Loading...
1994 03 15 CC Minutes LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 Regular meetin? of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at 3:00P.M. by Mayor Pena followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Council Members Bangerter. McCartney, Perkins.. Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Mr. Hunt. City Manager, noted that correspondence has been received from Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher regarding Public Hearing No.2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/McCartney that the Minutes of January 24,1994 and March 1.1994 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS None PRESENTATIONS None PUBLIC COMMENT Seth Etinger commented that the City is becoming very beautiful and asked if any consideration was given to getting nonconforming uses to conform to present designations. Mayor Pena advised that staff is presently updating our Zoning Text Ordinance which will address these issues Mr. Herman, Planning Director, concurred. Council Member Perkins asked that the City rigidly enforce the Ordinance relating to the maintenance of property throughout the City. Mayor Pena advised that this. too. will be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance update and suggested that warrnn2 letters he Sent out through the Code Enforcement Department. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 2 March 15. 1994 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE None BUSINESS SESSION APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 FOR WHITEWATER/WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE. Mr. Cosper? CiLy Engineer. advised that the issue before Lhe Council is to approve subject Change Order for the Whitewater washington Street Bridge project. He stated that the design included a chain-link guard along the east side of the bridge which staff requested be removed because of its appearance. The City has been informed by OSHA and Riverside County that a guardrail is required for safety purposes. as originally planned. The contractor provided a competitive quote of $15,000. which compared to the SLate-wide Caltrans average for a handrailing of this quantity. He noted that there is actually no additional cost. because the costs would have been incurred by the City as part of the project. He brietly reviewed Lhe funding for the project and advised that there is approximately $350,000 in uncommitted funds which adequately supports this change order. In response to Mayor Pena. Mr. Cosper advised that Contract Change Orders No. 1 4 represent less than I % of the contract. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Cosper advised that the guardrail will be installed on the east side of the bridge. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to approve Contract Change Order No.92-3-05 for the Whitewater washington Street Bridge project in the amount of $15. 135. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-68. 2. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 20052-4 LAGUNA DE LA PAZ ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOCIATES. Council Member Perkins abstained from this matter due to a conflict of interest and left the dais. Mr. Cosper, Citv En?ineer. advised that the issue before the Council is to consider approving the Supplemental Improvement Agreement for Tract 20052-4, Laguna De La Paz. which is located on the west side of Vista Laguna off of Eisenhower in the Laguna De La Paz development. He advised that the existing subdivision agreement is outdated, and Roger Snellenberger & Associates, who took over this project, has agreed to enter BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 3 March 15. 1994 into a new Supplemental Subdivision Agreement. This agreement will update the terms of the original agreement to match the terms of the City's current standard Subdivision Agreement which primarily updates the areas of securities. They have agreed to deposit $328,500 in performance securities and $162,500 in labor and material securities. noting that this is in addition to the securities of $477,000 the City currently has from the original project developer. Roger Snellenberger & Associates have agreed to the terms of the Supplemental Agreement, signed it, and provided the securities to the City. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Mccartney to approve the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 20052-4, Laguna De La Paz, Roger Snellenberger & Associates. Motion carried unanimously with Council Member Perkins absent. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-69. Mayor Pena commented that a citizen expressed concern about the fencing at Rancho La Quinta. and he asked that a letter be sent to the Homeowners Association explaining that the fence will be a livin? fence with heavy plant growth. similar to the one at the Vintage Club. 3. REVIEW OF CITY ENTRY SIGNS FOR USE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, advised that in February, Council directed staff to provide additional information on letter heights and graffiti-proof measures for the City's entry signs. He presented a model to scale) of the proposed sign with script lettering using the quail. The height of the letters as displayed, are 12" for upper case and 8" for lower case. He presented sample sizes of lettering, advising that in order to be readable from a distance of one-quarter mile. he lettering would have to be 30'?. which will require a sign of approximately 24+'. The sign is currently being proposed at 16'6' long x 7'74" high. Regarding the graffiti issue, he advised that the sign was being proposed to be built of canterra stone. which is highly porous. He, therefore. recomrnended that the special graffiti-free coating be applied to either a glazed tile or painted surface from which graffiti can be easily removed. Staff recommended approval of the entry sign design and the proposed locations at the east and west boundaries of the City on Highway i 1, and direct staff to prepare the plans and specifications and initiate formal discussions with the impacted property owners regarding the needed right-of-way for the proposed locations. Staff will retuin to Council with these results before soliciting the proposals. In response to Council Member Perkins. Mr. Cosper advised that the size of the letters BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 4 March 15, 1994 on the freeway overhead signs range from 8" to 12". Mr. Herman advised that the dimensions of the entry signs would be 16'6" Ion? x high x 4' wide. Council Member Sniff felt these dimensions are appropriate and that a 24' sign with 30" letters would be excessive. Council Member Perkins believed that the dimension for the new Laguna De La Paz monument sign was 22' or 27', which he felt was very small. Re suggested that the entry signs be increased in size with 12" or 15" lettering. He wishes to see this monument sign look like a monument sign and asked that each Council Member view the Laguna De La Paz monument sign before making a decision. Mayor Pena expressed concern about the impact a larger sign would have on the property owners and the amount of right-of-way required for a si?n of this size. Council Member Sniff felt this matter should not be delayed any further. He believed that balance is extremely important with any type of artistic work. and a 27' sign with 12" letters would be highly disproportionate. He stated that the signs will be placed on the side of the road people will be approaching, making them within their line of sight. He felt the proposed dimensions and lettering are proportionate and gives a feeling of substance. In response to Council Member Mccartney, Mr. Herman advised that the height of the first ledge of the entry sign would be approximately 5'. Council concurred on two signs, one at the east and one at the west boundary of the City and utilize the wording City of La Quinta.' MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to approve the entry sign design with 12" letters, glazed graffiti-proof tile, direct staff to have plans and specifications prepared, and direct staff to initiate formal discussions with impacted property owners regarding needed right-of-way for chosen locations and return to the Council with these resul?s before soliciting proposals. Council Member Perkins felt the proposed sign was inadequate because of Highway 111 being extremely wide and the volume and speed of traffic traveling on it. Therefore; he could not support the motion. Motion carried unanimously with Council Member Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-70. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 5 March 15, 1994 4. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ROSENOW, SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. Mr. Genovese, Assistant City Manager. advised that the City has concluded the Request for Proposal process for Redevelopment/Economic Development Consultant Services. The Selection Committee rated the Rosenow, Spevacek Group as the top-ranked firm. Staff conducted negotiations with them and provided the Consultant Services Contract for Council's review. He advised that the term of agreement and the schedule of compensation would be in effect for three years. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/McCartney to approve the Contract Services Agreement with the Rosenow, Spevacek Group. Inc. for Redevelopment!Economic Development Services and authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-71. 5. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: ORDINANCE NO.244 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.20 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SECTION 2.20.150 TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF PRICE HIKES OF FOOD AND CONSUMER SERVICES IN TIMES OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY. It was moved by Council Members Sniff?Perkins that Ordinance No.244 be adopted on second reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bangerter, McCartney, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 6. CONSIDERATION OF TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE CIVIC CENTER ART PURCHASE COMMITTEE DURING THE ARTS FESTIVAL. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, advised that the Civic Center Art Purchase Program has been on-going since 1989. There is a need to select two Council Members to serve on the Selection Committee for this year's festival. Last year Council Members Bangerter and McCartney participated on the Cornmittee. He added that $3?OOO is BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 6 March 1?. 1994 budgeted for this year. Mayor Pena and Council Member Sniff volunteered participate on he committee. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to appoint Mayor Pena and Council Member Sniff to participate on the Committee to seiect Civic Center art during the Arts Festival and authorize a 10% leeway over the $3,000 amount. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-72. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED MARCH 15, 1994. 2. APPROVAL OF TWO LIEN AGREEMENTS COMPLIANCE & RELEASE) FOR PROPERTY AT 51-370 AVENIDA BERMUDAS MR. ROBERT A. BARNES. 3. ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED FROM COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR PARCEL SOUTH OF AVENUE 47 AND ADJACENT TO BURKETT PROPERTY. 4. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DMG FOR COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION STUDY. 5. ACCEPTANCE OF CALLE TAMPICO WASHINGTON STREET SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.92-20. 6. APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS ON MARCH 24, 1994 FOR THE LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEET AND GREET ICE CREAM SOCIAL.' 7. APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 23935-3, TOPAZ CENTURY HOMES. 8. APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 23935-4, TOPAZ CENTURY HOMES. Re?ardin? Item No.5 Mayor Pena asked if Phase V funds were used for the Calle Tampico?Washington Street signal improvements. Mr. Hunt. City Manager. advised not that infrastructure funds were used. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 7 March 15, 1994 Council Member McCartney asked that Consent Item No.4 be pulled for discussion. MOTION It was moved by Council Members BangerterlMcCartney to approve the Consent Calendar as amended with Item No.4 being pulled for discussion and Item No. 6 being adopted by RESOLUTION NO. 94-23. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-73. Re?ardin? Item No.4 Council Member Mccartney asked if there were no firms available within Riverside County that could perform the classification and compensation study at a competitive rate. Mrs. LiCalsi, Assistant to the City Manager, advised that the three firms interviewed were from the Sacramento area, noting that a cluster of public sector consultants are in that area. In response to Council Member McCartney, Mrs. LiCalsi advised that staff contacted three firms weil known in the public sector for this type of service. Council Member McCartney felt that we owe it to the firms in Riverside County and the Coachella Valley the opportunity to participate, even though they may not have the name or stature that a Sacramento firm has. Mrs. LiCalsi stated that there is no local firm on the City's vendor list. and she has no knowledge of any firm within Riverside County or the Coachella Valley. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to approve the Professional Services Agreement with DM6 for a Classification and Compensation Study and authorize he City Manager to sign the agreement in an amount not to exceed $9,650. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-74. STUDY SESSION FOLLOW-UP ON HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROCESS/MEETING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS. Mr. Cosper, City Engineer. advised that as directed by the Council staff sent letters on February 25. 1994 to property owners abutting Highway 111 in order to determine their interest in formin? an assessment district for the improvements along this corridor. The letter consisted of a summary of project costs. the proposed spread area the assessment district would include, and an interest response form. He advised that those who responded felt thev needed more information and requested that the Citv assist them. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 8 March 15, 1994 Mr. Cosper further advised that when staff met with an assessment engineerin2 firm and a bond underwritin? firm on March 3rd. they suggested that the City may wish to prepare a Preliminary Assessment Formation report PAF) that would further define the assessment district, as well as possibly identify the property owners questions and concerns. When this concept was presented to the property owners on March 8th. the majority of them desired moving forward with this idea. The estimated cost for the preparation of this report is approximately $25,000. and they have asked that the City participate in approximately 10% of the cost. He stated that a consultant would be selected through an RFP process which the property owners would review prior to advertising. Ninety percent of the cost would be collected from the property owners after negotiating a final contract with the selected consultant and prior to presenting the proposal to the Council for approval. Council Member Sniff expressed support for the idea. but was concerned about the term majority.' as he understood that not all of the property owners were represented and was also concerned about how the costs would he prorated. He felt that all of the property owners should participate and questioned the process if they don't. Mr. Cosper advised that at the meeting it was left up to the property owners to determine how they would collect the 90% funding and who they would collect it from. He stated that the costs can be recouped through the assessment district provided that the project goes forward. Council Member Sniff commented that this could be a problem for the property owners. He wished to see things defined up-front so everyone can be a part of the project and made aware of what the costs will be. He asked if each property owner's share of the cost to prepare the report was determined. Mr. Cosper stated that the 90?10 split is as far as it has been taken at this point. Council Member Mccartney felt that we should move forward if we have the support from the property owners. He wished to hear from the property owners and their response. He felt that we're getting bogged down in the process and asked if it could be shortened. Mr. Cosper advised that he does not have the resources in-house. but the property owners could prepare a report without going through the RFP process. He stated that the assessment engineer recommended identifying all properties and develop a preliminary spread. The majority of time spent in this process is putting the actual report together. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 9 March 15.1994 In response to Mayor Pena. Mr. Cosper advised that we could not adopt a study completed by the property owners because the City would be responsible for forming the district. Although, the study could be used as a guideline in setting up the assessment district. Council Member Perkins commented that the City is only being asked to fund $2,500, therefore, we should move forward and indicate a very strong desire to be a participant. Council concurred. Chris Clarke, owner of property along Highway 111, advised that the letter which was mailed to the property owners excluded the City's 66 acres and they feel that 10% is the City s responsibilitv in this assessment district. She also advised that she contacted Rancho La Quinta and scheduled a meeting with them because 48th Avenue is also a big issue in this assessment district. They were very interested in participating and strongly favored phasing the assessment district. She further advised that more than 50% of actual landowners attended the March 8th meeting with the City. In response to Mayor Pena. Ms. Clarke advised that she plans on meeting with Lake La Quinta to discuss this matter. Gary Horn, representing the partnership of DGD, advised that they own approximately 6% of the assessment area which is approximately $120.000 to $130.000 an acre. He believed development policies are needed for this area before determining how the coSt is to be spread. because certain development policies for Highway 111 and the wash are appropriate for landowners to work together as a whole and other development policies are best dealt with on a project-by-project basis. He believed there are existin? obligations out there and once the Development Policy has been completed. the policy would apply to all development and property owners in this district. He stated that it would be disastrous for him because it would increase his obligation on his property approximately $2 million. He asked that the City determine what goal we're trying to accomplish on Highway 111 before any additional money is spent. He would be more receptive if he knew what would be of benefit to him. but all that is being discussed is how the costs are going to be assessed. Mayor Pena advised that it was the conclusion of both the Council and Planning Commission that the infrastructure needs to be reviewed prior to developing the standards for discussion. however. the development policy will be done in tandem with the formation of the District. The issue being discussed is the backbone infrastructure more than the specifics. such as power, water, sewer, major transportation systems. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 10 March 15, 1994 Council Member Perkins commented that at this point, we're not setting up an assessment district or a Cost factor we're only reviewing our options to se? whether or not the property owners and City can support such a district. In further response to Mr. Horn. Mayor Pena clarified what process the City is going through. Council Member Sniff stated that the infrastructure that goes in and on the ground will be affected by the design of the area and the uses. He felt there must be a grand design which will affect the type of infrastructure that is to be installed. Therefore. realistic figures cannOt be presented to the property owners. We need to know what the general plans, configuration, and circulation will be for that area and what it generally will look like. This would affect everything as far as the infrastructure. and through the infrastructure the cost of assessments because that's what's going to pay for all of the infrastructure. Mayor Pena stated that we must first determine if there is any interest on behalf of the property owners, and if so, how much. He suggested to Mr. Horn that he present his concerns to the property owners. Ms. Clarke advised that the property owners are currently aware of what the utility companies, Caltrans, and the City want but the issue at this point is the foundation, not the design concept. Before that. the property owners need to know the basic cost and if there are ways to phase it. Their goal is to do this in a systematic way so nothing has to be torn up because it was not developed properly. Design is very important. but that point cannot be reached until the foundation is in place. Therefore, when the property is ready for development. the backbone is already there and it is not a front-loaded cost. The cost is then shared with everyone in the benefit area. Mayor Pena commented that the issue here is if the City wishes to participate in funding 10% of the formation study. Council Member Sniff felt that it would have been of great benefit if a Specific Plan had been adopted for the Highway 111 Corridor sometime ago. He expressed continued trepidation about leaping into the unknown. He stated that the development of Highway 111 is vital to La Quinta's future, however, many uncertainties need to be studied by the Council and given an indepth analysis. He wished to see this move forward but was uncomfortable with it as there are many unanswered questions. He believed that staff needs to be directed to proceed in an orderly fashion with the development of a Specific Plan for Highway 111 in order to conceptually determine what it is to look like. Council Member Perkins commented that a cost factor on construction of infrastructure cannot be determined without an explanation by experts in this field of what can be BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 11 March 15, 1994 expected. He noted that we're not forming an assessment district. We're pursuing technical and legal information that this Council and the property owners need in order to proceed and move forward. if so desired. The property owners and the City have a direct interest and we need to control what happens on Highway 111. He commented that this is a long-range project, therefore. for us to determine how Highway 111 should be developed is premature, because the type of development will be based upon the economy. This is only a preliminary study to determine if we should proceed. He felt we could not move forward without taking this first step. It's rare to find as large an area of homeowners working together in an effort to develop this property not only for their benefit but also for the benefit of the City. Mayor Pena agreed and stated that the General Plan has already addressed many of these issues. therefore. we basically know what type of general development standards are planned for this area. Council Member Bangerter believed that this could be a parallel process. We can begin working on a Specific Plan, but this is the spinal column of the entire project. Because of the willingness of the property owners to work together. we need to be very supportive and begin moving forward with a preliminary study. This study will help determine what our Specific Plan is going to be for this area and what we wish to accomplish. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Herman advised that the outcome of the joint meeting with the Planning Commission was to develop policies for the development of Highway 111, which was begun, but stopped. in order to finish the process. Mr. Hunt, City Manager, advised that based on Council's direction. staff began developing the Specific Plan. but the property owners approached staff with their desires, which they believe to be the initial step in that process. Staff reported to Council regarding the change in direction based on the input of the property owners. Council Member McCartney supported the initial study and felt staff should also proceed with the Specific Plan, which needs to occur within a reasonable time frame. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to direct staff to negotiate an Engineering Services Agreement through the Request for Proposal process for the development of a Preliminary Assessment Formation report on the Highway 111 Improvement District. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-75. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 12 March 15 1994 DEPARTMENT REPORTS Administration De?artment Mr. Genovese, Assistant City Manager. reported that on February t. 1993 staff prepared a report regarding the SunLine Services Group and taxi issues. There have been several ongoing discussions with SunLine, and the SunLine Services Group is currently undergoing a peer review process of the taxi services for the SunLine Transit Agency. Staff requested that this item be deferred until May 17th or earlier. depending on SunLine's results and other determinations as research is completed for submittal to the Council. Council Member Sniff advised that he was invited to appear before SunLines?ines peer review committee in which he and Mr. Genovese related the City's concerns which have been prevalent since last summer and has been indicated by us on several occasions which involves conflicts of interests or the perception of conflicts of interests. He related that we feel that it's particularly dangerous if the regulators are in any form competitors, or perceived as competitors or represent possible competitors. We know that it's mandated that taxicabs be regulated it's a matter of a proper solution and we felt that a separate, 15-member agency would be the ideal solution with representatives from each of the municipalities not the same that serve on SunLine's current board), that the taxicab industry itself have voting representatives and that the public also be represented by two members. Council Member Sniff continued, in saying that the Committee seemed to be receptive to the comments. A written report of this meeting will be prepared and circulated. Mayor Pena stated that it is his understanding that regulation of the taxicab industry was transferred to the SunLine s?ine Services Group, which the City is not a member. If this is so. then the City is not currently regulating taxicabs as mandated. Council Member Sniff commented that SunLine had indicated at the meeting that they were still regulating taxicabs. Mayor Pena stated that he would look into it to make sure. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Genovese advised that SunLine Services Group would be concluding on March 16. 1994, and they indicated that they would promptly produce a written report. Mayor Pena stated that he will return to SunLine with these comments. He advised that SunLine wholly agrees a new agency needs to be formed. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 13 March 15, 1994 Council Member Perkins commented that Palm Springs basically supports the same concerns and issues as we have. He commended Council Member Sniff for following through on this issue. Council Member Sniff commended Mr. G?novese for providing the technical material needed. Council Member McCartney also commended Council Member Sniff on the thoroughness of his report and the excellent job of representing the City. In response to Council Member McCartney, Council Member Sniff stated that the cost of setting up a new board was discussed. as weil as the current cost the taxicab industry feels is unrealistic. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS Council Member Sniff reported that on March 3, 1994, the Selection Committee made up of im Woods, Interim Finance Director: Tom Genovese, Assistant City Manager: and himself reviewed three proposals for Financial Advisory Services in which our current provider, Fieldman. Rolapp & Associates. ranked number one. Mayor Pena commented on the number of solicitors in front of stores like Wal-Mart and asked staff to do some research to see what can be done to regulate them. Council Member McCartney suggested getting a copy of the ordinance recently adopted by the City of Santa Cruz relating to charitable solicitations. Mary Wagner. Ass't. City Attorney, advised that she will do some research in light of the First Amendment restrictions. Council Member Perkins felt that the Investment Advisory Committee is tioundering somewhat and asked if the Council should be giving them better direction. Mr. Hunt, City Manager. advised that they are close to finalizing their Mission Statement. at which time they will be presenting it to the Council. Staff is monitoring their progress. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 14 March 15.1994 Mayor Pena commented that in Indian Wells, the Community Services Officer drives the unit with the tight bar exposed. which gives a different appearance than havin2 it covered as is done in La Quinta. He asked if it's because Indian Wells purchased their unit. Chief Dye explained that we cover the light bar because our CSO is unauthorized to operate in a Code 3 mode. However, the amber bar can be exposed by modifying the cover, which he will look irito. He added that Indian Wells did purchase the unit. In answer to questions by Council. Chief Dye advised that the unit driven by the CSO is also driven by patrol officers. He also advised that she does maintain an activity log and will begin incorporating a summary of her activities in his monthly report. Council Member McCartney commended Chief Dye on his report and visuals. However. he asked hat the burglary statistics indicate whether they are residential. commercial. auto. etc. He believed that through education and outreach programs. such as Citizens on Patrol. criminal activitv will continue to decrease. Tbe Council recessed to the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council reconvened. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Pena abstained from participating in the discussions relating to Ia and 2a due to conflicts of interest. 1. Discussion of negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 a. Mike Hogan's proposal for commercial development to be located at new Avenue 52 and Avenida Bermudas. 2. Discussion of potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) a. T. I. Maloney, Inc. Discussion of cost estimating related to Fritz Bums Park. b. Primerit Bank Case No.71942 MOTION It was moved by Mayor Pena and Council Member Perkins to add to the Closed Session Agenda a fax received from Gibson. Dunn & Crutcher regarding potential litigation from Primerit Bank relating to Public Rearing No.2, noting that the need to take action arose after the posting of the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 15 March 15,. 1994 7.05 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT None PRESENTATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING PROPOSALS, REPROGRAMMING FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THE CDBG YEAR 20 FUNDS. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, advised that the City has participated in the Community Development Block Grant CDBG) program for the past 11 years. Currently CDBG funds have been allocated for the La Quinta Senior Center construction project and $10,000 for El Progreso del Desierto. Two requests have been received from the Riverside County Housing Authority and the Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert. If the City chooses not to fund the Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert's program. they have asked that the Council send a letter of support to the Board of Supervisors for potential allocation from the County of Riverside. Staff recommended that this year's funds in the amount of $50,000 be programmed into the Senior Center construction project and reprogramming $10,000 from CDBG Year 17 monies for El Progreso del Desierto back into the Senior Center Construction project. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. There being no one wishing to speak. the PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. RESOLUTION NO.94-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING PROPOSALS, REPROGRAMMING FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT YEAR 20 FUNDS. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter that Resojution No.94-24 be adopted as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 16 March 15. 1994 MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/McCartney to accede to the request of the Foundation for the Retarded and send a letter as requested to the Board of Supervisors. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-76. 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1993, TO LIMIT THE HOUSE SIZE WITHIN THE QUINTERRA TRACT PHASE 2) TO 1,650 SQ. FT. OR LARGER AND THEIR APPEAL OF OTHER ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS. APPELLANTS: BRUCE STRICKLAND, V.P. FORECAST CORPORATION AND BEST, BEST AND KRIEGER. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, advised that both appellants. Bruce Strickland representing Forecast Corporation and Best, Best and Krieger appealed the September 14, 1994 Planning Commission decision for the Quinterra Tract. On October 9th and November 12th the appeals were considered by the City Council. Because Interim Ordinance No.236 was adopted by the Council on November 2nd which permitted a minimum 10% deviation from the smallest and the largest unit, Lhe appellants requests were put on hold. The Council extended the Interim Ordinance on December 7th by the adoption of Ordinance No.240, and then on January 18th, Ordinance No.242 was introduced which created compatibility standards. The second reading was adopted on February 1st and became effective on March 3,1994. Based upon Council's actions, the Planning Commission's recommendation did not comply with the compatibility regulations as adopted under Ordinance No.240. Therefore, staff recommended denying Forecast Corporation's application because the existing plans do not meet the provisions of Ordinance No.242. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Bruce Stn'ckland 10670 Civic'Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, representing Forecast Corporation and Primerit Bank at their request. noted that a letter was delivered to the Council today from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher specifically outlining their request for approval of their appeal and why they believe staff's recommendation is not appropriate. He stated that they strenuously object to applying Ordinance No. 242 to this project based on the facts outlined in their letter and the timing of this issue. He commented that they would agree to a continuance to meet with City representatives. City Attorney, and their legal counsel in a work session in an attempt to reach an equitable settlement which would save both parties money from the legal action that is proceeding. He asked that Council consider this proposal during deliberations and barring that. he requested that their appeal be granted. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 17 March 15. 1994 In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Strickland advised that the continuance would be for the period of time necessary to allow them to organize and schedule a meeting to discuss the merits of the Issue. Mayor Pena stated that the requested continuance is for the purpose of discussing the legal action that is currently pending between the City and Forecast. He asked if that meeting were to occur. would this ordinance continue to be in place, the status quo be maintained, and Forecast not be allowed to build because they do not meet the current ordinance. Mary Wagner, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the ordinance would remain in effect. the status quo would be maintained. and any settlement negotiations would have to be pursued through normal litigation channels. Russell Robertson, 44-930 Tortola Circle, Quinterra Homeowner, felt continuing this matter would not resolve the problem. He supported the recommendation of staff because Forecast does not comply with Ordinance No.242. A great amount of money and time has been spent on drafting this ordinance and the residents appreciate the Council's time in doing this. It is the residents' hope that there would be no further delay. Mayor Pena clarified that the continuance requested by the appellant relates to the appeal, which is the subject of litigation. The ordinance is currently in place. and there is still a legal action pending with the devejoper. Mr. Robertson commented that they understand this; however, on the night of the appeal. a moratorium was issued pending a resolution of this matter. The lawsuit is not with Forecast but with Primerit Bank and it affects all the homeowners. He felt it was unfair of Mr. Strickland to request a meeting with the City when it also involves the homeowners. He stated that it may save both the City and the appellants a lot of money, but it may be harmful to the homeowners. Ms. Wagner stated that the two separate issues being discussed are: 1) the appeal of the Planning Conttnission?s decision, and 2) settlement negotiations regarding the pending litigation She stated that she foresees no harm in continuing this matter. because the ordinance will remain in place and the status quo will be maintained during that time. Therefore, Lhe settlement negotiations are a separate issue and need to be addressed throu?h liti?ation channels. She advised that the courts do look favorably upon any settlement negotiations that can be maintained. In response to Council Member Sniff, Ms. Wagner concurred that there should not be any reason why settlement negotiations cannot continue if the appeal is denied. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 18 March 15, 1994 Council Member Sniff stated that he is trying to determine whether there is any significant value in continuing this item. Ms. Wagner advised that she doesn't see this as a legal issue in terms of whether or not it is continued and asked the applicant to state his reason for this request. Mr. Strickland felt if an equitable solution could be worked out in a shorter period of time, why make a decision. Ordinance No.242 is not being challenged; the application to the property is what is being challenged. The reason for requesting the settlement is strictly a business-economic decision. They felt a possible solution may be reached if everyone met on legal terms, therefore, why take action when Council may wish to make a change at a later date. This is one way of trying to reach a solution without further spending large sums of money. If there is a settlement. why spend money preparing for trial if it is going to be settled. Mayor Pena commented that discovery is currently scheduled in this case. therefore, it would also be continued. Ms. Wagner stated that was not her understanding at this point. Council Member Sniff commented that litigation is underway, therefore. there is no reason why negotiations regarding the lawsuit cannot or will not take place regardless of Council's action. There being no one else wishing to speak, the PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Council Member Sniff felt that there doesn't seem to be any significant value in continuing this matter. Therefore. it is his inclination to act on the appeal. Mayor Pena felt that this is more of a legal question and legal tactic whether this mauer should be continued and enter into negotiation-settlement discussions. which would be the court's recommendation. Council Member Sniff stated that litigation is currently underway, therefore, this is an inexorable process in which there will be negotiations over this issue, not over ordinance No.242. Mayor Pena concurred. He stated that the focus of the lawsuit is the appeal. and if we haven't taken action on the appeal, then it cannot continue until discussions are concluded. Council Member Perkins stated that if he were a judge, he would wish to see discussions take place between the two parties before going to court in an attempt to come up with BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 19 March 15. 1994 an agreeable solution. He does not see the continuance as a challenge to the ordinance. He declared there is no doubt that this will be a costly factor between ail parties, and if it can in any way be mitigated. he is willing to make an attempt in reaching an equitable settlement. In response to Mayor Pena. Ms. Wagner concurred that the costly part of litigation is the discovery phase and continuance would not delay this phase. She stated that we requested a stay on the discovery procedures when they first proposed entering into settlement negotiations, which they were not agreeable to. In response to Council Member Perkins. Ms. Wagner advised that a reasonable extension of time would be approximately 45 days to possibly May 3rd or May 17th. Council Member Bangerter asked if a decision made by the Council wouid have any bearing on the settlement proceedings. Ms. Wagner stated that it is her understanding that a decision will have some effect on the settlement, however, she does not know what that will be at this point: any decision made regarding this matter will have some effect on the settlement proceedings. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Sniff and Mayor Pena to deny the application of Forecast Corporation because the existing plans do not meet the provisions of Ordinance 242. Mayor Pena was unsure if continuing this matter would place the City in any better legal standing than not. He wished to move forward in a manner that would get us out of this litigation. This continuance may be the way in which to go, but, if they weren?t willing to stay the proceedings of the discovery, which is the costly part of liti?ation, he was not motivated to continue. Council Member Perkins supported a 30-day continuance because he felt we should do whatever possible to resolve the problems facing us in court. He didn't see any problem with a continuance, and felt that it would be good P.R. with the Courts to indicate that the City is willing to try and resolve this problem. Council Member McCartney stated that he understood the positions, however. he did not see an advantage or disadvantage one way or the other, because the proceedings will continue on as before due to litigation. The appellant took an aggressive posture toward the City in response to what the ordinance stated. and our position will not be changed. Therefore, he wished to act now rather than continuing it another 30 days, because he didn't see any merit in continuing this matter. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 20 March 15, 1994 Motion carried unanimously with Council Member Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO.94-77. 3 TENTATIVE TRACT 27840- AMENDMENT #1 TO ALLOW MODIFICATION AND ADDITION OF THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ON 55+ ACRES, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE WITHIN RANCHO LA QUINTA. APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, advised that this is Amendment No.1 to subject tract which would add three residential lots and several miscellaneous lots. as well as modifying lot confi?urations. It will increase the lot count from 127 to 130. S?ff has determined that the prior Environmental Impact Report EIR) adequately addresses the proposed amendment. There was no public comment at the Planning Commission meeting regarding this matter. The Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote approval of the amendment. Mr. Herman presented a copy of the tract map for Council's review. Mayor Pena declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. There being no one wishing to speak, the PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. RESOLUTION NO.94-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 55 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE AND EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET. TENTATIVE TRACT 27840, AMENDMENT #1. TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter that Resolution No.94-25 be adopted subject to conditions. Motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOIII'ING PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMATION AND ELECTION OF A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND CALL FOR THE FORMATION OF A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE. Mr. Genovese, Ass't. City Manager, advised that as part of the effort to amend La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, a Project Area Committee PAC) must be BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 21 March 15, 1994 established by the City Council. To establish such a committee. procedures for the formation and election of the Committee must be adopted. He noted that the bylaws referenced in the resolution are available in the City Clerk's office. He further advised that the new PAC, as opposed to the merger, will replace the PAC previously installed. The members of the merger PAC will be asked to resign, and the City will move forward with the new PAC. He further noted that the City Attorney's office was consulted on this matter. In response to Mayor Pena, Ms. Wagner, Ass't. City Attorney, concurred that every household in the project area will receive notice by mail of a public meetin? to form a PAC. In further response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Genovese advised that the proposed estimate for first-class mailing is $7,000. Mayor Pena declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. There being no one wishing to speak. the PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. RESOLUTION NO.94-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMATION AND ELECTION OF A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND CALLING FOR THE FORMATION OF A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE. It was moved by Council Members SnifflMcCartney that Resolution No. 94-26 be adopted as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pena left the meeting at this time. CLOSED SESSION Discussion of negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 a. Mike Hogan?s proposal for commercial development to be located at new Avenue 52 and Avenida Bermudas. 2. Discussion of potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) a. T.I. Maloney, Inc. Discussion of cost estimating related to Fritz Burns Park. BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02 City Council Minutes 22 March 15, 1994 Council reconvened with no action being taken. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Res ectfully submitted SAUNDRA L Clerk City of La Quinta California BIB] 01-13-96-U01 03:12:51PM-U01 CCMIN031594-U02