficult. In addition, every other corner had a traffic light, and drivers tried to reach the 50 mph limit before the next one. He believed that if the 50 mph speed limit was posted, eventually drivers would go over it and drive 60 mph. He requested that Council consider the safety issues affecting Cook Street. MR. JOHN C. GRANT, Brentwood, Palm Desert, stated it was his understanding the City was proposing to raise the speed limit from 45 mph 10 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 to 50 mph south of Country Club and maintain the 55 mph currently set north of Country Club Drive. He said he drove on Cook Street a few days prior and noticed that although he was driving the 45 mph speed limit, others were not and thought it was outrageous for a city street to be 45 mph with no enforcement of the current speed limit; any increase would be approaching freeway speed limits. He recalled that 55 mph was the limit on the freeway system within the State of California. If the City study on current speed limits was mandated by the State every five years, but State requirements didn't make sense for the needs of the City, he felt the City should question it. He suggested that Council defer any decision and delegate the matter at staff or commission level to coordinate something with the State. He went on to say he represented the Montecito Community and that their Association Board began establishing a coalition consisting of Montecito, Desert Falls Country Club, The Lakes Country Club, Belmonte Estates, and Mirage for an excess of 2,000 residents who are in opposition to the Cook Street expansion and the speed limit increase. They believed it will raise the accident rate on Cook Street. He asked Council to defer any action and direct staff to debate this matter with the State. Transportation Engineer Mark Diercks referred to the staff report and pointed out the recommended speed zones throughout the City, stating the street with the most interest is the Cook Street corridor proposed to increase 5 mph; it currently was 45 mph. In 1999 the survey was conducted, and the critical speed was 48.5 mph; in 2005 the critical speed was 48.7 mph, a small difference. Since that time, however, the State has changed the requirements and the definition of critical speed. Previously, the critical speed was 5 miles below, now it's nearest to critical speed. Therefore, the City is required to go up to the 50 mph on a critical speed of 48.7 mph. Councilman Ferguson asked what would happen if the City ignored the State's requirement. Mr. Diercks replied the City is required by law to have a speed survey done in order for law enforcement officers to use the radar as a tool to enforce speed. The City's most effective method of controlling traffic speed is through law enforcement, and their most effective means of enforcing it is through a radar; without it, the City starts to lose its effectiveness. Responding to Councilman Spiegel's question, Mr. Diercks replied that law enforcement could not use radar to enforce the speed limit if it wasn't changed but can use the old method of following vehicles, which was about 10 to 1 ratio effective according to Lieutenant Thetford 11 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Councilman Spiegel invited the Police Chief to speak on the matter. Mr. Greenwood pointed out the Sheriff's Department had reviewed the proposed speed zones and agreed with staff recommendations. Councilman Spiegel stated he understood butwondered if the Citywould still be able to issue speeding tickets if the speed zone on Cook Street was left alone. Assistant Chief Taylor replied that radar could not be used anywhere in the city Citations could still be issued, but officers would then have to refer to the old method of "bumper pacing people" where drivers are followed at a distance and a visual estimate of their speed is made to write a ticket. The Judges and Commissioners in a Court would not support radar readings as evidence without the study. Responding to Councilman Ferguson's comment, he agreed that officers would then face proof issues in Court. Mayor Kelly stated if State requirements were ignored and the City set the speed limits and still used the radar, a ticket could still be issued. But when faced with someone fighting it in Court, he questioned how many times that would actually happen. Assistant Chief Taylor pointed out the City Council approved additional officers for the purpose of enforcing the speed limit by way of radar. The majority of the time, officers are required take the speed survey with them to Court. Councilman Ferguson recalled when he first got elected on City Council he lived on Haystack Road and he dealt with complaints about speeding on Haystack Road. He learned that one of the fundamental assumptions behind speed signs is that people drive and check the speed sign and follow it, but it's not true. People drive as fast as they think is reasonably safe. He said you can slow traffic down with medians, but you can't slow it down with stop signs. The speed limit was increased from 40 mph to 45 mph on Haystack Road, and he had to explain that to his neighbors. He explained the City didn't raise speed limits just because it wanted to but to enforce the extra 5 miles an hour with a radar gun, which was the most effective way to enforce and prove in Court; it required the calibrated current speed study and all those proof issues. Posting artificially low speed limits was what cities used to do, and they were called "speed traps." The State then got involved to regulate how cities set speed limits. The City can either comply and be a little unhappy about the extra 5 miles an hour or be defiant and have vehicles going 100 mph with no ability to enforce the speed limit. He said 12 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 it was a catch 22 and counterintuitive to most people's way of thinking, but after studying the matter for more than a year, he felt it was better for the City to comply with State Law. Councilmember Finerty concurred with Councilman Ferguson's comments. She said this morning three motor officers were using their speed radar gun in a 45 mph speed zone down Fred Waring Drive where medians were being installed and sound walls constructed. She believed the radar gun was a tool that supported law enforcement officers and was the proof needed when appearing in court. MR. VAKA commented that 40 mph was a reasonable speed, and there wouldn't be any complaints if that was on his street. He said the main point being missed by everyone was that once the 45 mph speed limit was posted, it would give drivers the liberty to speed even more on a street near the high school, and the third lane addition would further aggravate the problem. Councilmember Finerty suggested registering his objection to the speed zone limits with Assemblyman Benoit's office or State Senator Battin's office because they would have more clout than the City. Mayor Kelly agreed, stating they controlled State Law. MR. VAKA replied he understood that, but believed City Council was who controlled safety in the City. MR. GRANT stated the City was currently considering increasing the speed limit south of Country Club from 40 to 45 mph and wondered how long before it would be raised to 55 mph. The speed was inconsistent on the street a block away; it prepared everyone to use it as a launching platform to get to Interstate 10. He said he wasn't asking Council to ignore the requirements, but to defer action. He hoped Council would base their decision on firm basis of fact and statistical analysis in logic. He offered to join any kind of effort with staff who had an interface with Benoit's office or the State, but as a loner, he didn't believe he had much influence. Mayor Pro Tem Benson stated she supported the changes where they needed to be changed, but shared the concern about the high school and the safety of the kids. She understood the change going on Cook Street out to the freeway, but between Fred Waring Drive and Country Club, it would be difficult to drive 50 mph because of the street lights on Aztec, Merle, and Hovley Lane. 13 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Councilman Spiegel said after hearing comments made by staff and the Chief of Police, he realized by not complying with State requirements, law enforcement would lose a tool to enforce speed limits, and he didn't want to do that. However, he agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Benson that increasing the speed limit in front of a high school didn't make sense. Councilman Ferguson noted State law required the speed limit to be 25 mph irrespective of what the speed study showed; all drivers are required to slow down by the schools. Responding to question, Mr. Greenwood concurred and confirmed that signs with the 25 mph speed limit during school hours were posted by the schools. MR. DALE GRIBOW, Palm Desert, stated as an Attorney, with no investment in the matter, he was viewing it like probably Councilman Ferguson or the City Attorney would. He stated that from a legal standpoint, the City was placed on notice of a potential problem. He wondered if someone was injured or killed if it would give the City more exposure financially. He felt an interesting discussion had taken place and believed that Council was placed on notice. Responding to question, he thought the issue with the high school and with a 5% comparative negligence, the City would be brought in on the case. It's how he would view it if he was representing an injured party and thinking of a way to get at a "deep pocket." It seemed Council opened the door for a lawyer to go after the deep pocket, which was Palm Desert. He just wanted to make Council aware and thought the City Attorney could better address the matter. Councilman Ferguson countered that if the speed limits recommended by the State were ignored with the inability to use the radar guns to enforce speed limits, the exposure liability would be far greater than if the City followed State law. MR. GRIBOW replied the City had a conundrum, and everything in law was about balancing. He and law enforcement certainly would prefer a lower speed limit with the approval of the State so that radar guns could be used. He would hate to have law enforcement ask for a higher speed limit in order to enforce traffic--the question was how to allow law enforcement to enforce a more realistic speed limit. He was viewing this from a legal standpoint of the exposure to the City or the least possible exposure. He reiterated it was something Mr. Erwin may want to discuss with Council. 14 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Councilman Ferguson moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1120 to second reading. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Kelly voting NO. For Adoption: None 15 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 X. NEW BUSINESS ***NOTE: NEW BUSINESS ITEMS A AND B WERE THE FIRST ITEMS OF BUSINESS AT THE RECONVENING OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS, 4:00 P.M.*** A. DECLARATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE 2006 PALM DESERT GENERALAND SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, CONDUCTED IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) Resolution No. 06-159, reciting the fact of the General Municipal Election held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, declaring the result and such other matters as provided by law; 2) Resolution No. 06-160, reciting the fact of the Special Municipal Election held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, declaring the result and such other matters as provided by law. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote. B. INSTALLATION OF NEWLYELECTED COUNCILMEMBERSAND ANNUAL MAYORAL ROTATION. Mrs. Klassen administered the oath of office to newly elected Councilmembers Jean Benson, Jim Ferguson, and Cindy Finerty, and presented each with a Certificate of Election. Councilman Spiegel nominated Richard S. Kelly for Mayor of the City of Palm Desert for the coming year. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Kelly ABSTAINING. Councilman Ferguson nominated Jean Benson for Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Palm Desert for the coming year. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Benson ABSTAINING. Councilmember Finerty expressed her thanks to everyone for their support and commented she looked forward to carrying out the duties she'd been elected to fulfill. Mayor Pro Tem Benson said she was honored to have been re-elected and felt a great deal of reward in having done it without a fund-raising committee. Councilman Ferguson noted there was no greater pride for him than serving his community as a Councilmember, and being named Mayor was particularly special even though that office carried no more weight than any other on the City Council. He enjoyed the camaraderie of working with his colleagues and felt it was what democracy was supposed to be. 16 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Mayor Kelly observed that after years of various medical procedures, he was now serving as "what was left of Dick Kelly," going on to say that it was his extreme pleasure to serve the residents of the City of Palm Desert and his privilege to serve as their Mayor in the coming year. Councilman Spiegel congratulated each of his colleagues for their election, re-election, and service. PRESENTATION TO DICK KELLY FROM THE SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY. SunLine General Manager Mike Oglesby and current Board of Directors Chairman Mike Wilson recognized Mayor Kelly for his 24 years of service to the SunLine Transit Agency Board, 1982-2006, as Board Member, three-time Vice Chairman, and six-time Chairman, presenting him with an engraved plaque. Mr. Wilson noted additionally that the bus stop located on Town Center Way in Palm Desert would now be known as "Kelly's Stop" where an engraved plaque signifying this designation would also be placed. Both gentlemen noted Mayor Kelly's influence on the Agency that benefitted the entire Coachella Valley, notably his efforts on the 1994 conversion of the fleet to alternative fuel that made it a leader in technology and provided cleaner air for all residents. C. REQUEST FORAPPROVAL OF THE 2007 MASTER CONSULTANTS LIST (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY). Redevelopment Manager Lauri Aylaian stated that two consultants' names were inadvertently left off the list that was presented in the Agency Board packets. She asked for approval of the revised list, adding that it had been provided to the City Clerk. Member/Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the revised 2007 Master Consultants List, authorize staff to negotiate agreements and contract amendments with qualified consultants listed therein, the City Manager/Executive Director to execute same; and approve the proceedings for selection and award of contracts as set forth in the accompanying staff report as authorized by Section 3.32.090 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. D. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION, DENYING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE PARKING OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE/ MOTOR-HOME IN THE STREET-SIDE YARD OF AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY HOME Case No. RV 06-04 (Dutch & Ruth Snijders, Appl icants/Appel lants). 17 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell stated this case was presented to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) at its October 24 meeting. The Applicants proposed to park their motor home on their street side yard along Wyoming Avenue. Their plan called for the planting of Indian Laurel hedge approximately 10 feet off the curb which in time could create a 15-foot high hedge; the Applicants felt it would screen the motor home. The ARC felt the motor home and possible hedge were very imposing to the street. The Commission noted their biggest concern was that the building set-backs are in place in residential zones for a reason; they keep the massing of buildings and structures a reasonable distance away from the curb. The Applicants propose a 15-foot high hedge, where a five-foot wall would normally not be allowed. The majority of the Commissioners agreed this was not the appropriate location for a permanent storage of a motor home. A neighbor in the vicinity spoke in opposition stating the RV was too large and should be stored in an RV park. The Commission moved to deny the request based on the negative impact on the neighborhood and the creation of a 15-foot high hedge approximately 10 feet from the curb. Staff requested that Council reaffirm the ARC action to deny Applicants request. He noted the Applicant was present to address Council on the matter. He offered that staff was available to answer questions. MR. DUTCH SNIJDERS, Applicant, stated he was appealing the ARC decision and felt he didn't receive a fair chance. He thought the Commission dealt more with opinions vs what the Code said. He reviewed his appeal application and explained in detail the diagrams and pictures included in the packet. He said he spoke to neighbors who were agreeable to his solution and thought it would not be a negative impact on the neighborhood. He stated the ARC sited four reason for denial which he thought were invalid. He pointed out the RV measurements in the Recreational Vehicles on Private Property Code which was included in the packet , that the motor home was within those qualifications. He also read Section 8.40.050 B regarding alternatives to screening a motor home and stated it was clear to him what the situation was. He obtained a copy of the ordinance and worked with City staff; staff was cooperative in providing the information necessary to present his proposal to Council. He was instructed where to plant the hedge and what kind of hedge to plant and the ARC still decided they didn't like it. He said this was a real problem. Councilman Ferguson stated there were people who stored RVs in storage places all over the City and wondered why it was a problem. MR. SNIJDERS replied the only place they could store their RV was on their property because storage yards were miles away and it was more 18 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 convenient to have it close by the house. He believed the RV Code allowed it. Councilman Ferguson explained that the RV Code set forth requirements and delineated architectural themes and that most people with side yards built a structure to cover their RV. In this case, the home is on a corner lot which would make it a little more obtrusive and by looking at the rendering, it was difficult for him to disagree with the ARC decision. Responding to question, Mr. Snijders replied the hedge would be four feet in from the property line. He thought the ARC and staff's perceptions and opinions had no bearing to the RV code. He said Mr. Stendell told him there were no requirements citing how far back from the sidewalk a hedge needed to be and Mr. Lambell from the ARC stated there were no height requirements or restrictions to the code. He felt he had good reason and a good alternative for their motor home. The proposed hedge would be approximately 35 feet long, long enough to shield the motor home. Councilman Spiegel asked if the picture of their neighbors hedge reflected their proposed hedge height. MR. SNIJDERS replied that it was, but they would keep the hedge well trimmed. Upon further response, Mr. Snijders said his neighbor's hedge was not screening a motor home, but the 38-foot long hedge they were proposing would. Councilmember Finerty asked what the height of the motor home was compared to their house.. MR. SNIJDERS replied the motor home was 11 feet high and the picture provided in the packet was taken at street level, making the motor home appear taller than the house. He said regulations allowed a 12 feet height. Upon further response, Mr. Snijders confirmed the 11 feet height included the equipment on top of the motor home. Mayor Kelly asked if the Applicant considered a driveway into the back yard. MR. SNIJDERS said it was difficult to do because the height of the back yard was three feet higher than the street and leveling it would create a trench in their back yard. Mayor Kelly countered the motor home needed to be parked, and sometimes other concessions are needed to make a place for it. 19 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 MR. SNIJDERS stated they felt they had a legitimate place on the side of their home. He suggested that Council look around the neighborhood and find that people park in different places, but they wanted to do it right. Mayor Pro Tem Benson felt it was an age-old issue and Council always tried to accommodate but sometimes it couldn't. She believed the ARC followed due diligence in their decision. Mayor Pro Tem Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, reaffirm the action of the Architectural Review Commission to deny Case No. RV 06-04. Councilmember Finerty concurred. She said the size of the motor home was her main concern because it was almost as big as the house; she might have been more amenable to the Applicant's request if it was smaller. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Finerty. Councilman Ferguson agreed. He said millions of dollars had been spent trying to spruce up Palm Desert Country Club, and this request impacted two streets because the motor home would be located on an outward corner lot. It would be counterintuitive to all of the efforts already made. Councilman Spiegel agreed. Mayor Kelly called for the vote, and it carried by a 5-0 vote. E. CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.15 - HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Mr. Drell recalled that one of the first times he appeared before Council was to discuss the revision to the Hillside Ordinance in 1981. Mayor Kelly offered that his first assignment as Councilmemberwas to sit on the committee to write the Hillside Ordinance. Mr. Drell agreed and stated they were both still working on it. He identified three issues: First being public notice, especially in cases were impacted properties might be a 1,000 feet, far beyond the normal 300-foot noticing radius. He proposed in those cases to measure the noticing distance from the first developed residential parcels. He pointed out on the map displayed the various levels of distance and how it would have applied to the Hagadone project. He identified the first row in every direction of any developed residence within line of sight of the project. Every row on the map reflected an additional 500 feet. He felt 1,000 feet was a reasonable 20 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 standard to pursue and was staff's recommendation. He reminded Council this was a process that would go through hearing, Planning Commission and City Council. The initial recommendation will be perceived with a 1,000 feet beyond the first developed residential property. Secondly was the issue of building size limitation. Prior to 2004, there was no limit, with everything reviewed on a case-by-case basis and with a 4,000 square-foot limitation based on 40% coverage on a maximum 10,000 square-foot lot. The problem was that under the Hillside Ordinance, many larger lots particularly in Bighorn were in excess of 30,000 square feet. It didn't make sense to hold them to the same 4,000 square-foot limitation. Staff proposed for those previously approved lots in excess of 10,000 square feet be subject to the standard coverage review process, which would allow about 30-50% with ARC approval and Council opportunity to review on a call-up basis. The last issue was the ridge top development. He displayed a map and pointed out which portions of the City pertained to the hillside development. He outlined how everything south of the water tank near the bridge was all City property, the area to the west is BLM or State property; the upper ridge line east of the Stone Eagle golf course belonged to the City through a conservation easement. He explained that most of the mountain that can be seen to the west was public land, and the remaining area was subject to some development. Most of the City's hillside areas involved ridges, steep slopes, and canyon bottoms. Pointing to the color coded aerial photo on the display, he described in detail what each color represented: the red lines were the ridge tops, the blue were the stream beds, and the places in between are sloped 40-50%. The City has absolute discretion on any particular parcel to find the very most appropriate 10,000 square foot location for a house, but staff felt uncomfortable in absolutely prohibiting any development on a ridge, since that's all that's left to be developed. Instead, staff is suggesting finding the best location for a house with the ridges avoided. In addition, homes below ridges should not have roof tops exposed above the ridge and to be considered on a case-by-case basis. An alternative was to do a study and decide which ridges specifically the City didn't want to be developed and then identify them on the map. If in certain instances any development is precluded on any particular parcel, the City should be prepared to purchase it. He's advocated purchasing them, believing it was the ultimate solution to hillside protection. He said areas of the hill which are relatively pristine and still in private ownership, the City should pursue owning. He pointed out that only three homes had been built in the hillside area in 33 years of regulation; two are visible, and one is in the Canyon. Councilmember Finerty asked for clarification to statements made in Item 2 on page 2 of the staff report regarding the R-1 coverage. 21 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Mr. Drell replied the maximum R-1 coverage under the code is 35%, and on some large lots, it's 30%; there are different categories in the R-1, some are 25%, 30%, and 35%. Because of the growing desire to have larger homes, the amendment included a discretionary approval up to 50%, which has become very common in the more prestigious areas of the City. Applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and forwarded to the ARC. The City's goal in those cases is that they not be too imposing on the neighborhood and make sure there is adequate yard. Councilmember Finerty commented regarding the public notice that the folks across Highway 74 were equally concerned about the Hagadone home, but under the proposed 1,000 feet notification, itwould eliminate those residents from being notified. Mr. Drell agreed, but noted that the Hagadone house was a unique project, in that it can be seen from Interstate 10. Typically, in flat land development, notification can be 500 feet away and visual impact is none. In the Hagadone home, the visual impact is almost citywide. The notification can be whatever number the Council deems appropriate; it can be 2,000 or 3,000 feet. Councilmember Finerty stated that 1,000 feet may make sense, but the way the map read, it was 1,000 feet to the north and ignoring everything to the west. She felt consideration needed to be given to the residents to the west. Further, she asked why staff considered an HOA more important than an individual homeowner. Mr. Drell replied that notifying the HOA would provide the ability to notify all their members beyond the determined notification distance. He said the City would not be able to notify everyone within the line of sight unless staff notified everyone in the City. Noticing residents has always been an issue, even when it's 300 feet, because someone living 1,000 feet away will claim they were not notified. He felt notifying both the neighborhood and advertising to the general public through the newspaper will still result in with someone claiming they weren't notified but are at the meeting. In this case, if the notification was 2,000 feet to the west, we would not reach Highway 74 residents. He said he was hesitant to leaving it too discretionary to a decision on staff judgement. It would need to be a uniform standard the City can follow. He reminded Council this was not an election but a gathering of sufficient input from residents on potential problems. The City can notify as many or few people as Council desired. Mayor Pro Tem Benson stated that from her patio, she was looking straight up at the Hagadone house and was waiting to see what the night lights will look like. She felt there needed to be something on notification for direct line 22 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 of sight because that would cover anyone along the area of Indian Springs, but someone out on Country Club would not be direct line of sight but yet considered to be in the vicinity of it. Mr. Drell reminded Council this was just a draft ordinance initiating the process, the actual hearing would come later. Mayor Pro Tem Benson stated that regarding the ridge top development, as Mr. Drell stated, there have only been three houses developed in 33 years. She felt any grading should go through Council and that the wording "Development on or across prominent ridges shall be discouraged" was not strong enough language. She didn't want ridge top development allowed unless Council approved it. Councilmember Finerty concurred. She also noted a letter received from Larry Sutter from Ironwood, who echoed the same concern over the word "discouraged." She was concerned about the public notices and would like a greater area notified with emphasis directed to the west and to residents in south Palm Desert that live in an individual home and not necessarily in an HOA so they're not left out. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly suggested individual notification with a certain distance and homeowner association notification without further distance, so that the City didn't get overwhelmed with the mailing process. Councilmember Finerty stated she didn't object to that idea but was not in agreement with the 1,000-foot notification. She suggested a 2,000-foot notification, plus HOA's within south Palm Desert. Councilman Ferguson stated that when the language was drafted for the hillside ordinance in the General Plan, there were two areas in the City with hillside, the Canyons at Bighorn and a little bit at Ironwood, which was master planned and approved. It was the Five-acre Homestead article parcels west of Highway 74 that residents want to, subdivide and get five pads, one per acre instead of one pad per five acres. The 4,000 square-foot limitation on pads not graded made sense, but it was difficult to retroactively go back and apply that standard to Bighorn after they have already been approved and their pads already graded. He said he and Councilmember Finerty spent three hours looking at the homes being considered for approval this evening and realized that Bighorn built 360 homes and only had a problem with the 361 St home. He didn't want to over react to the Hagadone home but rather find a solution that addressed the investment back and expectations of Bighorn for which they purchased land for mitigation; they reduced homes and contributed to the City's environment. 23 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 He reiterated it's the homeowners west of Highway 74 that will want to subdivide at some point, and he didn't want homes going up on those ridgelines. He thanked Councilman Spiegel for requesting a rough draft of the Hillside Ordinance and Mr. Drell for providing it. He also thanked Mr. Drell for recognizing the difference between an approved gated community already graded and parcels that have no disturbance or permits on file. He acknowledged that it was not a final draft and would like for people from Bighorn, Ironwood, and other stakeholders that have an investment in it, to be given an opportunity to review it. He thought it was a good first rough draft. With regard to the notification distance, he wasn't sure a mailing list the size of a phone book was what Council wanted, but it could be figured out. Councilman Spiegel noted the draft ordinance was shared with representatives from Ironwood, and their only objection was that ridge top development should not be allowed. He had no objection to the notification distance or the building size limitations recommended by staff. The only area he totally disagreed with was with the ridge top development. He felt the City needed to be explicit to those who want to build houses on ridgelines. The wording should state that it's not allowed. Mayor Kelly agreed. In response to Councilmember Finerty's question, Mr. Drell stated approval of this item would only initiate the amendment to the ordinance, which was required to go through the normal hearing process at Planning Commission City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly stated it was clear that the wording on ridge top development needed to state "ridge line development was not allowed" and that Council needed to deal with the notification issue covering the locations mentioned. Councilman Ferguson suggested having projects go through ARC, because in looking at the homes considered this evening, he thought the architects were extremely talented and knew how design a home into a hillside and not be visible. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly agreed. Mr. Drell stated that if the wording was changed, the ridgeline would need to be defined and wondered how Council would like it defined. He suggested those specific areas be graphically outlined by Council. Councilman Ferguson remarked that architects who knew how to build on ridgelines, knew what would be acceptable, and could provide input. 24 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Council didn't necessarily have to agree with them. Councilman Spiegel agreed. Mr. Erwin stated that approval of this item would be to initiate the process of amending the Hillside Ordinance. Councilmember Finerty moved to, by Minute Motion, initiate amendments to P.D.M.C. Chapter 25.15, relative to public hearing notification, building size and lot coverage, and ridge-top development, as proposed. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. F. REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED MONTEREY AVENUE SIDEWALK FROM COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO FRANK SINATRA DRIVE. Mr. Greenwood stated that at the request of Council, staff looked into the construction of a sidewalk on the east side of Monterey Avenue, between Country Club Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive, in conjunction with Rancho Mirage's widening of the street. A survey of the area was taken, and a rough cost estimate was prepared. Most of the area is easy construction with one compromise of a retaining wall that needs to remain in place for the vast majority of the area. The sidewalk would be relatively narrow, four to five feet wide directly adjacent to the curb. The most difficult area is a 200-foot section where a retaining wall is protected by a concrete slope. The retaining wall needs to be completely removed and rebuilt at a significant cost of $200,000+. The combined cost of all the engineering and contingencies are estimated at $625,000. Staff recommended approval to proceed. Councilman Spiegel said he noticed on Monterey Avenue between Country Club Drive and Fred Waring Drive was a sidewalk on Palm Desert's side, past the College, but there was nothing on Ranch Mirage's side. Mr. Greenwood agreed. Councilman Spiegel asked if Rancho Mirage was going to put a sidewalk on their side of the street with the widening of Monterey Avenue from Country Club Drive to Frank Sinatra Drive, if it was necessary to have a sidewalk on both sides with the stop lights at that location. Mr. Greenwood replied that it was not absolutely necessary, and it would be an expensive sidewalk for Palm Desert. He offered to confirm with Rancho Mirage if they were definitely including a sidewalk on their side of the street. If that is the case, Council can direct staff to drop the request for a sidewalk on Palm Desert's side. 25 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Mr. Erwin noted for the record that Councilman Ferguson represented a client adjacent to this project and would be abstaining; Councilman Ferguson left the Council Chamber. Mayor Pro Tem Benson agreed if Rancho Mirage was building a sidewalk on their side, it wouldn't be necessary on Palm Desert's, and tearing down the retaining wall could be avoided. But if they weren't, Council could then revisit the matter. Councilmember Finerty concurred and added that it wasn't going to be that wide of a sidewalk anyway. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue the matter to a date uncertain, with staff directed to first confirm Rancho Mirage's plans for a sidewalk on their side of the street. Motion was seconded by Finerty and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF ONE SCULPTURE FROM THE 2007/08 EL PASEO INVITATIONAL EXHIBITION. Public Arts Coordinator Richard Twedt reported the Art In Public Places Commission (AIPP) selected four of the eighteen sculptures they would like the public to vote on as their favorites. Responding to Mayor Kelly's questions, Mr. Twedt stated approval would be to proceed with the public voting on the selected four sculptures and the purchase of one not to exceed $102,472. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the four proposed sculptures from the 2007/08 EI Paseo Invitational Exhibition for potential"purchase award"; 2) approve the use of the funds previously allocated for the Entrada del Paseo art project in an amount not to exceed $102,472 for purchase of one of the four sculptures. Mayor Kelly asked why a sampling of each type of artwasn't included so that one had a choice. Mr. Twedt stated there were four choices, two abstract pieces and two representational pieces. Mayor Kelly understood but thought none were recognized as art. Councilmember Finerty agreed. Mr. Twedt replied AIPP wanted a limited number to be voted on; he offered that all 18 could be voted on. 26 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Mayor Kelly replied that Art could be represented with four or five pieces, except recognizable Art pieces were not part of the four selected. Mr. Twedt stated an opportunity could be provided for people to write-in on the form. Mayor Pro Tem Benson agreed. Councilmember Finerty thought better choices needed to be provided. She applauded the idea of having residents vote but agreed with Mayor Kelly's comments and stated she wouldn't vote for any of the four selected by AIPP. Ms. Gilligan suggested that Mr. Twedt add two more pieces to the voting selection that represented realism art. Mr. Twedt agreed and welcomed Council's suggestions to add to the list. Councilman Spiegel amended his motion to include a committee of two, with Councilmember Finerty and Mayor Kelly to select one additional piece to the selection process. Councilmember Finerty seconded with the condition that it be two additional pieces for a total of six pieces. Councilman Spiegel further amended his motion to appoint a subcommittee of Councilmember Finerty and Mayor Kelly to select two more sculptures to be added to the "purchase award" contest. Motion was seconded by Finerty and carried by a 5-0 vote. 27 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 XI. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. ORDINANCE NO. 1124 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,ADOPTING LOCAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS COVERED BY THE 2005 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCYSTANDARDS (Continued from the Meetings of July 13, August 24, and November 16, 2006). Councilman Ferguson announced that the application to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) was heard today. Initially when it was heard by the Administrative Law Judge, the request was turned down and then returned with a suggested amount of$14 million. The Commission over ruled it and unanimously voted to grant$18 million for the first two years in the program. Mr. Conlon stated the proposed Ordinance provided energy efficiency standards for new construction in the City of Palm Desert. Since the first time that the ordinance was presented to Council, it's gone before the PUC and received unanimous approval from the California Energy Commission, as required by State law for a local ordinance. After the last City Council meeting, several meetings followed with the Building Industry Association, who were also present today to comment on the ordinance. He introduced Mr. Michael Gabel from Gabel Associates, a leader in California Association of Building Energy Consultants (CABEC) in the Title 24 enforcement in the State. Mr. Gabel was the architect of other ordinances in the State and possessed technical expertise; he helped with approval by the California Energy Commission and is consulting the City on this ordinance. He was available to answer questions the Council or the public may have. MR. FRED BELL, Executive Director, Building Industry Association Desert Chapter, congratulated Council on the PUC decision on the retrofit funds awarded to the City. He related the Chapter had been engaged since the end of August, at times with contentious discussion over the original proposed ordinance. He recognized former Mayor/Councilman Ferguson for being instrumental and staying on course to reach a compromise position. However, he would like definitive Council direction on the California GreenBuilder program that is sponsored by the California Building Industry Association. Discussions had taken place with City staff about the program but, unfortunately, did not receive the level of attention desired. He felt the language in the staff report was highly ambiguous, and given the nature of prior discussions over the last six months, felt Council should give clear direction to staff to decide whether California GreenBuilder was a viable opt-out provision in the existing ordinance. He said Palm Desert set an extraordinarily aggressive energy reduction goal, and any opportunity afforded to the City to obtain an additional reduction over the target was a 28 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 benefit. He believed the California GreenBuilder could provide that opportunity for additional energy reduction and would allow the BIA to have a packaged program that served to certify green products that helped the building community with a well-rounded product. He thought it was a good compromise between the BIA and the City. He offered to answer questions. Councilman Spiegel thanked Mr. Fred Bell for the memo sent to the Council stating the BIA's approval and support of the program, other than the GreenBuilder issue. MR. BELL replied that at this point, the BlAwas cooperating with the City but still had one issue they were looking for with regards to the Green Building Program. Councilman Spiegel congratulated former Mayor/Councilman Ferguson for making it possible for the City to receive $18 million from the Public Utilities Commission. He stated residents will benefit from the program and requested approval with the caveat that a hard be taken at the Green Building Program to see what adjustments can be made to comply with the BIA. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1124 to second reading, subject to giving serious consideration to the suggested"GreenBuilder" designation. Motion was seconded by Finerty and carried by a 5-0 vote. B. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITYCOUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2006 (Continued from the meeting of November 16, 2006). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue the Minutes of October 26, 2006, to the meeting of January 11, 2007. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. C. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE BY DAVID ANTHONYAVALOS AND RAMON VEGA, JR., FOR GUILLERMO'S NAPA TAPAS, 73-900 EL PASEO, #2, PALM DESERT (Continued from the meeting of November 16, 2006). Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, direct a written correspondence to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board indicating that the City Council has made a determination that the business located at 73-900 EI Paseo, #2, Palm Desert, California, will provide for public convenience and necessity even though the premises is located in a census tract currently over-concentrated with licensed businesses per department records. Motion was seconded by Finerty and carried by a 5-0 vote. 29 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 XII. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FORAPPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT, ALONG WITH A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO ALLOWA NEW, 12-UNIT, 36-KEY BOUTIQUE HOTEL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 73-811 LARREA STREET Case Nos. DA 06-01 and PP/CUP 05-20(Villa Property Developer, LLC,Applicant)(from the meetings of October 26, October 31, and November 16, 2006). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, to continue this matter to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIONS, INCLUDING MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING AS TO FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, AND ACKNOWLEDGING A FINDING OF SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF THE PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY'S TAXALLOCATION (HOUSING SET-ASIDE) REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2007, AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE PALM DESERT FINANCING AUTHORITY). Mr. Ortega referred to staff report and stated Bond Counsel, City and Agency staff, and the Financial Consultant were available to answer questions. The Agency was requesting authority for the issuance of bonds composed of two components: new money and refunding of small bonds. In answer to question, if it was for low and moderate housing, he said it was. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject to do so at this time. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Member/Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion,waivefurtherreading and adopt: 1) City Council Resolution No. 06-155, making a finding of significant public benefit and other findings in connection with the issuance and sale of the Palm Desert Financing AuthorityTaxAllocation(Housing Set-Aside) Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2007(the "Bonds"); 2) Financing Authority Resolution No. FA-60, acknowledging finding of significant public benefit in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds, approving of the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds, and authorizing the execution and delivery of documents relating to the Bonds; 3) Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 30 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 536, approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of documents relating to the Bonds. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES ELEMENT TO INCLUDE GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS RELATED TO REDUCTION OF ENERGY USE IN THE CITY Case No. GPA06-02(City of Palm Desert, Applicant) (Continued from the meetings of September 28 and November 16, 2006). Mr. Pat Conlon stated this item coincided with the ordinance considered previously this evening. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject to do so at this time. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Finerty moved to, by Minute Motion, waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-161, approving Case No. GPA 06-02. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW A 9,642 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITHIN THE HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE — SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 869 ROCK RIVER DRIVE, WITHIN THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN (APN 652-160-050) Case No. PP/HPD 06-13 (Kristi Hanson / Architect, Applicant) (Continued from the meeting of November 16, 2006). Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell stated this item was continued from the last meeting — a request for a hillside home inside the Canyons at Bighorn. He noted a few of the Councilmembers had an opportunity to visit the site on Rock River Drive. It's low on the mountainside and not visible from anywhere in the City, except within the Canyons of Bighorn. He said the architectural colors blended with the natural terrain and the superior architecturejustified the exception in this case. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mayor Pro Tem Benson asked Councilman Ferguson if he had seen the home and what he thought of it. Councilman Ferguson said it was fine. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject case to do so at this time. 31 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 MS. KRISTI HANSON, Architect/Applicant, congratulated Council on the Energy Ordinance. She stated that she had an opportunity to review the ordinance and felt she now understood it and was excited about it. Councilman Ferguson stated Ms. Hanson did great architectural work; he saw the home and thought it was phenomenal. Mayor Pro Tem Benson asked if there was anything on this proposal that would affect the hillside ordinance. MS. HANSON replied there was not, except to comply with the Energy Ordinance, which they did. MR. CARL CARDINALLI stated he agreed with staff recommendations on the hillside ordinance and thought it would alleviate a situation confronted by the Council and Bighorn. He felt it would get everyone back to a position where the approvals for the Canyons at Bighorn were made; pads were graded out to the sizes they are because people had an expectation when they bought there. He went on to say he agreed with Mr. Drell that the ridgeline needed to be identified by Council to indicate which ones should remain as they are; it would help everyone. From a developer's standpoint, having certainty about what can happen with the property was something everyone wanted because the development process was risky and long- term. He pointed out there were two other items on the agenda that have similar considerations to this one. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion,waive further reading and Adopt Resolution No. 06-155, approving a Precise Plan of design to allow the construction of a 9,642 square foot single-family home within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. Motion was seconded by Finerty. Councilmember Finerty commented that generally speaking, she would prefer the Hillside Ordinance go through the hearing process; but having gone out to look at the home site, she reached a level of comfort knowing it cannot be seen from anywhere, for that reason she would give approval. Mayor Kelly called for the vote, and it carried by a 5-0 vote. 32 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW A 9,110 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITHIN THE HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE—613 INDIAN COVE—WITHIN THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN (APN 771-480-001) Case No. PP/HPD 06-15 (Gordon Stein - Design Mind Studios, Applicant). Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell stated the request was for a property located within the Canyons at Bighorn on the southern end. He stated the home was not visible from anywhere in the City. The architecture has been designed in a Moorish Style. He displayed some renderings not included in Council's packet and described the home in detail. He noted the lot was graded out to about 37,000 square feet. The applicant's house is 9,000 square feet, which covered a minimal part of the lot; about 25%. The project site architecture, colors, and landscaping using native materials to blend into the mountainside were consistent with the area. Being that the house could not be seen from anywhere and with its superior architecture, staff recommended approval of the project. Responding to Councilman Ferguson, Mr. Stendell replied this was not part of a settlement with the old Laliberte Property; this home was a separate parcel directly east of that. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject to do so at this time. MR. GORDON STEIN, Applicant, stated he was available to answer questions. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-162, approving a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 9,110 square foot single-family home within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. Councilman Spiegel asked Councilmember Finerty why she voted no on this project. Councilmember Finerty replied that she had not voted no, because the project did not go through the Planning Commission and that was her issue with it. Mr. Drell concurred with Councilman Ferguson's earlier comment, that the applicability of this ordinance for these properties at Bighorn was always in question. These properties are directly adjacent to the 1,000 foot buffer. 33 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Under the Canyons at Bighorn approval, no grading can occur within 1,000 feet of the Bighorn Institute property after January 1. Unless the building was approved, graded, and completed prior to January 1, the house could not be built until after July. The application was taken to ARC to expedite the process; otherwise the building could not begin to be built for another seven or eight months. Councilman Ferguson stated he and Councilmember Finerty wondered with Bighorn as a Master Planned approved community, if the houses they built met City standards, if they would still need to go through City Council. Mr. Drell replied that under the proposed ordinance, they would not. Councilmember Finerty stated she was not comfortable with changing the process because of lambing season. She thought that everyone who built at Bighorn was aware of the process and aware of lambing season. She was not a fan of skipping over the process, therefore could not vote for approval. Responding to Councilman Ferguson, Mr. Drell replied approval to build a house was not required for those lots approved under the old ordinance. Councilman Ferguson stated the City altered expectations given a long time ago and was not doing anything that different. He said the City should not tinker with an ordinance that caused the confusion in the first place. Mayor Kelly noted the City was actually being more stringent. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 3-2 vote, with Finerty and Spiegel voting NO. E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 8,289 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITHIN THE HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE — 617 INDIAN COVE — WITHIN THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN Case No. PP/HPD 06-16 (Mark Schneider, Graystone Construction, Applicant). Mr. Bagato stated this application was for a new 8,289 square foot single- family home located within the Canyons at Bighorn. The home is 121 feet lower than the ridge to the south (where the Hagadone house is located) and cannot be seen from anywhere in the City. The HOA has approved it, along with the Architectural Review Commission. The application was presented to Council because the dwelling exceeds the 4,000 square-foot standard. 34 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Based on the architectural design and low profile roofs, color and material of the structure, staff recommended approval. The Applicant has agreed to the energy standards and will design the home to blend in with the hillside. In response to Councilman Spiegel's question, Mr. Bagato replied this application did not go through the Planning Commission for the same reason as the previous application. The Applicant approached staff last month and was not aware of the lambing season; given that the ARC approved it and with the proposed ordinance pending, staff felt it was an opportunity to expedite the project. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject to do so at this time. MR. CARL CARDINALLI, representing Bighorn Development, stated he could comment on the "no grading within the 1 ,000 feet boundary to the Bighorn Institute" because this issue arose in April 2005. It was not realized that this applied to residential grading because no project had been stopped within the 1,000 feet of the Bighorn Institute during the lambing season. The residential grading is limited to a pool and a grading of a slab orfoundation. The interpretation came from an entitlement process and development approval when Safeco Properties owned the property. Bighorn wasn't involved at the time. There was a mitigation measure as part of the approval process that specified there would be no grading to occur during the lambing season, February 1 though June 30. When the property was subsequently bought from Safeco, everyone believed that it applied to mass grading. It made sense that it was for mass grading because of the heavy equipment involved; moving 50 yards of material at a time with big equipment rolling over the ground could impact the sheep at the Bighorn Institute. In addition, after reviewing the mitigation measures, he recalled a specific exemption for residential construction; the distinction was grading and the rest of the construction process. In a later interpretation that came up after the work stoppage in 2005, once the grading was completed, you could go full bore with residential construction. Therefore, allowing a crane with a 50 foot boom, pallet trucks and platforms raising materials on roofs, noise could be greater in that you could be cutting tile or rock materials, etc. All of the elements that could spook the sheep within the lambing pens were present to a greater degree than with the grading activity for residential construction; another reason it was believed that it applied to mass grading. In 2005 there was a stop notice issued to the home that sits between the two homes considered this evening. When the work stoppage occurred, a memo was sent to all the members of the Council and also set the matter for interpretation, because it had never been heard by Council. At the first hearing it was continued, and at that time it was requested that the matter be 35 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 36 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 resolved. He worked with staff and returned with a solution: Avoid using large backhoe pieces of equipment to do the grading. Smaller equipment, equivalent to a pick-up truck, that could perform the same functions was demonstrated. The project was then allowed to proceed. He thought the matter was resolved as long as the smaller equipment was used, everything went fine and the project was completed. Last spring the matter came up again, and he was told the prior approval was for that particularjob only. He and Mr. Drell again went to Bighorn to provide the same demonstration as the prior year to a representative from the California Department of Fish & Game. The job that was halted was then allowed to proceed with the smaller equipment. The two home sites that the Department of Fish & Game felt could be at issue, are the two home site considered for approval this evening. He stated that to stop a process in midstream would be inequitable. It was not a question if the house conformed to the City standards, but a matter of processes as opposed to substance. He requested this house be given the same consideration as the previous one, and be given approval so that the issue with respect to the lambing season can be avoided, and the grading work can be done prior to February 1. He believed it would be the last time this matter would come up, because grading can be accomplished with smaller equipment. He thanked Council for their consideration. MR. MARK SCHNEIDER, La Quinta, with Greystone Construction, stated he was available to answer questions on the house. With no further testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion,waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-163, approving Hillside Development Plan/Precise Plan 06-16, subject to conditions attached. Councilman Ferguson added that on page 2 the map illustrates the house is actually in a hole; the house previously approved looked down on it. He personally went out and looked at all three pads considered for approval, and they cannot be seen. He stated Bighorn has presented four homes during the time the energy ordinance was discussed but not in place. The Applicants voluntarily complied with the proposed Energy Ordinance, leaving no legal recourse to force them to comply. Although Council has approved some homes because of lambing season and the strange interpretation of the California Fish & Game measure, and directed staff to come up with an ordinance that allowed them to do this and not require them to come to Council in the first place, it was a pretty good trade off. His biggest comfort level came from that he stood on those properties, and they cannot be seen 37 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 from anywhere. Usually with homeowners associations, if the public can't see it, the HOAArchitectural Control Board approved it, the City pretty much left it alone. He stated the application had gone though the Architectural Review both with the City and their country club. Procedurally he would like to have an ordinance in place that would prescribe going through ARC, Planning, and City Council. However, for people that have construction loans and contracts with contractors that will probably go away, it was an undue hardship for a developer for a problem he didn't create himself. Councilmember Finerty stated she wasn't all that certain, based on everything she's learned, that everything east of Highway 74 should not be part of the Hillside Ordinance. She needed more fact-finding before she could take that leap. She said she basically had the same comments about this home as the prior one considered. Mayor Pro Tem Benson asked if she understood correctly that this house would be the last one affected by the lambing season. Mr. Drell confirmed it was the last house affected by the lambing season this year because others could use the smaller equipment. Mayor Pro Tem Benson stated she was reluctant to approve anything up at Bighorn because it comes back to haunt her every time she does. She would have liked the ordinance in place but understood the circumstances around this; because it's the final house, she would second the motion. Motion was seconded by Benson and it carried by a 3-2 vote, with Spiegel and Finerty voting NO. F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A 12-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES. Mr. Erwin stated he was prepared to answer question. He felt the staff report explained the existing Moratorium will expire December 22, 2006. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject to do so at this time. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Pro Tem Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, waive further reading and adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 1131, by not less than a four-fifths (4/5) vote as required by State Law, further extending the moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries for an additional 12 months. Motion was seconded by Ferguson. 38 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 Councilmember Finerty requested that Council be provided with the statistics mentioned on page 3, section 4, item 8 of the staff report, regarding increase in crime. Mr. Erwin replied that he did not have them in his possession tonight but would send them to her. Mayor Kelly called for the vote and it carried by a 5-0 vote. G. REQUESTFORAPPROVALANDACCEPTANCEOFTHE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND INSPECTION SERVICE FEES ADJUSTMENT AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE FEES FOR SERVICE TABLES WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATED COST OF SERVICES FEE STUDY. Management Analyst Jenny Barnes stated she used the same model used by the prior consultant for the fee study. The actual expenditures for 2004-2005 were used to update all the costs. The increase was based on the actual time that staff spent directly on the project. Councilman Spiegel thought some increase were substantially high but noticed that the BIA gave their approval. He wondered how the City's fees compared with the two neighboring cities, Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells. Ms. Barnes replied that Palm Desert ranged in the middle. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject to do so at this time. With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 06-164, approving the Development Services fees for service tables within the Comprehensive Updated Cost of Services Fee Study. Motion was seconded by Finerty and carried by a 5-0 vote. 39 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 H. REQUESTTO OPEN THE 30-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD RELATIVE TO THE CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN, FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN, APPLICATION PROCESS. Ms. Riddle explained that Council just needed to open the 30-day Public Comment Period for the FY 2007/08 Community Development Block Grant One-year Action Plan, the Five-year Consolidated Plan, and the Application process. Mayor Kelly declared the 30-day public comments open and invited anyone who wished to come forward to speak on the subject to do so at this time. MS. LYNN MCKENDRY, Director of the McKendry Charitable Dental Clinic in Palm Desert, stated she would be applying for a block grant and Council will receive in-depth information about their clinic with the application. She said they were open for business and had already provided $3,000 worth of dentistry services to two low-income patients and they only paid $10 each. Their Clinic was bridging the gap between those that have dental insurance and those that qualified for State Aid. They serve working individuals in this community and seniors on fixed incomes that cannot afford to pay for dentistry services. She and her husband Dr. Douglas McKendry dedicated all their existing dental and business equipment to their facility, and their peers in the community are volunteering their services. They provide a reasonable overhead/annual budget that will be included in her application. The name of the clinic is "Great White Smiles" located on the frontage road down from the Elephant Bar in Palm Desert. She thanked Council for the opportunity. MR. JOHN BROWN, Executive Director of Family Services of the Desert, Indio, stated they were a non-profit charitable organization based in Indio, providing services to the entire Coachella Valley. They have been around since 1959, providing support services to low-income families. He was proud to announce that during the year of 2006, services were provided to more than 100 low-income families from Palm Desert. Half of those families were referred by the Larson Justice Center and served at their Indio site. The therapist provide parenting classes, anger management programs, and other court referred services to keep families together, in some cases, reunite them and help them heal. He stated all their clinicians are licensed and all their interns are certified. The other half of the families served are located at the school-based site at Lincoln Elementary. Counseling services are provided at no cost with 12-16 sessions per family to help students do better. He said Community Development Block Grant funds were essential 40 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 to the program and helped bridge the cost between the limited revenue received from Medi-Cal or County funding. MR. BARY FREET with the Weil Institute of Critical Care Medicine stated their headquarters were in the City of Rancho Mirage and served the entire Coachella Valley. He was applying for the Public Safety element of the grant process. Their program focused its attention on the 300,000 people in the United States that are admitted to hospitals with sudden cardiac arrest. Only five percent nationwide are discharged from the hospital from sudden cardiac arrest. He stated the statistics were worse in the Coachella Valley. Their goal is to train ten percent of the adult population in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). Over 8,000 have already been trained on CPR in the Coachella Valley. It's a new CPR program, a 30-minute CPR training program utilizing a kit from the American Heart Association. The kit is equipped with an inflatable mannequin, DVD video in both English and Spanish, and instruction also provided in English and Spanish. Their objective is to improve the numbers of those discharged from the hospital. He thanked Council for their time and looked forward to the process. MS. SHARON STEVENS, Executive Director at the Smile Factory for the Children of the Desert, located in Palm Springs, stated they planned to expand their services into the Palm Desert Elementary Schools, as three schools within the Palm Desert city boundaries have not been benefitted by their services. They go to every elementary school and screen all children for oral health, provide children with oral hygiene education, and a tooth brush. Any child who is enrolled in the Federally funded lunch program, who is otherwise uninsured or enrolled in the Medi-Cal Healthy Families program, is then eligible for treatment through the Smile Factory. They have three, 53-foot semi trailers towed around to each Elementary School followed by the screening and housed within the school boundaries for the duration of their stay. Some children may receive preventative or restorative dentistry free of charge, if they qualify. Time and money is saved by both parent and the schools; schools don't lose funds, and parents do not have to face the dilemma of missing a day of work or debate whether to buy groceries or take a child to the dentist. There was no further public comment offered at this this meeting, and it was noted no further City Council action was required at this time. 41 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 XIV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER None 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: None o City Council Committee Reports: 1. Palm Sprinqs Desert Resorts CVA - Councilman Spiegel reported the CVA was meeting tomorrow, and one of the agenda items being considered is changing the name from "Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention&VisitorsAuthority" to "Palm Springs Communities Convention & Visitors Authority." 42 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 o City Council Comments: 1. "Sho�pinq with the Mayor"-Councilman Ferguson commented that he'd recently received a call from WalMart's Store Manager, asking if he'd do a "Shopping Day with the Mayor." He said although he was at first hesitant about what he thought might be marketing for WalMart, when he learned it was for a group of kids to each be given $100 so they could do some shopping, he agreed. He called Shelter From The Storm Executive Director Lynn Moriarty, and 17 kids from its transitional housing were treated to a morning of shopping last Saturday. He noted there was no media or marketing presence for the event, which was an especially terrific experience for the kids, a rewarding one for him, and he thanked WalMart for its generosity. XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C MS. PATTY WILLIAMS, owner of Starlight Dance Center, 73-910 Highway 111, Palm Desert, addressed the City Council to express concern about the Smoker's Corner business establishment that has located next door to her business. She asked for the City's intervention to prevent the secondhand smoke and sale of tobacco and related products from affecting her students and her business. (She read from a prepared statement that was received for the record and is now on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Drell responded that Smoker's Corner had been approved as a retail establishment to sell tobacco and related products. He said all the prohibitions on smoking under State law notwithstanding, smoking establishments are exempt; therefore, someone just buying a cigarette could light it. However, they could not sit in a lounge situation and smoke. Under the City's Code, it was treated similar to a bar or restaurant, and the owner of Smoker's Corner was informed he could not offer that opportunity without a conditional use permit that would require a separate hearing. Currently, he was only supposed to be selling an otherwise legal product and not offering a lounge experience. Mr. Drell said Code Compliance would be sent to the establishment tomorrow to make an enforcement call. In answer to question about the location of Smoker's Corner, he said it was located along the frontage road on the north side of Highway 111, east of Auto Zone, 7-11, and Sub King, on the eastern end of the center. Further responding, he reaffirmed that Code Compliance would be sent to the business tomorrow, as the owner of Smoker's Corner was already informed previously that a smoking lounge was not allowed under his certificate of use. 43 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 MS. CESCA LUZURIAGA, a dancer and occasional teacher at Starlight Dance Center, wanted to go on record in support of Ms. Williams' request for the City to intervene. She suggested that City staff visit the site in the late afternoon or evening when the smoking lounge issue was most prevalent. XVI. ADJOURNMENT With City Council concurrence, Mayor Kelly adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. RICHARD S. K. KELLY, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT 44