2006 05 16 CC Minutes
LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
MAY 16,2006
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, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
None
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
CLOSED SESSION
Council Member Osborne did not participate in Item No. 2 due to a potential
conflict of interest caused by the possibility one of his clients may become involved
in this matter.
1. Conference with labor negotiators, Michael O'Connor, John Ruiz, and Ski
Harrison, regarding negotiations with the La Quinta City Employees
Association pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, Meet and
Confer Process.
2. Conference with the City's real property negotiator, Michael O'Connor,
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning potential terms
and conditions of acquisition and/or disposition of real property located at
the northwest corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive. Property
Owner/Negotiator: Chicago Title, Fred Parvey. (See note above.)
3. Public Employee Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957, Council-appointed position - City Manager.
Council recessed to the Redevelopment Agency and to Closed Session to and until
the hour of 3:00 p.m.
3:00 P.M.
Mayor Adolph led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
City Council Minutes
2
May 16, 2006
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ed Alderson, 78-479 Indigo, advised the Council that he has applied for
reappointment to the Planning Commission but will not be able to attend the
scheduled interview process. He assured them he would very much like to be
reappointed.
* * * * * * * * * *
Council Member Osborne left the dais and did not participate in the following
discussion due to a potential conflict of interest because of the close proximity of
his home to the property to be discussed.
Ian Rhodes, 43-905 Milan Court, and Scott Arthur, 43-845 Milan Court, each
spoke regarding the School District project on Palm Royale, and asked when the
wall behind their properties would be constructed. Mr. Rhodes also voiced safety
concerns about the lack of a stop sign at Palm Royale and Rome Street.
City Manager Genovese stated the School District is working on drawings, and is
expected to get back to staff within the next two weeks. He indicated some
difficulty with the drainage could result in a combination of a wall and retaining
wall.
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
Council Member Osborne requested Consent Item No. 10 be moved to Business
Item No.6.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
PRESENTATIONS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to approve the City
Council Minutes of May 2, 2006, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
~- -_. - --.- -
- --'--"--'-"-'--"--- -
- --------..---
--:ti'.
City Council Minutes
3
May 16, 2006
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED MAY 16,2006.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORT DATED MARCH 31, 2006.
3. RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE & EXPENDITURES REPORT DATED MARCH
31, 2006.
4. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A MOBILE STAGE FOR SPECIAL EVENTS.
5. AUTHORIZATION FOR OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE COMMUNITY
SAFETY MANAGER TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA SPECIALIZED TRAINING
INSTITUTE SPONSORED BY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES "EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR BASIC TRAINING," IN
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA, JUNE 6-8, 2006.
6. APPROVAL OF A REVISED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
INDIO FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVAL TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO DBX, INC.
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DUNE PALMS ROAD AT WESTWARD
HO DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2004-07A.
7. APPROVAL OF THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BID FOR THE JEFFERSON
STREET AT AVENUE 49 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO,
2004-076.
8. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND RECYCLING SERVICES FRANCHISES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF THE DESERT TO BURRTEC WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES, AND
APPROVING AMENDED FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH BURRTEC WASTE
AND RECYCLING SERVICES. (RESOLUTION NO. 2006-051)
9. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR WITH HILTON,
FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC FOR AB939 SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR
2006/2007.
10. SEE BUSINESS ITEM NO.6.
11. AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR
A BUS STOP WITH A LIBRARY THEME.
City Council Minutes
4
May 16, 2006
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Kirk to approve the
Consent Calendar as recommended and amended with the exception of Item
No. 10. Item No.8 was approved by RESOLUTION NO. 2006-051. Motion
carried unanimously.
BUSINESS SESSION
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE COACHEllA VAllEY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND
ENVIRONMENT AllNITIAl STUDY AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT.
Community Development Director Evans presented the staff report.
Mayor Adolph asked if there is anything in the plan the City can't live with.
Mr. Evans stated the plan will impose a pricey fee on properties, and some
of the properties will not have endangered species on it. He noted the plan
provides tools for the City to work with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Overall,
he feels it's a plan the City can work w.ith.
City Attorney Jenson stated she feels that is a question for Council to
answer, and noted it's not a risk-free proposition. There are provisions in the
plan that give her some comfort regarding take of land, and she noted the
Implementation Agreement allows the City to exempt projects from the plan.
She noted the risks are outlined in her memo but she doesn't feel they are a
reason not to go forward.
John Wohlmuth, Executive Director of CV AG, stated they have worked with
the cities, County, and other agencies to negotiate a plan and
Implementation Agreement that would be acceptable to USFWS and CDFG.
The wildlife agencies will issue a permit that states lIover 75 years, they will
protect the habitat of the 27 species in the conservation areas, and manage
and monitor the species so they will persist forever." As for the dispute
resolution policy, he noted it was not intended to address fair market values
from willing sellers in the conservation area. The policy will allow willing
sellers to get a second appraisal, and if a third appraisal is necessary, the
Coachella .Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) will pay for the appraisal
and any arbitration costs. He noted property will only be purchased from
willing sellers, and land appraisals will utilize the underlining zoning of the
properties to determine the property value. He indicated this process has
proved true in purchases made recently in conservation areas to mitigate the
freeway interchanges. Regarding the land-use adjacency guidelines, the
~..- - -
-- ---'--'- -- -
- - -.---.,-
Cïty Council Minutes
5
May 16, 2006
resolution states the City shall consider them but has discretion 111 how the
guidelines are applied.
In response to Council Member Osborne, Mr. Wohlmuth confirmed some of
the cities have taken action in opposition to the plan but have directed staff
to work on their issues of concern. CV AG staff will be working with the
City of Cathedral City next week, and are still working on some issues with
the Cities of Desert Hot Springs and Indio. He hopes the issues will be
resolved by June 1, 2006. He stated if one city officially votes uNo," unless
it is the City of Palm Springs, the document will have to be re-circulated in
some form, and the Executive Committee would determine if CV AG would
still be involved.
Council Member Sniff questioned the validity of being able to preserve the
species "forever." He also asked the reason for a 75-year period, and how
major alì1endments to the plan could be made.
Mr. Wohlmuth noted the objectives of the plan is to provide a habitat to
protect the species forever. As long as the cities meet the objectives of the
plan, the wildlife agencies cannot come back and ask the cities for more land
for those species. He stated a major amendment of the plan would require
an environmental document and unanimous approval by CVCC members.
Council Member Sniff stated it seems the property owner/developer will pay
the cost for this.
Mr. Wohlmuth confirmed they will pay a significant portion of the cost but
there are other funding sources such as the $1 per ton tipping fee for the
open space trust fund.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Wohlmuth confirmed CV AG
is working on an implementation manual for planners to use, which will have
a strealìllined process for allowing construction during the Big Horn Sheep
lambing season. He stated CVCC has established a subcommittee of
planners and one elected official to draft the manual.
Council Member Henderson asked for clarification regarding private
ownership lands.
Mr. Wohlmuth stated 940/0 of the conservation area is consistent with
current zoning, and 84% of the area is in the County. As an example, if the
County approves one unit on five acres, the CVCC would only be interested
in the disturbed area because it has to report that to the State and Federal
City Council Minutes
6
May 16, 2006
agencies. He feels there is a high probability that the land could be
developed.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Jenson stated it's not in the
plan nor the agreement but there are other tools in the plan to get to that.
She stated the implementing resolution allows the Council to determine if a
parcel should be exempted but a lot of uncertainty exists about what
happens after that.. She stated there was some confusion about the
existence of an expressed exemption for the conservation areas but it's not
there.
In response to Ms. Jenson, Mr. Wohlmuth clarified they will look at the
zoning at the time of acquisition, not when the plan is approved.
Council Member Henderson asked for clarification on the difference between
the development fee of $5,270 per acre and the per unit fee.
Mr. Wohlmuth stated commercial/industrial uses are a per acre fee, and the
residential fee averages at $5,270 per acre. However, because of the nexus
consultant's findings and the cumulative impacts for residential units, the fee
was broken out to a three-tier residential formula. He confirmed the fee
could be revisited but would require a nexus study, which is required every
five years or as deemed necessary.
Council Member Henderson noted the City has several outstanding issues,
and asked about putting them on a CVCC agenda for discussion.
Mr. Wohlmuth confirmed some of the issues for clarification can be put on a
CVCC agenda for discussion but some probably cannot. He noted there will
be further discretion on the fee ordinance.
Council Member Kirk questioned why higher densities have a higher per-acre
fee.
Mr. Wohlmuth noted the average of the three tiers equate to $5,270 per
acre. He stated three types of impacts were identified in the consultant's
study - direct impacts, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts. The
consultant wanted to provide density bonuses to get up to the higher density
in the smart growth concept, and to address the cumulative impacts. He
feels the greater impacts at the higher levels justify the fee.
Council Member Kirk stated he still doesn't understand the need for a higher
fee because an acre is still an acre, and asked what kind of cumulative
impacts he is referring to.
---.-----~
City Council Minutes
7
May 16, 2006
Mr. Wohlmuth noted roads, water services, sewer systems, and other public
amenities for greater populations will use some of the habitat.
Council Member Kirk asked what happens to the discussions they've had
about livable communities actually reducing sprawl and reducing the amount
of roads and public service demands. He asked if the City could adjust the
fees as long as they average $5,270 per acre.
Mr. Wohlmuth noted adjustments to the fee would affect the budget and the
ability to acquire conservation lands that have to be acquired over the 30-
year period. Any exemption or modification of the fee ordinance would
require revisiting the nexus study to determine the impacts, and he prefers
having the nexus study look at the formula as opposed to the formula being
adjusted city by city. He stated a new nexus study can be done in two
years, and they have suggested to CVCC that it would be appropriate to do
so if land values increase or decrease. A 3% escalation is built into the fee.
He confirmed the fee doesn't apply to public projects or covered projects.
Council Member Kirk asked if the fee would apply to a new fire station.
Michelle Ouellette, special legal counsel with Best, Best & Krieger, stated the
fee would not automatically apply. The City would apply the mitigation, and
it could be the fee if that is what the City determines is appropriate. She
noted the City has the authority under CEOA to ascertain the impacts and
potential mitigation.
In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Wohlmuth stated both the Building
Industry Association and Sierra Club support the plan, and he is not aware of
any other building association or environmental group that opposes the plan.
In response to Mayor Adolph, Mr. Wohlmuth noted there are different levels
of amendments. Some are very minor amendments that have to be
determined if they are consistent with the objectives of the plan; some are
minor ones that require wildlife agency concurrence; and some are major
amendments. One possible major amendment at this time is in Desert Hot
Springs to cover flood control facilities.
Mayor Adolph noted the key issue is flexibility in the plan. He asked if it
would nullify the approval if the City adopts the plan with a condition that
CVCC take up a particular concern.
Mr. Wohlmuth stated there will be MOUs between CVCC and the
jurisdictions. As an example, the City of Palm Springs may approve the plan
City Council Minutes
8
May 16, 2006
contingent upon CVCC or CVAG adopting a MOU. That would not be a
major change in the plan but if the condition makes a major change in the
document, it may require recirculation.
Council Member Sniff asked if the City could opt out if conditions change
significantly, and how would that be accomplished.
Mr. Wohlmuth confirmed the City could opt out of the plan but would no
longer receive the benefits of the plan, and the jpA document would have to
be re-circulated to remove the City.
Council Member Sniff asked what happens if the legislation this is based on
goes through a major change, and a legal basis to operate no longer exists.
Ms. Ouellette explained, at this point, the City would be making a
commitment to set aside certain mitigation and take certain actions in return
for take coverage. Should the Endangered Species Act cease to exist, the
plan would still be in place but actions would be taken by the participants to
withdraw from the permit if it is no longer needed. She added each
jurisdiction would need to do final accounting to make sure the take that had
been awarded was adequately mitigated.
Council Member Sniff asked who would be sued if there is a legal challenge,
and what the City's financial obligation would be.
Ms. Ouellette stated that would depend on the cause of action but it would
probably be CV AG since they are the lead agency.
Mr. Wohlmuth stated CVCC would use funds available in the plan to defend
the lawsuits. The JPA agreement includes assessment language but also
holds the permittees harmless. He cannot guarantee the cities will not be
assessed but CVCC is created to be the agency between the permittees and
any lawsuit to protect the permittees.
In response to Council Member Sniff, Ms. Ouellette stated challenges to
CEQA can take up to two years to resolve.
Ms. Jenson confirmed an indemnity provision is provided in the JPA
agreement. She stated she doubts a legal challenge would have much effect
on implementation of the plan.
Ellen Lloyd Trover, 82-150 Avenue 54, Vista Santa Rosa, stated she doesn't
think this is a perfect plan but supports it considering the alternatives. She
has water issue concerns if the plan is not adopted.
____..._____.__________ ____.. _0' __"._ _ _
- ------.----.,-, - -
-- - --- - -
Cíty Council Minutes
9
May 16, 2006
Dr. Cameron Barrows, 53-298 Avenida Montezuma, stated he has been very
active in helping to develop this plan, and noted the Fringe Toed Lizard Plan
adopted about 20 years ago has worked well. He noted some people own
property in the middle of sand dunes or in a flood zone but will receive fair
market value for their property and many are likely to get more than
expected.
Joe Broido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, encouraged Council not to let legal or
technical concerns keep them from approving the plan.
Bruce Colbert, Executive Director of The Property Owners Association of
Riverside County, P.O. Box 127, Riverside, stated three cities are currently
struggling with the plan, and he feels the cities should stick together. He
stated the plan is designed to allow CVCC to take private property rights
away from approximately 2,000 land owners without paying them. He
believes improvement projects could be built just as easy under existing laws
as under the plan, and questioned the necessity of the plan. He feels there
are better and more effective ways to protect species and preserve open
space. He encouraged the City not to approve the plan until the concerns of
the land owners and neighboring cities are resolved.
Mayor Adolph noted the plan will be dead if not approved by any city.
Norman and Gayle Cady, 82-831 Avenue 54, Vista Santa Rosa, voiced
support for the plan.
Chris Hinojosa, 80-960 Gentle Breeze Drive, stated he lost his investment
potential for property he owns in Section 5 because of the conservation plan
and people not wanting to invest in something the government controls. If
he negotiates with CV AG, they can't tell him when they would be able to
pay him" He stated he believes the plan will lower the value of his property"
Mr. Evans noted the City has a number of existing projects that have been
approved and graded, and the habitat take has already occurred. He asked
Mr. Wohlmuth for clarification as to whether or not the projects will be
required to pay the per-unit fee when the building permit is issued.
Mr. Wohlmuth stated the Implementation Agreement allows the take to
occur at the grading plan but, ultimately, it's up to the fee ordinance adopted
by the City" He stated the City has discretion in the fee ordinance.
City Council Minutes
10
May 16, 2006
Mr. Evans noted the fee ordinance will need to be written so projects that
have already been graded and the take has already occurred are not
retroactively charged a per-unit fee.
Ms. Kathy noted. none of the project areas that have already been mass
graded have been identified as needing protection, and it's her assumption
that there has been no take involved.
Mayor Adolph asked how long payment would take once CV AG and the
property owner agree on a selling price.
Mr. Wohlmuth stated once all of the pèrmitees approve the plan and the
wildlife agencies issue the permits, the ordinance starts charging the fee and
funds will be available. They already have an estimated $50 million from
CVWD, CV AG, and CalTrans mitigations. He stated the final process is with
CVCC, who is able to determine acquisition priority, and he expects they will
immediately address acquisitions from willing sellers .once the permits are
issued. It took less than three months for CV AG to recently close on three
separate properties for the freeway exchanges.
In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Evans confirmed most of the
technical and legal issues of the plan are associated with Section 5. He
indicated a small portion (41 parcels) of Travertine in Section 5 could
potentially be developed under the City's low density designation. He stated
the water recharge area is not within Section 5, and confirmed the 41
parcels in Section 5 have physical and utility cost constraints.
Council Member Kirk commented on the potential of annexing· parcels from
the Vista Santa Rosa ·area, and asked if there were any major issues
associated with potential development in that area as it relates to the plan.
Mr. Evans stated they would ~imply pay their fee and go forward.
Council Member Kirk stated, other than the fee, it seems to him that existing
parcels and parcels that may be annexed in the future, will benefit from the
plan in terms of processing and certainty.
Mr. Evans noted other parcels in the conservation area exist near Bear Creek
but there are provisions in the plan to address those parcels.
In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Evans confirmed tens of thousands
of lots could benefit from the plan, with there being some uncertainty for a
little more than 41 parcels in La Quinta.
_. - _..~
City Council Minutes
11
May 16, 2006
Council Member Sniff asked staff to name five major benefits and five
drawbacks in adopting the plan.
Mr. Evans stated five benefits are: regional conservation and open space;
funding for open space; transportation and infrastructure; guidelines to work
with wildlife agencies; and local decision making. As for drawbacks, the
language În the Implementation Agreement is not favorable to cities; it's a
complex plan; it will require a lot of hard work by CVCC; conservation
strategies in the HANS process will be confusing; and it shifts a lot of
maintenance responsibilities to local governments. He stated it's more
complicated in other cities that have multiple sections and multiple
conservation areas.
Council Member Henderson asked about the possibility of tweaking the
HANS process at the CVCC to make it less complicated.
Mr. Wohlmuth stated CV AG or the CVCC can develop a streamlined
education tool to make it less complicated.
RESOLUTION 2006-052
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF lA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE MUL TI-
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION PLAN, APPROVING THE COACHELlA VALLEY MUL TI-
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/COMMUNITY CONSERVATION
PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND ADOPTING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Kirk to adopt Resolution No.
2006-052 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION 2006-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF lA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COACHELlA VALLEY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN.
It was rnoved by Council Members Kirk/Henderson to adopt Resolution No.
2006-053 as amended (language change in the resolution). Motion carried
unanimously.
City Council Minutes
12
May 16, 2006
2. CONSIDERATION OF THE lA QUINTA MARKETING PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR
2006/2007.
Assistant City Manager 0' Connor presented the staff report.
Council Member Henderson spoke in support of approving the narrative plan,
and stated she feels the global picture provided in the staff report should be
kept in mind as this moves forward.
Council Member Osborne noted these figures will be reflected in the budget,
and he feels they are too low with the current growth. He feels they should
be increased substantially.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels the general outline is fine but general
marketing and SilverRock are significantly under funded. He believes the
SilverRock amount should be increased a minimum of 50% to do a credible
job, and suggested increasing both at least $100,000.
Council Member Henderson stated she is in support of raising the amount for
SilverRock but would first like to see Landmark's proposal. . As for general
city marketing, she noted the dollars shown in the matrix are not reflected in
the amounts shown on the front page of the staff report. She also noted the
substantial amounts going to the Chamber of Commerce, La Ouinta Arts
Foundation, and La Ouinta Playhouse are part of general city marketing. She
stated she is not prepared to change the marketing amount until these are
merged, and it's determined what percentage is used for marketing.
Council Member Kirk stated he is uncomfortable identifying a dollar amount
then having the consultants say what they will do for that amount. He
would prefer hearing what needs to be done to achieve the City's objectives.
He noted the organizations listed in the matrix indicate that the City receives
great marketing benefit from their efforts. He feels there may be a need to
re-orient what is currently being spent before spending another $200,000.
He feels the narrative is fine but is reluctant to move forward with a dollar
amount at this time.
In response to Mayor Adolph, City Manager Genovese confirmed $50,000
was budgeted last year for police services at the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic.
Council Member Sniff stated his concern is direct advertising, and he isn't
sure what the other organizations do is targeted the way he wants. He
stated he doesn't believe it's realistic to mix the amounts together.
-- - ---.-..--...- -----
---~----
City Council Minutes
13
May 16, 2006
Council Member Osborne stated he would agree to approving the narrative
but is not prepared to settle on an amount. He also indicated he doesn't
believe everything listed in the matrix is marketing.
Council Member Sniff suggested raising the marketing amount to $1 million
for planning purposes only.
Council Member Henderson stated she feels it's more important to ask for a
marketing program to see what the cost is, and to negotiate with Landmark
to see what amount they feel is needed.
Council Member Kirk suggested having Kiner and Landmark present a
supplemental proposal instead of the City providing an increased dollar
amount upfront.
Council Member Sniff agreed with having staff talk to Kiner and Landmark.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Kirk/Osborne to approve the
City of La Ouinta Marketing Plan for Fiscal Year 2006/2007, and authorize
staff to ask the marketing consultants to present supplemental requests.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. CONSIDERATION OF INCREASING HOURS OF OPERATION AT THE
LA QUINT A PUBLIC LIBRARY.
There were no changes to the staff report as submitted and on file in the
City Clerk's Office.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Kirk/Sniff to approve an
increase of 1 0 hours per week in the hours of operation at the La Ouinta
Public Library beginning July 1, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CRITERIA
FOR THE VETERANS RECOGNITION PROGRAM,
Community Services Director Hylton presented the staff report.
Council Member Sniff questioned the need to include the language about
deployment, and suggested ending the sentence with "active duty."
City Council Minutes
14
May 16, 2006
Ms. Hylton explained the purpose was to tighten up the language regarding
reservists.
Council Member Henderson questioned it being appropriate to include voter
registration as a qualification.
Council concurred to delete the voter registration requirement, and to end
the sentence with lIactive duty."
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members 'Henderson/Sniff to amend the
criteria for the Veteran's Recognition Program with amended language in the
first two qualifications to read as follows: IIQualifying Veterans must have
served their country in active duty; a~d Qualifying Veterans must be primary
residents of La Quinta for at least three years." Motion carried unanimously.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Adolph apologized to Mr. Joe Broido for overlooking his request to speak on
the library item, and indicated his comments were related to the need for covered
parking at the library.
Council recessed to and until 7:00 p.m.
7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ira Boiko, 44-750 Seeley Drive, asked for an update on the Vista. Grande gate
situation.
City Attorney Jenson advised the City has received the preliminary title reports,
and Community Development Director Evans indicated the public hearing process is
expected to begin in June.
PRESENTATIONS - None
----.-
~ --. ----..- -----
City Council Minutes
15
May 16, 2006
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1 . PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243, THE SUBDIVISION OF 20 ±
ACRES INTO 70 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
AVENUE 58, 1000 ± WEST OF MADISON STREET. APPLICANT:
INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES.
Principal Planner Saw a presented the staff report.
Community Development Director Evans indicated a letter of support was
received today from a resident of Lion's Gate.
Council Member Henderson referenced the project east of Lions Gate that
was redesigned to provide a better match of the property lines, and asked
how the gO-foot width lots on that project match up with the lots at Lions
Gate.
Mr. Sawa stated it resulted in about a two-to-one lot ratio.
Council Member Henderson noted 73-foot width lots on this project generally
provide the same ratio. She commented on the applicant's failure to respond
to staff's redesign recommendations, and asked about the dimensions of the
retention basin.
Public Works Director Jonasson stated 25 to 33 % of the retention basin is
approxinlately 1 2 feet wide at the narrowest point, and 25 to 33°jÓ of it is
about 50 feet wide at the widest point. The slope is between 3-1 and 2-1 .
Mr. Evans pointed out the finished project will not look like the perspective
because of additional technical solutions needed for the slopes. He indicated
there could be some erosion issues if the area is done with slopes.
Council Member Henderson asked about drainage in the retention basin.
Mr. Jonasson stated nuisance water will be brought directly to the sand filter
in the basin. Whether or not it's marshy will depend on the percolation rate.
In response to Council Member Kirk, City Manager Genovese stated he
doesn't recall Council ever reconsidering public hearing items but they have
reconsidered a few business items.
Council Member Kirk referenced the revised tract design, and asked if the
density could be reduced.
City Council Minutes
16
May 16, 2006
Mr. Evans stated they increased the lot widths, and one large lot was divided
into two lots. He confirmed findings could be made to reduce the density.
In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Sawa stated the lots in the project
east of Lions Gate were larger than this tract. He indicated the tract
immediately to the west and the tract across the street have probably the
highest densities on Avenue 58.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Sawa stated the reduction of
Lot 66 helped match up the abutting property lines. Mr. Jonasson noted Lot
66 will lose about 10 feet because of the deceleration lane requirement.
The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 7:27 p.m.
Stephen Grebing, 600 West Broadway, San Diego, legal counsel for
Innovative Communities, noted the lot ratios have been reduced, and the
Lions Gate homeowners' concerns have been resolved.
Council Member Henderson questioned statements in Mr. Grebing's letter
about the mandating of 4 units per acre and further meetings with the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Grebing indicated IImandate" should be changed to lIallowed," and Brad
. Fulman, of Innovative Communities, confirmed there was only one meeting
with the Planning Commission.
There being no further requests to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Evans noted the applicant's new exhibits have not been reviewed by
staff or the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC). He
recommended, at a minimum, the final landscape plans be reviewed by the
ALRC. He noted the ALRC reviews all concept landscape plans, and
suggested the process be changed wherein they review all final . landscape
plans.
Council Member Osborne stated he believes Council should have a better
plan of the area and not make arbitrary reductions. He believes developers
should know upfront what the rules are, and stated he doesn't have a
problem with the ALRC reviewing the landscape plans.
Council Member Kirk stated he voted with the majority to reduce the density
because he felt it was a modest reduction to address compatibility issues.
~-~---- --
---- -_.---
- _. _.- - ----- -
...~
City Council Minutes
17
May 16, 2006
He commented on reductions of greater percentage made in other projects,
and voiced concern about future annexation areas zoned 0-4 units per acre if
reductions can't be done in a project with clear compatibility issues like this
one. He noted general plan and zoning amendments take time to process,
and that in the meantime, projects will continue to be submitted. He stated
he supports higher densities in some areas but will not support this tract
with 70 lots.
Mayor Adolph noted the developer has spent a lot of time and money to put
this project together without any indication Council would reduce the density
after being reviewed by the ALRC and Planning Commission. Since staff and
the Planning Commission now understand what the Council is looking for in
density, he noted developers can know upfront that the project densities
may be reduced. He doesn't feel it's appropriate to reduce this project
because the applicant had no prior knowledge as to what direction Council
wants to go in relation to density.
Council Member Henderson noted a density reduction in this project would
not be unique because the density of a project at Jefferson Street and
Avenue 52 was reduced after that project went to the Planning Commission.
She indicated she would not vote in support of the tract with 70 lots. She
suggested some consideration be given to the impact to Lot 66 because of
the deceleration lane, and noted it might be the square footage needed to
better adjust the lot lines with the adjacent project. She commended the
applicant for working with the Lions Gate development but feels it's
unfortunate they failed to listen to staff's recommendations for redesign.
She questioned the impact of losing a few lots, and stated she feels the
project is not compatible with the adjacent developments.
Mayor Adolph noted the density was reduced at Jefferson Street and
Avenue 52 because it was a two-story project and close to Jefferson Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-054
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF 20 ACRES INTO 70
RESIDENTIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS (TENTATIVE TRACT 34243 -
INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES).
It was rnoved by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to adopt Resolution No.
2006-054 as amended (using the revised map and referring the final
landscape plans back to the ALRC). Motion carried with Council Members
Henderson and Kirk voting NO.
City Council Minutes
18
May 16, 2006
Council convened into joint session with the Redevelopment Agency.
2. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO
CONSIDER THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY lOCATED AT 53-205 AVENIDA
NAVARRO BY AND BETWEEN THE lA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND KIM lOUTSENHIZER.
Community Development Director Evans presented the staff report.
The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 7:57 p.m. There being
no requests to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at
7:57 p.m.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to approve the
sale of 53-205 Avenida Navarro to Kim Loutsenhizer to maintain an
affordable housing unit in Project Area No. 1 for a purchase price of
$165,000. Motion carried unanimously.
2. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO
CONSIDER THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 53-195 AVENIDA
CARRANZA BY AND BETWEEN THE lA QUINT A REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND CORINA GOMEZ.
Community Development Director Evans presented the staff report.
The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 8:00 p.m. There being
no requests to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at
8:00 p.m.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Sniff to approve
the sale of 53-195 Avenida Carranza to Corina Gomez to maintain an
affordable housing unit in Project Area No. 1 for a purchase price of
$165,000. Motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE' CITY OF lA QUINTA
TAX ADMINISTRATOR'S APRil 19, 2006 DETERMINATION REVOKING THE
CASITAS lAS ROSAS, LLC TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX PERMIT.
Council Member Osborne advised of' a potential conflict of interest and left
the dais.
Assistant City Manager O'Connor presented the staff report.
--_. -
City Council Minutes
19
May 16, 2006
The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 8:04 p.m.
Timothy McOsker, attorney for Chicago Title, stated they are in the process
of selecting an operator for the casitas and the Embassy Suites Hotel. They
do not dispute the amount owed but would like to negotiate the past due
amount and get a TOT permitee operator in place.
In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. McOsker confirmed they have a
contractual commitment to pay the past due amount but would like to
negotiate a TOT rebate agreement.
Council Member Kirk asked when they would pay the debt if Council doesn't
support a TOT rebate agreement.
Mr. McOsker stated he understood why the debt could not be tied to the
TOT rebate but they are here to find out if there will be a TOT rebate
agreement.
Council Member Henderson noted the amount owed and a TOT rebate
agreement are separate issues. She feels what they seem to be saying is
they will pay the debt when they have a rebate agreement, and maybe what
the Council should hear is that they will pay, and can we also talk about a
rebate agreement.
Mr. McOsker stated the appeal was a vehicle that allowed them to come
before the Council to discuss a TOT rebate agreement.
Council Member Sniff stated he doesn't see any reason for them not paying
the debt, and noted it would provide a more positive feeling in considering
additional requests. He stated he is anxious to see the hotel opened, and
encouraged them to pay the bill.
Mayor Adolph stated he realizes Chicago Title is new player in the hotel
project but Council has dealt with this issue for years and still doesn't have
the TOT. He feels it's a matter of creditability, and that they need to show
good faith.
Mr. McOsker commented on how much they have spent to acquire the
property and will continue to spend to get the hotel open.
Council Member Henderson asked how they plan to operate if the permit is
revo ked.
City Council Minutes
20
May' 16, 2006
Mr. McOsker stated they would like to have some time to get an operator on
board who can pull a permit.
There being no further requests to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED at 8:26 p.m.
City Attorney Jenson indicated she would like to clarify a statement made by
McOsker in his letter that Chicago Title would not have proceeded to close
escrow had there been no assurances the City or Agency would enter into an
agreement. She noted escrow closed on February 3, 2006, and on
January 6th she informed Eric Early, an attorney representing Chicago Title,
that the City had never signed an agreement with Danny Brown, and related
that same information to Roger Howard on January 10th. She later spoke to
Mr. McOsker, who indicated that Mr. Brown said he had an agreement with
the City for 100% rebate. He further indicated he didn't think Chicago Title
would be interested in a 40% rebate. She referenced an email from Mr.
McOsker, dated January 28th, wherein he indicated he understood the City
was not interested and that they would not be pursuing it, unless they
receive different direction. She advised all correspondence with Mr. Brown
made it clear these were only negotiations, and noted there have been no
negotiations with Chicago Title. She pointed out the Council is limited at
this time to the action taken by the Tax Administrator.
Council Member Kirk questioned why this background information was not
provided before closing the public hearing. He requested it be done in the
future, and stated he feels the applicant should have had an opportunity to
address those issues. However, nothing has been said to change his opinion
on what action he feels Council should take.
Ms. Jenson noted the public hearing can be reopened if Council wishes.
In response to Mayor Adolph, Ms. Jenson advised if Council wants to
provide additional time for payment, they can uphold the decision with a
caveat that the revocation will not take effect if payment is received within a
certain period of time.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Kirk/Sniff to reject the appeal
and uphold the April 19, 2006, Determination of the La Quinta Tax
Administrator revoking the Casitas Las Rosas, LLC Transient Occupancy Tax
permit unless payment is received by June 10, 2006. Motion carried with
Council Member Osborne ABSENT.
- -- - --- ----._- - .- -
- - - --~- - -_._---
City Council Minutes
21
May 16, 2006
BUSINESS SESSION . . . . . . . . . . continued
5. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION WORK PLAN
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007.
Community Services Director Hylton presented the staff report.
In response to Council Member Osborne, Ms. Hylton stated the study on
parks will be part of the parks master plan. City Manager Genovese
indicated an item is tentatively scheduled for the next agenda to select a
parks and recreation consultant. Ms. Hylton confirmed the Community
Services Commission will be involved with the process.
Mayor Adolph commented on the need for half-court basketball courts in the
City.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to approve
the Community Services Commission Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2006/2007.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. ADOPTION OF THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (EDP) FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007.
There were no changes to the staff report as submitted and on file in the
City Clerk's Office.
Council Member Osborne stated he feels the auto mall should be addressed
in more detail in the EDP.
Consultant Frank Spevacek stated although it's not specifically mentioned in
the EDP, the City will be trying to recruit additional dealers. He referenced
Pages 2.5 and 26, and indicated the City is interested in facilitating the
expansion and/or retention of dealerships.
Council Member Osborne questioned that being sufficient given the fact a
neighboring city is being very aggressive in attracting dealerships. He stated
he would like to see language in the EDP regarding the City's desire to
maintain a strong relationship with the auto dealers in order not to lose any,
and to work hard to expand the auto mall.
Council Member Sniff suggested comments be included in the EDP that
indicate strong support for the auto mall and potential addition of new
dealerships and expansion.
City Council Minutes
22
May 16, 2006
Council concurred
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Osborne/Sniff to adopt the
City's Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Economic Development Plan with amended
language indicating strong support for the auto mall and potential addition of
new dealerships and expansion. Motion carried unanimously.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSSION OF LA GUINTA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION POLICY.
Community Development Director Evans presented the staff report.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels the number one issue is to negotiate an
agreement with the County, as soon as possible, regarding the sharing of tax
increment monies for this area.
Council Member Kirk concurred.
Mayor Adolph stated he feels Council also needs to know what direction
they want to go in regard to land planning for the area. He is in favor of the
current rural atmosphere but there are developers and property owners that
may not want that.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels the entities formed by the County in
that area should remain in place until no longer needed.
Mr. Evans stated the County refers all development applications to the Vista
Santa Rosa Community Council (VSRCC) for review and comment~ He asked
if Council would like staff to look into the same type of review and comment
from that group for the City.
Council concurred.
Council Member Henderson stated the Vista Santa Rosa Planning Task Force
was created with specific goals, one was putting together a land-use plan,
that is now close to being final.
Mr. Evans stated he believes the land-use plan will be final in 60-90 days.
City Council Minutes
23
May 16, 2006
Council Member Henderson stated she understands the Task Force has been
successful in calming down some of the emotions of the past. She feels it's
fair for development proposals to also be shared with them, and noted the
final decision rests with the County.
In response to Council Member Kirk, Mr. Evans confirmed the strategic plan
includes looking at fiscal issues, infrastructure, public services, and
assessments. The intent is to put a fast-moving team together to look at the
issues, solicit public input, and try to come up with design guidelines within
a matter of weeks. He stated there is some overlap between the City's work
program and the County's work program. He will be meeting with the
County Planning Director next week, and it would be helpful to know if
Council wants staff to work with the County on a joint work program.
Council Member Kirk noted the work program proposed by staff depends on
fiscal impacts, and questioned why time should be spent on design
guidelines until the fiscal issues have been addressed. He commented he
doubts Council will support annexation if it means a major negative impact to
the City.
Council Member Osborne noted a recent economic report in the red was
based on 4 units per acre, and 2 units per acre would change those figures.
He questioned being able to know what the financial needs are until a land-
use study is completed. He agreed the City needs to deal with the issue of
tax increment sharing immediately.
Council Member Henderson noted there are different financial considerations
with property north and south of Avenue 54, and how it relates to the
totality of Vista Santa Rosa (VSR). She isn't sure $ .07 cents on the dollar of
tax increment growth will be enough if there aren't any redevelopment
monies.
Council Member Kirk asked about establishing an RDA in the area.
City Manager Genovese stated it is not clear whether or not those monies
could be assigned to the General Fund, and the challenge of operations
would still exist. He noted the best fiscal models need TOT and sales tax
revenues to survive, and even with a 25 % tax sharing agreement, land use
planning would still be essential to provide fiscal help to the area. He feels
it's important to move forward with both, and cautioned it's more than
County negotiations. He stated the real concern of the negative economic
report is not capital improvements but rather the provision of municipal
services such as police and fire.
City Council Minutes
24
May 16, 2006
Council Member Sniff commented on there being multiple concerns and a
need for multiple answers. He supports negotiating with the County and
moving toward things that will be tax productive, and noted money from the
County would help with infrastructure.
Mr. Genovese noted the gap will need to be filled by either assessment
districts or some type of fee, and land use planning will still be essential
even if negotiations with the County are positive.
Mr. Evans reviewed examples of projects in the area that have been
submitted to the County.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Johnson stated some of the
projects have been approved by the County, and reviewed by the VSRCC but
the Task Force doesn't review individual projects.
Mr. Evans noted once an area is annexed, the general plan and zoning
designations are locked in for two years. He confirmed most of the land Use
changes have to be made in advance. He reviewed a tract proposal for 3
units per acre at Monroe Street and Avenue 62 that is more consistent with
a traditional La Quinta development. He noted perimeter and lot sizes are
the key differences between this project and other projects done by the
County. He stated City setbacks that are typically right-of-way plus 20. feet
and a wall, do not meet the expectations of the VSRCC. He went on to
discuss the strategic plan, and noted the City will have to provide municipal
services immediately after an area is annexed. He indicated there are
property owners who are ready to file annexation applications, and some
with full specific plans and tract map proposals. He asked for Council
direction as to whether or not to start processing pre-annexation
development proposals. He referenced one that has been waiting over a
year.
Council Member Osborne stated he would have a difficult time considering
an annexation application until Council knows what it wants in the way of
land use.
Council Member Henderson asked if the development proposal close to
coming forward has a financial package that will solve the problems of this
project.
Mr. Evans stated he expects to know that answer within a few days.
Council Member Henderson stated she feels it's reasonable to tell future
development proposals to wait until the master plan is finished. However,
~-----
- -- ------ ~ -_. _.. ---- -- -
- - --- --
City Council Minutes
25
May 16, 2006
she feels those who have already been working on a proposal should not
have to wait if they can conform to a reasonable expectation of a direction
for the future and financial commitment. She noted LAFCO has made it
clear it doesn't want to approve vacant property.
Mr. Evans commented on the need for annexation applications to have some
relationship to existing City limits. He indicated it would be advantageous
for staff to be actively working on 1 to 3 development applications because
it would sharpen their review process. He stated some property owners
want to annex raw land into the City.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels any annexations should be contiguous
to City limits, and it's logical to start with 1 to 3 proposals that are most
logical and immediately adjacent to City limits.
Mr. Evans stated the strategic plan will be front loaded with public input, and
he will talk to the County to avoid having two separate land use plans with
two entities vying for people's support.
Betty Mangan Smith, 82-470 Avenue 54, VSR, commented on changes to
the real estate market and how it affects property values. She voiced
concern about the City wanting to move quickly to change VSR into high-
density housing. She noted the people who live there like open space, and
want to work cooperatively with the City to create a beautiful area. She
believes fast development is over, and questioned who will buy the homes
that are being built.
Lee Anderson, 59-777 Calhoun, VSR, encouraged Council to listen to the
residents of VSR before moving at warp speed and making any final
decisions. He stated they are significantly different, and would like a chance
to work with Council to explain that difference. He indicated they also feel
the proposed width of Avenue 62 is too big but that all the roads should be
a little wider.
Mayor Adolph referenced CV AG's discussions about making Avenue 62 a
parkway, and questioned where the traffic will go at the dead end.
Council Member Sniff commented Council wants input from the residents,
and noted the reason for warp speed is to deal with the issues so everyone
knows what the rules are. It's not for the purpose of covering the area with
houses.
Charles Rechlin, 82-480 Avenue 54, VSR, stated they have a general plan
with overlays, and the Task Force is working to develop a more-detailed
City Council Minutes
26
May 16, 2006
master plan. He hopes it will be ready in 90 days, and commented the
City's participation in the process will help in getting a handle on the fiscal
issue. He encouraged Council not to let pre-annexation applications get in
the way of land use planning.
John Powell, 77-407 Box Ridge Place, Indian Wells, stated he is a member
of 'both the Task Force and the VSRCC, and would like to ,participate in the
City's strategic plan process. He doesn't agree with all of the County
overlay but feels a lot of good thought went into it, and agrees with the
density on his property. He stated he has had an annexation application in
the City for about 10 months. He feels the developers can help bridge the
gap during the permit process or through long term assessment districts.
Regarding VSRCC reviewing pre-annexation proposals, he noted they
represent a certain group and are residents of the area. He suggested review
by other groups also be considered, such as the Vista Santa Rosa Coalition.
Council Member Henderson stated she supports potential applicants sharing
their projects with the Coalition and Task Force.
Ellen Lloyd Trover, 82-150 Avenue 54, VSR, stated she is President of the
Vista Santa Rosa Association, which is a non-profit organization consisting
primarily of residents of the area. She stated the Association will not go
away if the area is annexed but rather will try to advise the City just as they
have the County. She provided some historical information regarding the
Task Force, and listed the members as follows: Gayle Cady, Taunya Pinedo,
Lee Anderson, Charles Rechlin, Brent Lance, John Powell, Albert Keck,
Dwanye Young, Bernard Debonne, John Corella, Robert Wilkerson,
representative from Highpoint Homes, and herself. They would like for the
City's representative to be more active, and would like to have more people
sent to the Task Force. She commented on the need for regional planning
and coordination in the City's efforts to provide compatibility and
consistency, and coordination between the City and the County. She feels
making Avenue 62 a six-lane superhighway would be a disaster for the
residents in the area as well as the City.
Joe Broido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, commented on how increasing the City
boundaries would affect police response times. He questioned why Council
is interested in annexing the VSR area. Some of the reasons he has heard is
manifest destiny, intense pressure from land owners and developers, and the
need for cheap land to provide affordable housing. He suggested using
SilverRock for affordable housing, and questioned how non-City property
owners or developers can pressure the Council. He feels quality of life for
La Quinta residents is what is important, not growth, and referenced various
needs in the City.
-_.- .--
- _._- - .-
. - ._-- ---.-..-----..-
-- - -~-- -
City Council Minutes
27
May 16, 2006
Joe Hammer, P. O. Box 278, Palm Desert, stated he hopes the City will let
him submit an annexation application for his property at Avenue 59 and
Monroe Street. He doesn't want to spend money on pictures before coming
into the City, and would plan his project according to Council's direction on
density. He referenced a low-cost mobile home park being graded at the
southeast corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, and voiced concern
about having a project like that across from Andalusia. He commented on
the need for restaurants and grocery markets in the area.
Tom Noya, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, indicated he is ready to move
forward with an annexation application as soon as staff receives direction,
and he is willing to pay his way. He is also willing to sit down with the
various entities in the area because he wants his project to be an asset to
the community.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Evans confirmed he
understands Council has given staff direction to move forward with 1 to 3
applications.
Michael Keebler, 45-849 Meadow Lake, Indio, representing Coachella Valley
Unified School District, indicated they would like to be involved with the
strategic plan process.
Taunya Pinedo, member of the VSRCC and Task Force, indicated she IS
available to provide input.
John Zimmer, 82-540 Airport Boulevard, asked if the VSRCC will have an
opportunity to review Mr. Noya's project. He indicated he doesn't believe it
fits their standards.
Council Member Henderson noted Council has given staff direction for all
developments in the area to be shared with the VSRCC.
Jack Duke stated he owns property at the southwest corner of Avenue 58
and Monroe Street, and would like to know how long it takes to process a
zone change. Mr. Evans encouraged him to review his property with staff.
Gayle Cady, 82-831 Avenue 54, VSR, spoke regarding the Desert Circuit
Horse Show, which is no longer in the City of Indio. She stated the olympic-
level competition horse show will be performing on the corner of Harrison
Boulevard and Avenue 66 for the next 50 years. The City of Coachella has
voiced interest in moving the polo and/or horse show to their entertainment
center but to her knowledge they have done nothing to accommodate the
City Council Minutes
28
May 16, 2006
equestrian community. She feels what is happening at Harrison and Avenue
66 will be a financial windfall to the city that grabs on to the concept. She
offered to provide contact information, and encouraged the City to take
advantage of this by getting familiar with the equestrian community.
Council Member Osborne commented on the need to look at commercial
zoning in the sphere of influence area to try to get it on the new enterprise
zone map that will be submitted to Sacramento in September.
Council Member Kirk suggested the following direction to staff: 1) consider
the Noya project and maybe one or two other projects that are ready for
annexation and adjacent to City boundaries, provided the developments
consult with the VSRCC and other organizations in the area; 2) continue
working with the County on a cooperative work program; and 3) elevate
Council involvement, possibly with a Council subcommittee, both with the
County on fiscal negotiations, and with the Task Force pursuant to the
request by Ms. Trover.
Council Member Sniff encouraged Ms. Cady to give the City Manager the
information she has regarding the horse show contacts.
Council Member Henderson stated she agrees with Council Member Kirk's
suggestions but noted someone will need to be appointed to attend the other
meetings.
Council Member Kirk suggested staff bring the policy decisions back to
Council for consideration.
REPORTS AND INFORMA TIONAllTEMS
CV AG Transportation <?ommittee - Council Member Kirk reported the City of Indio
has pulled its request ..tor a change in CV AG policy as it relates to Miles Avenue
funding.
c. V. Mountains Conservancy - Council Memëer Sniff.. stated the Conservancy has
purchased more property, and has approved the MSHCP.
Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Authority - Council Member Osborne
reported the Authority will be asking the cities to pay $2,000 each for the "Missing
Man" memorial, which has been changed to a propeller design.
league of California Cities - Council Member Henderson stated the League is
gaining recognition, and noted the Governor will be speaking at their meeting
- --.- --~~..-
- .~-..,. ....~
City Council Minutes
29
May 16, 2006
tomorrow as w'ell as signing the housing bond issue. The Board is actively working
with the California Redevelopment Agency Association (CRAA) and the State to
protect RDA funds. The eminent domain issue has received enough signatures to
be placed on the November ballot but a major effort is being made for opposing
legislative language that doesn't go as far as the initiative language. She noted the
initiative language would seriously impact public projects.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
All other reports were noted and filed.
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
City Attorney Jenson stated the AB 1234 compliance issue will be coming forward
over the next few months. It involves modifications to the City's reimbursement
policies, and two hours of ethics training.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS - None
The City Council recessed to Closed Session as delineated on Page 1.
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).
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
.~~ í'
, .~ ~~-,
'- \
,..J
. -"'\"" ....1
·-4~"···" '--"'-).
-_/ J
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
City of La Ouinta, California