Loading...
2007 11 20 CC Minutes LA GUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2007 A regular meeting of the La Guinta City Council was called to order at the hour of 3:00 p.m. by Mayor Adolph. PRESENT: ABSENT: Council Members Kirk, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph Council Members Henderson (arrived 3:15 p.m.) It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to excuse the absence of Council Member Henderson from the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Jensen did not participate in Closed Session item No. 1 for the City Council. 1. Conference with City's legal counsel regarding pending litigation - Shea La Quinta, LLC, v. City of La Quinta, Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC484197, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(al. (See announcement below.) Council recessed to the Redevelopment Agency and to Closed Session to and until 4:00 p.m. 4:00 P.M. City Council reconvened with Council Member Henderson present. Mayor Adolph led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT City Manager Genovese reported action was taken by the City Council in Closed Session to approve an agreement with Shea La Guinta, LLC. Motion moved by City Council Minutes 2 November 20, 2007 Council Members Sniff/Kirk and carried unanimously; and further stated the agreement will be available in the City Clerk Department upon execution. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Council Member Sniff requested Item No.8 be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 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 November 6, 2007, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2007. 2. RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30. 2007. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE & EXPENDITURES REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30. 2007. 4. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL MAP 34855, J.C. PENNEY, STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. (RESOLUTION NO. 2007-102) City Council Minutes 3 November 20, 2007 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR, RECREATION SUPERVISOR, AND ONE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSIONER TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA PARKS AND RECREATION SOCIETY CONFERENCE IN LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 26-29, 2008. 6. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF THE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT MAP 30092, PIAZZA SERENA, K. HOVNANIAN FORECAST HOMES, INC. (RESOLUTION NO. 2007-103) 7. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT MAP 33076-1, THE MADISON CLUB, EAST OF MADISON, LLC. (RESOLUTION NO. 2007-1041 8. APPROVAL OF AN ART PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH ANDRE BLANCHE FOR A HISTORICAL MURAL AT THE LA QUINTA MUSEUM. (See separate action below.) 9. APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ND LA QUINTA PARTNERS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FOR RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS ON AVENUE 52 BETWEEN THE ALL AMERICAN CANAL BRIDGE AND MADISON STREET. 10. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CASH DONATIONS FROM RUTAN AND TUCKER, ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, AND NAI CONSULTING, INC. FOR THE EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION BANQUET. (RESOLUTION NO. 2007-105) 11. APPROVAL TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO MARINA LANDSCAPE, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE JEFFERSON STREET MEDIAN ISLAND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2005-03. 12. APPROVAL TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO REPUBLIC INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2006-16. 13. APPROVAL OF NEW JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR SENIOR ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN AND SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER. City Council Minutes 4 November 20, 2007 14. APPROVAL OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 447, AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE LA QUlNTA CHARTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE, BUILDING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ENERGY, HISTORICAL, FIRE, EXISTING BUILDING, AND REFERENCED STANDARDS CODES. 15. APPROVAL OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 446, AMENDING CHAPTERS 2.06, 2.29, AND 7.04 OF THE LA QUINTA CHARTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES (ABSENCES AND RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS). 16. . APPROVAL OF A CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT FRED WARING DRIVE AND PALM ROYALE DRIVE. 17 . ACCEPTANCE OF THE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH TRACT MAP 30023-3, TRILOGY, SHEA LA QUINTA, LLC. 18. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REGULATORY CHANGES TO THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM CREATING CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT. (RESOLUTION NO. 2007-106) 19. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL MAP 33954, PHOENIX ROW III, LLC. (RESOLUTION NO. 2007-107) MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Sniff to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended and amended with the exception of Item No.8 and with Item Nos. 4, 6, 7, 10, 18, and 19 being approved by RESOLUTION NOS. 2007-102 through 2007-107 respectively. Motion carried unanimously. Item No.8 MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Kirk/Henderson to approve Item No.8, an Art Purchase Agreement with Andre Blanche for a historical mural at the La Guinta Museum. Motion carried by a vote of 4-1, Council Member Sniff dissenting. City Council Minutes 5 November 20,2007 BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY APPLICATIONS. City Manager Genovese presented the staff report. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Kirk to approve the following "Pillars of the Community" applications along with Senior Inspiration Award recipient Elaine Reynolds: Gayl Biondi, Rick Daniels, and Joyce S. Pefia. Motion carried unanimously. 2. CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007. Finance Director Falconer introduced Richard Kikuchi, of Lance Soli & Lunghard, who presented a brief overview of the report Mr. Kikuchi stated there is no difference between a claim and being unqualified in response to Council Member Henderson. Council Member Kirk questioned if this is the first year this firm has conducted the audit for the City. Mr. Kikuchi confirmed. Council Member Kirk stated the City Council has respect' for staff and conveyed his concern of the reference to a team effort approach. Mr. Kikuchi clarified that the team effort was in reference to the standard of operation and working effort of staff. Council Member Kirk questioned how many municipal audits Mr. Kikuchi has performed and whether he has issued a qualified status to a City. Mr. Kikuchi stated he has performed approximately 50 municipal audits per year and that he has issued one qualified to a municipality and one to a district. Council Member Henderson commented on the issue of bringing forward significant issues instead of identifying as footnotes, and questioned what language can be used to identify the issues. Mr. Kikuchi explained the significant deficiency and stated if the magnitude is larger, then considered a material weakness. Council Member Henderson questioned what may have created the new rulings. Mr. Kikuchi stated there has been a change in the climate of the business community; the underline theme is to ensure the governing body is aware of the financial reporting process, has more responsibility and governance. City Council Minutes 6 November 20, 2007 Council Member Henderson questioned if audi~ed next year and found there was not any participation, it would be a significant deficiency, but not necessarily a deficiency of staff. Mr. Kikuchi confirmed. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Kikuchi confirmed he has conducted approximately 50 municipal audits; provides auditing services for Palm Desert as well for six years; and confirmed the City is in good shape and staff has done a commendable job. Council Member Osborne referenced pages 24 and 25 of the report and questioned if there is any necessity to change the manner in which the budget is prepared based on variances of amounts. Mr. Kikuchi stated there is no need to change the budget preparation process. In response to Council Member Osborne, Mr. Kikuchi stated many organ"izations are following Standard 114 and explained much of the auditing standards require an auditor to do more than just ask staff if following a procedure, and must review documentation to confirm approval. Council Member Osborne commended Finance Director Falconer and staff for an outstanding job in the preparation of financial documents. Mayor Adolph stated the City does not have a formal capital asset policy, and questioned if a policy is a requirement. Mr. Kikuchi stated it is not required by law, but good practice to establish a policy. Mayor Adolph questioned the journal entries made at the request of the firm. Mr. Kikuchi explained the requests were made subsequent to the audit in August and although the auditor cannot demand staff to make a book entry, it was recommended upon review. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Kikuchi stated he has heard of the firm of Haskins & Cells, but they are not around anymore as they have been bought out by a larger firm. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Kirk/Sniff to approve, receive and file the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2007. Motion carried unanimously. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SPEED LIMITS FOR CERTAIN LOCAL STREETS. Public Works Director Jonasson presented the staff report. City Council Minutes 7 November 20, 2007 Vanessa Munoz, Willdan, presented the Engineering & Traffic Survey Report. She explained the placement of speed signs within a school zone and recommended resurveying the segment only upon a significant change in the roadway in response to Council Member Henderson. City Attorney Jenson confirmed the City Charter does not allow the City to deviate from the Vehicle Code and explained that if the City Council does not wish to adopt the recommendation, Police Officers may ticket violations, but cannot utilize radar to enforce speed limits. Council Member Kirk questioned the qualifications of lowering speeds in a commercial zone. Ms. Munoz stated there are three conditions a segment must meet to reduce the speed to 25 mph. Avenida Bermudas only meets two of the qualifications. Public Works Director Jonasson stated a speed table may be installed in front of the Police Station to help reduce speed on Avenida Bermudas. In response to Council Member Kirk, Public Works Director Jonasson confirmed according to the Vehicle Code, the roadway width is measured from curb to curb. Council Member Osborne referred to Table 2 of the report, which states Avenue 54, from Madison to Monroe, has an increase from 50 to 55 mph, and stated it is still a two lane road. Public Works Director Jonasson stated Avenue 54 has been partially widened and there are plans in process to widen it to a four lane road; and further explained a deceleration lane is required at the entrance to Griffin Ranch. Council Member Sniff suggested the City stay in compliance with the law and if establishes limits beyond the law, it could place the Police in a difficult situation; and suggested to install calming devices if the Council wishes to slow traffic. Council Member Henderson commented on the recommended speed for Segment 36, Madison Street, between Avenue 54 and Avenue 58 which is recommended at 50 mph, but the 85 percentile would be 55 mph; and Madison, between Avenue 58 and 60, recommendation is based on hidden driveways, and stated 55 mph is more reasonable for that area. Mayor Adolph stated that the only way to reduce speed is the number of accidents; referred to Page 5 of the staff report and questioned what the meaning of "safe speed" and how it is determined. Ms. Munoz stated it is up to the driver to determine the safe speed based on the weather, traffic, City Council Minutes 8 November 20, 2007 and road conditions; and confirmed if the driver is not following a safe speed the police is able to issue a citation for speeding. Council Member Kirk addressed the segment on Westward Ho, between Adams to Dune Palms, the speed is recommended to increase from 25 to 30 mph, but the entire street will be 25 mph. Public Works Director Jonasson confirmed that the speed limit will be 25 mph most of the time on Westward Ho, when children are present. Andre Blanchet, 53-495 Avenida Mendoza, stated the Council is quibbling over little sticks; stated he moved to the area because of the relaxed environment of the community; stated current drivers are not adhering to the posted signs, and if the speed limits are increased, driyers will go faster; suggested adjusting the timing of the traffic signals, if changing speed limits to relieve traffic. In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Munoz stated both the County of Riverside and CalTrans must conduct five-year traffic analysis as well. Council Member Kirk stated none of the Council likes the position being put in based on State law, but he will go along with it; suggei?ted consideration of speed humps on Avenida Bermudas and on Westward Ho, and evaluation of traffic calming devices for areas of concern. Council Member Henderson conveyed her agreement with looking at traffic calming measurers; adamantly opposed to increasing speed on Avenida Bermudas, and has received a letter from a resident who cannot back out of his driveway; stated a percentage of cars obey the law and some will increase speed. Public Works Director Jonasson explained the posted speed limits and actual speeds by drivers are two different things; and stated a survey is conducted to monitor whatspeed people are actually driving, Mayor Adolph requested staff review Fred Waring Drive on the Dunes side. Council Member Sniff conveyed his appreciation for all arguments and discussion, and stated the Council must look at legal reality and this must be approved; stated there is a need to put law enforcement in the position to enforce the laws and not put them in an awkward position in court; and stated the only logical point is to 1) approve the staff recommendation, and 2) look to potential calming devices as appropriate. Council Member Osborne stated he remembers at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon years ago, the City was asked when they were going to improve City Council Minutes 9 November 20. 2007 the roads; stated it seems the Council doesn't have a choice but to adopt the resolution, and look at the issue some time later. Mayor Adolph addressed the subject of traffic calming devices, by stating those on Avenida Bermudas are not effective; there are speed bumps and a speed hump and drivers have determined it is easier to go over the hump fast than slow, which may not be effective; stated views matter by common sense and sometimes when dictated by law; and stated there is a left turn from Avenue 50 to Calle Tampico, and common sense says that increasing the speed limit is not right. In response to Council Member Henderson, Public Works Director Jonasson explained there are regulatory speed limit signs, or white signs and yellow signs; the yellow signs will stay the same, for enforcement purposes, the white signs will be changing. Council Member Sniff requested staff report back with recommended calming devices. Public Works Director Jonasson stated staff has noted the areas of concern discussed by the City Council and will report back as requested. In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Munoz stated the City Council can revisit any segments, including the two areas on Westward Ho Drive and Calle Tampico. Council Member Henderson confirmed segments should not be revisited unless there has been a significant change to the roadway. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING SPEED LIMITS FOR CERTAIN LOCAL STREETS. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to adopt Resolution No. 2007-108 as submitted. Motion carried by a vote of 3-2, Mayor Adolph and Council Member Henderson dissenting. Mayor Adolph thanked staff for establishing no parking along Simon Drive at Washington Street and stated the flow of traffic has improved. City Council Minutes 10 November 20, 2007 4. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO CLOSE CITY HALL ON CHRISTMAS EVE AND NEW YEARS EVE IN 2007. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to approve closing City Hall the full day on both December 24 and December 31, 2007. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Adolph recessed the City Council meeting at 5:19 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 5:27 p.m. STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EAST OF THE CITY LIMITS. Assistant City Manager-Development Services Evans presented the staff report, and Redevelopment Consultant frank Spevacek presented the fiscal impact analysis. In response to Council Member Henderson, Redevelopment Consultant Spevacek explained both interest earnings and principle from the fund will be utilized to subsidize the General Fund. Alexa Smittle of RSG, reviewed a graph depicting the difference between the Annual Gap and Fund Value. Planning Director Johnson continued the presentation by discussing the infrastructure deficiency study. In response to Council Member Henderson, Planning Director Johnson confirmed the first phase will be initiated to identify the need, cost and nexus for the developer to make the improvements. Assistant City Manager- Development Services Evans further explained the first phase would establish the DIF for this project. Assistant City Manager-Development Services Evans gave a summary of the presentation and reviewed the following: focus on The Enclave project; recommended $29,188 per unit fee; application as base fee for all single- family residential development; and additional items to be addressed to pursue annexation. Council Member Sniff questioned what areas will staff prepare a plan for services. Assistant City Manager-Development Services Evans explained City Council Minutes 11 November 20, 2007 staff will prepare a draft Development Agreement to all property owners in the area, those who choose to sign the agreement will proceed with the annexation, those not wishing to participate will not be included in the annexation; and roughly looking at 28 acres. In response to Mayor Adolph, Redevelopment Consultant Spevacek explained the fees collected at the time of the building permit application will be deposited into a fund and interest earning will be used for the costs of safety services. Assistant City Manager-Development Services Evans explained two factors are being considered in providing emergency services - number per capita and geography. Mayor Adolph expressed concern about piecemeal annexations, and questioned if the City pursues the first phase, what will be the general layout of the entire sphere of influence. Assistant City Manager-Development Services Evans explained staff will come back to the Council and restart the program previously initiated. Mayor Adolph stated his desire to look toward the issues to be addressed in the future Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, stated obvious problems are the financial disconnect and running into the red after 30 years; addressed piecemeal annexations; stated all indicated an inclination to proceed with annexation and juxtapose the consideration of annexation. Charley Richter, 82-480 Avenue 54, member of Vista Santa Rosa Planning Task Force, stated he is opposed to piecemeal annexations; will be closer to Indio and the units per household will be 3.5 instead of 2.5; will welcome the northwest corner in La Quinta based on two conditions - be subject to an election of registered voters and establish a zoning plan for the next 10 years; stated the City will start down the road of piecemeal development if begin with The Enclave project and will begin developers putting the County against the City; suggested the City establish a more comprehensive planning process and fold it into the General Plan. Tom Noya, Irvine, stated his desire to be an asset to the community; stated the fee has not been factored into the development; and encouraged the City Council to move forward at this time to resolve this issue. Stanley Hoffman, 11661 San Vicente Blvd, #306, Los Angeles, consultant for Motor Coach project, stated he has worked with staff and thanked them for providing information; stated the 2.51 population issue does make a difference in the fiscal factors, and when using 2.04 have a different factor; stated the factor of overstating the cost affects the long-term fiscal analysis; addressed revenues included in the model; stated he has not seen a 50-year City Council Minutes 12 November 20, 2007 projection as proposed and finds it to be very problematic; requested staff provide backup information on the fiscal analysis. Council Member Henderson referred to page 2 of the letter submitted by Mr. Hoffman regarding the analysis prepared by RSG, and stated the model was prepared for 50 years but staff has presented a 30-year fiscal model. Mr. Hoffman explained the fiscal mitigation fee only covers 30 years, but the model is extended out for 50 years. Council Member Henderson stated the City does have comprehensive planning, but any city in California is looking at the situation with the property tax as bleak; she personally believes it will change drastically and other funding options will be established. Council Member Sniff conveyed his disagreement to Council Member Henderson's comments. Dan Johnson, 801 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Ste. 100, Palm Springs, complimented staff and consultants serving the Council; understands the sense and concern of establishing a fiscal model; addressed use of appropriate factor - factor in excess of 2.04 is utilized, seems to be providing a level of service in excess the City is currently providing; stated if changed from 2.51 to 2.04 would be beneficial to know what the fee would be; stated factor of 2.51 was derived by including the permanent and seasonal population, if seasonal only here for six months, fee should be adjusted; addressed the difference of .47 basis points; and requested the analysis be compiled at 2.04. Joe Hammer, 43-510 Cielito Dr., Indian Wells, stated on 40 acres in Outdoor Resorts annexation, under $29,000 fee; stated he has not been given an amount for the commercial development of 20 acres; requested commercial development fee be addressed; stated he has begun pursuing options with the County of Riverside. Ellen Lloyd-Trover, 82-150 Avenue 54, conveyed she is not anti-City of La Guinta and currently owns property in La Guinta; stated one of the reasons it has become a great city is because it is fiscally conservative; requested the Council be conservative when considering this matter; stated analyzing a single project will not address future projects in the area; suggested establishing a plan for development; stated existing commercial will not be enhanced by annexation due to the lack of highways; and urged the Council to consider the 2.85 figure as there will be more permanent residents in the future; and stated residents of Vista Santa Rosa should be heard. City Council Minutes 13 November 20, 2007 Council Member Osborne commented on the formula and stated the numbers used should remain as proposed; addressed the issue of piecemeal annexation vs. one annexation, and stated the City must take a piece at a time, and conveyed concern of consistency when annexing each piece; stated referencing and comparing the Vista Santa Rosa Task Force Land Use Plan to a municipality is not viable, and stated the area must support its own services; addressed the methodology and pre-annexation agreements, and conveyed concern that an established agreement does not mean have agreed to the development proposed; addressed rural development which will be at a premium, and stated the State is looking at taking away rural development; addressed the reason why looking at this annexation, and stated Bermuda Dunes is a good example which was developeQ without long-term planning; stated the City has taken a risk in previous annexations and has done well with conservative planning; and stated the proposed fee only applies to detached single-family housing. Council Member Sniff stated he has seen 1 6 annexations processed which is what makes the City of La Guinta today; conveyed his support of the annexation and moving forward which should be dealt with promptly and meaningfully; must deal with reality as it comes before us, and reality 20 years from now is hard to determine; pursue annexation as proposed with the fee at $29,188, set up a fund for depositing fees; unsure will develop the entire area at any time; stated there are many different people in the area who may not wish to be annexed; stated should consider each area for annexation as requests come forward; suggested a two-year review on the fee to confirm the fee amount, and lower or raise it according to the conditions at the time, the only way to look is ahead, and more than likely the fee will go up and not down; need to move forward and accommodate those who have waited patiently on their projects and establish developer agreements and pre-annexation agreements; opined that not all of the area will be annexed into La Guinta as there are many independent residents that do not wish to be annexed into La Guinta; conveyed concern of establishing a master plan for the whole area, as unsure there would be an agreement; need to deal with what is real, current and what requests we have and accommodate the developers; is hopeful the fee will not be determined for 30 years, but for 2 years and review at that time whether it is workable or needs to be modified. Council Member Henderson questioned the 2.51 figure in reference to The Enclave project, and questioned whether it is the intent that it will remain the same for all agreements or project by" project. Assistant City Manager- Development Services Evans stated staff would prefer one fee, under the direction of the City Council. City Council Minutes 14 November 20, 2007 Council Member Henderson addressed the reason to annex the area into the City and stated it was deemed to be the direction the City was destined to go; suggested the residents in Vista Santa Rosa have a destiny and right to care for the community, and have a level of authority, but what hasn't had to deal with yet, is making decisions for other people, as there may be other people in Vista Santa Rosa that may not have the same vision; stated there isn't a community that has requested an annexation as large as the Vista Santa Rosa area; have looked at the bigger picture because of the backlash received from residents of Vista Santa Rosa; stated there are decisions that have to be made; stated she does not have an ulterior motive for this annexation; stated the problem regarding commercial development has not been solved yet; expressed her frustration with the figure recommended by staff; when incorporated knew every rooftop would cost the City money; stated every time the City has annexed property, it was known there was a cost and a benefit to the City; stated she does not see the 50 and 30 years factored into the model, but does know that things will be different in the future, and is unsure how to factor into the model; stated there is a need to move forward, and she will not support an annexation of any amount of large vacant property that does not know what will be developed; stated there is a need to move forward with the annexation application; and questioned why the process is taking 6 to 12 months longer in the City than the amount of time for LAFCO. Planning Director Johnson explained staff is taking a fairly conservative position, based on looking into the past; and the process will be at least 6 to 12 months for an EIR review. In response to Council Member Henderson, Planning Director Johnson stated staff is reviewing whether an EIR will be required with The Enclave project. Council Member Henderson addressed the suggestion of looking at the 2.8 figure; stated demographics of the area does not suggest more families will be coming in, but more retired residents and second homes; assured the City does not expect big box development in Vista Santa Rosa; stated does not support the obscene figure for the fee, but could justify a 2.04 density dwelling per unit and suggested the formula be adjusted project by project; suggested continuing good relations with Vista Santa Rosa and discuss issues with them. Council Member Kirk stated the point of Ms. Wolff was well taken, but metaphorically was a little off as those in the annexation are not moving in, but moving" next door and will be utilizing services; stated the County government doesn't do well in development; stated part of the motivation is the desire for neighbors to have same or similar value system; speakers from City Council Minutes 15 November 20, 2007 Vista Santa Rosa indicated they do not want piecemeal annexation, but understands the approach; suggested moving forward with this particular application and address things with a comprehensive land use plan for the area; agrees structural deficit is unsettling, and thanked staff for changing the public safety escalating factor in the structural deficit; stated it is enough, if using same assumptions, the entire City is bankrupt, but will follow 99% of other cities in California; stated there will be change and would like to see the City be a part of the change; if move forward with this project in considering first step of annexation, concerned a large fee will drive developers away to a County application or will drive higher density, and may be encouraging the wrong development pattern; stated developers mayor may not make money on development; new residents will want urban levels of services; annexations have provided more benefit than cost to the City in the past; Vista Santa Rosa will be able to review the annexation and may not like it; the County may state they will never approve that type of development and if it is annexed in the City will not have the structural deficit; and the County Redevelopment Agency over the 30 years stands to get $147 million dollars from this development only, and how much is the RDA offering services to this development or Vista Santa Rosa as a whole; stated the fee is obscene in relation to all the other fees and supportive to looking at other per-person figures, and supports 2.04; not supportive of Community Facilities Districts, and stated it was a wise move for the Council to pass on imposing additional fees; stated a vote to move forward is not necessarily a vote for the current land use, and wishes that it not only be reviewed according to the General Plan but reviewed in the context of the good and hard work the community has put into the area; and requested a complete and critical analysis from the community and Vista Santa Rosa guidelines. Mayor Adolph addressed issues of compatibility and established processes to protect the citizens from development that is substandard to the City; stated the City started with $40,000 in reserves, and as a result of being fiscally conservative, the City has built up to several millions in reserves; and stated the City Council has been fiscally responsible and built this City to what it is today. Council Member Henderson requested clarification in moving forward with development, including Vista Santa Rosa guidelines. Council Member Kirk suggested two tracks 1) with respect to our current guidelines and General Plan and 2) in the context of the performance of County staff in absence of any established guidelines. Council Member Kirk suggested the figure be variable a5 this stage and re- evaluate in two years. City Council Minutes 16 November 20, 2007 Council Member Sniff conveyed his hope of establishing a biannual review of the fee on a routine basis; and establish a good program for future Councils. Council Member Kirk conveyed his support on the 2.04 as it is defensible and there is a logic to it; hears a consensus to move forward with 2.04 persons per household and review in two years, re-evaluate the model in two years, there not be a Community Facilities District for this annexation and continue the policy for future annexations, and reference Vista Santa Rosa guidelines and County land use be used for reference only at this point; and request staff to bring back a recommendation and pre-annexation agreement. Council Member Osborne stated he can understand the desire to come down to 2.04; stated change of population may not be a variable; and questioned if change to 2.04, what would it do to the schedule. Redevelopment Consultant Spevacek stated the per unit fee would be $21,187 at 2.04 persons per household. Council Member Kirk stated the schedule still shows us not having a deficit until year 30. Council Member Osborne stated the Council is being a little aggressive with the figure; stated the review every two years is a good idea; stated the 2.04 will help those who are annexing first; does not want to argue with the developer regarding the amount of population per household. Council Member Henderson stated the development will tell how much population it will bring. Council Member Osborne stated does not want to change the structure of our City to bring homes with fewer people in those homes. Council Member Kirk stated changing this factor does not imply support of family housing, but will do the opposite. Council Member Osborne stated the 30 vs. 20 year affects the density per house, per acre; does not know the numbers as to the profit of the developer; and conveyed concern if reduced to 2.04. Council Member Sniff stated not sure where the 2.04 number was derived; stated he agrees with Council Member Osborne and prefers to stay with the staff recommendation; stated the Council will deal with this matter periodically; and suggested working with what staff has prepared. City Council Minutes 17 November 20.2007 Council Member Kirk stated the Mayors view would be the swing vote. Mayor Adolph stated it would be difficult to not follow staff's recommendation. Council Member Henderson stated can make a reasonable argument to use the 2.04, as this is the highest fee anyone is paying in Riverside County or maybe the State of California; and stated already have a formula using reasonable assumptions and the formula has some flexibility. Assistant City Manager-Development Services stated staff will be drafting a development agreement with the fee recommended in the staff report and present it to the City Council as a public hearing. Council Member Sniff urged staff to deliver with speed and would like to see the matter move expeditiously. The City Council did not recess to a dinner break, and recessed at 7:21 p.m. to the Redevelopment Agency meeting and the Financing Authority meeting. The City Council reconvened at 7:57 p.m. with Council Member Henderson absent. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS CV AG Public Safety Committee - Council Member Kirk reported the County has an outdated interagency communication system and has been addressing the issue for 1 2 years; a few cities have proposed a short-term solution and the City may take a look at the short-term solution; will have a problem in case of an emergency regarding the ability to communicate with each City in the Valley. CVAG Transportation Committee - Council Member Kirk reported a number of items came before the Transportation Committee one of which is that there may be extra money available for Highway 111; stated the County sought regional funds for a variety of improvements including segments of Airport Boulevard, are all outside the Vista Santa Rosa area, and may want to suggest to the County to review all of Airport Boulevard and not just the areas outside Vista Santa Rosa. C.V. Conservation Commission - Council Member Sniff reported the Commission is borrowing $1 million from CV AG to buy 100 acres in the Fringe-Toed Lizard Reserve as part of the agreement. * * * * * * * * * * * * * City Council Minutes 18 November 20, 2007 All other reports were noted and filed. DEPARTMENT REPORTS Fire Chief Dorian Cooley reported on the Hideaway fire; stated it was started by a lighting device, and conveyed that this was not a typical incident. Council Member Kirk inquired about the response time. Chief Cooley stated the original location was given to be Avenue 52 and Monroe Street which was incorrect; the response time was six or seven minutes; and further stated response time was not an issue, as the structure was well involved in flames at the time of arrival. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. y submitted, VERONICA J. ONTECINO, City Clerk City of La Guinta, California