Loading...
1995 08 01 CC Minutes) LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 1, 1995 Regular meeting of the Ia Quinta City Council on August 1, 1995 was called to order at the hour of 3:00 p.m. by Mayor Pena, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Council Members Bangerter, Cathcart, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Confirmed APPROVAl OF MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Cathcart to approve the City Council Minutes of July 18, 1995 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pena introduced Marty Nicholson, the new Parks & Recreation Director for the City of La Quinta and welcomed her to the staff. Council Member Bangerter presented a plaque to John Falconer, Finance Director, on behalf of the Coachella Valley Child Care Consortium for his service as their President last year. PUBLIC COMMENT None 1. LETTER FROM TOM LAWRENCE RESIGNING FROM THE CULTURAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION Council concurred on directing the Administrative Services Director to open recruitment for Cultural Affairs Commission and interview the applicants on September 19, 1995. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 2 August 1, 1995 BUSINESS SESSION CONSIDERATION OF PLACING AN ADVISORY MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 7, 1995 BALLOT CONCERNING A COMMUNITY POOL AT THE FRITZ BURNS PARK Mayor Pena abstained due to a conflict of interest and left the daIs. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that on July 18, 1995, the Council directed staff to draft language options for a possible ballot measure regarding the Fritz Burns Park pool and information regarding potential reappropriation of funds related to that project. He advised that the requested information was provided in the staff report and asked for further direction from Council. Mayor Pro Tem Bangerter asked Mr. Genovese to explain the maintenance and operation- cost range as related in the ballot language. Mr. Genovese advised that the $27,500 amount represents the City's subsidy to Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District CVRPD) for annual maintenance and operation costs should they manage and operate the pool. The $67,750 amount is based on the analysis in the Feasibility Report regarding the average cost per square feet in annual maintenance and operation costs. Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, advised that maintenance costs consist of utilities and chemicals for the pool and operation costs include staffing and material needs to run the pool programs. The City's portion of these costs would be $27,500 if split between the City and CVRPD. The average cost per square foot is based on a 150-day operation and on the 12 pools analyzed in the Feasibility Report. Mr. Jack Sobelman, 52-815 Avenida Martinez, asked the Council to consider the impact Proposition 8 will have on the City's revenue and advised that his property taxes have been reduced as a result of that proposition. He pointed out that the maintenance and operation costs are only estimates and he believed that estimates are usually lower than actual costs. He was concerned about?the liability impact a pool accident could have on the City's funds. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44-215 Villeta Drive, complained about the inconsistencies in the pool data from one report to another. He was concerned that the figures used in the ballot language have substance so that the public has a basis upon which to make a decision. Ms. Terry Henderson, 54-711 Eisenhower Drive, advised that she supported the ballot measure initially, but now feels that the Council should make the decision. However, if BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 3 August 1, 995 the Council remains deadlocked on the issue and decides to ask for an advisory vote, she suggested use of ballot-language Option D" and action to reappropriate the funds. Council Member Sniff advised that he suggested several months ago that this issue be placed on the November ballot because it's been discussed for a long time without any conclusion being reached. He believes that the ultimate sovereignty lies with the people and an advisory vote would be the proper course of action at this time. He said that it would provide the more-defined survey requested by Council Member Perkins last year. He didn't believe that any additional funds should be pent on this project until the public has voted and he's willing to abide by their decision. He advised that the cost of placing the issue on the ballot would not be significant since it's an election year and he wasn't opposed to including ballot arguments either. He believed that the Council has done all they can under prevailing conditions and hoped that the people would be given an opportunity to express their opinion and he will abide by whatever that opinion is. Council Member Perkins referred to Mr. Tyler's comments and advised that he, too, was concerned about the different cost figures presented to Council during the last several months. He pointed out that the days and hours of operation included in the current staff report are inconsistent with CVRPD's original proposal, changing a five-day-a-week operation to seven days and a six-hour-daily schedule to six to eight hours daily. He initially understood that the pool would be open for at least II months a year for which the maintenance costs would be extremely high and he's more opposed to spending the proposed amount of funds for a pool that will operate for such a short period of time. He felt that a decision on the pool is. the Council's responsibility which he was prepared to do now and was opposed to placing it on the ballot. He questioned the result of an advisory vote that could result in a 49% to 51% split vote. He felt that the pool wouldn't be an issue if the Council that initially received the Landmark Land money had placed it in an interest-bearing account that would've doubled in value by now. His decision on the pool would be based upon what he feels is best for the community. Council Member Sniff stated that the $1 million from Landmark Land Company has been a separate budget line-item so it has been generating its own interest. He noted that while it has gained interest, demolition expenses and other costs for the Desert Club were paid from that account. He didh't havea problem dealing with a possible 49% to 51% split vote, noting that many electi?ns have been won or lost by small margins. Council Member Cathcart was concerned about the divisiveness a ballot measure could generate within the City. He has received 42 calls from people regarding this issue and 67% were opposed to an advisory vote and 46% of those calling supported the pool. Within those calls he heard divisive comments that lead him to feel that an advisory vote wouldn't accomplish anything. He was disappointed that the Council hasn't voted on whether or not to build a pool. He suggested that the CVRPD proposal be brought before the Council at the meeting in September for Council's consideration. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 4 August 1, 1995 Mayor Pro Tern Bangerter advised that the Council has been considering a pool for several years and the consensus from the people has been that they want a pool. She supported the staff working on this project, explaining that the project's concept has changed many times since it's beginning which resulted in many different figures. She advised that the initial maintenance and operation costs of $241,000 was for a year-round, City-run program and construction costs were reduced to $1.4 million through an effort to compromise. In reference to the questioning of CVRPD's proposed maintenance and operation costs, she believed that they're qualified to estimate such costs and pointed out that the days and hours of operation in their original proposal were minimum" days and hours only. She felt that an advisory vote would accomplish what Council Member Perkins wanted in last summer's survey. Pointing Out that compromise attempts have been unsuccessful, she felt that it's the Council's responsibility to let the people vote and then the Council should base their decision on the outcome of that vote. She felt that the Council would be remiss in doing their job if they don't allow the public an opportunity to vote on this issue. Council Member Cathcart believed that the Council was elected to make the decisions and was disheartened that the issue has been prolonged without a vote being taken. He was willing to take a vote of the City Council and to take the flak for the results. Mayor Pro Tern Bangerter felt that the Council was back to square one" on this issue which was disappointing to her since such a great compromise has been proposed. Council Member Cathc,art was wHling to consider the compromise at the next meeting and vote on it. Council Member Perkins didn't feel that the language options for the ballot measure provided clear enough information on the maintenance costs nor did they define the months, days, or hours of operation. He questioned where the $1.4 million amount came from and advised that he wouldn't support any of the options. He believed that the issue wouldn't have been prolonged if the survey had included the proper questions. He supported bringing the issue back to the Council for a vote as to whether or not to build a pool. Council Member Sniff agreed tha?t the Council was back to square one" and said that perhaps a decision could be made n September. He felt that it's unfortunate that the voting public won't be allowed to vote on this issue, but didn't see any need in prolonging the present discussion. Council Member Cathcart wished to see on the September 19th agenda, reappropriation of all the funds, reappropriation of part of the funds, or the pool and/or a combination. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 5 August 1. 1995 Council Member Cathcart wished to discuss the reappropriation of the projects funds in excess of $1.4 million. He advised that many projects are on the Capital Improvement Program deferred list because of a lack of funds. He continued to wish to see e pool discussed again in September and brought back to the Council for a vote and to re- appropriate the funds referred to in the report. Mayor Pro Tem Bangerter suggested that Council discuss the reappropriation of funds at a future study session. Council Member Cathcart asked that the issue of the pool be placed on the September 9th agenda for a vote on the compromise proposal as presented by CVRPD and that the matter of reappropriation of funds, all or in part, be scheduled for the September 19th study session. Council concurred. 2. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN 95-556 TO PERMIT AN EXISTING SALES TEMPORARY TRAILER TO REMAIN AT THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER FOR ANOTHER ONE-YEAR PERIOD. APPLICANT: MICHAEL J. SHOVLIN WASHINGTON PLAZA ASSOCIATES). Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that on July 5th, the Council appealed the Planning Commission?s decision to grant a one?year extension to Washington Plaza Associates for a temporary trailer located in the One Eleven Shopping Center. Staff had denied the applicants request for a one-year extension, but gave them an opportunity to relocate to a less-visible site within the shopping center at which time they appealed to the Planning Commission. The applicant advised the Planning Commission that moving the trailer would be a hardship because of the improvements installed at the present location. He advised that the Planning Commission granted the applicant a one-year extension on June 27, 1995. Council Member Perkins:advised that the applicant has received a number of extensions, but hasn't shown a great effdrt tQ.cooperate with the City, noting their slow response to staff when notified to move the trailer. He pointed out that the trailer has been used as a construction and rental trailer since 1992 and felt that was a long time for temporary use. He proposed that they locate in one of the shopping center?s vacant stores or relocate the trailer to a less-prominent site. He felt that the trailer has been there too long and should be removed from such a visible site. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 6 August 1, 1995 In response to Council Member Bangerter, Mr. Herman advised that the improvements the applicant made to the trailer include skirting, landscaping, paving of the parking area, and utility connections. Council Member Sniff felt that the Planning Commission decision should be upheld because it would give the applicant an additional year to relocate. He had attended the Planning Commission meeting and felt that the discussion was productive and reasonable, noting that the applicant agreed to install additional landscaping and will re-paint to improve the aesthetics of the site. He didn't believe that the applicant expects to leave the ailer there indefinitely, but noted that the project has been a long-term effort. Council Member Sniff advised that the Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and the Council. He advised that he attends as many meetings as he can for the purpose of being informed as much as possible. He basically supports the Planning Commission because he feels that they do a good job representing the City and are a reasonable group of people. He advised that he hadn't made up his mind, but did feel that the Planning Commission gave the matter due consideration and made an appropriate decision. Mayor Pena asked why the applicant had closed their on-site leasing office. Mr. Michael Shovijn, 46-000 Highway 111, General Partner of Washington Plaza Associates, advised that the on-site leasing office was closed after they reduced staff in an effort to Cut Costs. He wished, too, that the project was completed and didn't need the trailer on the site, but advised that the project has been prolonged because of the recession. He advised that they loaned the trailer to the City for use during the Washington Street Bridge Widening Project. He believed that the economy is beginning to change and advised that new projects are in the process of closing escrow and others are under Construction. He said that it's expensive to install a trailer with utility connections and asked the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's approval. Council Member Bangerter didn't have a problem with the trailer's location for another year. She advised that the trailer isn't intrusive to her because of the improvements that have been made to it. Sh??t that it's important to support the applicant's efforts in this situation because they're bringing new businesses into the City and have been cooperative. In response to Council Member Cathcart, Mr. Shovlm advised that a 5,400 sq. ft. store is currently vacant which they hope to fill soon with Home Federal Savings. He advised that moving their office into any vacancy would only be a temporary situation. Mayor Pena felt that the City has been very generous in granting extensions to the applicant, but must place a limit on them sometime. He advised that he would support this extension because of the upcoming construction, but wouldn't approve further requests for BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 7 August 1, 1995 extensions. He preferred that he trailer be moved within six months if circumStances allow it. Council Member Cathcart concurred and felt that improvements to the site tend to make a temporary trailer more permanent. Mr. Shovlm advised that construction of the Metropolitan Theaters won?t be complete until April, 1996 which is within the one-year time frame. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to uphold the Planning Commission action Plot Plan 95-556) and deny the appeal. Motion carried?with Council Member Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-153. 3. CONSIDERATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO WASTE MANAGEMENT OF THE DESERT CONTRACT ALLOWING THE CITY TO DIRECT THE FLOW OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that the City is currently participating in a valley-wide task force through CVAG for the purpose of developing a trash transfer station necessitated by the upcoming closures of the valley?s landfills. An RFP was distributed for the transfer station and is due back by September 0, 1995. Cities participating in this project will be asked to commit their waste streams to the transfer station for the purpose of securing financing for the facility. At the present time, Waste Management of the Desert has full discretion of the City's waste stream and an amendment to the Franchise Agreement is necessary to transfer that discretion back to the City. In response to Mayor Pefla, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the addendum to the contract would give sole discretion to the City, but the City would accept recommendations from the hauler. In order for the City to participate in the transfer station RFP, the City must commit its waste to the transfer station. The existing Franchise Agreement prevents the City from making that promise because the hauler has control of the waste streams destination. This amendment would enable the City to make that commitment if the Counc?iL.sliou:ld decide to participate in the RFP. Mayor Pena was concerned that the RFP commitment might create a governmental monopoly that wouldnt necessarily be the most economical and about the City?s liability should the City wish to direct its waste elsewhere sometime in the future. Ms. Honeywell advised that the amendment to the Franchise Agreement only allows the City to choose a destination site for its waste stream and does not commit it. Such a commitment would be made during the RFP process if the City decides to participate and BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 8 August 1995 preferable language in that agreement would make the commitment binding only if the transfer station Site is the most economically feasible site. Mayor Pena was also concerned that increased operation costs would be passed on to the residents. Council Member Sniff advised that the amendment would only position the City to make future decisions. Re advised that several decisions are forthcoming regarding this project including a decision on whether or not to become a full participant in the project. Mr. Baker, Principal Planner, advised that that decision would be made upon consideration of the Memorandum of Understanding MOU) which will evolve as figures change, but the first commitment in the MOU will be the waste stream. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Baker advised that the project is still on an urgent tract due to the upcoming closing of Coachella and Edom Hill landfills. The timeframe on the ciosure of Edom Hill depends on State approval of a permit to expand the landfill and whether or not the waste currently taken to the Coachella landfill will be taken to Edom Hill or another site. The earliest that Edom Hill will be closed is 1999. RESOLUTION NO. 95? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY'S EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT OF THE DESERT TO ALLOW THE CITY TO DIRECT THE FLOW OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to adopt Resolution No.95-64 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to authorize the City Manager to sign the Waste Management of the Desert Contract Addendum No.2, allowing the City to direct the flow ofWast& Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-154. 4. CONSWE?ON OF AN AGREEMENT WITlI THE LA QUINTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Council Member Cathcart abstained due to a conflict of interest and left the dais. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 9 August 1, 1995 Ms. Terry Henderson, 54-711 Eisenhower Drive, thanked the Council and staff for their support and help in achieving the Historical Society?s goal of providing a museum for the City. Council Member Sniff was pleased that the City is able to help the Historical Society and hoped that they find funding for the building. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Perkins to approve the Contract Services Agreement with the La Quinta Historical Society and direct staff to utilize the Contingency Account 101?101-663) for the payments required by the agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the said agreement. Motion carried with Council Member Cathcart ABSENT. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-155. 5. CONSIDE?ON OF DRAFT POLICY RECOMMENDED BY THE LA QU[NTA ARTS FOUNDATION FOR FINE ART FESTIVALS. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that on July 18, 1995, the La Quinta Arts Foundation asked the Council to consider making the La Quinta Arts Foundation the sole producer of public art events/festivals within the City during the months of November and March each year and prohibit anyone else from using the names of their two art events. Re advised that a Minor Temporary Outdoor Event application was submitted by West Coast Artists for the purpose of conducting a fine arts festival at the La Ouinta Sculpture Park November 24-26, 1995. The City Attorney advises that the requests by the Arts Foundation raises a number of constitutional right issues such as the First Amendment rights of free speech and assemblage, Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection and due process, and Federal and State antitrust issues. Council Member Bangerter asked if the Arts Foundation had expressed their concerns to West Coast Artists to which Mr. Herman responded that he didn't know. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman advised that West Coast Artists is aware of the dates of the Art Foundation's November festival which is November 10th through 12th. He advised:th??tart-festival permits for the same weekend as the La Quinta Arts Festival have been denied in the past due to traffic concerns. Council Member Sniff advised that in the past, the City has conditioned art events to be held in a different week, but he wasn't sure that the City could legally restrict an event for an entire month. Ms. Honeywell advised that safety and health concerns allows the City to restrict events from happening on the same day or weekend, but restricting events beyond a week becomes questionable. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 10 August 1, 1995 Council Member Perkins was opposed to restricting events that are held on a separate weekend. Counci] Member Cathcart questioned the City's involvement with the name restriction as well. Ms. Honeywell advised that names are a First Amendment right. The City can't restrict the use of its own name because of the amount of time that passed before attempting to copyright it. If the Art Foundation's festival names have been copyrighted they can pursue civil action to protect the use of them. but the City wouldn't have any jurisdiction. In response to Council Member Perkins, Ms. Honeywell advised that the City controls the use of its actual seal, but not likenesses of it. She advised that the 10th year anniversary seal was copyrighted and is protected. Council Member Sniff asked if a copy of the City Attorney's initial review was forwarded to the Arts Foundation to which Mr. Herman responded yes. Council Member Sniff felt that research should be discontinued on this matter and the application from West Coast Artists processed. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44?2 15 Villeta Drive, asked what the approval process is for special events held at the La Quinta Sculpture Park and questioned some of the events that have been held there. Mr. Herman advised that one of the conditions of approval for the La Quinta Sculpture Park's Conditional Use Permit is that special events must receive a Minor Temporary Outdoor Event permit which has been done for such events. Ms. Terry Henderson, 54-711 Eisenhower Drive, asked where the City's welcome wagon Is. Council concurred on directing staff to discontinue their research and to proceed with the processing of the application by West Coast Artists in accordance with normal conditions. 6. CONSIDERATION OF REQ IJE ST OF THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FOR TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SERVE ON A SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE ARTWORK TO BE LOCATED AT THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER RETENTION BASIN. Council Members Sniff and Bangerter volunteered to serve on the committee. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 11 August 1, 1995 MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Cathcart to appoint Council Members Sniff and Bangerter to serve on the Selection Committee for the artwork to be located at the La Quinta Village Shopping Center retention basin. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-156. 7. CONSIDERATION OF COACHELLA VALLEY CLEAN REGION PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. Council Member Cathcart asked if it would have any impact on the Fleet Maintenance Program. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that there wouldn't be any adverse effects to the program and it might increase the opportunity for additional grants. Mayor Pena advised that SunLine Transit Agency received a Federal grant recently that will enable the installation of additional fueling stations. M?ON It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Cathcart to authorize the Mayor to sign a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding in support of the Coachella Valley being designated a Clean Region by the U. S. Department of Energy. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-157. 8. CONSIDERATION AND REVIEW OF THE FACILITY-USE POLICY FOR THE SENIOR CENTER. Mr. Hartung, Building & Safety Director, advised that this is a six-month review of the Facility-Use Policy for the Senior Center as directed by Council in February, 1995. Staff recommended that the policy remain unchanged. In response to Council Member Cathcart, Mr. Hartung advised that three facility-use permits were issued during the last six months in addition to the recent permit taken out by a church that uses it regularly on Sundays. Council Member Cathcart asked Mr. Hartung if he thought that the policy's restrictions had affected the rental of the facility. Mr. Hartung advised that they've received several rental inquiries for wedding receptions, but most people rent elsewhere when they're informed that alcoholic beverages and smoking aren't allowed. They've experienced no problems with the applications that have been processed. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 12 August 1, 1995 Ms. Terry Henderson, 54-711 Eisenhower Drive, asked the Council to consider a fee exemption for all City of La Quinta non-profit organizations that are financially supported by the City as their money comes from the City anyway. Council Member Perkins asked if that would affect charging them a clean-up fee. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that fee exemptions for non-profit organizations would have to include all non-profit organizations, but a slightly different fee could be charged to organizations based outside of La Quinta. The policy was written in this manner in an effort to restrict the use of the facility to organizations that would be able to meet the City's requirements for such things as insurance. Non-profit organizations that are not financially supported by the City, such as the church currently using the facility on Sundays, may wish to rent the facility and this generates revenue for the City. Council Member Perkins asked if the exemption could be limited to organizations based in La Quinta. Ms. Honeywell advised that it's more defensible to have a fee structure that makes it more beneficial to be a resident of La Quinta without banning organizations outside of the City, but the higher fees would need to be within reason. Council Member Perkins suggested that the Council review the policy again in six months with consideration given to exemptions for La Quinta's non-profit organizations and make no changes at the present time. Council concurred. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to receive and file the report and direct staff to maintain the Facility-Use Policy for the Senior Center as it currently exists with an additional review in six months. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 95-158. 9. CONSIDERATION Or?APPOINTMENT OINTMENT OF AN ELECThD OFFICIAL TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY REGIONAL. AIRPORT AUTHORITY. Council Member Perkins and Mayor Pena volunteered to serve on the Airport Authority. M?ON It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to appoint Council Member Perkins as the City's member and Mayor Pena as the alternate to the Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-159. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 13 August 1, 1995 10. TRANSMITTAL OF TREASURER?S REPORT DATED JUNE 30, 1995 FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND THE LA QUINTA FINANCING AUTHORITY. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Cathcart to receive and file he Treasurer's Report dated June 30, 1995 for the City of La Quinta. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-160. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Cathcart to receive and file he Treasurer's Report dated June 30, 1995 for the La Quinta Financing Authority. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-161. 11. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO.271. ORDINANCE NO.271 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN CHANGE OF ZONE 95- 078. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Cathcart to adopt Ordinance No.271 on second reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bangerter, Cathcart, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONSENT CAI?NDAR APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED AUGUST 1, 1995. 2. APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO WAIVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FEE FOR THE LA QUINTA HOTEL BALLROOM EXPANSION. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF OVERNIGHT T'RAVEL FOR COMM(JNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION CON"FERENCE IN SANTA BARBARA, SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 TO OCTOBER 3, 1995. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 14 August 1, 1995 4. ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON PLOT PLAN 95-559 FOR STONGINGTON PROPERTIES APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY 6,960 SQ. F-T. OF FLOOR SPACE WITHIN THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER. 5. ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.95-020 FOR HAROLD AND HARRIET HARRIS APPROVING A BED AND BREAKFAST IN TO BE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CALEO BAY DRIVE AT LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE. 6. APPROVAL OF FIRST INTERSTATE BANK CUSTODIAL ACCOUNT AGREEMENT. 7 AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE BIDS FOR VARIOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.95-04. S. AUTIIORIZ?ON TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MILES AVENUE/DUNE PALMS ROAD SIGNALIZ?ON AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO.95-03. 9. AUTHORIZ?ON TO ENTER INTO A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF INDIO FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSThU?ON/DESIGN OF VARIOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT MILES AVENUE/DUNE PALMS ROAD, PROJECT NO.95-03. 10. APPROVAL OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE ON AGING TITLE B CONTRACT. 11. APPROVAL OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER H TO AT-TEND THE ANNUAL CALIFORNIA CODE ENFORCEMENT EDUC?ONAL SEMINAR IN SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA ON SEFFEMBER 20-21, 1995. 12. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ACCEFHNG DONATIONS TO THE LA QUINTA SENIOR CENTER. 13. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE ON AGING FOR TITLE V PROGRAM. 14. AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIVE 5) PICK-UP TRUCKS FOR PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 15 August 1, 1995 15. APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 28118 PGA WEST, KSL RECREATION CORPORATION. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended with Item No.12 being approved by RESOLUTION NO.95- 65. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-162. STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION REGARDING CORRESPONDENCE FROM JUDY VOSSLER REQUESTING RELOCATION OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBER PODIUM & RESTRICTED USE OF THE MAIN COUNCIL CHAMBER ENTRANCE. Mr. Hartung, Building & Safety Director, advised that Ms. Vossler's suggestions could be implemented at little or no cost and asked the Council for further direction. Council Member Sniff felt that the podium should remain in the center and suggested that an additional podium be plaeed off to one side for use by those who have a problem using the center podium. Re advised that the swivel podium in the center is utilized by staff sometimes to address the audience. In regard to the Council Chamber's main entrance, he didn't have a problem with placing a sign there to let people know that a meeting is in session. In regard to the podium, Mayor Pena felt that it was difficult for speakers to address their questions to staff when the podium was previously located off to the side in front of staff. The speakers also tend to address the audience instead of the Council when it's located on the side. He didn't feel that three minutes is an unreasonable length of time for people to have their backs to the audience, noting that most Council Chambers are set up in that manner. Council Member Bangerter felt that it was more comfortable when the podium was off to the side in the trailer. She understood the problems that a podium on the side causes, but felt that it's very uncomforta6le for the speaker to have their back to the audience. Council Member Cathcart concurred. Council Member Perkins felt that the Chair is responsible for making sure that the speaker addresses the Chair instead of the staff or audience. Re's seen many podiums located to the side and felt that's far more comfortable. Mayor Pena wasn't opposed to moving it on a trial basis. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 16 August 1, 1995 Council Member Cathcart felt that it's good when the audience can see the speaker's expressions as they can get more involved with the speaker's comments. Council Member Sniff felt that the centered podium has value and asked what problem there would be in placing an additional smaller podium off to the side. Mr. Hartung advised that another podium with a microphone would cost $2,000 to $3,000. Mayor Pena suggested that the present podium be placed to the side on a trial basis. Council concurred. Council Member Bangerter felt that some type of signage should be placed at the Chamber's main entrance to let people know that a meeting is in session and inform them of the alternate entrance. Council concurred. REPORTS AND INl?ORMATIONA! ITEMS All reports were noted and filed. None MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS Council Member Cathcart advised that he has received several complaints regarding the recent increase in power surges and asked if staff would contact Imperial Irrigation District lID) to find out how they're addressing the problem, as well as what preparations they're making to prevent future load problems as the City grows. Mr. Genovese, City Managet, advised that lID is currently considering an expansion of their site near Washington Street and staff would provide an update to Council. 2. Council Member Perkins advised that he's working with the owners of the Beer Hunter Sports Bar and Beachside Cafe to find a solution for their parking problem. He advised that the new property owner has expressed appreciation for the City's help in this matter and he is meeting with the two landlords to discuss a solution. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 17 August 1, 1995 3. Council Member Cathcart advised that the Counci] has discussed the impact of the Landscape & Lighting District on some newly-annexed areas and asked the City Attorney for an update on the issue. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that she's researching the issue and would provide a report at the next meeting. 4. Council Member Bangerter advised that she recently attended the League of California Cities Conference in Monterey which focused on youth and family task forces and offered to share the material she brought back with her. She advised that there's a movement in the State to work on these issues on a regional basis. 5. Mayor Pena advised that the entire curb along the store frontage of Wal-Mart is marked no-parking" and suggested that a portion of the curb be designated for loading and unloading. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that staff would contact the management at Wal- Mart regarding this issue. Council recessed to Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council reconvened and recessed to Closed Session to and until the hour of 7:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(B) one case). 2. Conference with real property negotiator, U.S. Post Office, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, instructing the negotiator concerning site planning for property, property improvements, and lease of City land for the property located at the current Post Office:afld. th?e property innnediately adjacent to the south. 7:00P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Jeremy Stern. of Continental CableVision, advised that Continental CableVision, the industry's third largest cable company, has merged with Colony CableVision's parent company, BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 18 August 1, 1995 Providence Journal Cable. Re advised that Continental has been in operation since the mid-I 960's and has a reputation for being a responsive cable company that provides friendly cable service to its customers. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUATION OF APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION OF EA 95-297 AND DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-019 FOR A 100-FOOT TALL MONOPOLE WITH TIIREE CELLULAR-ANTENNA ARRAYS, THREE MICROWAVE-DISH ANTENNAS, AND AN EQUIPMENT BUILDING. APPLICANT: AIRTOUCH CELLULAR. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, reviewed the history of AirTouch Cellular's application to install a monopole at the Sports Complex. He advised that the Planning Commission denied the application on May 9, 1995 and AirTouch filed an appeal on May 12. 1995 that was brought before the Council on June 20, 1995 and continued to the meetings of July 5th, July 18th, and August 1st. The site plan has been revised to include a six-foot high, chain-link fence around the equipment building as required by the State Architect. Upon the direction of Council, staff facilitated three meetings of a subcommittee that was made up of the applicant's representatives and concerned homeowners to discuss the homeowners concerns. The applicant indicated at those meetings that the monopole would not include microwave dishes or whip antennas, but no agreement was reached between the two parties. Mr. Hardy Strozier, 3151 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, of The Planning Associates and representative for AirTouch Cellular, advised that the subcommittee looked at alternative locations, a photo-montage of the site from different locations, and a reduction in the size of the monopole. He presented photographs that were taken from Avenue 50 and across the storm channel, illustrating how the site would look should the number of poles on the Sports Complex site be reduced. Re also presented photographs of a similar sports complex site in San Clemente that illustrated how the monopole looks on such a site. He advised that the result 6f?researck into alternate-site locations was that alternate sites toward Highway 111 wo?d duce the integrity of the service to the City of Quinta. In regard to the size of the monopole, the base of a 100-foot tall monopole with a seven to ten-foot high antenna apparatus attached would be 35 inches in diameter and the top would be 16-18 inches. He said that the applicant is willing to provide landscaping at the base of the pole for screening. The applicant is also willing to assist the City in retrofitting the lighting system to reduce the light glare by advancing the City four years of lease funds $35,000 to $40,000), paying the cost of one light pole approximately $8,000), and the cost of installation for the lighting fixtures on the monopole, making a total of approximately $60,000 in funds and services. He advised that Mr. Ayres, of Ayres BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 19 August 1, 1995 Homes, and Mr. Ministrelli, of the Bajada and Painted Cove tracts, have also offered to contribute to this effort. He felt that AirTouch's primary focus of service and safety would be compromised if the monopole is not allowed to be installed and advised that the alternate sites would be less effective for the community. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Strozier advised that the monopoles pictured in the comparison-photographs are 100 feet high and the number of poles are reduced by eight. He advised that the monopoles in the San Clemente photographs are 75 feet high. In response to Council Member Cathcart, Mr. Strozier advised that the monopoles would not include whips. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44-215 Villeta Drive, spoke in favor of the applicant's request because he believed that the technology of cellular phones is an important part of the community's safety. He didn't see much difference between a 75-foot and a 100-foot tall pole and pointed out that the monopole wouldn't affect the existing glare except to possibly reduce it through AirTouch's monetary offer to help retrofit the current lighting system. Mr. Philip Shaiiils, 78-955 Del Monte Court, didn't understand why the applicant couldn't install the monopole on an alternate site and believed that the majority of residents in the area are opposed to the request. He didn't believe that microwave dishes should be installed at the Sports Complex because of health concerns regarding microwave transmissions. He hoped to see a change in the lighting system in the near future. Mr. Robert Bass, 50-275 Mountain Shadows Road, presented information from an article by the U. S. Department of Health, Education. and Welfare regarding possible health effects related to electromagnetic transmissions. The conclusion of the article was that electromagnetic transmissions affect the metabolism of the body and are environmental pollutants that pose health bazards. He's not opposed to cellular phone usage as he uses one himself and experiences no reception problems in La Quinta with his L. A. Cellular service, but he felt that the proposed school site and residential area were not proper locations for a monopole Mr. Robert Larson, 50-115 Doral Street, felt that a commercial venture like the monopole should be placed on a commercial site as it wouldn't look appealing in a residential area. He was concerned that children might try to climb the pole and approval of this pole would set a precedence for similar requests. Mr. Grady Sparks, 79-420 Briarwood, felt that the natural beauty of the community is enhanced by removing the ugliness of utility poles, etc. and hoped that such natural beauty would be kept in the City. He advised that he was representing the developments of BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 20 August 1.1995 Rancho La Quinta, The Estancias, and La Quinta 98 who have been attempting to underground all of the utility poles around their areas and were against this monopole. Mr. Wayne Guralnick, 74-399 Highway 111, Palm Desert, legal counsel representing The Bajada and Painted Cove Homeowners' Associations, presented a photograph of a monopole located at the Palm Springs Stadium to demonstrate its perspective to the adjacent palm trees and light poles. He advised that the adverse, visual impact of the monopole is the diameter of the 36-inch pole in comparison to the existing 8-inch light standard. He advised that all decisions affecting land use and development muSt be consistent with the General Plan. He advised that new transmission towers are only allowed if no comparable sites are available according to City Ordinance No.248 and in his opinion, alternate sites haven't been ruled out. He. advised that the applicant's reason for rejecting the alternate sites is because the alternate sites aren't as good as the proposed site. He advised that Mr. Ministrelli is willing to contribute $145,000 toward retrofitting the lighting system at the Sports Complex as well as compensate the school for their lost income. He wasn't able to complete an independent study of the alternate sites because of the proprietory information that AirTouch was unwilling to share. Mr. Joe Ministrelli, 50-445 Mountain Shadows, developer of the Painted Cove and Bajada tracts, presented signatures of residents who are opposed to the monopole installation at the proposed site. He said he's willing to contribute funds toward the retrofitting of the Sports Complex lighting system, but has found it difficult to make a commitment because the costs keep changing. Re feels a responsibility to the homeowners of his developments to maintain the image developed there and strongly objects to the monopole. He's prepared to help alleviate the lighting problem if the monopole isn't approved. but not by increasing the pole heights to 95 feet. He was concerned that AirTouch would ask to install additional antennas and microwave dishes in the future if this monopole is approved. If the monopole is not approved for the proposed site, he's willing to compensate the school district $500 a month for their loss in income as well as purchase and donate 1.6 acres of commercial land for AirTouch Cellular and L. A. Cellular to utilize for the?r?monopoles. Ms. Gala McGary retired this community because of its natural beauty and doesn't understand why such a commercial project would even be considered in the proposed location. Ms. Camp Anderson, representative for Parc La Quinta Homeowners' Association, advised that they've submitted 59 letters of opposition from homeowners having the same concerns that were voiced at this meeting. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 21 August 1, 1995 Council Member Perkins asked if the consultant's report on the Sports Complex lighting system was ready, advising that he and Council Member Cathcart have discussed various solutions to the light-glare problem at the Sports Complex with representatives from AirTouch and the homeowners' associations. Mr. Cosper advised that the Musco Lighting Report is not ready yet. Council Member Perkins felt that he had insufficient information to make a decision and recommended that the matter be continued until the Musco Report is complete and the light-glare problem addressed. Council Member Sniff felt that there was a number of people opposed to the monopole and that the lighting problem was a separate issue. He was prepared to deny the appeal and support the action of the Planning Commission. Council Member Cathcart felt that the monopole request and lighting problem are tied together even though they are two separate issues because the initial lighting study advises that the best way to mitigate the spill-over lighting is to raise the poles. Mr. Cosper advised that the initial study recommends leaving three poles at 70 feet and raising five poles to 80 feet, three poles to 90 feet, and five poles to 100 feet. Council Member Cathcart advised that the monopole would be placed on one of the 100- foot tall poles which would be 18 inches at the base and provide a less noticeable monopole. He wasn't sure that the monopole is a good idea, but wished to continue the matter until the lighting study is complete. He felt that some of the residents wouldn't be so opposed to the monopole if the lighting is mitigated. If the matter is not continued, he would probably vote to deny the appeal. He doesn't experience reception problems with L. A. Cellular. Council Member Bangerter asked Council Members Cathcart and Perkins if they were comfortable with the outcome of the study presented to the subcommittee on alternate sites, pointing out that AirTouch maintains that the sites won't work and the homeowners contend that there's insufficient information to back up that claim. Council Member Perkins advised that his understanding from the report was that the alternate sites wouldn't be as effective in the Cove area as the proposed site. Council Member Cathcart understood that the alternate sites would give better service than currently received, with complete effective service in some areas of the Cove, but not in all areas. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 22 August 1,1995 Council Member Perkins wasn't for or against the applicant's request, but recommended continuing the matter to see if a trade-off would result in a better lighting system with fewer poles. Council Member Cathcart didn't believe that the light-glare problem would be sufficiently mitigated without financial assistance from Mr. Ministrelli. He asked staff what the comparison would be between raising the poles to reduce the glare and shielding the lights, noting that $80,000 has been appropriated for shielding. Mr. Cosper advised that foot-candle light is measured by the glare seen looking directly at the light and by the spill-over light. Shielding the lights on 70-foot tall poles would reduce the spill-over light, but not eliminate the glare, but the glare would be eliminated if the poles are raised because the light would be directed downward. The spill-over light would be reduced from 2.5 to 0.36 foot-candles. Council Member Bangerter felt that she had insufficient information to make such a critical decision. She appreciated Mr. Ministrelli's offer but didn't feel that she could make a decision on the monopole issue based on his offer. In response to Mayor Pena?, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the only way Mr. Ministrelli would be legally bound to his offer would be through a signed agreement. Mayor Pen?a felt that such an agreement could be difficult to arrange and since Mr. Ministrelli isn't obligated, the City should proceed with making the lighting adjustments and accept financial assistance from surrounding property owners if offered. He has spoken to some of the property owners and found Out that many were misinformed. He didn't feel that the residents are so opposed to the monopole as they are displeased with the light-glare problem. Re pointed out that AirTouch has offered to lower the pole to 85 feet and remove the microwave and whip antennas which would possibly eliminate the safety concerns. Re advised that some of the Parc La Quinta residents have not been approached on this issue at all and he felt that the lighting and monopole issues are tied together. Council Member Perkins??felt that.?he City should consider any opportunity to fix the lighting problem and be fair and honest in all respects. He felt that Council Member Bangerter might feel more comfortable with making a decision if she had the opportunity to view the overlays presented to the subcommittee. He wants to make a decision that will be best for everyone. Council Member Sniff asked if L. A. Cellular service has complete effective coverage in the Cove to which Council Member Cathcart and Mayor Pena responded no. He was concerned about the number of cellular companies that would have to be dealt with in the future. Re didn't believe that varying the heights of the poles was a reasonable solution BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 23 August 1, 1995 to the light-glare problem. He wished to deal with the monopole issue now and accept Mr. Ministreili?s offer to address the light-glare problem. He wasn't impressed with AirTouch's offer to advance the City their own lease payments. Council Member Cathcart advised that he would never question Mr. Ministrelli's word. However, he was concerned that the light-glare reduction that results from the lighting report recommendation may be inadequate for Mr. Ministrelli which might affect his funding offer. Therefore, he felt that the study should be completed before action is taken on the monopole. Council Member Sniff didn't feel that Mr. Ministrelli's offer should be the principal criteria in the appeal decision and believed that the lighting problem is a City obligation. He didn't feel that it would be proper to base the appeal decision on either of the offers. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Perkins/Cathcart to continue discussion of the appeal by AirTouch Cellular to September 19, 1995. Council Member Perkins hoped that the lighting study would be complete by that time. He also asked the staff and other interested parties to have additional information available such as the alternate-site information and overlays presented to the subcommittee. Council Member Cathcart advised that five of the six sites were eliminated in the subcommittee and the propagation study was done on the remaining site located at the School District Administration Center. Council Member Sniff felt that it was time to make a decision on the appeal He asked staff if they could guarantee that the lighting study would be complete by the next meeting. Mr. Cosper advised that Musco Lighting is preparing the report as a no-cost service to the City, but he would encourage them to complete it by the next meeting. He advised that a partial report was submitted already, but staff requested a more detailed study due to recent changes in some of the lighting standards. Mayor Pelia asked Parks &. Recreation to prepare a report on the Sports Complex?s light schedule that includes the days and hours of use. Motion carried with Council Memhe? Sniff and Mayor Pena voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-163. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 24 August 1, 995 2. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO TITLE 13 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, advised that the City retained NBS Lowery in October, 1994, to prepare a comprehensive revision of the City's subdivision ordinance. He advised that Mr. Bouma, Associate Engineer, and Mr. Jim Morrisey, of NBS Lowery, would present the report. Mr. Morrisey advised that the City's current subdivision ordinance is based upon the County's ordinance and was adopted during the City's incorporation. State Law regulates subdivision ordinances and allows few opportunities for local jurisdictions to vary from those guidelines. During the revision process, the format of the ordinance was changed to be more user-friendly and has been updated to include new provisions from the City's newly-adopted General Plan. Development Standards that are reflected in conditions of approval for tentative tract maps have been inserted into the improvement section of the ordinance so that conditions applying to projects would be clearly identified up-front. He advised that input was received from developers, consultants, homeowners' association representatives, and the general public through several meetings held with the City Review Committee and a Public Workshop. He advised that the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance on July 25th and recommended that staff have the City Attorney review the possibility of lowering the improvement security obligation for projects. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Bouma advised that the City's enforcement capability lies primarily with the securities that are required prior to approval of the subdivision map. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that building permits can also be withheld if the project isn't in compliance with the conditions of.approval on the tract map. Council Member Perkins pointed out that many of the complaints received are due to changes the developer m?es after obtaining building permits. such as a developer who installed chain-link fencing between the houses in place of block walls. Ms. Honeywell advised tha t;tr act map conditions of approval generally apply to the public improvements within the development and building codes regulate the more-detailed portions of the construction such fencing requirements. Additional building permits can be withheld if building-code violations exist on previously-issued permits or in some cases, the City can require that the construction in violation be removed. She advised that zoningeode violations are misdemeanors, but aren't likely to be enforced by the courts in the same manner as penal-code violations. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC REARING CLOSED. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 ) City Council Minutes 25 August 1, 1995 Council Member Perkins was pleased with the revision of the ordinance and the review of other codes as well because he felt that they were long overdue. Mayor Pena concurred, stating that he hopes that out-dated ordinances are being looked at for deletion. Ms. Honeywell advised that some of the developers believe that the City's requirement for a 100% security on materials and labor as well as 100% on the performance is prohibitive. She advised that the Subdivision Map Act sets a minimum limit of 50%. She has reviewed the possibility of lowering the security percentages as requested by the Planning Commission, but was concerned about trying to set different levels for various types of securities. She recommended that Council either retain the 100% security requirement or reduce it to the minimum of 50%, pointing out that an element of risk would exist if Lhe security percentages are reduced. She advised that the standards used to determine when letters of credit are accepted and the type of institutions they may be written on, is being reviewed. Mayor Pena pointed out that it?s difficult to collect the full amount on bonds. Council Member Perkins preferred to require the full 100%. Mr. Cosper advised that language was added to allow adoption of the policies through resolutions as opposed to an ordinance process, allowing more flexibility to obtain the best security coverage. Ms. Honeywell advised the Council to adopt staff's recommended language. In response to Mayor Pe5a, Mr. Cosper advised that the Planning Commission hasn?t had an opportunity to review the proposed language contained in the memorandum. Mr. Genovese advised that die resolutions could be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. M?ON It was moved:?byt6unc.il Members Sniff/Cathcart to take up Ordinance No. 272 by title and number only and waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO.272 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE LA QUINTA IUUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02 )City Council Minutes 26 August 1, 1995 It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to introduce Ordinance No.272 on first reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bangerter, Cathcart, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION: It was moved by Council Members SnifflCathcart to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Respe ully submitted, SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California BIB] 12-13-95-U01 08:31:23AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 08-U02 01-U02 95-U02