Loading...
1996 06 04 CC Minutes+ LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 4,1996 Regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council of June 4, 1996 was called to order at the hour of 3:00 p.m. by Mayor Holt, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Holt ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Martin Lemire, 78-227 Indigo Drive, asked what the delay was in opening up Adams Street between Miles Avenue and Highway 111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Confirmed APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the City Council Minutes of May 21, 1996 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS None WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE 1. LETTER FROM LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS RETENTION COMMITTEE. Council Member Henderson suggested that a letter received previously by the Council from Del Webb regarding Interstate 10 median beautification be forwarded to the Chamber. Council Member Sniff volunteered to serve on the liaison committee. Council Member Henderson felt that it should be handled through the on-going negotiations with the Chamber. * Council concurred on direc?ng staff to agendize this matter for a future agenda. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 2 June 4, 1996 2. LETTER FROM THE LA QUINTA ARTS ASSOCIATION REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. Council concurred on directing staff to agendize this request for the next meeting. 3. LETTER FROM RANCHO LA QUINTA REQUESTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A MARKETING IDEA FOR THE CITY. Council concurred on directing staff to agendize this request for the next meeting BUSINESS SESSION CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE SETBACK ADJUSTMENT DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER SETBACK ADJUSTMENT NO.96-394, N THE SR ZONE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ. Ms. di Iorio, Planning Manager, advised that Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce have appealed the Planning Commission's denial of their request for a setback- adjustment to construct a 2,730 sq. ft. single-family home with a 400 sq. ft. garage on a 7,500-sq. ft. lot on the southwest corner of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez. The three setback adjustments requested would reduce the front-yard setback from 20 feet to 18 feet, the rear-yard setback from 10 feet to 8 feet, and the exterior garage sideyard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet. The request was denied by the Community Development Director on March 7, 1996 and by the Planning Commission on April 23, 1996, based on the size of the lot, the reduction in the length of the driveway which would cause vehicles to extend into the City right-of-way, and the incompatible relationship it would cause with surrounding residences that comply with the required setbacks. The applicant?s reasons for requesting the setbacks are included in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Council deny the appeal. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. di Iorio advised that there is 1 2 feet between the curb line and the City right-of-way line. Mr. Doug Phillips, 39-700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312, Rancho Mirage, legal counsel with Best, Best, & Krieger, introduced Mr. Lujan, the applicant's design consultant. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 3 June 4,1 99e Mr. Gabriel Lujan, 43-875 Washington Street, Suite, G, Palm Desert, Design Consultant of New Age Design Concepts, advised that each effort to redesign the home has resulted in increased square footage and costs. He urged the Council to help find an alternative that would allow the applicants to have their dream home. Council Member Adolph asked if he was aware of the setback requirements prior to designing the home. Mr. Lujan responded yes, but advised that Mr. Pierce's needs would not fit within the setback requirements. Mr. Robert Pierce, 82-291 Sierra Avenue, lndio, the applicant, advised that the dream home he designed will not fit on his 75-foot wide lot because of the City right-of-way requirements which he feels constitutes a burden by City Code that precludes the wise use and advantages of a well-mastered plan. He didn't believe that the setback adjustments would harm the neighborhood and asked the Council to grant his request so that he would have the benefit of a hobby room and projection/game room for his family's use. Mr. Phillips pointed out that variances are allowed by State law and advised that the City Code Section 9.42.080) permits single-family residences to be in substantiai compliance with building standards. He felt that 24 feet from the curb to the garage was substantial and was not aware of any neighborhood opposition to the setback-adjustment request. Council Member Sniff was dubious that the setbacks would be damaging to the neighborhood and supported granting the appeal. Council Member Adolph didn't have a problem with granting variances on the rear and front-yard setbacks, but he would not support a variance on the exterior-sideyard because it would cause vehicles in the driveway to extend into the City right-of-way. Council Member Henderson was concerned that allowance of a 12-foot long driveway would set a precedent and asked if setback adjustments had been requested for other large homes in the area. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that setback adjustments have been granted for lots having unique shapes and sizes, but not for standard straight lots. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 4 June 4, 1996 In r?sponse to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Herman confirmed that driveway- length requirements are 25 feet with pivot-type garage doors and 20 feet with roll-up garage doors. Mayor Holt didn't have a problem with the rear and front-yard setbacks, but agreed that the exterior-sideyard setback was too critical and suggested that the applicant redesign the home to increase the setback on that side. Mr. Lujan advised that the home could be set two feet back into the interior- sideyard setback and the projection room could be shortened by two feet and asked if a four-foot setback adjustment could be negotiated. Mayor Holt suggested continuing this matter to give staff and the applicant an opportunity to work out a solution. Council Member Henderson wasn't sure that the driveway length was negotiable. Council Member Perkins wouldn't support granting any of the setbacks because he felt that the house was designed too large for the lot in hopes that a variance would be granted and he felt that granting the variance would set a dangerous precedent. Council Member Henderson appreciated the applicant's situation, but felt that the zoning standards were set for a purpose. Council Member Sniff pointed out that the Council has some discretion in such matters. He supported continuing the appeal to the next meeting. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the Council's discretion is limited in that a finding must be made that special circumstances are applicable to this property including such factors as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that justify adjustments to the setback. Council Member Adolph suggested that the applicant reconfigure the master bath and walk-in closet to allow a half-circular driveway. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Lujan advised that the air- conditioning unit would be located in the interior sideyard behind Bedroom No. 2. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 5 June 4, 1996 MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to continue the appeal Setback Adjustment 96-394 to June 18. 1996. Motion carried with Council Member Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-85. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Holt and the Council presented Art Achievement Awards to the following students of La Quinta High School for their artwork displayed at the Civic Center: Erica Abarca Rudy Escarsega Jennifer Moreno Juanita Arellano Noe Esmeralda Laila Nemoto Roni Baca Becky Golden-Harrell Jennifer Pierson Erica Beruman Salvador Gomez Albert Ramirez Bill Biller Maria Gonzales Anna Read Estella Cano Raul Hernandez Gabriel Rios Arturo Cecena Edith Herrera Lynea Scholten Jason Dalbey Alisa Lawson Sara Spurgeon Melissa McCormick Danny Valencia 2. CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CIP). Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, advised that changes have been made to the draft Capital Improvement Program and Five-Year Forecast as directed by Council on April 30, 1 996. Some of the changes are as follows: $300,000 of infrastructure funds was transferred from the Fritz Burns Pool Project to the Highway 111 Widening Project to free funds from the Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 for traffic signal improvements at Highway 111 at the entrance to Plaza La Quinta * $518,589 in Community Project Funds have been designated for Citywide park improvements * an annual payment for the City?s share of costs for the Washington Street/Interstate 10 Interchange Project was added as a project He advised that approximately $14,746,000 in improvements are identified in the CIP over the next five years and approval of the CIP will include only those improvements for FY 1996/97 which totals $5,464,519. The list of deferred projects total approximately $16,000,000 making the total for the entire CIP approximately $30,846,000. Staff recommended that the draft CIP be approved and a public hearing scheduled for June 18, 1996. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 8 June 4, 1996 In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Cosper advised that approximately $150,000 in infrastructure funds out of the $1 million set aside for the Fritz Burns Park would be placed back into the infrastructure fund account for future use if not earmarked for a particular project. Staff was directed by Council on April 30, 1996, to confirm a list of park projects with the Parks & Recreation Commission for use of the $518,589 in Community Projects Fund and bring the list back to Council for final approval. Council Member Sniff was concerned about no funds being allocated for The Village during FY 1996/97. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Falconer, Finance Director, advised that currently the $1 million set aside for the Fritz Burns Pool is made up of $481 41 1 in Quimby Funds and $518,589 in Community Service Projects. Mr. Bob Morrow, 54-925 Avenida Ramirez, a retired high school counselor and resident of La Quinta for 33 years, wholeheartedly supported the construction of a community pool. He felt that it could be a showcase for the City much like the Palm Desert park is to that city. Ms. Vera Thaxton, 77-450 Calle Tecate, a retired high school teacher and resident since 1977, strongly supported the pool because she felt that it would give the youth a summer recreational option close to home that is healthful and constructive. She pointed out that funds were set aside for a pool several years ago and urged the Council to carry out that commitment. Mr. Carl Ingram, 78-625 Sanita Drive, cautioned the Council against taking recreation funds and using them for other purposes. He pointed out that the average age of La Quinta residents is 32, the average age of the Council is over 60, and only Council Member Sniff and Mayor Holt, who have children at home, have supported the pool. He advised that when direct access to Lake Cahuilla was lost, the City was given $1 million to construct a pool for the youth in the Cove and now some propose to spend thousands of dollars to bus those youth back to Lake Cahuilla. He pointed out that Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District CVRPD) believes a pool would be a viable operation in La Quinta and has offered to fund 90% of the operational costs. He urged the Council to place the pool project on the ballot and let the people decide if they want it. Ms. Audrey Ostrowsky, P.O. Box 351, questioned why the incomplete seven- year, street improvement plan initiated by the Council in 1987, was not listed in the Five-Year CIP. Some of the residents have left the area because the street improvements they were promised when they purchased their homes BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 7 June 4, 1996 have not been completed. She also questioned the status of the downtown development plan. Mr. Ed Kibbey 77-564 Country Club Drive, Suite 400-B, Palm Desert, representing the Building Industry Association, thanked the staff for including most of their requested changes in the CIP. As a La Quinta resident, he advised that he was opposed to the original pool plan because it was too extravagant, but he urged the Council to allocate the $518,589 in the Community Projects Fund for a smaller and more appropriate pool, especially since CVRPD is willing to maintain it. Mr. Wally Reynolds, 79-880 Fiesta Drive, reviewed list of the various activities offered through the various organizations in the City and questioned earlier comments about youth not having anything to do. He advised that he's not opposed to a pool it the City can afford it, but referred to other high- priority projects that are still not completed because of the lack of City funds. Mr. Fred Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, advised that the $1 million received from Landmark Land Company several years ago was earmarked for a community project, not street improvements. He felt that the Council and community have been committed to using those funds to build a community pool since the mid 1980's. He pointed out that no consideration for the needs of small, low-income families that make up much of La Quinta, exists in the CIP. He's embarrassed by the sterile look of the Fritz Burns Park, pointing out that its design was focused around a pool for youth and family use. Last year the Friends of La Quinta submitted a petition with signatures of 600 registered voters in support of a community pool, but the Council would not yield. He suggested the possibility of organizing an opposition group against becoming a Charter City because of the additional authority the Council would have. Mr. John De Leo, 52-990 Avenida Obregon, spoke in support of a pool, stating that no one complains about how much it costs to light the tennis courts even when no one is there. He recollected the fun he had as a child riding his bike to the community park to swim and pointed out that some cities' swim programs have yielded Olympic athletes. Ms. Kathy Pedersen, 54-455 Avenida Rubio, felt that the numerous programs offered by the Parks & Recreation Department barely scratches the surface of the recreational needs of the youth. She was puzzled about where the sudden opposition to the pool came from just before it was to become a reality, noting that it's been a dream of this community for years. Many of the residents support having a pool, but work and cannot attend the Council meetings. As a swim instructor in many areas and currently at the La Quinta High School, BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 8 June 4, 1996 she believes that the swim skills of La Quinta students are the lowest that she's ever seen. She urged the Council to not destroy their dream, but rather to come up with a compromise whereby a pool could be built and added to later on. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44-21 5 Villeta Drive, stated that after paying for various studies, only $518,589 remains from the $1 million Landmark Land monies. He advised that a number of swim programs are offered by the YMCA at the La Quinta High School. In reference to those who came to La Quinta expecting to have a community pool, he pointed out that the City's tax base has declined dramatically since 1 991 because of re-assessments, adding that a proposed pool project in Cathedral City was defeated when placed on the ballot because of its low priority in the list of needs. Mr. Jim Cathcart, 44-345 Villeta Drive, advised that during public meetings held to discuss the City's recreation needs, the residents' wishes were to have both a recreation building and a pool and both were included in the original plans for the Fritz Burns Park. Due to a change in the economy, he believes that neither one is affordable unless it's a small pool or small recreation building. He's been told by people in the business that it doesn't make sense to build a pool if only one or the other can be built, because recreation buildings attract more attendees. He suggested placing the issue on the ballot to give residents an opportunity to choose between having a recreation building or a pool or both by creating an assessment district. He was opposed to placing the issue on the ballot last year since it was a general election year and didn't want it to become a political issue. Council Member Sniff advised that he's committed to reserving the $518,589 in Community Projects Funds. He felt that Lake Cahuilla was never a total solution because of its distance from the Cove and the need to have close and easily accessible recreational facilities. He believed that multiple types of recreation are needed for the City's diverse population. He supported placing the issue on the ballot, pointing out that there would be no additional costs since the City would already have the Charter City issue on the ballot. He, too, felt that the Fritz Burns Park is sterile and not conducive to use during hot weather because of the lack of shade. He sought the Council's support for placing the issue on the ballot and reserving $51 8,589 for the pool. He supported using $300,000 for the traffic signal at the Vons Shopping Center to maximize the safety of that area. He advised that California Pools has stated that they are willing to work with the City on building an aquatic center. Council Member Adolph advised that he has strong feelings regarding the pool and has researched the public record regarding this issue. He said that during BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 9 June 4, 1996 his campaign he didn't say that he was against a pool, but rather against the economics of the proposed pool and its annual maintenance costs. His concern is for the City as a whole and not any specific group of people and pointed out that he was not supported by the opponents or proponents of the pool. He felt that the previous Council should have made a decision on the pool. He did not support the previous pool proposal because of its scope and financial liabilities to the City, but offered the following three-part consideration: 1) Using only the $520,000 available in the Community Projects Fund, he would support the construction of a pool and other required facilities such as restrooms, fencing, shade structures, etc. with no cost over-rides, and no extras. 2) California Pools has offered to help design a pool and donate some pool equipment. Additionally, two architects have offered sweat equity in drawing up the plans. In discussion with Mr. Martin and Mrs. Ladner ot CVRPD, they continue to believe that their original proposal for maintaining the pool is a viable project as long as their funding is not reduced by the State and he felt that their proposal would keep the City's annual cost, which is a diminishing cost, for maintenance at an affordable, bare minimum. 3) He encouraged the proponents of the pool to be a part of the solution and not the problem, bringing an end to bad press. He suggested the use of surety bonding to cover maintenance costs in the case that CVRPD becomes unable to fulfill their commitment due to State funding cuts, thereby not saddling the City with a financial albatross. He suggested that if his proposal is not agreeable to the Council, that the issue be placed on the November ballot along with the Charter City issue to let the citizens' voices be heard. He would not support using any other funds than what is available in the Community Projects Fund. He was open to other possibilities which protect the City, but the basic principles of his proposal must be a part of the conditions of approval. Mayor Holt pointed out that public meetings must still be held before a final decision is made to place the Charter City issue on the November ballot. She has not changed her position on the pool and continues to support it, adding that she felt the condition of the Fritz Burns Park is due to the absence of a pool that it was designed for. She's always been willing to compromise and feels that by being creative and working with CVRPD's proposal, the pool could become a reality. She believes that the pool proponents have always been willing to work to make this a reality. She complimented the Parks & Recreation Department, CVRPD, and the Boys & Girls Club for the programs BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 10 June 4, 1996 they offer the community, but she felt that many of them are not conducive to the summer heat. She also felt that family swim is not possible at the La Quinta High School. She supported placing the issue on the November ballot if a solution cannot be reached otherwise. Council Member Perkins commented on the excellence of Palm Desert's park, but pointed out that the economies of the two cities are very different. He noted that recreation programs are paid for by taxpayers and he was concerned about what would happen if the State cuts the funding that CVRPD is depending on to operate and maintain the pool. He also believed that consideration should be given to other needs in the parks. He felt that a recreation building would be more useful to the community and less expensive per individual since it could be used year-round and by more people. He encouraged the pool proponents to look at the City's budget and the infrastructure needs that the City is behind in constructing. He felt that if the issue is placed on the ballot, the residents should be aware of the costs and given the option of choosing between a pool and a recreation building and whether or not they are willing to pay for it through an assessment district. He believed that guaranteed funding for maintenance of a pool is important and noted that there's not much difference in maintenance costs between a small and large pool. Council Member Henderson appreciated the continued involvement of those on both sides of the issue because it shows community dedication and commitment. In reference to the excellence of the Palm Desert Park, she noted that it does not include a pool. The three-year-old pool at Lake Cahuilla is funded through tax dollars and is merely maintaining at the present time. She believes in duplicating successes and not failures and if the community can't help make that pool successful, then it should not be duplicated. She would take her children to the pool at Lake Cahuilla which is why she supports the implementation of an intra-city bus system in La Quinta that could help provide transportation. She has advocated placing this issue on the ballot as an assessment district since January, 1995. She didn't necessarily believe that it was the last Council's responsibility to settle this issue since the 1 million has been available for a long time. She felt that the pool would probably be covered up today if it had been built eight or nine years ago when the economy was better. The high school pool will not accommodate family swim, but it will accommodate competitive swimming. She was ready to make a decision on the issue now or to place it on the November ballot as an assessment district if that's the consensus of the Council. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 11 June 4, 1996 In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that August 8th was the deadline for placing issues on the November ballot. Council Member Sniff was opposed to adding more taxes through another assessment district. He strongly supported Council Member Adolph's proposal, but would not support an additional assessment district. He suggested appropriating the remaining $180,000 of the $1 million for needed park improvements at the Fritz Burns Park and Adams Park, noting that a passive park was the wish of residents around the Adams Park. He wished to reserve $520,000 for construction of a pool as was decided by the Council in May, 1984. He believed that an adequate pool and aquatic facility could be built for $520,000. If CVRPD should lose their State funding, he was confident that the City could afford to pay $54,000 each year for pool maintenance for the sake of the City?s youth and families. He supported putting the issue on the ballot, but was totally opposed to adding an additional assessment district. Mayor Holt advised that she, too, could not support a ballot measure with an assessment district, but she did feel that the public should be aware of a possible increase in the CVRPD assessment should their State funding be cut. Council Member Henderson wholeheartedly supports CVRPD and believes that they are the real experts in recreation. Their report clearly states that their pools are closed by mid august for lack of attendance and they recommended a recreation building instead which the Palm Desert Park does have. Mayor Holt advised that a recreation building is included in Phase II of the Fritz Burns Park and she supports its construction in the future when funds are available, but in the meantime, the Boys & Girls Club and the Community Center are available for indoor recreation. Council Member Sniff didn't feel that the City's Parks & Recreation Department is a duplication of effort, but rather a supplement to the services of CVRPD, providing a broader number of programs and local control. He believes that they work in concert with each other and supports them both. Since a recreation facility is available at the Boys & Girls Club, he felt that duplicating that in the absence of a municipal pool would be a bad move. He supported moving forward with Council Member Adolph?s proposal and recommended reserving $520,000 for a pool, appropriating $180,000 for park improvements, and appropriating $300,000 for the traffic signal at the Vons Shopping Center. * Council Member Adolph advised that CVRPD is willing to make a firm proposal for a contractual agreement once a pool size is determined and pool BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 12 June 4, 1996 contractors are confident that an adequate pool and required facilities can be built for $520,000. He added that he would not support an assessment district. Council Member Perkins believed that residents should be aware of how much a pool will cost to construct and maintain for three months of use each year and the effect it will have on other infrastructure needs. If it?s placed on the ballot, they should be given the option to choose between a pool and recreation building. State funding has been taken from Special Districts in the past and he wasn?t sure that they could recoup their losses by increasing their assessment without public approval should that happen again. Either way, the taxpayer should be aware of the costs because they're the ones who will ultimately pay for a pool. Council Member Henderson advised that she would not support additional taxation unless it's the choice of the residents, such as the assessments for sewers, lighting, and landscaping. She felt that such costs might be a livable amount once it's spread throughout the community and supported giving citizens the choice of having a pool through an assessment district. She felt that placing it on the ballot in that manner would show how much the community wants a pool and if they are willing to pay for it. She wasn't opposed to reserving $518,000 for a pool, but would not support appropriating an additional $180,000 for park improvements. Council Member Sniff pointed out that the $518,000 is not tax money, but rather comes from the 1 million given to the City in mitigation of losing a more direct route to Lake Cahuilla. Mr. Genovese advised that the issue of a pool and a ballot measure should be placed on a future agenda for consideration. The issue before the Council at this time is the Capital Improvement Program. In response to mayor Holt, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the Washington Street improvements would be funded from Redevelopment Project Area No.2 Funds and not the Development Fee Fund. MOTION- It was moved by Council Member Sniff and Mayor Holt to approve the Draft Fi&cal Year 1 996?97 Capital Improvement Program with a minor modification that the $180,000 unappropriated funds of the remaining $1 million be allocated to park improvements. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Genovese advised that a $1 million project was included in last year's CIP. The Council has since allocated BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 + City Council Minutes 13 June 4, 1996 approximately $518,000 and $300,000 for two separate projects, leaving $180,000 unappropriated and if it?s not earmarked for a specific project, the funds will be returned to the Fund balance. Council Member Henderson pointed out that the $180,000 could be left as-is and dealt with at a later time. In response to Council Member Perkins, Council Member Adolph advised that his proposal for constructing a pool for $518,000 included locker rooms, offices, etc. Motion car?ied with Council Member Henderson voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-86. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED JUNE 4, 1996. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ABUTTER?S RIGHTS OF ACCESS LOCATED ADJACENT TO WASHINGTON STREET GEORGE DEVARIAN AND CHRISTI DEVARIAN. 3. AUTHORIZE FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT TO STATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP 5433 BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR WASHINGTON STREET FROM STATE ROUTE 111 TO SIMON DRIVE AND STATE ROUTE 111 FROM ADAMS STREET TO 300 FEET WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET. 4. ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.96-024 AND EA 96-013. A REQUEST TO EXPAND THE KSL GOLF-MAINTENANCE BUILDING AT 77-550 CALLE TAMPICO ONTO A LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST THAT FRONTS AVENIDA CARRANZA AND PERMIT A DEVIATION FROM THE SR ZONE CODE TO PERMIT A SIX-FOOT HIGH SCREEN WALL IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE FOUR FEET IS ALLOWED. APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION CORPORATION. 5. APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 1994195 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FEE REPORT. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 14 June 4, 1996 MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-87. Council concurred on taking up Study Session Item No.2 at this time. STUDY SESSION 2. DISCUSSION OF DARK SKY ORDINANCE. Mayor Holt advised that she requested the Council to discuss this ordinance because of some safety concerns that have been brought to her attention by residents in the Cove area, not with the intent of changing the ordinance, but rather to find out what it will allow in addressing safety factors. The purpose of the ordinance is to retain proper lighting in specific areas, but it does not preclude the City from installing safety lighting in residential areas. Her other concern is the extremely bright lights that some residents have installed on their properties. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that the ordinance does not prohibit street lights, but rather regulates the shielding of them. The mercury vapor lights that many property owners have used to illuminate their property are prohibited. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Herman advised that many mercury vapor lights existed before the dark sky ordinance was adopted and were grandfathered-in to the ordinance. Mayor Holt pointed out that some are new and asked how it's determined which ones are grandfathered-in and which ones are not. Council Member Adolph advised that there are many new types of lighting on the market and asked if this issue is addressed in the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Herman advised that no changes were made in this section of the Code. In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the City is exempt from the ordinance. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, advised that the operation and servicing of new street lights would be funded BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 15 June 4,1996 by the Lighting and Landscape Assessment District which would increase the assessment, but installation costs would need to come from other sources. Council Member Sniff supported the ordinance, believing that the concern is primarily the lack of lighting at intersections and inability to read street signs. He believed funding should be found to install street lights at major intersections in the Cove and some other type of illumination for street signs and other intersections. Mayor Holt had some safety concerns related to the darkness in the Cove area and felt that it would be beneficial for the City to explore ways of improving it now so that any street-lighting requirements could be addressed in new construction projects as opposed to waiting until the area is built out. Mr. Herman advised that street lighting in subdivisions is not a requirement of the zoning ordinance at the present time, but can be added. Mayor Holt felt that it should be brought back to the Council for consideration. Council Member Sniff agreed that such.a requirement should be considered for new construction as well as address the present situation in the Cove. Ms. Lucia Moran, 52-385 Avenida Madero, urged the Council to retain the dark sky ordinance, believing that people wouldn?t be opposed to it if they understood that security lighting is allowed. She was concerned that La Quinta would lose its tourist-resort competitive edge if its nighttime beauty and ambience is destroyed, pointing out that the night sky has drawn many to the area. Street lighting would also mean maintenance costs without insuring safety. She suggested that the Council form a citizen task force to explore the full potential that the dark sky ordinance offers and volunteered to serve on the task force if formed. Ms. Sandy Swan, 78-725 Avenida La Fonda, advised that she enjoys the dark sky as an amateur astronomer and urged the Council to find a compromise between those who enjoy the dark sky and those who prefer a little more light. Mr. Marshall Brown, 77-400 Calle Yucatan, enjoys the dark sky and respects the safety concerns that some have, but felt that bright lights actually make it more difficult to see because they make shadows darker and the iris of the eye closes down. Mr. John DeLeo, 52-990 Avenida Obregon, felt that there is value in having a dark sky. He also felt that constant illumination gives a false sense of security, BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 16 June 4,1996 pointing out that illuminated freeway signs are covered with graffiti while illuminated. Mr. Rick Adamson, 54-646 Avenida Herrera, was opposed to additional night lights and suggested using illuminated street signs. Mr. Dennis Wish, 5?625 Avenida Bermudas, Vice President of the Volunteers for Increased Public Safety VIPS), felt that having street lights would not make the City safer, pointing out that most of the City's crimes have taken place during daytime hours. He suggested that more volunteers in the VIPS program would help make the City safer. If some type of compromise is to be made, he urged the Council to contact groups such as the International Dark Sky Societies to obtain information on lighting that won't pollute the night sky. Mr. Bruce Swan, 78-725 Avenida La Fonda, showed pictures of a comet that he took from his backyard in La Quinta and urged the Council to maintain the ordinance so that the dark sky is not lost. Mayor Holt reiterated that the Council is looking at the ordinance only to find out what it will allow in the way of addressing the safety concerns. Council Member Perkins felt that the bright lights being used should be checked out for proper shielding. He added that if lack of lighting at intersections is a definite factor in causing traffic accidents, then street lighting that is properly shielded and directed downward could be installed. Council Member Adolph pointed out that if light shielding is regulated through the zoning ordinance, Code Enforcement could better control it. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Herman advised that the ordinance requires the illumination of street addresses, but those existing prior to its adoption were grandfathered-in. Council Member Henderson suggested expanding the obelisks throughout the community and light them with a small, ground-level light illuminating the obelisk. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that staff would be looking at the zoning ordinance as it relates to Council Member Perkins' comments and the concept of illuminated obelisks. No action was taken. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 17 June 4, 1996 Council concurred on receiving public comments on Study Session Item No 1 at this time. STUDY SESSION....................continued 1. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. Ms. Kathy Pedersen, 54-455 Avenida Rubio, member of the Parks & Recreation Commission, commented that she didn?t understand why the Council is considering reducing the size of the Commissions and she offered to serve on the Commission without receiving any per diem. Council recessed to Closed Session to and until the hour of 7.00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956?9(b)(3)(C), regarding potential litigation tone case). 2. Public Employee Appointment Public Works Director, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. 3. Evaluation of Council-appointed position City Manager pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, 7:00P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Kate Kelly, 78-565 Sagebrush, spoke regarding the sound wall that the Council has discussed along the west side of Washington Street at Montero Estates. She asked the Council to consider the noise impacts that it would have on the properties across the street and the need it would create for a wall on that side as well. Ms. Isabel Lujan, 51-975 Avenida Juarez, urged the Council to address a gang problem in her neighborhood where very late parties are held each weekend at two different homes. The neighborhood has been subjected to loud music, graffiti, fights, BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 18 June 4, 1996 rock throwing, threats, and intimidations from these people. She presented a list of signatures and demanded that the Council do something to help make the neighborhood safe again. Council Member Perkins advised that such conduct as she described would not be tolerated by this Council. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ms. Millie Blansett, 79-435 N Sunrise Ridge, President of La Quinta Arts Association, advised that she was unable to attend the afternoon session and wished to et the Council know that she was available to answer questions regarding their request for funding. Mayor Holt advised that she would be contacted by staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1 FISCAL YEAR 1996/97. Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, explained that the purpose of the public hearing is to give residents an opportunity to protest the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1998/97. Two written protests have been received, but neither are directed specifically to the proposed changes. He reviewed the requirements of the process and the steps that have been taken so far including the public meeting held on May 21, 1996. A city-wide benefit zone and six special benefit zones are included in the Assessment District, but the special benefit zones have no assessment. The number of Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU) decreased this year from 23,522 to 23,207 because of the assessment-rate changes made to parcels in Annexation Area No 9. Last year's assessment of $43/EDU increased this year to 43.34/EDU. The total revenue last year was $1,011,446 and this year it is estimated at $1,005,781. The two changes that are proposed in the Engineer's Report are a new definition called Vacant and Remote Non-Residential Parcels for parcels in Annexation Area No.9 which reduces those assessments by 50%, and a 2.5% basement cap to the annual CPI adjustment. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution which confirms the proposed assessment. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 19 June 4, 1998 The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Mr. Tom Mulcahey, 79-350 Desert Rock Court, was opposed to some areas receiving a reduction in their assessments because he believed that the value of those properties increase as improvements are made to surrounding properties. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44-215 Villeta Drive, urged the Council to eliminate the special benefit zones because he felt the need no longer exists to assess individual areas for their landscaped entrances due to the addition of several new medians on the south side of the Storm Water Channel that are scheduled to be maintained by the Assessment District. Mr. Andy Morgan, 44-325 Camino La Fonda, spoke in reference to unsightly landscaped areas and lighting fixtures that aren't repaired and asked if it's due to insufficient funds or poor supervision of the landscape contractors. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Mr. Cosper advised that a new landscape maintenance contract was issued in July, 1995, in an attempt to address the problems the City was having with improper landscaping maintenance and pointed out that the contractor is fined if certain requirements are not adhered to. A marked improvement has been reported by the residents and today's complaint is the first one received in several months. He advised that lighting repairs are handled as soon as they are reported, but otherwise there's no way to know that they need repair without patrolling at night. Staff is looking at creating a contract specification wherein the City would enter into a contract with a lighting contractor for regular inspection and repair of the lights. There hasn't been a report of light vandalism in two to three months. In reference to special benefit zones, he advised that the Engineer of Record has recommended retaining them because of the things that have been identified to be very specific to individual areas that the City may wish to assess separately in the future. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Cosper advised that several rates were established in the Assessment District at its onset, including a rate for Vacant, Non-Residential Parcels at 33% of a developed-residential rate. The Vacant & Remote Non-Residential rate was set at 50% of the Vacant, Non- BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 20 June 4, 1996 Residential rate because of the remoteness and lack of utilities for vacant parcels in Annexation Area No.9. RESOLUTION NO.96-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996197 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.89-i It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to adopt Resolution No.96-34 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 2. STREET VACATION NOS. 96-030 AND 96-031 VACATION OF VARIOUS PARCELS OF STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN THE COVE. Council Member Henderson abstained due to a conflict of interest advising that she owns propertY within the areas in question. Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, advised that the these parcels are recommended for vacation as the need for certain street rights-of-way are no longer needed due to the street improvements made in the Cove. He reviewed the requirements that are necessary to vacate the parcels. Some of the parcels have utility easements that must be maintained, two of which are subject to being enclosed and the property owner will be responsible for replacing any improvements placed on the easement should the utility companies who own the easements have to perform maintenance work. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. RESOLUTION NO.96-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, VACATING PORTIONS OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE SANTA CARMELITA AT VALE LA QUINTA SUBDIVISION, UNITS NO.2, 3.4.17, 18, 24, 25, 27, AND 28. STREET VACATION NO.96- 030. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to adopt Resolution No.96-35 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 21 June 4, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 96-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. CALIFORNIA, VACATING PORTIONS OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE SANTA CARMELITA AT VALE LA QUINTA SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO.17. STREET VACATION NO.96-031. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to adopt Resolution No.96-36 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-051 AND EA 96-312. A REQUEST OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER THEIR APRIL 2. 1996 REVIEW OF AN AMENDMENT REQUEST OF THE CITY?S LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO REMOVE THE RURAL-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY FROM PROPERTIES THAT ARE DESIGNATED LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET, AND NORTH OF AVENUE 55. APPLICANTS: DWIGHT STUART, WALLY FRIEND, AND CITY OF LA QUINTA. Ms. di Iorio, Planning Manager, advised that on April 2, 1996, the Council denied a request to remove the Rural-Residential Overlay RRO) from various properties that are designated Low-Density Residential LDR) in the General Plan. On April 16, 1996, the Council moved to reconsider their denial at the request of the applicant. The City has received letters of opposition to the applicant?s request from Shirley McGinty and La Quinta Polo Estates. The Planning Commission and staff both recommend that the RRO be removed from the subject properties because the minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. within the LDR designation will not easily accommodate rural-residential characteristics. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. di Iorio advised that there are approved subdivisions which were already in existence when the RRO was adopted in 1 992 and several of them have received time extensions. Council Member Adolph pointed out that the tract maps could expire within one to two years. Ms. di Iorio stated that conditions could be placed on the tract maps at the * time of granting extensions to require them to be consistent with the General Plan density requirements. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 22 June 4, 1998 Council Member Adolph understood that the app?icants are looking for a more buildabie lot to meet present conditions. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that the density standards under the RRO is 0-3 units/acre as opposed to 0-4 units/acre and the tract maps are conditioned to comply with the General Plan when time extensions are granted. Therefore, any approved maps in the RRO area that are scheduled to expire, have to comply with the RRO density requirements when an extension is granted. Council Member Adolph was not opposed to helping make the lots more buildable, but was opposed to increasing densities that would affect the rural atmosphere of the area. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that density requirements for the approved projects would revert back to the zoning requirement of 1-4 units/acre if the RRO is removed. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Herman advised that the density of the applicant's project is a little less than 4 units/acre which won't change unless the tract map or specific plan expires. Tract maps that had not expired by May 14, 1 996, recently received an additional one-year time extension from the State. He advised that the design standards for the RRO would be removed and addressed in the zoning ordinance. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Herman advised that no existing structures would be affected by the RRO. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Herman advised that the continuity of the equestrian trails would not be affected and would remain in the General Plan. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Mr. John Pena, representative for Wally Friend introduced Mr. Chuck McCuen to make a brief presentation. Mr. Chuck N?cCuen advised that their project, which was approved in 1990 for 98 units and reduced to 94 units when the RRO was adopted. He didn't feel that the property along Jefferson Street, which is expected to have a traffic count of 42,000 vehicles a day at built-out, was suitable for the RRO because of its development restrictions against such things as sound attenuation walls. In order to conform to the development standards of the RRO, they have to BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 23 June 4, 1996 change the basic design character of their project which was approved for a density of 3.11 units/acre and the RRO only allows 3 units/acre. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Pena advised what they are wishing to accomplish is to change development standards that apply to Very- Low-Density Residential neighborhoods like the enhanced set-backs, the perimeter walls, etc. He added that they are not looking at increasing their density. In response to Council Member Adolph Mr. Pena advised that the property owner has no plans to develop the property at the present time unless there's a sudden change in the economy. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. RESOLUTION NO.96-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-312. PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-051. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to adopt Resolution No. 96-37 as submitted. Council Member Perkins advised that he didn't support the change previously because of confusion between the Rural-Residential Overlay and the Equestrian Overlay. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.96-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE RURAL-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY RRO) DESIGNATION ON ALL PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LDR? ON THE LAND USE POLICY DIAGRAM. It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Perkins to adopt Resolution No. 96-38 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 24 June 4, 1998 4. TENTATIVE TRACT 27899, EXTENSION NO.1 A REQUEST FOR A ONE- YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 30 ACRES INTO 110 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE. LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MILES AVENUE AND ADAMS STREET. APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITY DENNIS CUNNINGHAM). Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, presented staff report advising that Tentative Tract Map 27899 was originally approved in February 1 994 as a replacement for Tract 23519 which expired in 1991. He then reviewed access to the tract. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the extension and noted that during their deliberations, there was discussion regarding the drainage system. Surface storm water will drain to a retention basin located in Tract 25383 to the east. Council Member Perkins asked if the streets are going to be public and Mr. Herman advised that they are, but in the CC&R's there is no requirement for a homeowners association. However, there is the ability for the homeowners to form an association to enforce the CC&R's. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Joseph Rodriguez, 79-195 Kara Court, advised that the homeowners are in support of the proposed tract, but ask that Century Crowell be required to remove the sand-dune in back of their properties because the sand during these winds has been intolerable. Brian Esgate, Esgate Engineering, Engineer for the developer, advised that they are considering building the next two cul-de-sacs at Adams and Miles rather than continuing south which will eliminate the problem. Carrie Rodriguez, 79-185 Kara Court, advised that the dune in question is very large and asked how soon they can expect relief. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Council Member Sniff felt that they have the responsibility of doing something about the dune if the problem is being cause by the developer having disturbed it. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 25 June 4, 1996 RESOLUTION NO.96-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO.27899 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A 111 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON A 3O? ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 27899 EXTENSION #1 CENTURY-CROMWELL COMMUNITIES. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph that Resolution No.96-39 be adopted as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 5. TENTATIVE TRACT 28343, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 23.5 ACRES INTO 74 SINGLE-FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB ABUTTING THE NORTH SIDE OF PARC LA QUINTA AND TRACT 25154. APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT MR. TOM CULLINAN, VICE PRESIDENT). Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, presented staff report advising that the Tentative Tract proposes 74 single-family lots and other amenity/common lots on private streets. The lots range in size from about 7,600 sq. ft. to more than 14,000 sq. ft. Access to the tract will be from a north/south private street that connects to Rancho La Quinta Drive. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Tract, In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Herman advised that there is an entrance to the Tract off of Avenue 48 and one off of Washington. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. RESOLUTION NO.96-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 28343 TO ALLOW A 74 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND SALES SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENITY LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 23.5 ACRES IN THE RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. T.M. 28343- APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 26 June 4, 1996 It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to adopt Resolution No.96-40 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. STUDY SESSION........continued DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. Mr. Weiss, Assistant City Manager, advised that pursuant to Council's directive on March 19, 1996, staff has met with each of the City's Boards/Commissions to gain input from them. He referred to the written staff r?port which outlines the discussions which transpired at each of the different bodies. Basically, most favored a seven-member configuration except for the Historic Preservation Commission and the Cultural Commission, both of which felt that five members would be adequate. The Volunteer Advisory Board supported their abolishment if such action would help the other bodies remain in existence. Some Boards/Commissions supported some sort of consolidation, especially the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Human Services Commission--all other preferred status quo. The Parks & Recreation Commission generally supported the consolidations mentioned in the March 1 9th staff report; however, the Human Services Commission rejected consolidation with the Parks & Recreation Commission as there was a desire to retain a distinction between needs" and amenities." The Human Services Commission did feel that the Youth Advisory Committee and Volunteer and Kidsline Advisory Boards duties were more compatible with their mission. Mr. Weiss then referred to the costs breakdowns delineated in the staff report. Regarding duplication of efforts, he advised that there is potential for duplication of effort because of the broad scope of services contained within the enabling legislation for each of the Boards as outlined in the report. Mr. Weiss then reviewed the findings and alternatives available to the Council as outlined in the staff report and on file in the City Clerk's Office, which reviewed various consolidations scenarios, reduction in number of members on Boards, elimination of remuneration, change meeting times, allow ad hoc committees to work without staff assistance and retaining the status quo. Mayor Holt stated that she was opposed to splitting the Community Services Commission into three separate commissions, but she felt that the Council wasn't giving them enough direction. Some of the Council felt that if it was split, they would be able to go forward with the various projects. She felt that all three are doing an excellent job. She understood the staff time involved and BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 27 June 4, 199? understood the members' frustrations and perhaps they still are not getting the direction they are looking for. She wished to see the boards/commissions remain intact except for putting Kidsline Advisory, Volunteer Advisory and Youth Advisory under the auspices of Human Services. She felt that they really haven't been given a chance to see if it can work. She also suggested the possibility of their meetings starting at 5:00 pm to reduce some staff burden. Council Member Adolph commented that the Council has pretty much decided not to touch the Planning Commission, Investment Advisory Board and the Historic Preservation Commission; and that the. Building & Construction Appeals Board and Traffic Committee don't meet so he doesn't consider them. The Volunteer Advisory Board has agreed to be abolished and the Youth Advisory and Kidsline can be combined with one, so we're already losing two. He felt that the Human Services, Cultural Commission and Parks & Recreation serve a viable purpose and shouldn't be touched. He felt that the membership should be retained at seven, because you always have the situation of vacation or other kinds of absences. He commented that elimination of the Design Review Board was a big loss and didn't wish to see that happen with any of these commissions/boards. Council Member Henderson stated that her initial feeling was to scale back both in numbers of commissions/boards and in numbers of members on each. However, after a great deal of research? discussions and soul searching, she has seen her position change. She felt that the problem two or three years ago dealing with not enough Council involvement hasn't changed. She referred to the report regarding the Youth Summit which was not even acknowledged by the Council other than it being placed as an information item on an agenda. She then referred to a request from the new La Quinta Arts Association and the fact that there is no method for them to go to the appropriate commission that should be dealing with these kinds of requests. These commissions should have a scope of responsibility and the Council should be willing to fund the existence of these commissions or we should not have them. She felt that every commission should be reviewing requests for funding that falls within their area of expertise and also noted that an organization like the La Quinta Historical Society has no interaction with the Historic Preservation Commission. The Council needs to look at the role they wish these commissions to play. She also commented on the various types of minutes the Council is receiving and that there should be some uniformity as some of them believe that their form of communication with the Council is through their minutes?and yet, now that they are being read, they seem to be changing their formats. Regarding the Art in Public Places Commission, she wished to see the recommendations of the La Quinta Arts Foundation eliminated and all appointments made at the BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 28 June 4, 1996 discretion of the City Council. Each commission should investigate and determine which correlating committee exists within CVAG and have some interaction with them and report back to their commission. She wished to see that for a 60-90 day period that all commissions review the minutes of all other commissions and give a verbal report back to their respective commission. She also wished to see a serious concerted effort with a report back to the Council regarding encouraging.and increasing public attendance at their meetings. She would support an automatic extension of all terms and al?owing attrition through resignations and no recruitment for one year. Commissions should be working on Council issues and not creating issues. She concluded that she had no problem with seven members, especially if they're going to be reviewing funding issues. Council Member Sniff felt that the City needs to involve as many citizens as possible and felt that has been accomplished. He felt that we have a tremendous resource here and that has been put in a status of uncertainty. He didn't see it as a monetary issue people who serve deserve at least a nominal payment. He supported the current status as to the numbers of members. He favored status quo with very few exceptions such as placing the Kidsline, and Volunteer Advisory under the Human Services. He believed that there is a need for a method to fast-track their concerns to the Council. He supported an automatic one-year extension of all terms. There is a need to address liaison between the commissions/Council. Regarding the various requests for funding the City receives, he had a concern about processing those through the commissions. He felt that the Council needs to encourage the commissions and give them reinforcement. Council Member Perkins supported an automatic one-year extension. He said that he has read all of the various ordinances and while they aren't the best, most all are practical and specify that they are advisory or recommending bodies to the Council. He believed that the City has the cream of the crop" serving on the commissions and agreed that the Council hasn?t given enough direction; however, the ordinances do provide some direction that they should be looking at. He felt that there needs to be a closer relationship between the commissions and the Council. He said that he doesn't attend their meetings, because he felt that the presence of a Council Member hinders their actions. Perhaps, there should be a Council representative that goes to a meeting for specific purposes and then lease. He felt that the Council should be looking at the cost factor he had a concern about the staff time that equates into dollars. He urged them to give the majority and minority thinking in their minutes. He agreed that the Council needs to review all of the ordinances during this one year period. Regarding the Cultural Commission, he envisions BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 29 June 4, 1996 its formation as an umbrella for all other organizations, He didn?t want to see any commission take on a project that will consume staff time. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the matter before the Council is a study session only any action to extend terms would require an amendment to the Code which staff can bring back to the Council. Council Member Perkins suggested extending only those terms that are expiring. Council Member Sniff suggested leaving all boards/commissions intact; place Kidsline and Volunteer Advisory Board under Human Services; and ask staff to develop a fast-track method to get requests to the City Council quickly; and to extend the terms of all members for one year. Council Member Henderson vigorously supported having the commissions review funding requests. If we have commissions made up of experts in their fields, they should be able to review these kinds of applications. She also wished to see an amendment to the Art in Public Places Commission concerning the appointment of three members of the Arts Foundation as she saw no reason for it. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that staff will return at the next meeting for consideration of extension of terms. He asked that consideration be given to placing Kidsline, Youth Advisory Committee under Parks & Recreation Commission instead of the Human Services Commission since they are staffed by the Parks & Recreation Director. He further advised that staff will be returning in the near future with a protocol and handbook for the commissions. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS All reports were noted and filed. DEPARTMENT REPORTS Mr. Genovese asked for Council's consideration of a Special Council Meeting at 3:00 pm on Thursday, June 20, 1996 for review of the 1996/97 FY budget. Council concurred. BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 30 June 4, 1996 Council Member Perkins referred to the staff report regarding the Council's liability insurance coverage asking what the amount is and Mr. Falconer advised that it is $10,000,000 for general liability and $1,000,000 for errors and omissions. It is per occurrence. Council Member Perkins asked for a report at the next meeting on the amount the City still has invested in LAIF. Council Member Henderson referred to the staff report on the Solid Waste Franchise Negotiations, in particular, the reference to Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage and Mr. Weiss, Assistant City Manager, advised that during discussions with Waste Management, the franchises of those two cities have been used as a model and in some instances, the indication has been that they have had experiences with them and now question the need for some of the language. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS Council Member Perkins advised that tomorrow morning he and Mr. Genovese and Mr. Cosper will be meeting with the owners of the Von's Shopping Center to see if they will assist in the funding of the traffic signal at that center. CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b)(3)(C) REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION ONE CASE). 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957. 3. EVALUATION OF COUNCIL-APPOINTED POSITION CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6. The City Council concluded a Closed Session under Government Code Section 54957 and unanimously approved and directed the City Manager and City Attorney to complete negotiations w'th Berryman and Hennigar for a service contract for City Engineering services substantially in the City's usual form and that the Mayor be BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02 +City Council Minutes 31 June 4, 1996 authorized to execute the contract. Following execution of the contract, it will be made available for public review in the City Clerk's Office. The City Council concluded a Closed Session under Government Code Section 54957.6 and unanimously approved an amendment to the City Manager's contract to add an additional 13.67 vacation days to his vacation benefit and that the Mayor be authorized to execute the amended contract. Following execution of the contract, it will be made avai?able for public review in the City Clerk's Office. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Re pectfu?ly submitted, AUNDRA L. HOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California BIB] 07-01-1996-U01 03:05:46PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 18-U02 1996-U02