The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 04 18 CC Minutes LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2006 A regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at the hour of 2:00 p.m. by Mayor Adolph. PRESENT: ABSENT: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Mayor Adolph Council Member Sniff (present at the 7:00 p.m. session) MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Kirk to excuse Council Member Sniff. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Christi Salamone, P.O. Box 777, representing the La -Quinta Arts· Foundation, expressed appreciation for the City's support, and presented a framed - copy· of the 2006 Arts Festival Poster. Kathleen Hughes reviewed accolades received from artists regarding the Arts Festival location, and announced both the 2004 and 2005 posters have received awards. CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with the City's real property negotiatQr, Douglas R. Evans, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning potential terms and conditions of acquisition and/or disposition of real property located on Jefferson Street, between Westward Ho and Fiesta Drive. Property Owner/Negotiator: Sienna Corporation Council recessed to the Redevelopment Agency and to Closed Session to and until the hour of 3 :00 p.m. 3:00 P.M. The City Council meeting was reconvened with no decisions being made in Closed Session which require reporting pursuant to Section 54957.1 of the Government Code (Brown Act). Mayor Adolph led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. City Council Minutes 2 April 18, 2006 PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed ANNOUNCEMENTS - None PRESENTATIONS Mayor Adolph presented a proclamation in honor of Mental Health Month to Commander Mark Miller, representing the Riverside County Department of Mental Health. * * * * * * * * * * * r\l1ayor Adolph presented a proclamation in honor of Prevent Child Abuse Month to Victoria St. Johns, representing the Prevent Child Abuse- Riverside County Collaborative. * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Adolph congratulated City Clerk June Greek on her recent recognition as a Master Municipal Clerk. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1.' '. COHRESPONDENCE FROM THE VILLAGE AT THE PALMS HOMEÓWNERS ASSOCIATION. Council concurred to refer this request to staff to be included in future consideration of the Developer Impact Fee Update. 2. . CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ATHLETIC ~ FEDERATION REQUESTING THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DONATE $5,000 TO' 'BECOME A PLATINUM SPONSOR FOR THE 1 ST ANNUAL DEPUTY BRUCE LEE MEMORIAL GOLF TOURNAMENT TO BE HELD APRIL 21, 2006, AT THE LA QUINTA RESORT. Council Member Henderson expressed appreciation for the group's efforts but indicated she is not prepared to support the request. Council Member Kirk indicated he would prefer considering this type of request through the established grant process. -...---- City Council Minutes 3 April 1 8, 2006 In response to Council Memben, Osborne, City Attorney Jenson advised, under the Brown Act, the Council would be allowed to take action on this request because the agenda contains a complete description. She noted the Council doesn't usually take action on written correspondence, based on their own Council's Rules and Procedures. Joe Broido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, questioned why the event is not being held at SilverRock. Council Member Henderson commented on the need for the City to be involved earlier in the process if this is going to become an annual event. Mayor Adolph noted the scheduling of golf course tournaments at SilverRock is handled by Landmark. Detective Peter Reeves, of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, stated the La Quinta Resort was selected for the event because it was less expensive. He indicated they intend to make this an annual event. Council Member Henderson noted the City makes an annual contribution to a public safety fund for families of fallen police and fire personnel, and suggested this might be an appropriate use of those funds. Council Member Kirk asked how much they expect to raise, and Detective Reeves indicated $20,000. Council Member Osborne suggested the possibility of assisting with a donation next year. Mayor Adolph agreed the timing is not good because of the short notice. Council Member Henderson noted Landmark's budget for SilverRock is set by the City, and if the City wants to participate in non-profit events, additional funds may need to be budgeted for SilverRock. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Osborne/Henderson to approve the City Council Minutes of April 4, 2006, as amended (deleting CalTrans in Paragraph 7, Page 7). Motion caorried with Council Member Sniff ABSENT. City Council Minutes 4 April 18, 2006 CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Osborne requested Item No.6 be pulled for separate action. 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED APRIL 18, 2006. 2.' RECEIVE AND FILE THE TREASURER'S REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2006. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE THE REVENUE & EXPENDITURES REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2006, AND INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2006. 4. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH TRACT MAP J . ,·.,29347, LAS VENTANAS, CALIFORNIA COVE COMMUNITIES. 5., ,~AUTHORIZATrON FOR OVERNI·GHT TRAVEL, FOR THE PUBLIC'" . , ' , WORKS/ENGINEERING ASSISTANT ENGINEER II TO ATTEND THE ARIES CLOSED LOOK SYSTEM TRAINING TO BE HELD IN ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 27-28, 2006. 6. APPROVAL TO EXTEND A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NAI CONSULTING TO PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007.. (See separate action below.) MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Kirk to approve the, Consent Calendar as recommended and amended with the exception of Item No.6. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff ABSENT. Item No.6 MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Kirk to approve Item No.6, authorizing the City Manager to extend a Professional Services Agreement for a period of one year with the firm of: Nickerson & Associates~: ' Inc. (NAI' Consulting) in an amount not to exceed $178,350 to provide Project Management and Contract Administrative Support Services. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff ABSENT and Council Member Osborne ABSTAINING due to a potential conflict of interest. -.--..--.-. -- --~.__. "'--. ---...---...- - -- ~_.._._,_. _. -- City Council Minutes 5 April 18, 2006 BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOtUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1 , FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007, AND A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO LEVY ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1, AND GIVING NOTICE THEREOF. Public Works Director Jonasson presented the staff report. Council Member Kirk asked if an assessment placed on the ballot could be structured with an automatic inflator, and if going to a vote is the only way to include an inflator. . Adina Vazquez, representing MuniFinancial, responded, IIYes," to both inquiries. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Jonasson clarified. a statement in the last paragraph of Page 3 should indicate lithe City Council may adjust the assessment levels down as necessary...." Council Member Henderson asked if this would be coming back as a study session item to discuss the possibility of placing an assessment on the ballot. City Manager Genovese noted there was some discussion during the annual management review about the potential of having a separate assessment for parks because the greater part of the shortfall is due to an increase in parks, and not medians. He explained it's a challenge having everything combined into one assessment, and noted many cities have multiple landscape and lighting assessment districts for different zones and some have separate parks assessment districts. Mayor Adolph stated he supports having landscaped medians as part of the City's commitment to beautification but he doesn't believe residents will vote to increase the assessment to pay for them. He complimented staff and Kirkpatrick Landscaping for the outstanding job being done maintaining the medians. City Council Minutes 6 April 18 , 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-034 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007 IN CONNECTION WITH LA QUINTA LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1. It was moved by Council Members Osborne/Kirk to adopt Resolution No. 2006-034 as submitted. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff ABSENT. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICING LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY INCLUDED IN THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1, AND TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, AND GIVING NOTICE THEREOF. It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Osborne to adopt Resolution No. 2006-035 as submitted. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff ABSENT. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO TAKE OVER STATE ROUTE 111 WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Public Works Director Jonasson presented the staff report. In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Jonasson confirmed the $700,000 is a one-time stipend from CalTrans. Consultant Nick Nickerson stated $660,000 is a five-year forecast for general street maintenance. Mr. Jonasson indicated the cost would be included in the operating budget after the initial five years. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Nickerson stated CalTrans recognized the City's cost figures but are fiscally constrained on how much they can offer. He noted La Quinta is receiving more than most cities. Council Member Henderson pointed out La Quinta also has a mountain to consider. Since this is the last section of the highway to be taken over by a city, she asked if it will remain a State highway. ---.----..- ---- City Council Minutes 7 April 18, 2006 Mr. Nickerson stated Highway 111 will remain at each end of the Valley. The portion through the cities will become a business route with the right-of- way transferred to the City but it can still be called Highway 111. Council Member Osborne referenced the cost estimate to slurry and re-stripe Highway 111, and noted the slurry/seal fund in the current budget has been growing. He also asked if the age of the street had been considered in the cost estimate. Mr. Jonasson explained the annual budgeted amount for slurry sealing is used over a two-year period, and, therefore, would be used for other streets. Mr. Nickerson confirmed the age of the highway was considered in the $660,000 cost estimate. In response to Council Member Osborne, Mr. Jonasson stated the previous cost estimate for handling the rock hazard was $85,000 to $190,000. He indicated they used a conservative estimate in case there was a greater problem than anticipated. Mr. Nickerson stated the geo tech report was updated when discussions began with CalTrans, and does not need to be redone, but it's difficult to say exactly how much the project will cost. Mayor Adolph asked about any recent problems with the hillside, and Mr. Nickerson indicated a large boulder was removed in September. Mayor Adolph asked what type of maintenance CalTrans is expected to provide if the City doesn't take it over. Mr. Nickerson noted it's already difficult to get CalTrans out to do maintenance on Highway 111 . RESOLUTION NO. 2006-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINT A, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO TAKE OVER STATE ROUTE 111 WITHIN ITS CORPORATE BOUNDARIES FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. It was moved by Council Members Kirk/Henderson to adopt Resolution No. 2006-036 as submitted. Motion' carried with Council Member Sniff ABSENT. City Council Minutes 8 April 18, 2006 In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Jonasson stated there is potential that Measure A will cover the maintenance cost in the future but until then the cost will need to be budgeted in the slurry seal fund. 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A SPONSORSHIP FOR PRESTIGE AT PGA WEST. Community Services Director Hylton presented the staff report. Mark Weissman, Tournament Director of The Prestige at PGA West, stated this is the fifth year the event has been held in La Quinta. He gave a brief overview of the event. Council Member Kirk asked why SilverRock was not considered instead of PGA West. Mr. 'Weissman stated it might be a consideration once SilverRock has more amenities to offer. He noted they currently have a large dinner at the PGA clubhouse along with other activities. Doug Martin, 49-320 A venida Fernando, spoke in support of the event, and noted it will include a free golf clinic for approximately 125 students, 7-17 years of age. He also feels it will be great publicity and exposure for the City. In response to Council Member Henderson, he stated the student participants in the golf clinic are primarily from Coachella Valley. They publicize the event through the local schools and newspaper. Council Member Osborne commented on the number of requests the City receives to participate in golf events, and indicated he would have a hard time putting City funds into this event. Council Member Kirk indicated he feels somewhat the same, and suggested funding requests for golf events be handled separately. He suggested the possibility of helping with the publicity for the golf clinic since it has direct benefit to the City. Council Member Henderson stated she feels it's difficult to weigh the pros and cons of these golf events, and to consider a sponsorship of this amount when the potential participants are probably the ones who need sponsorships the least. It's also hard for her to support a sponsorship for this event without retroactively supporting a minimal sponsorship to the Deputy Bruce Lee Memorial Golf Tournament discussed under written correspondence. She indicated she would support some participation in the golf clinic, but at the very least, a $1,000 sponsorship along with a reconsideration to fund --_._--------~- - City Council Minutes 9 April 18, 2006 $1,000 for the Deputy Bruce Lee Golf Tournament out of the police and fireman's memorial fund. Mayor Adolph stated he would have supported a sponsorship for the Deputy Bruce Lee Golf Tournament but the timing was too short. He commented on the students participating in this golf tournament being ambassadors of La Quinta when they go home, and stated he would support a $5,000 sponsorship. Council Member Osborne stated he would support taking $5,000 from the marketing account but not the General Fund. In response to Mayor Adolph, Mr. Genovese stated he doesn't know the balance in the marketing account at this time. Council Member Kirk stated he understands from the staff report that the City would receive $1 in publicity benefit for every $3 of sponsorship. He asked if that is where the City wants to spend its marketing dollars. Council Member Henderson stated that is why she has requested a bigger picture of the marketing amount. Council Member Kirk suggested supporting a $1 ,000 sponsorship now, with a clear support of the golf clinic, and consider additional support as part of the marketing budget when it is reviewed this year. He stated he would like to compare the various marketing areas together. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Kirk/Henderson to provide a $1 ,000 sponsorship for The Prestige at PGA West out of the General Fund for direct support of the golf clinic with staff working with the event organizers to determine how the money is spent, and consider the remaining $14,000 during the budget process in context of all other requests when looking at the marketing fund. Mr. Genovese clarified the $14,000 would be included in a marketing matrix during consideration of the marketing budget concept, which staff anticipates being on the next agenda. The item would then be listed as one of the budget requests during budget discussions. He confirmed no further letter of request would be required from the organization. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff ABSENT. City Council Minutes 10 April 18, 2006 STUDY SESSION 1 . DISCUSSION AND UPDATE TELECOMMUNICATION ISSUES. REGARDING THE CITY'S Legal Counsel Bill Marticorena presented a brief update on the City's current relationship with Time Warner Cable, and provided an overview of new technology and proposed legislation that would allow telephone companies, such as Verizon and AT&T, to provide video service. He also reviewed how it could affect video service to residents in the City of La Quinta. In response to Council Member Osborne, Mr. Marticorena stated Verizon is currently constructing their infrastructure in the City under their telephone authority but cannot provide video services until they have a franchise agreement. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Marticorena advised the City's franchise agreement with Time Warner does not preclude the City from having another company provide video services. As for wireless technology, he stated cell phone wireless is a different technology, and although some wireless video is provided, he doesn't believe it will replace the need for landlines into homes. He noted some cities use Wi-Fi wireless technology to create foot traffic in downtown redevelopment areas, and some are entering agreements for citywide Wi-Fi service to provide a competitive alternative to Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner. He indicated it would probably be good to come back in the next few months with a briefing on that subject. He confirmed some cities are going out with RFPs for local franchise agreements in hope that grandfathering protection will be included in the legislation. He noted going out with an RFP now may not result in getting the best agreement. Council Member Kirk asked about the amount of cable franchise revenue the City receives, and the current mechanism for handling customer complaints. Mr. Marticorena stated there is a mechanism for fines and penalties but he doesn't recall ever having to go through that process in this City. City Manager Genovese stated the City receives a few complaints a year, at the most, but they are resolved by Time Warner. Mr. Marticorena noted complaints usually relate to rates, which the City doesn't have any control over. Council Member Kirk commented he feels the biggest concern of some agencies is the loss of franchise revenue, and stated he is a big believer in °competition. He added he questions redlining of low income areas being an issue in La Quinta. -..-- ----- ------..---- City Council Minutes 11 April 18, 2006 Finance Director Falconer indicated the City has collected $534,000 in cable franchise revenue from Time Warner. Council Member Henderson noted one of the complaints cities have is the lack of control without a franchise agreement when utility companies tear up City streets. She stated she believes the over-:-riding issue on the local basis is the franchise fee because it is a significant part of our revenue. She feels the City's local cable service providers are community-minded with a desire to deliver good service, and doesn't believe the City would get the same service from a company that doesn't have a franchise agreement and is not local. Mr. Marticorena stated the City has complete control of its right-of-ways under the cable franchise agreement but as the City transitions to a telephone company, that control would be lost because telephone companies have a much greater degree of freedom in what they construct in the right- of-ways. He referenced a recent 9th Court ruling that doesn't allow cities to consider aesthetics when deciding what a telephone company can or cannot do in the right-of-ways. He feels there is legitimate concern on what impact a loss of control may have in regard to aesthetics, and believes the League of California Cities is trying to focus on in the legislative process. Council Member Henderson noted a significant number of cities depend on franchise agreement fees as part of their general fund. Mr . Marticorena stated revenue-neutrality is a key issue, and closer at the Federal level than at the State level. Mayor Adolph commented on the good relationship the City has had with Time Warner. In response to Council Member Osborne, Public Works Director Jonasson stated Verizon is working their way through La Quinta with fiber optic cable, and staff has had to follow up on numerous complaints about their street repairs. Council Member Osborne inquired about the expiration of the current franchise agreement. Mr. Marticorena stated the 10-year agreement was adopted in 1998, and the renewal window opens three years prior to the expiration date. He added Time Warner is required to submit a written request for renewal 30-36 months prior to expiration, and he hasn't seen one yet. City Council Minutes 12 April 18, 2006 Council Member Osborne asked if the Verizon agreements reached in other cities are more beneficial than Time Warner. Mr. Marticorena stated it varies because some cities have a good franchise agreement with Time Warner and some do not. He stated the Verizon agreements are substantially identical from city to city. Council Member Osborne asked if the current revenue generator would be duplicated if the City goes with Verizon. Mr. Marticorena stated the revenue would probably be close to the same. However, customer service authority in the Verizon agreements is much more limited, which he feels is a significant difference. 2. DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT 2006/2007 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Redevelopment Consultant Frank Spevacek presented the staff report. In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Spevacek stated a simple approach is used to measure the return on investment for SilverRock; the net cash return on the cash investment. The revenues used to judge the return are net service costs which include sales tax, property tax, tax increment revenue, and Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. He stated the expected rate of return on SilverRock is $ 6-7 million annually by the third year. When all development is in place, the total investment will be about $125 million. He noted the challenge is having public assets mixed in with revenue- generating assets, which means there are improvement costs for public areas that will not generate any direct financial return. He confirmed the rate of return is approximately 5 % but most of the expenditures are upfront. In règard to lifestyle centers, Mr. Spevacek stated two vacant sites still exist next to Costco and across from the La Quinta Centre, that would be large enough. He referenced a Similar size area in the City of Carlsbad that accommodates a lifestyle center. He noted there have been discussions for some time about how to attract movie theaters and night entertainment, and the belief is that there is sufficient population mass here to support that. Council Member Kirk stated his understanding of the analysis is that, although the Valley is overbuilt with movie theaters, a movie theater could work in La Quinta. He noted developers view lifestyle centers as loser projects because people don't go to movies and restaurants as much as in the past. He asked if that is the case in the Valley. - -~- - ~._,.- ---_._-_..~ - ..-....-..-.- " ....- ~ --'",- -- -- - - -- -- - -- - -- City Council Minutes 13 April 18, 2006 Mr. Spevacek stated further research would need to be done to provide a direct answer to the question but he understands The River project in the City of Rancho Mirage is a pretty viable operation. Council Member Kirk stated he feels it might be something to consider since a lot of people would like to have a movie theater in the City. He complimented staff on the report. He also indicated he feels the City will be under pressure to support very-low densities if the annexation area is annexed but will also be concerned about the fiscal ramifications. He commented on the difficulty of achieving an aesthetic environment whHe making it somewhat revenue neutral. He stated he sees major challenges to provide revenue opportunities in the annexation area similar to those along Highway 111 . In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Spevacek confirmed a stand- alone municipal golf course was never anticipated to be a money maker for the City. The hope was that it would someday generate enough revenue to cover the maintenance costs. Council Member Henderson commented on the need to look at the total investment and noted the golf course will start generating revenue when the retail/commercial/hotel areas are developed. Mr. Spevacek explained part of the motivation in creating SilverRock was due to developers inquiring about golf packages the City could provide. It was also determined that $300 million in tax increment money from Project Area No. 1 would go to the County, School Districts, or State if not used to create projects to capture that revenue. It was a choice of implementing a project like SilverRock with potential economic development benefits, or finish the capital improvement program and close the redevelopment program. Council Member Henderson stated she feels there should be either a broader concept defined or an explanation made in the EDP that the entire investment in SilverRock was not intended to produce a 1 5-18 % cash return. She suggested the possibility of having a separate EDP for SilverRock. City Manager Genovese noted the EDP might need to have a definition of public and private investments in SilverRock instead of a separate plan. Council Member Henderson referenced Recreational Opportunities on Page 16, and asked if the City is working financially with the City of Palm Desert on the trail system between the two cities. City Council Minutes 14 April 1 8, 2006 Mr. Genovese stated the City's cost is very little because most of the construction is outside of La Quinta's city limits. Most of the effort is coordination in \making sure the access points are there. Council Member Henderson voiced concern about losing the opportunity for a movie theater, and commented on the need to create a 25th anniversary committee. Mr. Genovese stated an estimated amount has been included in the 2006/2007 preliminary budget, and the issue will be coming back to Council in the near future. Council Member Henderson asked about the reference on Page 38 regarding a small real estate transfer fee. Mr. Spevacek stated some cities levy the fee to generate revenue for the general fund, and the reference is stipulating it may make sense to consider. He confirmed a real estate assessment would have to be placed on the ballot. Council Member Henderson stated she agrees there is a lot of concern regarding annexation, and that there are some major issues to work on. Council Member Osborne referenced Page 8, and voiced concern about being told the City has to continue growing and enlarging the City's revenue base in order to enhance and expand the quality of City services. He stated he feels the City does a good job providing services. He understands growth is a function of continued health but not mandatory at the speed taking place today. In regard to SilverRock, he stated he doesn't want to reduce the City's economic goals just for the benefit of filling in a blank at SilverRock. He asked for a clarification regarding Projected City/RDA Financial Resources for Economic Development. Mr. Spevacek stated in the past the City looked at dedicating funds through the economic development fund for assisting the expansion of the auto center or renovating the original Wal-Mart site. Most of what was set aside as an investment tool has been exhausted, and currently the goal is to put money aside for the purpose of having resources to invest or doing projects on a case-by-casebasis. In response to Council Member Osborne, Mr. Genovese stated any increase in that fund in the upcoming budget will depend on the Council's policy regarding the emergency reserves, which includes that account. ---..-... -- -.....--- ~-~._~-~....- City Council Minutes 15 April 18, 2006 Council Member· Osborne stated he is looking forward to the overall economic report on the annexation area and how the City is going to deal with it financially. Mayor Adolph voiced satisfaction with how the EDP has moved forward over the last 10 years but stated he is not as pleased about SilverRock. Purchasing the property was a good investment but he feels a sense of procrastination in moving forward with the hotel development, which is needed to help pay for the golf course. As for annexation, he feels it's important to come up with a plan to share the tax increment money with the County. He noted it's obvious the City can't put the burden of new development on its present residents. Council recessed to and until 7 :00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. Council reconvened with Council Member Sniff present. PUBLIC COMMENT Lori Fahwestock, 80-065 Vista Grande, thanked the City for constructing the sidewalk, an~ asked for an update on the issue. She indicated there has been some improvement but apartment residents are continuing to drive over the curb and leave shopping carts in the area. City Attorney Jenson advised staff is investigating the process for considering the street closure to non-emergency vehicles, and the ability to issue citations for driving over the curb. She noted there are procedural steps that must be taken prior to the public hearings for closing the street, and anticipates the process taking several months. PRESENTATIONS The Mayor and Council Members presented art awards to the following students of Truman Elementary School whose artwork has been displayed at City Hall: Shane Archer Serene Austin Kimberly Beltran Brandon Berumen Steven Carrillo Stephanie Garcia Kaylen Gedney Ricky Leacock Chase Lemmermann City Council Minutes 16 April 1 8, 2006 I riana Lopez Aime Luna Sammy Macias Natalie Nguyen Nicolaus Yonekura Alexus Pavia Kenya Perezgil Alexander Romero Vanessa Romero Sally Salas Casandra Valeriano Angel Valle Destiny Vega PUBLIC COMMENT: Lucia Moran, P. O. Box 1305, stated the Annual Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby was a great success with 13 of the 24 participants being from La Quinta. She indicated they will be asking the cities for financial assistance to ship the two cars back East for the finals. They are considering a super kids challenge for handicapped children next year. 'Mayor Adolph expressed appreciation for her work on the e·vent. PUBLIC HEARINGS t. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34185, THE SUBDIVISION OF 3.14 ACRES INTO TEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND OTHER PARCELS LOCATED 425± FEET WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STORM CHANNEL SOUTH OF FIESTA DRIVE ACCESSED FROM HUMMINGBIRD LANE. APPLICANT: SIENNA CORPORATION. Planning Manager Johnson presented the staff report. In response to Council Member Osborne, Public Works Director Jonasson stated the proposed amendment to Condition No. 47(B)(3)(4) would provide a standard driveway apron that would accommodate two-way traffic. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 7:36 p.m. Mike Rowe, representing Sienna Corporation, stated they are in agreement with the proposed conditions of approval. Council Member Henderson indicated she is disappointed the alternative access did not work out, and noted some of the challenges discussed at the last public hearing have not gone away. She suggested leaving open the issue of shared parking so staff and the developer can continue looking for a solution. -...-.______.~~~"_.._,._____..._ _..___ __..n._ ---~-- - ..- -- City Council Minutes 17 April 1 8, 2006 Mr. Rowe responded they are agreeable to try to address that concern. Mayor Adolph asked if the homeowners association will be required to maintain the entrance area, to which Mr. Rowe responded, IIY es." Roberta Froemming, 79-865 Hummingbird Lane, asked what the difference is between the proposed driveway off of Hummingbird Lane and the access proposed under the other alternative. Mr. Johnson stated the entry off Fiesta Drive would include a sharp curve and be only 1 50 feet away from Jefferson Street. Ms. Froemming noted CVWD vehicles will be using the access off Fiesta Drive, and questioned why the residents were not included in the meetings with CVWD. She feels she will be affected by this project more than the other residents, and is concerned about the extra traffic on- Hummingbird Lane. She suggested other alternatives be considered. Mr. Jonasson noted CVWD would be accessing the site for maintenance only about once a month. He explained the sharp turn onto Fiesta Drive and the reduced site distance caused by the downward grade to Jefferson Street would make it difficult to have a regular access so close to Jefferson Street. He indicated using the long narrow parcel for a well site would present a number of challenges because CVWD requires certain lot sizes and walls around well sites that would make it difficult to meet landscape setbacks. There being no further requests to speak, the Mayor declared· the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 7:48 p.m. Council Member Kirk stated he is sensitive to the residents' concerns. He asked if all practical access alternatives have been exhausted, is the City required to provide access to this development. City Attorney Jenson advised the City has the power to condemn an area to . provide an alternative access point but she doesn't know where that could be done. Council Member Kirk thanked the Mayor for proposing the alternative access and staff and the developer for their efforts in exploring the option. He indicated he reluctantly supports the project as recommended by the Planning Commission, and believes nine lots is sufficient for the site. He agrees some accommodation for shared parking should be made with the City Council Minutes 18 April 18, 2006 local residents to ensure off-street parking is done in a manner that is sensitive to the privacy of neighboring residents. Council Member Henderson indicated she will support the project but feels· it's important to have strict guidelines during construction to be as sensitive as possible to the residents' concerns. She doesn't believe the development will create that much traffic but understands the residents' concerns about the property being developed, and is disappointed the developer hasn't spent more time with the neighbors. She noted the City can't deny access to the property, and stated she doesn't know of any legal alternative to the situation. Council Member Osborne commented on it being unfortunate that the alternative access didn't work, and stated he supports the Planning Commission recommendation for nine lots. Council Member Sniff stated he feels the City has tried to find an adequate and satisfying solution, and hopes the developer will try to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. He doesn't believe traffic will be a serious problem, and stated he will support the project. Mayor Adolph asked if any consideration had been given to an access at the west end of the property. Mr. Johnson indicated the access is wide enough to accommodate the CVWD service vehicles but not as a two-way roadway into this development. Mayor Adolph indicated he is very sympathetic to the resident's concerns but doesn't know of any alternative way to resolve this. He commented on the need for the developer to be very cognizant of the neighborhood during construction. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF lA GUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF 3.14 ACRES INTO NINE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCEllANEOUS lOTS (TENTATIVE TRACT 34185 - SIENNA CORPORATION). It was moved by Council Members Kirk/Henderson to adopt Resolution No. 2006-037 as amended (amending Condition No. 47(B)(3)(4) to read, 113) The applicant shall construct a standard driveway approach for entry from Hummingbird Lane into the development's private street (Lot A); and 4) The City Council Minutes 19 April 18, 2006 driveway approach shall conform to La Quinta Standard Plan 221 to include adjustment to the proposed private street entrance or existing driveways to conform to said standard as approved by the City Engineer."; and adding a condition requiring at least one meeting between the applicant and neighboring residents to discuss construction requirements and the ultimate design of the entry and off-street parking, and giving staff discretion in making changes that are mutually agreeable to the applicant and the residents} . Council Member Sniff asked for clarification on how the added· condition could be carried out. Mr. Evans noted, since the Planning Commission didn't support 90 degree bay parking along the entry, staff would probably propose some type of parallel parking and review it with the applicant and residents. He suggested the condition indicate the changes would be approved by the Public Works Director and the Community Development Director. He added the Building Department would be utilized in developing a construction management program. Council Member Kirk agreed with including the comments in the motion. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Evans stated the language could be a challenge with the public, and there could be an appeal of staff's decisions. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-550 AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-106, ZONE CHANGE 2005-126, SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT NO.5, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32752, THE SUBDIVISION OF 2.4± ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED BETWEEN WEISKOPF AND JACK NICKLAUS WITHIN PGA WEST. APPLICANT: RAY SHAFFER. Mayor Adolph indicated he has a potential conflict of interest and left the dais. The Mayor Pro Tem declared the· PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 8:07 p.m. City Council Minutes 20 April 1 8, 2006 Community Development Director Evans presented the staff report. He also referenced a memorandum that includes amendments to the resolution and additional correspondence from residents and the applicant. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Evans stated under the proposed tract map, each of the three lots would have private driveways. He indicated the dedication and reservation of Lot L for the property owners in Tract 28444, as well as for the developer/property owner, is noted on the final map and clearly stated in the Council report in the record. He confirmed the overall density of 1.8 units per acre for Tract 28444 included the open space area currently proposed for this parcel map. He also reviewed the proposed realignment of the golf cart path. Mr. Evans continued the staff report, indicating the applicant has requested a continuance, however, the residents have voiced concern about the number of continuances that have already been granted. He referenced an email dated April 1 3, 2006 from the City's land surveyor that indicates the information in the staff report is consistent with his recollections of the plan check. He also gave a brief overview of issues raised in a letter from Allen Moatkins, legal counsel for KSL Land Corporation. City Attorney Jenson stated she concurs with the staff report, and has spoken to current and prior staff members of the Community Development Department who indicate they were never told the three lots were intended to be in a holding pattern for future development but were rather identified as common open-space lots. She referred to Paragraph 4 of the last IIwhereas" in the revised resolution, and noted the inconsistency with the General Plan policy for preservation of open space would be an additional basis for denying the project. She also clarified that while the specific plan allows for residential use in the tourist commercial area, there are aspects of this project that are inconsistent with several of the policies in the specific plan. If the Council approves the project, she advised the PGA West Specific Plan would need to be amended because the map shows the street as a through street. Additionally, staff would recommend amending the open space policy to clarify that the elimination of certain open space lots would be permitted. She noted the resolution does not deal with view preservation as a basis for denial. In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Jenson confirmed this is both a land-use issue and an environmental issue. Although the lots would be dealt with individually, she feels there could be a precedent-setting effect of the action taken by the Council. She confirmed it would not carry ov.er to lots that are not similarly situated. ----~._.__._--_.- - - -....- City Council Minutes 21 April 18, 2006 In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Evans confirmed the three lots and golf course area are zoned low-density residential. He explained the previous practice in General Plan designations was to make the low-density residential designation on the gross acreage areas with the understanding that at some point the City would change the General Plan to coincide with the as-built subdivision. He noted the exhibits on the wall are working documents, and subsequent to the subdivision map, someone used the GIS system to show the location of the streets, homes, and golf course. That is why the staff report presented to the Planning Commission represented different General Plan and Zoning designations. Staff then discovered that what was represented on the working documents was not exactly what the Council approved. Council Member Kirk asked what would stop the applicant from developing the two golf holes into residential land uses. Mr. Evans referenced excerpts from the December 27, 2905 Planning Commission meeting wherein Planning Commissioner Daniels voiced that concern based on the applicant's line of logic that the homeowners purchased a home next to the golf course but there is no representation a golf course will always be there. Council Member Kirk asked if there is any distinction between the golf course lots and the three subject lots as far as being used for residential use. Mr. Evans stated a future applicant would have the right to submit a proposal to remove the golf course and Council would have the obligation to make . a decision. He stated the official land use approved in the implementation stage of the specific plan is the land use in the subdivision map, and making any changes to the map, would require undoing the decision-making process. Although it would be complicated, the applicant's logic and disclosure statements imply that it could happen. Council Member Kirk asked why Lot L was not developed as a private, roadway. Mr. Jonasson referenced an encroachment permit (Attachment No.7) wherein KSL concurred approval of the construction phasing did not confer future rights to eliminate the west leg of Weiskopf and that elimination of it would require an action by the City Council. Unfortunately, the tract was accepted in 2003 and bonds were released without any security retention for the roadway. He feels this record along with the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) make it clear that it was a requirement of the tract map. City Council Minutes 22 April 1 8, 2006 Ms. Jenson confirmed the SIA requires KSL to construct the roadway, and stated the staff report for acceptance of the tract did not include a waiver or release of the roadway. In regard to the golf course land use, she stated she doubts the golf course map indicates the golf course was retained for the benefit of the lot owners, and noted it does indicate Lot L was retained for the benefit of the 69 lot owners. She believes the property owners are still entitled to the improvements outlined in the SIA. Mr. Evans spoke in regard to golf course land use, and noted the subdivision notes for Tract 28444 state Ilwe hereby reserve Lot K for golf course purposes. " In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Evans stated staff recommended filing of these applications based on the exhibits before Council. It wasn't until after a very detaJled review, that staff realized the exhibits were working documents. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Evans stated the map exhibits on the wall are not enlargements of maps included in the adopted General Plan. He believes the intent was to reflect what the actual approvals were as the General Plan and Specific Plan for PGA West were implemented but it should have been brought back to the Council for approval. He added staff will be reviewing the maps this year to fix any changes made without Council approval and will bring them back to Council to reflect all of the general plan amendments occurring since 2002. Ray Shaffer, 55-770 Cherry Hill, the applicant, commented he felt his applications were straight forward in the beginning but have been complicated by discoveries of errors in the City records. Forrest Haag, 1254 North Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, representing the applicant, stated he believes the area in question has always been developable land, and the project is very compatible with the neighborhood. He noted the exhibits referred to in staff's presentation have been on record since before the homeowners purchased their properties, and one resident has even voiced an interest in purchasing similar lots in PGA West. He feels . the project is consistent with the surrounding area, and isn't sure the road and traffic would be a good alternative. Council Member Henderson inquired as to why the lots have letters and not numbers. -------.-.--.---- -_.~--.---_.- - -- City Council Minutes 23 April 18, 2006 Mr. Haag deferred that question to the attorneys but stated he doesn't believe it makes sense for the area to be designated as permanent open space. Bob Hargreaves, of Best, Best & Krieger, attorney for the applicant, stated . he agrees the parcels were laid out to accommodate an entrance to the Nicklaus gate, and that Lot L was dedicated to the City for an emergency access and to the residents as a private street. He referenced the Planning Commission minutes of April 22, 1997 wherein Chevis Hosea (KSL representative) "... .explained the entrances and stated the design is tentative until they decide whether or not there would be another entrance into the project," and stated he believes staff's excerpt of that testimony in the staff report doesn't purport the meaning of what he said. He believes the testimony given by Mr. Hosea indicated KSL had not determined where the entrance would be, and that there was a question from the beginning as to how the circulation pattern would make the most sense as they developed the other tracts and other gates. As development took place, they felt it was more feasible and compatible to route traffic through the Spanish Bay gate. He noted Lots H and I on either side of Lot L were not dedicated to the City as open space but was reserved to KSL for open space and recreational use for their sole benefit and the benefit of their successors. He feels that was their way of indicating they were not sure what they were going to do with the area. He noted Lots G and F on the east side of Weiskopf were reserved the same way but have not been developed yet. He also feels it's clear on the encroachment permit issued in 1999 that uncertainty still existed at that time as to whether or not this would be an entrance. He noted the security bonds were not to be released until all improvements had been made and the bonds were released in 2003. He believes the release of bonds in 2003 shows the City agreed with KSL's decision for traffic to be routed through the Spanish Bay gate, and the proposed project has gone forward based on the idea that the property was not going to be an entrance. He agrees there are some issues of outstanding easements that need to be addressed but doesn't believe people would have the right to continue holding the easements if the entrance is not going to be built. He commented on the possibility of the City having to cover the cost of construction if it tries to enforce construction of the road because releasing the bonds could be interpreted as relinquishment of the condition. He also feels the residents in the area would not be pleased with the traffic flow problem it would create. He questioned any City documents stating the area is dedicated common area open space, and believes it could create a battle if the City tries to make it open space. As for what distinguishes this property from the golf course property, he noted it was originally mapped for a purpose that didn't work out, and believes it's privately-owned land that the owner has a right to develop. City Council Minutes 24 April 1 8, 2006 Joe Dondero, 56-190 Jack Nicklaus, voiced concern about traffic congestion if the road is constructed, and indicated when he purchased his property, he understood the area in question would remain open space. He stated he believes the developer would have built houses on the lots when the other homes were built if that had been the intention. Joe Garrett, 80-126 Merion, spoke in support of the applicant' s request, and stated he believes the need and concept for a road was abandoned when a new gate was constructed near the Stadium Clubhouse. He questioned the homeowners' deeds indicating any equity interest in the non-existent road, and stated he feels the issue of a road that is not needed is unfair opposition to this project. He believes KSL's payment of taxes and maintenance of the lots shows clear intent to develop the lots for some purpose, and that development of the lots will improve adjacent property values. He indicated his concern is to bring balance and fairness to this issue. Don Mann, 55-506 Pinehurst, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated he believes KSL's claim that the lettered lots were placeholders for future development is contrary to their representations before the Planning Commission and City Council. It is also contrary to the letter inserted in the owner's statement on the final map, which designated use of the area as open space and recreational. He urged Council not to approve the applicant's °request for a continuance unless it is continued to November when most of the homeowners would be able to be present. Brian Foord, 80-970 Spanish Bay, stated his main concern is the property values of the homes adjacent to this area being reduced if these lots are developed because they paid a higher price to be next to open space area. He asked the Council to deny the project. Myron & Joanne Mintz, 80-355 Weiskopf, commented on the number of letters submitted in opposition to this project, and voiced concern about approval of this project setting a precedent. He indicated they were told by the builder that the greenbelt area would not be developed, and by City staff that it was open space, and paid a premium price for their lot because it was adjacent to an open space area. They have asked about relocation of the retention basin if the lots are developed, and disposition of ° the area around Weiskopf Circle but have not received an answer. He disagreed with the assertion that the homeowners' views will not be affected because trees used for landscaping are likely to be 30-40 feet high. In response to Mr. Haag's comment, he stated they contacted CNL about building a home on a lot but no particulars were discussed, and CNL has not gotten back to them. Mrs. Mintz believes the main issue is the property being open space and not ------_________ ____ _un ___ _...._._ _~ -_._---~-_._---- - - - -.,---- - -.----..-.,- ~- - - City Council Minutes 25 April 1 8, 2006 whether or not a road is to be constructed. She urged the Council to deny the project. Patrick Breen, 51 5 S. 'Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, attorney for KSL Land Corporation, indicated Lot L was originally provided as an access with the complete understanding that it would not be necessary if another entrance was constructed, which was done with the Spanish Bay gate a few years later. He questioned it being a mistake to release the bonds for Tract 28444 because the improvements had been done. He stated the first time he heard of Lot L being an issue was in this staff report, and he feels it is being used to try to prevent this project from going forward. He doesn't believe the homeowners want the road but if Council bases its decision on the road, they can't say don't develop it as a road. He stated one of the reasons KSL did not construct the road is because the residents didn't want the road because of the traffic problem it would create. He questioned staff's assertion that Lots H and I are permanent open space because of being lettered lots, and noted Lots F and G have been approved by Council as residential numbered lots in Tract Map 29241. He said it isn't true that KSL, and the City always intended for the area to remain open space. Council Member Kirk asked if Lots F and G were made part of the record during the subsequent tract map approval that they were identified, if not dedicated, as open space and recreational. Mr. Breen stated they only got the records today but assumes it was because the definition was changed from Lots F and G to Lots 3 and 4. Mr. Evans stated he is looking at the tentative map approved by Council in October 1 999 and Lots 3 and 4 are shown as tourist commercial lots. Mr. Breen referenced a tract map dated October 2000, and stated it shows clearly that Lots F and G are now Lots 3 and 4 and approved for residential development. Mr. Evans stated Lot 1 is the 45-acre tourist commercial parcel in the middle. It was subdividing that property, the clubhouse, and the two lots that were formerly lettered lots. Council Member Kirk asked if the lettered lots were identified on this tract· as open space and recreational, to which Mr. Evans responded, uYes." Mr. Breen noted the specific plan for PGA West calls for 5,000 units, and there is less than 3,000 units currently, which is far below any density issue. As for any potential view impacts, he stated all issues of views were waived City Council Minutes 26 April 18, 2006 by the homeowners when they purchased their properties, and it should not be a consideration in this matter. He urged Cöuncil to approve this project. Mayor Pro Tem Sniff noted the density at PGA West was reduced at their own request. Mr. Mintz questioned why he was not notified about changes to lot designations if he lives within 500 feet of the property. He also indicated the residents have never been asked to vote on the issue of a road. Richard Settle, 78-411 Arroyo Drive, Indian Wells, stated he believes the language in the maps for the lots is not related to dedication or conveyance but rather to retention for open space and recreational use for the sole benefit of the grantor. There being no other requests to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 10:05 p.m. Ms. Jenson noted in order for KSL to have originally proposed the 1.8 units per acre, they had to include these lots as open space. Although some of the homeowners have indicated they don't want the road, the record indicates that Lot L is identified as a primary access point. She noted that although the bonds were released in error, the road is still an access on paper, and the map shows it was for the benefit of the 69 lot owners. The City doesn't know if the homeowners have given up their access rights. She stated Mr. Breen has referenced a letter about foregoing the access but she has not seen the letter. She is concerned about having an access that could be developed, and not knowing how the homeowners might feel about not having a more direct access. She has concerns about relinquishing those rights when many of the 69 homeowners who may live outside the 500-foot radius of the project, may not have been notified of this proceeding. She believes Lot L is in a different position than Lots F & G be~ause of the third parties involved who have rights of access and it is consistent with the specific plan. If Lots F & G were' inadvertently remapped, she doesn't believe that necessarily controls the Council's actions on this application. She indicated she spoke to Mr. Speer, a former staff member who worked on the KSL tract map, and he has indicated he was not aware of any proceeding or decision to relinquish the road, and that releasing of the bonds was an oversight by staff. She stated she doesn't believe a consent calendar acceptance of the tract map which doesn't require notification to surrounding property owners, could work a relinquishment of the homeowners' rights. She has also listened to the audio recording of the Planning Commission meeting wherein Mr. Hosea specifically talked about not wanting to put a permanent gate at PGA Boulevard because they had a ~'-"~~~"-""- -- --------------..---- ----_. -_.,-~--- City Council Minutes 27 April 18, 2006 better alternative and planned to use an existing gate. There was no discussion about tying into Spanish Bay but only an explanation as to why there was an emergency access, which has never been installed. Mr. Evans referenced a staff report dated October 5, 1999, for Tract Map 29241, and stated Lots 3 and 4 were designated tourist commercial, which would have allowed residential development. He indicated the lettered lots are not referenced in the staff report, and there are no roadways through the area as there is in Tract 28444. He also indicated the Council minutes from that meeting indicate no one but the applicant's engineer spoke at the meeting. He stated if there were homes with residents on Spanish Bay at that time, there was a different perception on the use of the property, possibility because one of the lots had, what appears to be, a house or temporary building with a pool. He later indicated the temporary building was the KSL temporary office building. Council Member Henderson asked if changing lettered lots to numbered lots is always a public hearing process. Mr. Evans stated it would normally be a public hearing because of the change to the land use regulatory controls on the property: Council Member Osborne noted although the City works within zoning designations and specific plans to give landowners rights for development, the neighboring property owners also have rights. KSL has represented the area as open space, and it' has been reported to surrounding property owners as open space. Therefore, he feels the property owners who paid to have the open space available to them, should have some right to keep it that way. In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Jenson explained the Tract Map 28444 on Page 32 that has the dedication language, is the final map and not the tentative map conditionally-approved by Council. She advised development is not allowed to begin until the final map is recorded. She confirmed the City was granted an easement in the road for utilities and emergency access. As for the lot owners, their right in Lot L is as a private street, and it is retained for the lot owners. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Evans stated he feels the key consideration for this parcel map as opposed to Tract 29241, is the private street dedication lot owners as well as the owners, successors, and assignees. Should Council want the parcel map brought back for approval, staff would need to go through the precise process of extinguishing the rights conveyed in the map, and bring the map back through the public City Council Minutes 28 April 1 8, 2006 hearing process with the roadway extinguished. He indicated it could be done with a parcel map if the dedication did not include the lot owners, as was done for the lettered lots reserved for golf course purposes and open space and recreational purposes. He stated staff is not aware of anything being executed to change the dedication, and noted it would probably have been submitted by the applicant. The Mayor Pro Tem declared the PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED at 10:24 p.m. Mr. Hargreaves stated he believes it would take a Quiet Title action to extinguish the rights of the property owners in the easement, apart from whatever the City does. The Mayor Pro Tem declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 10:25 p.m. Council Member Henderson stated it's her' understanding that an approval of this project would first require significant procedures to take place, to which Mr. Evans responded, IIYes." She asked who has been paying taxes on the property. Ms. Jenson stated staff can research it to report back to Council, and find out if it has been paid at the open space rate. Council Member Henderson stated there seems to be a reasonable expectation to continue this item to get additional information but she isn't sure the Council would find out anything that would change the desire of the City Council. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Evans stated the use of lettered lots for streets, retention basins, and open space is a standard in the industry. He confirmed other potential applications would be based on historical information and the zoning as understood by the Community Development Department, the City Council, and the community. He noted it's not uncommon for applications to be submitted that staff doesn't feel are approvable. Council Member Osborne indicated he feels the area should remain open space becaus9 it has been represented that way to neighboring property owners who paid extra for the proximity to it. Council Member Kirk stated he will not support a continuance, and supports the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the application. As for setting a precedent, he indicated he sees no reason to use the designation of ~._._--------_._-~_._~_....- City Council Minutes 29 April 18, 2006 Lots F and G as a reason to support the applicant's request. He doesn't see anything in the record that suggests this area was ever envisioned for three homes. As far as the comment about there being nothing in the final map suggesting the land would be dedicated as open space, he feels it would be interesting to hear a civil engineer indicate the distinction is a difference. He noted a lot of land in final maps is retained by an underlying property owner and not dedicated as open space or recreational but he suspects this area has been taxed as at an open space rate. Mayor Pro Tem Sniff stated he doesn't feel anything has been presented that would change the Planning Commission recommendation, and he supports denial of the application. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA GUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2005-550 AND DISAPPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32752 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 2.55 ACRES INTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS (RAY SHAFFER). It was moved by Council Members Kirk/Osborne to adopt Resolution No. 2006-038 as submitted. Council Member Henderson stated she believes outside of a gated community, this area would be considered street frontage and residential an ideal use of the property. She commented on knowledge of the land being by virtue of the lettered numbers on it, and noted it probably would have reverted back to low-density residential or tourist commercial if· an application had been made to change the lettered lots. She stated she would support the motion but recommends someone start looking at the numbered and lettered lots. Motion carried with Mayor Adolph ABSENT. 3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-557 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243, THE SUBDIVISION OF 20 ± ACRES INTO 70 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, 1,000± FEET WEST OF MADISON STREET. APPLICANT: INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES. Planning Manager Johnson presented the staff report.· City Council Minutes 30 April 18, 2006 In response to Council Member Osborne, Mr. Johnson stated the Planning Commission has directed the applicant to meet with the Lions Gate Homeowners Association representative regarding their concerns about a short wall on the east perimeter near the southern part of the property. He understands there has been some discussion about constructing a second wall at pad elevation height to minimize the privacy concerns. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Johnson stated he believes the height of the short wall is five feet but deferred the question to the applicant. Council Member Kirk inquired about the recommendation for a more creative design, and if the project meets the City's water efficiency standards. He also asked about the depth of the central open space area, and if the rear yards would open into that area. Mr. Johnson stated staff feels the size of the property provides opportunity for a meandering street environment as opposed to a long linear appearance. He confirmed the project is conditioned for the landscape plans to come back before the Planning Commission. In regard to water efficiency, he stated staff has discussed the amount of grass proposed in the central open space area. Public Works Director Jonasson stated the bottom of the open space area is about 10 feet below the elevation of the rear yards. He indicated the City's design standards for retention basins try to minimize a canal look in long narrow retention areas by using a 3-1 slope and limiting the depth to five . feet. The retaining walls on each side maximize the lot sizes but accentuate the depth of the basin, and make it difficult to make it attractive. He feels the applicant has skirted by the City's design standards for retention basins. Mayor Adolph asked about the lot lines not lining up with the adjacent properties. He also asked if the project will pave from the curb line to the center line of the street, and how it will affect the City's pavement program next year. Mr. Johnson stated the applicant did not design the tract to line up with the abutting lots to the east and west. The tract has a different design and the lot widths are different. Public Works Director Jonasson stated Condition No. 56 requires Avenue 58 to be widened to a secondary arterial, including a Class II bike lane. The improvements include the widening but don't take in the center line of the _. ._. __n_______ __ __ City Council Minutes . 31 April 18, 2006 street. He noted a lot of the street width has been replaced on Avenue 58 as developments put in their utilities. He stated the City will take care of the center lanes that haven't been replaced during overlaying of the street, and feather in with what the developments have done. Mayor Adolph questioned why the configuration of the tract should be a concern since it will be seen only by homeowners in the development, and he noted the market will determine how the properties sell. Mr. Johnson indicated part of the concern is the long, narrow central open space. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 11 :06 p.m. Brad Fulman, 200 East Washington Avenue, Escondido, of Innovative Communities, stated they have meandered the streets and added knuckles with medians to soften the linear look of the streets. As for water use related to the retention basin, they are changing it to more of a desertscape with drought-tolerant type materials. They have met twice with the· Lions Gate representative regarding the wall concerns. They would prefer adding two feet to the existing wall but have some liability concerns because some of the homeowners have already added to the wall. They are proposing to construct a secondary six-foot high wall on· this project's property. Mr. Fulman stated he feels the entrance leading to the beautifully-landscaped retention basin area is different from most projects, and the 'project will have a Spanish-type hacienda look as opposed to a Tuscany stone veneer-type look. Council Member Henderson stated she tends to agree the interior of the project should be up to the developer but noted the City looks at the density factors and the inside design to avoid the solid roof-top effect seen in heavily-developed areas. She inquired about the average lot size, the depth of the retention basin, and the wrought-iron fencing at the rear of the properties. Mr. Fulman stated the average lot size is 9, 100 square feet, which is above the General Plan requirement of 7,200 square feet, and noted they need a certain number of lots to make the project financially feasible. He stated the wrought-iron fencing is intended to capture the greenbelt-type atmosphere and view of the mountains as opposed to a closed-in look of a block wall. City Council Minutes 32 April 18, 2006 Council Member Henderson commented on it being a long time since she has seen a project where the rear yards face each other with a central rear-yard type of feel. Council Member Kirk noted a project along Jefferson Street north of Fred Waring Drive has a similar design. Council Member Henderson asked about the width of the retention basin. Community Development Director Evans stated a 3-1 turfed slope would work. However, a series of small retaining walls or stone rock revetments would create some character, and he noted there will be irrigation and erosion problems without the turf. He stated the Stone Creek development has a series of walking trails that are fairly narrow but they are well- designed. Mr. Fulman stated the width of the retention basin ranges from 60-80 feet. He stated they are changing the retention basin landscaping to reflect the Planning Commission's comments. Council Member Henderson commented on the need to provide an area for children's activities, and suggested clustered areas of turf along with the desertscape. Mr. Fulman agreed with the suggestion. In response to Council Member Kirk, Chris Bergh, civil engineer with MDS Consulting, confirmed the retention basin volume ismaxed out according to the calculations. He stated the 3-1 slope takes up about 18 feet on each side, leaving an approximate 22-foot width at the bottom at the narrowest point. Council Member Osborne asked if they were able to come to an agreement with the Lions Gate development on a single wall. Mr. Fulman stated some of the homeowners have already added to the existing wall, and a lot of the wall has aesthetic damage. He stated they have some concerns about adding to an existing six-foot high wall for which there are no plans available. They would prefer adding to the wall but have been told by several structural engineers that they recommend against it because of the wind loads on the wall. Mayor Adolph noted the Council has voiced concerns about having two walls close together because of the chance for children or animals to get between them. However, it's also not acceptable to have the height of a wall extended where there is a difference in the texture or color. ------. -_.~- -..--------- ..----..-...------ City Council Minutes 33 April 18, 2006 Mr. Fulman stated they would assist in matching the two walls, and showed photographs of the Puerta Azul wall that also abuts the Lions Gate perimeter wall on the opposite side. He indicated the distance between the two walls is 6 to 12 inches. Mayor Adolph stated he feels the project should be required to fill the gap with some type of material or put a cap on it to keep anything from getting between the two ,walls. He feels the project should also be conditioned to assist the homeowners in matching the two walls. He suggested putting the emergency access on the west side instead of the east side. Mr. Bergh stated they moved it from the west side to the east side and put in a knuckle to accommodate the Planning Commission's aesthetic concerns but are willing to move it back. Frank Gresik, 57-025 Mountain View, President of Lions Gate Homeowners Association, thanked the developer for working with them, and stated he believes construction and maintenance of a secondary wall is the best solution to their privacy concerns. Dennis Lee, 57-895 South Valley Lane, stated his lot abuts this project, and he has concerns about how a double wall will look from his property. He suggested the developer use a new technique with foam to extend the height of the existing wall to six feet high, and stucco their side of the wall for aesthetic purposes. He asked about the side-yard setbacks. Mayor Adolph stated the required minimum setback is five feet, and indicated he isn't sure the foam material could be used to extend the wall. Mr. Fulman referenced a wall at the Andalusia project that has an 18-inch cap made of foam material. Mayor Adolph suggested they discuss it with staff to make sure it is structurally safe. There being no further requests to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 11 :35 p.m. Mr. Jonasson advised the retention basin scales out to approximately 50 feet wide at the narrowest point, which would result at 12 feet at the bottom. The applicant's preliminary review indicates the retention basin will work but the hydrology is still under design. He noted a requirement to maintain 20 feet at the bottom of the basin would result in a loss of retention capacity. City Council Minutes 34 April 1 8, 2006 Council Member Kirk stated he feels the proposed retention basin is better than the square basin on the corner of Avenue 58. In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Fulman stated they eliminated the pedestrian bridge in response to concerns voiced by the Planning Commission regarding east and west access to the retention basin. Mr. Evans stated the Planning Commission was concerned about the lack of midpoint access but did not remove the bridge. Council Member Kirk stated he has concerns about the grade difference between the rear yards and bottom of the retention basin but believes the wrought-iron fencing makes good sense for defensible-space purposes. He is comfortable the developer will provide great improvements in the design of the retention basin. Council Member Henderson voiced concern about the density, and the staggering lot lines abutting the adjacent developments. She suggested the possibility of realigning the lot lines if the emergency access is moved to the west side. She asked how many lots would be lost if the density is changed to three units per acre. Council Member Osborne responded, 1110 lots." Council Member Henderson questioned that being necessary but stated if two to four units are lost to better align the lots, she feels the neighbors deserve it. She feels two lots to one would be okay. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED at 11 :44 p.m. Mr. Fulman stated they have considered several site layouts and this is the one that looked the best. He noted moving the emergency access to the west will help some in realigning the lots but they are concerned about losing four lots because of the economic impact. Mayor Adolph noted Mr. Lee would only have two lots abutting his property, instead of three, if the lots are shifted down. Council Member Henderson stated she would still support eliminating four lots. ------- - ,--..---- -..'-..--------- City Council Minutes 35 April 1 8, 2006 Council Member Sniff stated he feels the emergency access can easily be moved but eliminating lots would require a major reconfiguration. He feels it' 5 a mistake to try to micro-manage the tract. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 11 :46 p.m. Council Member Osborne suggested letting staff work with the developer on the wall but wants the space between filled if there are two walls. He indicated he also has concerns about the number of lots on the east side, and suggested widening some of the lots to provide more consistency. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINT A, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-557 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 (INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES - MASQUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC). It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to adopt Resolution No. 2006-039 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF 20 ACRES INTO +0 66 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP . 34243 - INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES). It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Osborne to adopt Resolution No. 2006-040 as amended (eliminating 4 lots; addressing the wall issue as discussed; and moving the emergency access to the west side if possible). Council Member Sniff noted reducing it to 66 lots places a burden on the developer to reconfigure the entire project, and questioned it having significant realistic and functional value. He likes the project but will not support the motion because he sees no justification to eliminate four lots. Mayor Adolph stated he feels any reduction in the number of lots should have been done at the Planning Commission hearing, and noted 9, 100 square foot lots are not small lots and they fit within the low-density range. He would like to see lower density but doesn't feel the elimination of four lots is going to accomplish it. He stated he would not support the motion. City Council Minutes 36 April 18, 2006 Council Member Kirk stated he supports the motion, and believes the Lions Gate homeowners have been extremely polite about two or three homes abùtting their properties 20 feet from the wall. He feels a modest reduction of four lots makes good planning sense from a compatibility standpoint. Given the problem with the retention basin, he feels there could be a potential argument for reduced density because of percolation rates in the project to make the basin a more amiable feature. Motion carried with Mayor Adolph and Council Member Sniff voting NO. 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ,ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801, THE SUBDIVISION OF 2.58 ± ACRES INTO EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND LETTERED LOTS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MADISON STREET, 500± FEET NORTH OF AVENUE 60. APPLICANT: BLAKE JUMPER. Planning Manager Johnson presented the staff report. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Johnson explained the purpose for putting in a multi-purpose trail along the frontage of this property is to connect the equestrian use with the equestrian trail along Avenue 60 to the south. Community Development Director Evans added an equestrian-use property owner has requested the connection, and the Planning Commission left it open for staff to determine because the property owner may leave and no longer need the access. Mayor Adolph asked if a sidewalk is proposed along with the multi-purpose trail, and questioned the need for both. Mr. Johnson stated the multi-purpose trail could be a moot point, depending on the property owner to the south, but both are included in the proposal at this time. Council Member Henderson commented she doubts the property owner who already has his property graded will voluntarily put in a multi-purpose trail and sidewalk. She doesn't feel both are needed. In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Johnson stated an effort has been made to coordinate a layout with eight parcels to the north. However, several property owners are involved with those parcels, and they are having difficulty trying to work something out. He feels it's going to take some City Council Minutes 37 April 18, 2006 additional time for those property owners to work together. As for the density of this project, he confirmed it's at the maximum number of lots allowed with the retention basin requirement. Mayor Adolph asked if the catch basin at the curb IS supposed to handle drainage for the entire street. Public Works Director Jonasson stated the City's standard requires the project to take care of their frontage on Madison Street out to the centerline of the street. Mayor Adolph commented he wants to make sure it's not going to overflow onto Madison Street during heavy rains. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 12: 10 p.m. Bob Gravel, 8954 Rio San Diego Drive, San Diego, of P & D Consultants and representing the applicant, stated the catch basin and retention basin have been designed to handle the frontage of the project. He stated this will . not be a gated community. Council Member Henderson voiced compatibility concerns about having an eight-lot subdivision in this area. Mr. Gravel stated there is another project about this size to the south that will soon be under construction. Council Member Henderson noted the lack of connectivity between the projects will make it difficult for them to interact with' each other. She commented she is not sure a 3.5 density is the way Council expects that area to grow, and noted Trilogy and Andalusia don't have that high of density. She feels the City is going to be under a lot of pressure to keep the density low when looking at areas that are currently outside the City limits. Mr. Evans pointed out the applicant owns a parcel to the north, and if . Council wishes, staff can try to meet with him and property owners for the parcels in between to try to coordinate an access. He noted, however, Blake Jumper's applications have been in the system for some time. Council Member Henderson suggested the possibility of having an access road between the properties. In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Evans reviewed proposed densities for surrounding properties. City Council Minutes 38 April 18, 2006 Council Member Osborne voiced concern about setting a precedent of small lots in the area when there is an opportunity to possibly create some larger lots. He feels the density is too high for the area. Steve Kleeman, 54-420 Avenida Vallejo, stated their project to the north has a median opening on Madison Street but this entrance is restricted, and he questioned the likelihood of being able to connect them. He indicated their project to the north has about the same size lots on 2.87 acres. He commented on other projects he has been involved with, and stated he doesn't see anything wrong with this one. He noted staff didn't have an issue with the project when he presented it to them, and he doesn't understand why now he stands to lose some lots. Council Member Henderson stated she believes the City needs to do some master planning in the area, and in the meantime, small projects continue to be submitted that don't seem to go together. Mr. Kleeman stated he is willing to do whatever Council wants. Council Member Henderson noted if the City doesn't take a look at the egress/ingress on Madison Street, it could end up with multiple curb cuts for access. Mr. Kleeman noted combining the accesses on another project on Avenue 58 has worked well. He feels this project is different because the property' immediately north of this project does not belong to them. Council Member Osborne stated he is not ready to approve this project with small lots in an area that the City has a generic plan of 4 units per acre. He voiced concern about maxing out the density and having wall-to-wall rooftops all the way to Avenue 60. It may look okay for 2.5 acres but not for the entire area. Mr. Kleeman stated he is willing to reduce the number of lots if necessary. There being no other requests to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 12:30 p.m. Mayor Adolph commented on the need to know what lot sizes the Council wants in this area so staff can let the developers know when they come into the City. City Council Minutes 39 April 18, 2006 Council Member Sniff stated he feels it's important to find a way to deal fairly with these small parcels so the property owners can develop them. In response to Mayor Adolph, Mr. Evans noted aligning the lots with the property to the south would provide some consistency. He stated, if Council wants to reduce the tract to five or six lots, staff can work with the applicant for a final lot configuration at the final subdivision stage. Council Member Osborne stated he would be okay with five lots. Council Member Kirk noted if this project was combined with some of the other properties, it would provide more flexibility. He could then consider smaller lots along with open space and amenities but feels it doesn't make sense to max this parcel out with an access that also doesn't make sense from a planning perspective. He would like to see the project at a minimum of half-acre lots. Council Member Sniff noted if impossible standards are placed on the property, it makes it impossible to develop. Council Member Henderson stated she is not concerned about matching up the lots with the property to the south, and would be satisfied with eliminating one lot. Council Member Sniff stated he feels that is reasonable. Council Member Osborne stated he would like to reduce it to five lots. He wants to take a look at the whole area because there is no detail plan for it. He stated he has voted before against what he considers high density for this rural area. He feels an approxin:-ate lot width of 90 feet would be more compatible with the area, and would hate to set a precedent for these small lots. Council Member Kirk agreed, and stated he would reluctantly go along with five lots but feels the City is missing an opportunity to work with the other property owners that seem to be trying to work together. He hates not waiting six months to coordinate the access and regretting it 10 years later. Council Member Sniff noted there is no assurance it can be accomplished within six months. Council Member Henderson stated she doesn't see the benefit of building eight homes but also doesn't see the benefit of building five. She feels seven will allow for an increase in the lot sizes. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-041 City Council Minutes 40 April 1 8, 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINT A, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to adopt Resolution No. 2006-041 as submitted. Motion carried with Council Members Kirk/Osborne voting NO. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-042 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINT A, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF 2.58 ± ACRES INTO EIGHT SEVEN' RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND LETTERED LOTS (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 - BLAKE JUMPER). It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Sniff to adopt Resolution No. 2006-042 as amended (reducing the number of lots to seven). Motion carried with Council Members Kirk/Osborne voting NO. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS All reports were noted and filed. DEPARTMENT REPORTS 5-À. REPORT ON REQUEST FOR JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING. -... Council Member Sniff suggested adding a status update on SilverRock and a tentative discussion on the history of smoking ordinances in the City. Council concurred, and selected May 9, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. for the joint meeting. Community Development Director Evans gave a brief update on the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan meeting. He stated some of the issues can be addressed in the implementing rules, procedures, and guidelines, and CV AG will let the cities know what can be included but they don't feel the plan can be amended without a lengthy review process. They discussed -------..._,._~_._~ ---...-- City Council Minutes 41 April 1 8, 2006 Section 5, and had a positive report on the City's ability to make decisions within the plan. There are some policy issues that the Council will need to address in regard to the overall merits of the plan. He indicated staff anticipates bringing the plan þefore the Council on May 16, 2006. City Attorney Jenson stated the attorneys have had some scheduling conflicts, and hope to meet next week. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS Council Member Henderson noted the Marine Corp Band will be holding a concert in the City park April 22, 2006. She also referenced an email from Robert Roach regarding Desert Sands Unified School District's consideration of names for the new middle school in La Quinta. One of the names under consideration is Colonel Mitchell Paige, and he is requesting the City support that name. She suggested staff be directed to find out when the issue is being considered and sending a letter in support of Colonel Paige. Council Member Sniff stated he has suggested naming the school after Ben Montoya, who is a native of La Ouinta and an extremely successful role model. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, ~---e£.~ JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California