Loading...
1996 11 19 CC Minutes, LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 19, 1998 Regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council of November 1 9, 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 Larry Rhinehart, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs for South Coast Air Quality Management District, gave a brief update on AQMDs activities and the recent changes in air quality laws He advised that they are available to assist in the reporting requirements for AB2766 through which the City receives approximately $18,000 annually. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that the Historical Society has asked that Study Session Item No.2 be continued. Council Member Perkins asked that Consent Calendar Item No. 4 be moved to Business Session Item No.8. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to continue Study Session Item No. 2 Funding Alternatives for the La Quinta Historical Societys Museum). Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the City Council Minutes of October 30, November 5 and 12, 1996 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS None BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 2 November 19, 1996 PRESENTATIONS Mayor Holt and Mark Moran presented plaques on behalf of the Friends of the La Quinta Senior Center to Jack Eberhardt and to Alibaba and Eveleene Farzaneh for their support and donations to the La Quinta Senior Center. Mr. Moran also acknowledged the presence of the Friends of the La Quinta Senior Center Board of Directors. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE 1. LETTER FROM B. J. SEATON RESIGNING FROM THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 1996. Council concurred on presenting a plaque and letter of appreciation to Ms. Seaton for her service on the Parks & Recreation Commission. 2. LETTER FROM CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL REGARDING LIGHTING FIXTURES. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Freeland, Senior Engineer, advised that the lighting fixtures belong to the City. Council Member Henderson was concerned that they not be placed in an area where the glare would once again be a problem. Council concurred on referring this matter to staff to negotiate a reasonable purchase price with the California Lutheran High School and report back to Council. BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POTENTIAL CITYWIDE PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. Vogt, Public Works Dirctor, advised that on June 1 8, 1996, Council budgeted approximately $700,000 in Community Project Funds and Infrastructure Funds for unspecified improvements to City parks and directed staff to work with the Parks & Recreation Commission to develop a prioritized list of improvement projects. On October 30, 1 996, Council reviewed a list of BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 3 November 1 9, 1 996 proposed projects totaling $1,272,400 recommended by the Parks & Recreation Commission and directed staff to prepare a more-detailed cost estimate for the proposed pool, restroom facility, and shade structures at Fritz Burns Park. Cost estimates received for the pool project ranged from $28- $166 per square foot. The project includes a 3Y2 to 5' deep, 75 X 35' p00, 30' x 30' wading pool, restrooms, showers, ticket office, shade structure, decking, and security fencing, but not operation and maintenance costs. He advised that the total amount currently available for this project is $664,597, including actual interest received on the Community Projects Fund for 1 995/96 and projected interest for 1 996/97, noting that $67,000 was appropriated on October 1 5, 1996, for the Senior Center Parking Lot Expansion Project. Fred Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, thanked Council Members Adolph/Sniff and Mayor Holt for bringing the pool issue up again. He hoped that since certain conditions set forth by Council Member Perkins have been met, that the pool would be approved and not delayed any longer. He felt that Council Member Henderson's suggestion to build a trail to connect the Cove with Lake Cahuilla so that children could go there to swim was unrealistic due to the distance and heat. Jim Cathcart, P.O. Box 346, felt that the Council should exercise caution in approving any improvements that would require maintenance, due to the uncertain impact of Proposition 218 on both the City and C. V. Recreation & Parks District CVRPD) whom the City is counting on to provide operation and maintenance services for the pool. Robert Metkus, of La Quinta Highlands, felt that people want a more conservative government that will spend their money more effectively. He felt the funds should be used on needs such as the Dune Palms Road crossing and code enforcement instead of a pool that can only be used 3-4 months out of the year. Wally Reynolds, 79-860 Fiesta Drive, stated that the pool is still an issue because of the uncertainty of the construction and maintenance costs. He questioned what the pool attendance would be and asked why there are no restrooms at Adams Park. Jack Sobelman, 52-81 5 Avenida Martinez, urged the Council to look at these proposals in a business-like manner and refuse any that don't include life-cycle costs. Bill Simmons, 45-455 Desert Eagle Court, felt that it's time to settle the pool issue and questioned how maintenance for the pool would be paid. He pointed BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 4 November 19, 1996 out that property values in North La Quinta have been reduced by $50,000 since 1991 and suggested forming an assessment district for the residents in the Cove area if they want a pool. Pat Cross, 78-570 Saguaro, was concerned about the uncertainty of Proposition 218 and questioned how the City would be able to afford maintenance and insurance costs for a pool. She also asked how the children in North La Quinta would get to the pool at Fritz Burns Park and what kind of childcare would be provided. Her grandchildren will not be allowed to use a public pool. Robert Tyler, 4421 5 Villeta Drive, felt that the Parks & Recreation Commission was evenly divided on the pool issue when he attended one of their meetings and he doubted that their eventual approval was unanimous. He felt that Council would be remiss if infrastructure funds were spent for anything other than infrastructure and urged them to spend the $500,000 for other worthy needs on the prioritized list. Seth Etinger, 78-720 Avenida La Fonda, urged the Council to keep in mind that children are the City's greatest priority and, although it's popular to be lean and mean, he felt it's important also to have a heart and provide activities for the youth. Carl Ingram, 78-625 Sanita Drive, Chairman of the Recreation & Parks Commission, felt that it's appalling for an area with some of the hottest afternoon temperatures in the world to not have a pool and noted that CVRPD feels that a pool is still feasible. He failed to understand why there's still opposition to the pool since it has been downsized to $100,000, services and materials are being donated, and CVRPD will be responsible for the operation and maintenance. He supported spending money on the youth before they get into trouble instead of afterwards and felt that the pool would benefit people of all ages in the community. Jeff Smith, 5631 Avenida Alvarado, was concerned about the panic reaction regarding Proposition 218 and felt that challenges to City funding would always exist. He felt that the people of La quinta want a responsible recreation program and that the pool is a necessary project. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Hartung, Building & Safety Director, advised that a pool was the No.1 priority on the Recreation & Parks Commission's list of proposed improvements Attachment 3). BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 5 November 19, 1996 Council Member Adolph viewed this as an economic issue and not a pool issue. He said he would support the pool if it can be built with the $518,000 available in the fund and operated at very little cost to the City with some surety that the General Fund won't have to be used for operation costs should the operator walk away from it. He questioned the preliminary cost figures prepared by Berryman & Henigar and wished to see new cost estimates for the pool and amenities, hoping that sufficient funds would exist to construct restrooms at Adams Park as well. He pointed out that two architects and other contractors have offered to donate their services for this project. Council Member Henderson advised that CVRPDs entire budget consists of assessment districts and asked if they are still interested in operating the pool since Proposition 218 passed. Mr. Vogt advised that a CVRPD representative has indicated that they are still interested in operating the pool, but they're not sure of the ramifications of Proposition 218 and haven't indicated whether or not they will honor their original offer. Mayor Holt advised that Don Martin indicated to her that CVRPD is still very interested in operating the pool and wish to be involved with its construction as well. Council Member Henderson agreed that they are still interested, but they also have some serious questions about their future funding sources. Council Member Sniff suggested that staff be directed to research this issue further and report back with greater definition and certainty on the size and cost of the pool as well! a operation costs from potential operators. He felt that solid, definitive information should be brought back to Council quickly if a pool is to be operational by next summer. He still felt that a pool is a good idea, but will not support anything beyond the City's financial depth and hoped that the feasibility of a pool would be known by the December 1 7th Council meeting as well as more definitive information on Proposition 218. He felt that the funds should be used for other park improvements such as restrooms, shade structures, and playground equipment if the pool project proves unfeasible. He also wished to have a report back from the City Attorney regarding the impact of Proposition 218. Mayor Holt noted that a majority of the Council had previously agreed to move forward with the pool as long as it could be built and operated under the parameters set forth by the Recreation & Parks Commission. She still supports it and feels that it's an absolute necessity in the community and didn't wish to BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 6 November 19, 1996 have it brought before Council again until it'S presented in a form than can be voted on. Council Member Perkins felt that the Council has a responsibility to always evaluate conditions and he has previously indicated that he would consider supporting a scale-downed version of the pool. However, he felt that the last two elections have shown that people wish to pay less taxes and expect government to spend their money wisely. He pointed out that the pool would be a limited-use facility that will take almost all of the available funding and that Fritz Burns Park is not used because it lacks shade structures, fencing, and restrooms. He felt that it would be irresponsible to build a pool at this time given the uncertainty of Proposition 218 and future available funding for park improvements. He felt that safety and protection of children is far more important than providing a pool for their pleasure and advised that there's a lot of activities for children in the community. He felt that the City should maintain what it already has and wouldn't support any motion to move forward with the pool. In response to Mayor Holt, Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that the original cost estimate for a pool was $2.8 million. Mayor Holt pointed out that the pool costs have consistently been reduced from $2.8 million to $518,000, Council Member Henderson felt that Proposition 218 may be tied up in court for a long time and with its passage, that taxpayers have stated that they want a voice in how their money is spent. She hoped the voters would support the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District should such approval become necessary, but pointed qut that other funding sources would have to be found to maintain those facilities should they not approve it; otherwise, the facilities will fall to disrepair. She could not support adding to those costs under the present uncertainty and was opposed to sending it back to staff for additional study because of the additional funds it would take to complete such a study. She was concerned that the operation costs would end up coming from the General Fund and felt that the proposed construction costs were unrealistic. She didn't feel that the City has $50,000 extra to spend on pool maintenance and if they did, she felt that it should be placed in the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District to reduce the assessments. She wished to see the $113,000 in infrastructure funds returned to that fund to be used for other infrastructure needs. Mr. Genovese advised that the impact of Proposition 218 would not be determined for sometime and since the City doesn't have an engineer on staff BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 7 November 19, 1996 who can design a pool, he wasn't sure that more definitive cost figures could be provided. Mr. Vogt advised that in preparation of this report, he talked with pool contractors and sketched out a preliminary pool design and received cost estimates for the entire project including shade structures, restrooms, fencing, and ticket office ranging from $350,000 to $570,000. One verbal estimate was received for $100,000 to construct a 75 X 35' pool and a 30' X 30' wading pool. He advised that the cost estimates provided in this report are the best staff can provide without hiring an expert in the field to prepare plans, specifications, and an engineer's estimate and the only way to find out the actual cost is to put the project out to bid. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Vogt advised that design costs range from 10-12% of construction costs and would be $35,000-$60,000 according to staff's estimates on this project. Council Member Adolph suggested asking a pool contractor how much the entire project would be instead of hiring a separate architect for design and cost estimates. Mr. Vogt advised that bids for design/construct contracts are usually loaded up on one side or the other, depending on whether or not the contractor expects to get the bid. Council Member Adolph asked what the top of the line costs would be, pointing out that the bid would be for the entire project. He also questioned how many months the pool would be open. He understood that it would be open for five months, but has heard others say that it would only be open for three to four months. Council Member Perkins advised that his comments were based on the operation schedule of other pools in the valley that are only open for 2Y2 to 3Y2 months, with the exception of Palm Springs which is open year-round. Council Member Henderson advised that pools operated by CVRPID are basically open for 3Y2 months because the attendance drops in mid-August. Council Member Sniff wished for staff to talk to several pool contractors and obtain more definitive information about what can be built for the amount of funds available. He wasn't sure that a wading pool is necessary, but felt that restrooms, shade structures, a ticket office, and security fencing are important. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 8 November 19, 1996 In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr, Vogt advised that the present cost estimates were arrived at by speaking with a representative from California Pools, another pool contractor, and a few architects. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Sniff and Mayor Holt to direct staff to talk further with California Pools and other contractors and to talk to C. V. Recreation & Parks District to determine if they are still interested in managing the project, producing a pool, restroom facilities, shower facilities, ticket office, shade structures, security fencing, all in conformance with the California Environmental Health Regulations and any other legal requirements and is generally in line with the financial information and report before the Council at this time; and further that the City Attorney report back to the Council, no later than December 17, 1996, regarding the effects of Proposition 218 and that the entire package be brought back before the Council on December 17, 1996. Mayor Holt thanked staff for their patience in working on this project for so long and hoped that it would come to an end soon. Council Member Henderson noted that the information being brought back would still be informal. In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the League of California Cities Task Force would be reporting back on timeframes for initial opinions and recommendations after their meeting in Sacramento today. She noted that after five years, Proposition 62 is still being dealt with. It's very clear that Proposition 218 will apply to any increases in the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District and any increases will have to be funded from the General Fund or be approved by the voters. The outstanding issue at this time is whether or not existing assessments will require voter approval. She advised that it's doubtful that any definitive resolve will be known before next summer and any decision at this time should not be based on that outcome. Council Member Henderson advised that based on the passage of Proposition 218 and the diminishing of the.1 million, she would not support the motion. She felt that the $518,000 should be used to construct restrooms, install playground equipment,and repair the tennis courts. The City will be able to afford a pool in the future if the economy and tax base continues to improve. Motion carried with Council Members Henderson and Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-69. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 9 November 19, 1996 Mayor Holt advised that Council would receive a public comment at this time on one of the Department Reports. DEPARTMENT REPORi D-2. UPDATE ON TORCH AT SESAME RESTAURANT. Mr. Mark Faugno, 75-145 St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, Service Manager of Breeze Air Conditioning, advised that the torch at Sesame Restaurant is a 100% safety lock-out system that consists of four UL-approved components. The lock-out system will not allow gas to pass through the main valve should the flame go out' until it has been manually reset. It does not have a sealed- combustion chamber and is not under. any type of pressure. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Faugno advised that modern-day home furnaces have a 90% lock-out system which try intermittently to re-ignite when the flame goes out, but a 100% lock-out system won't re-ignite until it has been manually reset. Council Member Adolph felt that staff's concern is that, although all four components are UL-approved, they have not been tested together and, therefore, are not approved collectively as a unit. If a gas leak causes an explosion, the City would be liable for approving a unit that hasn't been UL- approved. Mr. Faugno advised that the unit sits up high from the ground. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Faugno advised that a similar unit is used in a trough instead of a torch at Mr. Farzaneh's restaurant in Palm Desert. These same components are used in standard furnaces and connecting the four components together does not destroy the integrity of each component. BUSINESS SESSION...................continued 2. CONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN STAMKO DEVELOPMENT AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CONCERNING A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND HIGHWAY 111. Council Member Perkins asked Mayor Holt if she was going to abstain from this discussion. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 10 November 19,1996 Mayor Holt advised that she didn't have a legal conflict with remaining at the dais and would take the appropriate action during the voting process. In response to Council Member Perkins, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that under the Political Reform Act a Council Member cannot participate in a discussion and then decide to abstain. The type of conduct, if such exists and if there is an exemption, is under the common-law conflict principles which are not so clearly set out that there would be a description of whether participation in a discussion followed by an abstention in the actual vote would still constitute participation in the discussion. That would not be allowed under a Political Reform Act conflict and would, therefore, be arguable as to whether it's appropriate or not under a general common-law type of conflict situation. Council Member Perkins asked if an abstention that is based on conflict of interest necessarily pertains to personal gain. Ms. Honeywell advised that that is the difference between the conceptual common-law type of conflict which does not necessarily relate to financial gain, but can relate to a personal conflict where a divided loyalty-type situation could exist. Mr. Weiss, Assistant City Manager, advised that the proposed Memorandum of Understanding MOU) between Stamko Development and the City of La Quinta indicates interest and identifies potential parameters for a future Development Agreement between the two parties for commercial property located southeast of Highway 111 and Adams Street. The MOU provides for Stamko Development to process a Development Application for up to eight auto-dealer pads and 400,000 sq. ft. of retail/entertainment and restaurants uses. The MOU calls for Stamko to construct certain off-site improvements to Adams Street and Highway 111 and for the City to reimburse them for up to $2,955,550 over a 10-13-year period as well as freeze tees for the site. The MOU is not an agreement, but attempts to oijtline parameters for a future Development Agreement consistent with policies within the City's Economic Development Plan and this project will be subject to the City's full planning-review process and environmental review. Staff recommended approval of the MOU and authorization for the City Manager to proceed with the preparation of a Development Agreement. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Weiss advised that the MOU outlines parameters and a concept under which an agreement can be negotiated, but is not a binding agreement. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 11 November 19, 1996 Doug Phillips, 39-700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312, Rancho Mirage, of Best, Best, & Kneger and Deputy City Attorney for the City of lndio, advised that the City of Indio has great concerns about this proposal. He referred to a 1 990 Settlement Agreement between the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency, City of La Quinta, and the City of lndio wherein two lawsuits were settled and he read the following excerpts from that agreement: 1) From the date of execution of this agreement by all parties and until the termination date of the La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2 or any amendment of the project, the Agency shall not use tax-increment funds generated from the project area and received by the Agency, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 33670(b), to directly assist through a write- down of property values, a Disposition and Development Agreement, or otherwise any auto dealer who locates in the project area for Project Area No.2 within La Quinta." 2) The City of La Quinta represents that an auto center is not currently proposed in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Area No.2 and there is no intent to amend such plan to provide such an auto center." He noted that the developer's responsibilities outlined in Exhibit A of the MOU calls for the development of a commercial center consisting of eight auto dealer pads in Phases 1 and 2 and the City's responsibilities include a reimbursement to the developer of $2.9 million for off-site improvement costs that will. be paid from sales tax revenues generated from the project. The City of lndio views the proposed MOU as a violation of the terms and spirit of the 1990 Settlement Agreement. He asked the Council not to adopt the MOU based on lndio's concerns and advised that if this is viewed as a City project and not a redevelopment project, then they would question if the reimbursement from sales tax revenues constitutes a gift of public funds. Kiki Haynes, 51-945 Avenida Velasco, was opposed to the City giving away $3 million to get the auto dealers and felt that such action would be a gift of public funds. She felt that the public has a right to know what's going on and this proposal has not been publicized. She was concerned that approval of this project would hurt the City of lndio and felt that cities should work together and not against each other. Jeff Halt, 80-1 94 Delphi Court, lndio, stated that it's frustrating to see cities in dispute with each other and he felt that La Quinta and lndio have always had a good working relationship. He referred to an auto mall project that the cities worked together on in the past and felt that the City's intent at that time was to work with lndio because of the Settlement Agreement and didn't understand BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 12 November 19, 1 996 why it's not being adhered to in this case. He questioned why the City consider giving $3 million to a developer in light of their earlier concerns about Proposition 218 and an expenditure of $500,000 for a pool. He urged the Council to not let this become a litigation issue and to consider how it would hurt the City of lndio, noting that lndio receives $500,000 a year in tax revenues from the auto dealers. Chris Clarke, 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 400, Los Angeles, General Partner of Stamko Development, advised that Stamko has owned approximately 3,000 acres within the various cities of the valley and has done things for every city. They are building a 400-acre project in lndio called Heritage Palms which they asked lndio to annex instead of La Quinta. She advised that the City of lndio gave Stamko $3.2 million for infrastructure costs on that project and the money that Stamko will receive from La Quinta is not a gift of public funds because the infrastructure will be necessary regardless of the development done there. She stated that Stamko is a developer and does not get involved with politics. They worked with the City of lndio to bring a beautiful project to the gateway of that city. The auto dealers approached her about this project because of their frustration in trying to get an auto mall built. She pointed out that this project will generate sales tax revenues. Stamko will be fronting the infrastructure costs and receive reimbursement over the next 10 years, unlike the deal made in lndio where Stamko was paid up front. She felt that this project would benefit the City, just as Heritage Palms has benefitted Indlo. Council Member Sniff asked the City Attorney to respond to Mr. Phillips' comments regarding the Settlement Agreement. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, felt that it would be appropriate to say that the City has carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreement and does not believe that the proposed MOU or potential Development Agreement would violate the terms or spirit of that Agreement. Further, the City does not believe that public assistance in contribution for regionally-significant public improvements constitutes a gift of public funds. Council Member Sniff felt that La Quinta had worked with lndio in good faith to produce an auto mall which unfortunately did not happen and advised that this MOU is in response to a developer's request and was not solicited or sought. He totally supports the MOU and felt that Council should go forward with it. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 , City Council Minutes 13 November 19, 1996 Council Member Henderson advised that she spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the Settlement Agreement and is very comfortable with moving forward with the MOU. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Perkins to approve the Memorandum of Understanding and authorize the City Manager to proceed with the preparation of a Development Agreement. Mayor Holt advised that she would abstain on this issue to avoid any appearance of divided loyalty or conflict, but expressed concern about the number of closed session meetings that were held on this item prior to the MOU coming before the CQuncil. She was also concerned about how the lines are drawn between legal opportunities and moral obligations and that no attempt was made by the City of La Quinta to discuss this with lndio. She believed that the auto dealers were the ones who initiated this and that they were not solicited by either the developer or the City, but felt that cities have a moral obligation to work ith each other. Council Member Perkins pointed out that La Quinta spent thousands of dollars and hours of staff time working with lndio to produce an auto mall and within 30 days after both parties determined that it wasn't a feasible project to pursue, lndio proposed the construction of another auto mall on land in the County that they planned to annex. He didn't recall lndio notifying La Quinta of their plans at that time and has no qualms with La Quinta doing this project, noting that La Quinta did not solicit the auto dealers, but is simply responding to the developer's request. He supported the MOU and hoped that the project would move forward. Council Member Sniff stated that closed sessions have never been held without the considered legal advice of the City Attorney who is extremely conservative, knowledgeable, and prudent. He didn't have a problem ith the manner in which they were held and felt that La Quinta has worked, and will continue to work with lndio in the future. He felt that La Quinta is extremely moral, considering both its neighbors and citizens, but in the final analysis, believed that this is a business issue and not a moral one. Council Member Adolph pointed out that the City is looking for tax base to enhance its residential communities and he felt that the City needs to develop this property. Staff feels that the City is on the right tract with this and, therefore, he supported the project. Motion carried with Mayor Holt ABSTAINING. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-170. See clarification on Page 2 of December 3, 1996 Minutes.) BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 14 November 19, 1996 3. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND LA QUINTA REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP CLIFFHOUSE RESTAURANT. Mr. Weiss, Assistant City Manager, advised that in 1991, the City entered into an Owner Participation Agreement OPA) with La Quinta Real Estate Partnership wherein the developer agreed to construct in phases, a restaurant and office development and the Redeveiopment Agency agreed to fund $250,000 in storm channel improvements. The developer has constructed the Cliffhouse Restaurant, but has asked for an extension for construction of the office building in Phase 2. The developer has proposed to pay the Agency $5,000 each year in 1998, 1999, and 2000 should the office building not be constructed. Staff recommended approval of the amendment based on the value of the payments proposed by the developer, the additional property tax revenues received from the larger than proposed restaurant, and the limited demand for office space at that site. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Weiss advised that the developer wishes to retain the opportunity to construct an office building at a later date should the demand for office space exist. RESOLUTION NO.96-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND LA QUINTA REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP. It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Perkins to adopt Resolution No. 96-87 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH RAY LOPEZ & ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE HIGHWAY 111 DESIGN THEME. Ms. di Iorio, Planning Manager, advised that staff recommends approval of the landscape architectural services of Ray Lopez & Associates for the Highway 111 design theme for a fee not to exceed $9,000. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to approve the contract for services with Ray Lopez and Associates, authorize the City Manager to sign the contract, and appropriate from the Contract Services Account an amount not to exceed $9,000. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-171. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 15 November 19,1996 5. CONSIDERATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 96-001 FOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS AND A PORCH ADDITION TO THE HACIENDA DEL GATO AND DEMOLITION OF SEVERAL OUT-BUILDINGS AT THE SOUTH TERMINUS OF WASHINGTON STREET. Ms. di Iorio, Planning Manager, advised that the applicant is proposing to use the Marshall Ranch/Hacienda Del Gato as sales and administrative offices for the future proposed Tradition Golf Resort consisting of 241 single-family homes, She advised that since the Hacienda is on the California Historic Resources Inventory list, the proposed modifications and demolitions were reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. They recommend that the Certificate of Appropriateness be approved as outlined in the staff report. Council Member Perkins felt that the historical information provided in the staff report was very interesting. Council Member Sniff was concerned about the number of historical inaccuracies in the report and was disappointed that he wasn't contacted for input. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission for design modifications, porch addition to the Marshall Ranch/Hacienda Del Gato and demolition of several out-buildings in the Tradition project. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-172. 6. CONSIDERATION OF SUNLINE SERVICES GROUP POWER PROPOSAL. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that her memorandum contained in the staff report contains options available to Council in response to SunLine's MOU. Council Member Sniff felt that the Council has expressed major concerns about SunLine's recent actions relative to the attempted takeover of lID and does not support it. Richard Cromwell III, 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, General Manager of SunLine Transit Agency, advised that his actions as General Manager are based on the direction of a majority vote six members) of the JPA and doesn't feel that the recent vote of 4-yes, 2-no, 1-abstain, and 3 absent is a strong vote, and, therefore, does not anticipate an affirmative action on the MOU at the December 4th meeting. He referred to the positive BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 16 November 19, 1996 aspects of SunLine Services Group SSG), stating that their entrepreneurial efforts have been an attempt to make up for a shortfall in funds and he hoped that the City would remain a member. Council Member Perkins advised that all of the information related to this proposal was given in closed session which kept this Council's representative from being able to report that information back to Council. He didn't understand why lID was selected for takeover when it's one of the lowest-cost utilities in the State instead of Edison which is one of the highest in the country. He questioned the secrecy of the proposal, advising that he learned about it in the newspaper and felt it had the appearance of something sinister happening. He was very disappointed in SunLine and everyone involved and didn't wish to have a part in any action where a decision is made for this City in a closed session meeting without the presence of the entire Council. He hoped that they would not place Council's representative in this position again. Mr. Cromwell pointed out that as a staff member, he works under the direction of a consensus of the JPA. The closed session meetings were held because the developer felt his proposal was a proprietary idea and to negotiate the fees of the MOU. lID was selected because the developer felt that their rates could be reduced even further as well as Edison's. The purpose of the MOU was to define the developer's compensation and SSG was no where near moving forward with this without the Councils deciding on it. He apologized for the disappointment that this situation has caused. Council Member Perkins asked if they went into closed session to develop an idea to which Mr. Cromwell responded that it was for the purpose of discussing the developers idea. Council Member Perkins felt that Mr. Cromwell has a lot of control over the Board and should use his influence to point out when actions are not legal and proper. Mr. Cromwell advised that the Board consulted with five different attorneys before holding the closed sessions because they, too, were concerned. SSG offered to make a presentation early on in the process, but the City declined to receive it. SunLine works best when everyone works together and he felt that the aggressive picture that the media painted of SSG was unfortunate. Council Member Henderson wasn't looking at pulling out of SunLine Services Group, but asked how a portion of the agreement could be terminated if an implementation agreement does not exist and would termination of it give it some type of credence. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 17 November 19, 1996 Ms. Honeywell advised that it didn't appear to her that an implementation agreement exists, but to the extent that it existed in concept within the agreement, the City could fashion a termination along the lines of that section in the overall agreement provided that SunLine gives the City some type of acknowledgment that they viewed such a notice as being adequate for any future implementation agreement or liability that they might enter into prior to an implementation agreement. Mayor Holt didn't support SSG's actions, but wasn't sure that Mr. Cromwell could be expected to have that much control over the elected officials on the Board. She has a problem with so many things being done in closed session and in reference to Council Member Perkins' comment to Mr. Cromwell, pointed out that this Council also developed an idea in closed session and came out with an MOU which was approved earlier in this meeting. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to direct the'City Attorney to proceed with the process of selective termination of the acquisition proposals and issues by the SunLine Services Group as she feels appropriate, and direct Council's representative to SunLine Services Group to vote NO on any new or additional MOU's regarding any and all electric proposals by SunLine Services Group. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDE NO. 96-173. 7. CONSIDERATION OF l-HANDBOOK FOR COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES. Mr. Weiss, Assistant City Manager, advised that Council recently approved modifications to the Municipal Code to provide more consistency with the City's Boards and Commissions and the proposed handbook was drafted to serve as the operational guide for the Boards and Commissions. He advised of a correction on Page 21 relative to appointments to the Art in Public Places Commission and advised that standardization of the agendas will eliminate study sessions for the Planning Commission. He further noted that Board/Commission Minutes and staff department reports are considered the mechanism by which Boards & Commissions will communicate with Council. Council Member Henderson viewed the Planning Commission and Investment Advisory Board as somewhat different from the other Boards and Commissions. She felt that their agendas and minutes should follow the same form, but asked if there was any legal reason why the Planning Commission couldn't continue having study sessions as long as they are properly noticed and recorded. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 18 November 19, 1996 Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that it's not a problem as long as the items under discussion are not on the agenda for action, but their study sessions usually relate to items scheduled for public hearing later that evening which is a due-process concern because potential decisions are made outside the scope of the public hearing. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. Honeywell advised that although no formal decisions are made in the study sessions, oftentimes there are references made to such decisions during the public hearing. All information considered by the decision-maker for a public hearing item must be presented before the public. Council Member Adolph felt it's important for the study sessions to continue if it can be legally done through noticing because it allows the Planning Commission to get through a lot of mundane information and keep the public hearings from extending too late into the evening. Council Member Perkins agreed with the City Attorney and suggested that when a public hearing requires lengthy discussions, that it be continued to the next meeting. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. Honeywell advised that a continuance would not be a delay of due process as long as there is a reasonable basis for it. The Planning Commission could start their meetings earlier to take care of other business items prior to the public hearings at 7:00 p.m., but there hasn't been that many items on the agenda for the last four months. Council Member Henderson pointed out that sometimes late meetings are a part of the commitment one makes in assuming theses positions, but she continued to support study sessions as long as they are legally held. Council Member Sniff felt that the study sessions have not worked right for a long time and shouldn't continue. He noted that the meetings are generally adjourned by 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. He felt that there is a need to avoid the perception that decisions are being discussed and made during the afternoon study sessions then again in the evening. He supported approving the handbook as amended and felt that the Planning Commission should continue any item if there is a significant need, so that the public has the opportunity to hear all of the information presented. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. Honeywell advised that, although the meetings are noticed for the purpose of the Brown Act, she was concerned BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 19 November 19, 1996 that discussion of a public hearing item during the afternoon study session could leave the City vulnerable to challenge. She suggested that the notices be changed to reflect an earlier meeting time or that lengthy items be continued to the next meeting. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to approve the Handbook for Commissions, Boards, and Committees as amended. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-174. Council recessed until the hour of 7:00 p.m. 7.OOP.M. PUBLIC COMMENT Susan Avise, 78-710 Via Sonata, advised Council that large trucks are using Sagebrush Avenue to enter Rancho La Quinta instead of using the two construction entrances provided. They're also not observing the 25 mph speed limit. She was concerned about the safety of the children walking on the street to school as there are no sidewalks and asked the Council for help. Council Member Adolph asked if she had contacted Rancho La Quinta to which she responded that she hadn't, but that another resident has. Helen Nelson, 78-707 Saguaro, advised that other large trucks and tractors use their streets as well and the streets are already in disrepair and unlikely to be improved for some time. The streets are so narrow that it's difficult to dodge the large trucks when backing out into the street. She spoke to Rancho La Quinta who was not aware that the streets were being used by the trucks. There's been some improvement, but they continue to use these streets and according to law enforcement, it'S allowed for improvements and she urged the Council to address this loophole in the law. KC Wilson, 49-100 Marimba Court, advised that Granite Construction and Rancho La Quinta were both very indignant toward him when he voiced his concern about the trucks. They're saving 10 minutes on each trip by using Sagebrush instead of the construction entrance and he felt that their actions prove that they don't care about the safety of the children. He asked that stop signs b installed at the entrance to Parc La Quinta at Sagebrush and Date Palm if the City can't stop them from using the streets to make it safer for children to cross the street, noting that there are no sidewalks for children to use to get to and from school. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 20 November 19, 1996 Jole Wilson, 49-100 Marimba Court, advised that they stopped the trucks twice when they were using these streets and called the police, but were told that a loophole in the law allows such use. She has five children who use Sagebrush to get to school and she was concerned about their safety. Gary Avise, 78-710 Via Sonata, advised that the loophole referred to is in Municipal Code Section 12.56.303(c) that allows these trucks to use the streets because they're delivering street-construction materials for street construction or repairs. He felt that the intent was to allow trucks to use existing residential streets when alternate routes to a new section aren t available and suggested that the Code be amended to read unless alternate routes are available." Council Member Perkins pointed out that stop signs create a false sense of security and sometimes vehicles run through them without stopping. He questioned the existence of a loophole, noting that heavy equipment is allowed to use the shortest route available under the vehicle code which takes precedent over City codes. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the City Code is interpreted in the same manner and, therefore, the City would be requiring them to use a longer route should we require them to take an alternate route. Council Member Perkins suggested that the streets be posted with a 6,000 lbs. weight limit as quickly as possible. Mayor Holt suggested that staff also contact Rancho La Quinta about this matter. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Speer, Senior Engineer, advised that the weight limit on residential streets is 6,000 lbs. unless its for making deliveries. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that staff has been in contact with Rancho La Quinta and will continue to communicate with them on this issue. Council Member Henderson suggested that staff bring this back to Council if theres a need to broaden existing limitations in the Code. Council Member Sniff felt that a sense of urgency exists in this situation and strongly suggested that staff find a method to deal with it immediately including direct contact with Rancho La Quinta and law enforcement. Council concurred on directing staff to report back to Council on this matter. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 21 November 19, 1996 Peter Rodholm, 50-640 CalIe Paloma, thanked the Council for taking the necessary steps to stop the zoning for two-story homes in three different locations in the City, but questioned what the City plans to do about the legal permit that was issued for the construction of a two-story home in his neighborhood. He was extremely upset that no action has been taken to mitigate these circumstances and questioned why its not on the agenda. He advised that a number of residents are willing to file a class-action suit against the City if this is not resolved, noting that if the two-story home is allowed to be built, the owner will be able to look directly into his backyard. He advised that several people expressed their concern about this issue at the Council meeting on November 12th and expected something to be done. The person holding the permit has money involved with this and is waiting to find out what the City plans to do. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that the City had no legal basis to deny the permit that was issued as it was issued prior to the adoption of the interim ordinance. A proposal has been received from the person who has the permit and it has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. Mr. Rodholm felt that the person with the permit as well as his neighbors are waiting to find out what the City will do to mitigate his losses. Mayor Holt advised that this issue would be on the next agenda if appropriate. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-328, SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-029, PARCEL MAP 28422, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590 REQUEST OF LAPIS ENERGY CORPORATION FOR APPROVAL OF A MASTER-PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF: 1) A FOOD MARKET/FUEL STATION; 2) AUTO-RELATED SERVICE REPAIR; 3) SELF-STORAGE WAREHOUSING. AND 4) A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS CNG) FUELING FACILITY FOR USE BY DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DUNE PALMS ROAD. This item was recommended for continuance to January 21, 1997 as noted in the staff report. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to continue the matter of Environmental Assessment 96-328, Specific Plan 96-028, Conditional Use Permit 96-029, Parcel Map 28422, and Site Development Permit 96-590 BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 22 November 19,1996 to January 21, 1997. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96- 175. 2. CONSIDERATION OF AN EXTENSION OF AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY SIGNS DURING STREET CONSTRUCTION. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that on October 1 5, 1996, Council adopted Ordinance No.286 as an urgency measure to deal with temporary signage during street construction and this is a request to continue the 45-day Interim Zoning Ordinance. An amendment of the temporary provisions of the sign ordinance will be considered by the Planning Commission on November 26th and by the Council on December 17th. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to take up Ordinance No.290 by title and number only and waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO.290 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AND CONTINUING AS AN URGENCY MEASURE, SECTION 9.160.060 I, REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY SIGNS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AFFECTING INGRESS AND EGRESS TO EXISTING BUSINESSES. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to adopt Ordinance No.290 as an urgency ordinance. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Holt NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 23 November 19, 1996 STUDY SESSION Council concurred on taking up Study Session Item No.3 at this time. 3. DISCUSSION OF SOUND STUDY RESULTS ALONG WASHINGTON STREET AT MONTERO ESTATES AND OTHER LOCATIONS. Mr. Vogt, Public Works Director, advised that in April 1996, residents of Montero Estates expressed concern about traffic noise from Washington Street. On May 7, 1996, Council directed staff to update a sound study previously prepared for that area which has now been completed by Gordon Bricken & Associates. Washington Street currently has four lanes, but is designated as a six-lane arterial with a projected traffic capacity of 65,100 vehicles per day and the last traffic counts ranged from 13,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day. The updated report shows that existing noise levels are not presenting a significant impact on the Montero Estates except for those lots located directly adjacent to Washington Street and a six-foot-high sound wall should adequately mitigate present noise levels for this area as well as five other developments along Washington Street that were included in the study. However, it would not be sufficient for future sound levels. He advised that 10 to 12-foot-high sound walls would provide adequate sound attenuation for homes fronting Washington Street, but may increase noise levels for the interior homes. Staff recommended that the cost of sound-attenuation improvements be incorporated into the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's Infrastructure Fee Program and that sound-attenuation improvements be installed at various locations in the future, if required as an environmental mitigation measure in concert with future street-widening projects. In response to Mayor Holt, Mr. Vogt advised that the homes adjacent to Washington Street are currently serving as a buffer from traffic noise for the interior homes, but if a 10 to 12-foot-high sound wall is constructed, the traffic noise would then be above most of the homes and carry over into the interior properties. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Speer, Senior Engineer, advised that a six-foot-high wall could be built strong enough to sustain additional height at a later date. Council Member Perkins suggested using heavy vegetati6n in conjunction with the sound wall, noting that it has helped at the Laguna de Ia Paz development. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 24 November 1 9, 1 996 Mr. Vogt advised that vegetation is not considered as a sound deterrent by sound specialists, but other methods can be utilized such as the use of rubberized asphalt, block walls, double-paned windows, etc. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Vogt advised that the existing four-foot-high wall is more for aesthetics. The consideration at this time is only for a sound wall on the west side of Washington Street, but such action would probably open up the door for all developments along major corridors that have sound-attenuation problems. Council Member Adolph felt that sufficient setbacks from the streets are the best sound barriers. Council Member Sniff felt that the existing wall should be examined for structural integrity to see if its height could be extended which could reduce the cost significantly and Mr. Vogt advised that staff could look into it. Council Member Henderson questioned the need for a six-lane arterial on Washington Street and suggested that the extra right-of-way be used for a greenbelt instead She understood the concern of the homeowners adjacent to Washington Street, but pointed out that homeowners further within Montero Estates are also worried about the noise being carried further into the development and suggested that the entire development be surveyed for input. Council Member Perkins supported trying to alleviate the problem, but agreed with conducting a survey of the neighborhood to explain the problem that exists. He was also concerned about where the funding would come from. Mrs. Juhola, City Clerk, read a letter from Betty Hartz Smith, 78-467 Calle Orenze, who questioned the sound study and asked the City to search the archives for a plan that was developed some years ago. She felt that the developers should be responsible for sound barriers and realized that the sound wall along Washington Street near Highway 111 is not liked, but pointed out that it blocks out noise and pollution for the homes. Jim Montgomery, 78-483 Calle Huerto, stated that the current wall is only four inches thick, two to five-feet high, and is cosmetic only. He appreciated the Council taking this item under consideration and hoped that something could be done to alleviate the problem. Robert Tyler, 44-21 5 Villeta Drive, pointed out that noise and air pollution from vehicles are all part of a growing City and questioned the City's responsibility BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 25 November 19,1996 for mitigating them. He didn't feel that a 12-foot-high wall would enhance the beauty of the City. Beverly Montgomery, 78-483 Calle Huerto, questioned the recent study results, noting that a study completed seven years ago stated that a 10-foot-high waH was needed, not six-foot-high as suggested in this report. She felt that summer was the wrong time to conduct the study because theres less traffic then. She pointed out that new construction such as Tradition, Ralphs, and the new moderate-income housing behind Ralphs creates additional traffic on Washington Street and she feels that the developers should help mitigate such problems. Council Member Perkins noted that the 1989 sound study was done in March and the projected cost of a 10 to 12-foot-high sound wall ranged from $180,000 to $360,000. He asked if the homeowners association had discussed putting in the wall, noting that current costs would probably increase to $500,000. He didnt wish to put City money into its construction unless there's a guarantee that it's going to solve the problem and he wasn't sure where the funds would come from, but he felt that the City should continue looking for a solution. Council Member Adolph agreed with Council Member Henderson that a berm would be a better acoustic and felt that if a six-lane arterial is not needed, that the extra right-of-way could be used for a berm. Ms. Montgomery suggested that large trucks coming into La Quinta be re- routed to Jefferson Street. Council Member Sniff pointed out that the elimination of an additional north/south street in 1985 increased the traffic problem on Washington Street. He felt that it's going to get worse and that six lanes will eventually be needed. In response to Mayor Holt, Mr. Vogt advised that incorporating the cost of sound attenuation improvements in the Impact Fee Study would identify any sound attenuation as part of the City's growth and the funding as well through a fair-share contribution nexus based on development. Such action would help the present situation only if future development fees were used to reimburse the cost of mitigating the current problem. Council Member Perkins questioned whether the sound wall on Washington Street near the church being has been much help, pointing out that the sound bounces back across the street, but Council Member Sniff felt it must have helped some, since no adverse comments have been received from that area. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 26 November 19, 1996 MOTION It was moved by Council Member Sniff and Mayor Holt to authorize staff to incorporate the cost of sound attenuation improvements in the Impact Fee Study that is being prepared pursuant to the Citys Infrastructure Fee Program; and install sound attenuation improvements at various locations in the future, if required as an environmental mitigation measure, in concert with future street widening projects and to direct staff to research other alternatives. Council Member Henderson felt that it's a somewhat non-committal action and that the City should be cautious in charging additional development fees. Council Member Perkins noted that other developments along major streets may expect assistance. Council Member Sniff suggested that staff investigate the possibility of any grants that would help alleviate the current problem. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that staff would look at the Impact Fee as it relates to any sound wall fees as well as other alternatives such as rubberized asphalt. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-176. 1. DISCUSSION OF TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CODE COMPLIANCE PERSONNEL. Mr. Hartung, Building & Safety Director, advised that on September 17, 1996, Council directed staff to report back on the possibility of supplementing current Code Compliance personnel. The City has 2.6 Code Cbmpliance positions and is currently recruiting a third position which represents a 38% increase in Code Compliance personnel. Due to the shortage in personnel, enforcement activities such as commercial window displays, business license, parking violations, and sign ordinance compliance are deferred and most likely the enforcement of public nuisances would still take precedent over such violations if additional personnel is hired. Temporary personnel can be obtained through a private agency at a rate of $53/hour, totaling $55,000 for a six-month period, or the City could contract with the Sheriff's Department for an additional Community Service Officer, but such an officer would only be available for a maximum of 18 hours a week. A third alternative would be to hire a temporary, full-time employee at a rate of $16/hour without qity benefits, totaling $18,500 for a six-month period. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 27 November 19, 1996 Council Member Sniff asked when the new officer would begin to which Mr. Hartung responded December 1, 1996. Council Member Sniff wished to wait until after the new personnel is on board to see if additional personnel is needed. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Hartung advised that certain Code Compliance enforcement issues would continue to be low priority until code enforcement in the Cove area is in a maintenance position, even if additional temporary help is hired. Council Member Henderson felt additional personnel may be needed to enforce the changes in the Zoning Ordinance relative to RV parking. She asked if it would be beneficial to train the temporary personnel along with the new permanent position to which Mr. Hartung responded no because the temporary position would receive limited training. She felt that the additional personnel is needed, but could see the benefit of waiting a month. However, she hoped the position could be filled rapidly at that time if needed. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Hartung advised that the Community Services Officer CSO) position is not a sworn position and the Citys current CSO has applied for the Code Compliance position. If hired, the Sheriffs Department will have to replace that contract position before they could consider an additional contract position. Council Member Sniff agreed with Council Member Adolph that theres an advantage to having an additional CSO on duty. He felt that a CSO may be able to do a number of things with a greater impact than a Code Compliance Officer. Council Member Perkins suggested postponing hiring temporary personnel until after the permanent position is filled and staff has had time to review the need. 2. DISCUSSION OF FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE LA QUINTA HISTORICAL SOClETYS MUSEUM. This item was continued see Confirmation of Agenda). BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 28 November 19, 1996 BUSINESS SESSION......................continued 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NOS. 3 AND 6 FOR PROJECT NO.96-07, HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET WIDENING. Council Member Perkins expressed some concern about the delay of the project, but complimented both the staff and the contractor for doing an excellent job and for keeping the shopping center entrances open. He asked if the traffic would be more free flowing during the cosmetic stages of the construction such as landscaping the medians to which Mr. Freeland, Senior Engineer, responded yes. Council Member Henderson felt that this item should be addressed as a Business Item because the businesses in the area are following this project very closely and are not too pleased with the delays. She suggested that the explanation for the delay be relayed to the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Freeland advised that this allows the contractor an additional 22 days to complete the project, but he doesnt expect to use it all. Council Member Perkins pointed out the importance of keeping the shopping center entrances open during the upcoming holidays. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve Contract Change Order No.3 in the amount of $23,040 for the completion of the signal interconnect on Highway 111 from Washington Street to the western City limits; and to concur with the City Managers decision to authorize Emergency Contract Change Order No.6 in the amount of $40,000 for installation of 68' of 2-36" reinforced concrete pipes to complete storm drain collection facilities at Washington Street and Highway 111 Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-177. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1996. 2. TRANSMITTAL OF TREASURY REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND LA QUINTA FINANCING AUTHORITY. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 29 November 19, 1996 3. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DAILY PASSES TO THE SKINS GAME GOLF TOURNAMENT TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 29-DECEMBER 1.1996 AT RANCHO LA QUINTA. 4. SEE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO.8. 5. APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF IMPLEMENTATION & CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KSL TO MARCH 31, 1997. 6. APPROVAL OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEND THE CITY CLERKS' NEW LAW AND ELECTION SEMINAR IN SAN DIEGO, DECEMBER 4-6, 1996. MOTION It was moved by Council Members SniffAdoIph to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended and amended with Item No, 3 being approved by RESOLUTION NO.96-88. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-178. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS C. V. REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY Council Member Henderson advised that the public hearing on the Kohl Ranch will be held in the La Quinta City Council Chamber on December 10, 1996. MRF/TRANSFER TASK FORCE Council Member Sniff advised that the Task Force approved the JPA and have directed staff to forward the agreement to the cities for consideration by March 1, 1997. CVAG'S CHILDREN & YOUTH COMMITTEE Mayor Holt advised that the Committee has developed a resource directory of valleywide youth activities for distribution. All other reports were noted and filed. DEPARTMENT REPORTS 1. UPDATE ON STUDY SESSION MEETINGS. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, asked for direction regarding the next Special Study Session and the items of discussion that should be placed on the agenda. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 30 November 1 9,1 996 Council concurred on scheduling a Special Study Session for Tuesday, December 10, 1996 at 1:00 p.m to discuss the following: 1) Improved Method of Communication with the Community, 2) Business Development & Retention Program, and 3) Civic Center Campus. B. STATUS OF PROPOSITION 218. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the League of California Cities Task Force is meeting today in Sacramento to discuss the impact of Proposition 218 and she hopes to have a report by the next meeting. D-2. UPDATE ON TORCH AT SESAME RESTAURANT. Mr Hartung, Building & Safety Director, advised that staff has asked for showing that the parts contained in the torch at Sesame Restaurant are being used as intended by the manufacturer, but so far has only received an opinion from the installer, Breeze Air Conditioning. The matter will be presented to the Appeals Board for a final decision early in December, but noted, however, that the requirement to protect ferrous materials against corrosion cannot be waived by the Board. In the meantime, the torch is not being used. F. LAIF QUESTIONNAIRE. Council Member Hn.ders on asked that the LAIF Questionnaire be reviewed by the Investment Advisory Board to which Mr. Falconer, Finance Director, agreed. F-i TRANSMITTAL OF THE REVENUE & EXPENDITURES REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND LA QUINTA FINANCING AUTHORITY. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to receive and file the Revenue & Expenditures Report dated September 30, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-179. BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02 ,City Council Minutes 31 November 19, 1996 MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS 1 Council Member Perkins stated that the trees and vegetation at Walmart are in bad shape and should be removed. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that staff would look into it and report back to Council. Council Member Adolph noted that three palm trees at McDonalds Restaurant still need to be replaced also. CLOSED SESSION None ADJOURNMENT MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to adjourn the City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. City of La Quinta California BIB] 12-17-1996-U01 10:46:05AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 19-U02 1996-U02