Loading...
1992 04 21 CC Minutesl LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 21, 1992 Regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Mayor Pena, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Council Members Bohnenberger, Franklin, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Mr. Kiedrowski asked that Study Session No. 1 be continued until May 5th and that Consent Item No. 6 be removed from the agenda. Council Member Bohnenberger asked that an item be added to the agenda for consideration of an advertising budget for the 10th Anniversary Celebrations. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bohnenberger that consideration of an advertising budget for the 10th Anniversary Celebrations be added as Business Session Item No. 13. Motion carried unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS None PRESENTATIONS Mayor Pena presented John Walling with a plaque expressing Council's appreciation for his service on the City's Design Review Board. Mayor Pena presented Elaine Franke with a plaque expressing Council's appreciation for her service on the City's Community Services Commission. Mayor Pena presented John Walling, a former Planning Commissioner with a plaque commemorating the City's 10th Anniversary Celebrations. PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, addressed the Council urging them to work together for the benefit of the City. He advised that he has found the City's Department Heads to be loyal to the City Manager and that developers are pleased with his performance. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 2 April 21, 1992 Lynn Kerr, Project Coordinator of the Mainstreet Marketplace, addressed the Council advising that the first event was a tremendous success with 80 booths and about 4,000-5,000 people in attendance. They are now working on the lighting problem and are purchasing tables for the beer garden and a 3' high wood fence to go around it. Peter Zelles, 54-767 obregon, addressed the Council urging the City Manager's termination. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE None BUSINESS SESSION 1. PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORT OF INVESTMENT POLICY TASK FORCE COMMITTEE. Mr. Abels, Chairman of the Investment Policy Task Force Committee, advised that the Council has received a copy of their Final Report and suggested that the Council and Committee meet in a study session to review it. Mayor Pena thanked Mr. Abels and the Committee and suggested that a study session be scheduled to review the findings and recommendations and see if any other recommendations may come of such a meeting. Council Member Franklin expressed appreciation to the Task Force for a job well-done and for the many hours put into this project. Council Member Rushworth concurred. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Franklin that the Council express its sincere appreciation for a splendid and comprehensive report by the Investment Policy Task Force Committee and that the staff be instructed to set up a meeting with the Committee at an early date to discuss implementation of the recommendations in the report; and that a well-done'? be given to the City Clerk and City Attorney for their splendid staff support to this Committee. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-72. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 3 April 21, 1992 2. REPORT FROM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TASK FORCE COMMITTEE AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6.12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES. Peter Murray, Vice President of La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council advising that the proposed ordinance does not seem to be in conformance with the recommendations of the Chamber's Task Force Committee. Council Member Bohnenberger asked if the Committee came up with a percentage to be designated as a non?smoking area and Mr. Murray advised that they did not. They discussed 25% 50%, but the majority of the people felt that it would be best for the restaurant owners to dictate their own standards. Council Member Bohnenberger noted that there was a grandfather clause relative to installation of an air-filtration system, which is not included in the ordinance. He asked if there was discussion to the effect that installation of a filtration system could be accelerated if there was a problem with smoking and Mr. Murray advised not. Council Member Bohnenberger expressed appreciation to Mr. Murray for the role he played in formulating the recommendations. Ms. Honeywell advised that the proposed ordinance was based on the original preparation on their review of a lot of common ordinances regulating smoking in public places. It was intended to provide a framework with which to work of of. Because there was a concern that it didn't exactly mirror the recommendations of the Committee, she has provided the Council with the changes that would need to be made to the draft ordinance, if the Council wishes to adopt it exactly as requested by the Chamber. In response to Mayor Pena, for clarification, Mr. Murray advised that the Chamber's intent was to require a designated area for non-smoking requests. Dr. Bruce Underwood, 39-600 Bob Hope Dr., with the Heart Institute of the Desert, advised that smoking is the leading cause of death and second-hand smoke is also very harmful to people and their heart-disease rate. They are working hard to make this Valley heart-healthy and wished to support the people who choose not to smoke, which is more than 75% of the current population. If we are going to prevent heart disease, smoking is the #1 thing we have to get people to eliminate from their lifestyles. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 4 April 21, 1992 Laurie Tully-Payne, Project Coordinator for Cal-State University, San Bernardino, for the Behavioral Health Institute, which is currently being funded by two tobacco control grants through the Prop. 99 cigarette limit passed in 1979. Their project is to provide cities in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties with technical assistance in their review and/or adoption of ordinances. She advised that the City of Loma Linda has recently passed a 100% smoke-free ordinance, which is the strictest in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Research has shown that there is no affect on the businesses in 100% smoke-free restaurants. Another issue is that of vending machines which are generally available to minors and could be regulated to either be prohibited or to require the placement of them in places which are not accessible to minors. Another issue is tobacco advertising. Advertising near schools and in bus shelters has been a key issue in many cities. She noted that Joe Camel has almost as much recognition among children as Mickey Mouse. She again, offered her services in providing information. Mayor Pena questioned what efforts are underway to eliminate smoking on high school campuses and Ms. Tully-Payne advised that the grants under which they're working were not intended for that purpose. Lois Mall, with the American Lung Association, explained the health hazards associated with smoking and urged that an ordinance be adopted requiring at least 25% of tables to be set-aside for non-smoking people. She would also like to see cigarette vending machines banned in La Quinta, as they are in Rancho Mirage. Ted Axe, 53-901 Villa, representing La Quinta Hotel, believed that the State should be the governing force behind this issue. He recognized that there appears to be enough public support for some kind of restaurant restrictions and felt that 25% of the seating areas should be set-aside for non-smoking if an ordinance is adopted. Regarding an air-filtration system, he believed that a requirement to install one would be equivalent to banning smoking because they are cost- prohibitive. Regarding the recommendation for signs on the non-smoking tables, they have a problem with that as they are trying to create a certain ambiance in which table signs would not fit. Dr. Curtis Hesse, Riverside County Health Services Agency, advised that all research shows that the impacts of tobacco smoke are without challenge not just for the smoker, but also for the non-smoker. They also have a special concern about exposing children to the hazards of second-hand smoke. Research which has been done by Cal-State San Diego shows that BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 5 April 21, 1992 as of 1991, only 22% of California adults over 18 years of age still smoke nation-wide, that percentage is 27%. Also, there should be concern about the personnel who has to staff the smoking areas. Even a 50% set-aside with only 22% of Californians who smoke, appears to be quite conservative. An air-filtration would provide at least some protection. Council Member Rushworth agreed with Mr. Axe that the percentage can be negotiated and that the table signs can be controlled by the restaurant. He suggested a compromise of 35% set-aside. Council Member Bohnenberger was looking more at 50% set-side. Regarding the air-filtration system, he felt that eight years is too much and suggested four years. If it's not economical to install it, then they have the option of going totally non- smoking. There are restaurants in town that are non-smoking and they seem to be doing a good business. He, too, agreed that the table signs are not necessary, but suggested leaving the requirement that ash trays not be placed on the non- smoking tables. Council Member Franklin supported the 50% set-aside and removing the requirement for the table signs. She felt that the Committee was trying to be generous with the eight years, but she supported Council Member Bohnenberger on the four years. Council Member Sniff supported a 50% set-aside, but had no problem with the signs, as they can be made attractive. Regarding the air-filtration Systems, he felt that four or five years is adequate. Mayor Pena stated that he was leaning toward 75% set-aside, increasing it by 5% yearly until we reach 100%, but could support a lesser percentage to be increased annually. Regarding the air-filtration systems, he had problems with it due to ambiguity and a question as to what the state of the art" is at the time of installation. He would support 100% non-smoking over the requirement for a filtration system, but if it is included, then he could support five years. He also supported the elimination of the table signs. Ms. Honeywell noted that if a requirement for an air- filtration system is written into the ordinance, we would need for an engineer to give a particulate percentage in air that is acceptable and someone would have to verify if the system is capable of that kind of performance. Ms. Tully-Payne responded to Council Member Bohnenberger advising that filtration systems are a mixed-blessing noting BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 6 April 21, 1992 that they are difficult to enforce. All of the ordinances adopted in recent years have eliminated the requirement for them. Mr. Axe stated that he would like to see the matter of percentages and an air-filtration system left up to the discretion of the restaurant. Dr. Underwood believed that an air-filtration system would be difficult to enforce. He would like to see the City require 50% set-aside and work toward 100%. Dr. Hesse believed that an air-filtration system would give some relief, but not total, he preferred to see the percentages increased and make sure that the area is properly separated. Mario Lalli, owner of La Quinta Garden Cafe, advised that he has talked to a very large company who specializes in installing filter Systems into the return air, which are very expensive. He has checked with Breeze and they said that they are more trouble than they can possibly be with help. He noted all the air is eventually going to be mixed together and re-circulated, so all you're going to do is lessen the amount of smoke in the air. Council Member Sniff believed that if air-filtration systems don't work, then the requirement should be eliminated and add a certain percentage each year until smoking is completely phased out. He suggested starting with 40% and adding 10% each year. Council Member Rushworth commented that who knows where technology will be in four years or what State laws will be in force at that time. He continued to support either a 25% or 35% set-aside with an annual 5% increase. Council Member Bohnenberger felt that an annual increase would be too cumbersome to enforce and suggested 50% set-aside effective September 1, 1992 and increasing it to 75% in three years and 100% in Six years. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/Sniff that Ordinance No. 205 as amended be taken up by title and number only and that further reading be waived. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 7 April 21, 1992 ORDINANCE NO. 205 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 6.12 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES. It was moved by Council Members Franklin/Bohnenberger that Ordinance No. 205 be introduced on first reading providing for all restaurants to set-aside 50% of their total seating area to be non-smoking as of September 1, 1992 and increasing the requirement to 75% in three years and to 100% in six years of and eliminating the requirement for table signs and eliminating the requirement for air-filtration systems. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Franklin, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 9-B ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1, AREA B TO REROUTE EXISTING 18" IRRIGATION LINE TO CLEAR STORM DRAIN AT LA FONDA AND WASHINGTON. Council Member Bohnenberger abstained from this issue. Mr. Speer, Assistant City Engineer, advised that this matter is before the Council as a result in a conflict between an existing irrigation line on the east side of Washington Street where we?re proposing to install the reinforced concrete boxes underneath Washington St. into the drainage facility located in La Fonda. The item was shown on the plans, but typically, it?s left to the City to clear the utilities. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Speer advised that the irrigation line belongs to the C. V. Water District and is shown on the plans; however, it was not included as a bid item in the project plans and specifications. Mayor Pena asked if the utility companies usually remove their utilities and Mr. Speer advised that some of them do. In this case, they're in their own easement and not within the right- of-way. Council Member Sniff asked if the line is working and where the water goes. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 8 April 21, 1992 Mr. Speer advised that it is a working line and that the water comes from 52nd Avenue up to Tampico and heads west to the date grove. It serves the date grove with canal water. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Rushworth to approve Contract Change Order No. 9-B for Assessment District 91-1, Area B and to approve an additional allocation of $16,887.28 of RDA Fund 060-5216-111-000. Motion died for lack of a second. See Pages 10 and 31 for continued discuss?on) 4. PRESENTATION OF INITIAL SCREENING FOR SENIOR CENTER ARCHITECT. Mr. Hartung advised that staff has compiled a *`short list" for the senior center design and is looking for Council direction as to how to proceed with the process. Mayor Pena noted that staff has reviewed 16 proposals for the design of the senior center, in which four were selected. He asked Council if they wished to have a committee set up to interview the four or if the Council wishes to interview them. He said that he, personally, would like to interview all four. Council Member Sniff wished to interview all four. Council Member Franklin wished to see at least one Council Member serve on the committee if that is the option selected. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/Franklin that a committee be Set up to interview the 4 architects and that Mayor Pena and Council Member Sniff sit on the committee and that a recommendation be brought back to Council. Mayor Pena wished to see a member of the senior community also serve. Council concurred and Council Member Bohnenberger so amended his motion. Council Member Franklin accepted the amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-73. Gertrude Cheney, 54-255 Avenida Carranza, stated that as a member of the senior community, she wished to know more about the architecture and what is to come about. She commented on the cramped conditions at the existing facility and the fact that some of the programs have a waiting list because of lack of space. She asked that more information be made available, possibly through the newsletter. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 9 April 21, 1992 5. PRESENTATION OF INITIAL SCREENING FOR CIVIC CENTER ARCHITECT. Mr. Herman advised that a staff committee reviewed eight proposals for landscaping design services for the Civic Center. The Committee recommends that either the Council interview or direct staff to interview the 3 firms noted in the staff report. Council Member Sniff wished to have all three be interviewed by all the Council at the next meeting. Council Member Bohnenberger supported a sub-committee to conduct the interviews. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Franklin that all three be interviewed by the Council at the next meeting. Motion carried with Council Member Bohnenberger voting no. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-74. Council concurred that if all three can't be present at the next meeting, a special meeting is to be set up, possibly at noon one day to do the interviews; but to attempt to conduct them at the next regular Council meeting. 6. CONSIDERATION OF EXTRA SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE GRUEN & ASSOC. CONTRACT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE CIVIC CENTER. Mr. Reynolds advised that as a result of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which went into effect January 26, 1992; and changes in the requirements for fire alarm systems by the Fire Department, staff is asking for authorization to contract for extra services with Gruen & Assoc. They would be required to research the ADA to determine what changes are necessary in order to comply with the Act, at a cost of $3,500. An additional $6,600 is being requested for modification to the fire alarm system. Council Member Bohnenberger asked if the cost includes the plan modifications and Mr. Reynolds advised not, noting that it isn't yet known what modifications will be required. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bohnenberger that staff be authorized to contract for extra services with Gruen & Assoc. regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act and that the modifications be authorized to the fire alarm system at a cost of $10,100. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-75. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 10 April 21, 1992 CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS SESSION NO. 3. Mr. Reynolds noted that Item No. 3 died for lack of a second and questioned how to proceed, because without the Contract Change Order it's going to hold up the completion of construction including the La Fonda piping. Mayor Pena suggested that the matter be reconsidered. He understood that the City has to move the irrigation line at its expense and Mr. Reynolds said that based upon what we normally expect from other utilities, he intends to backcharge CVWD for that work. All of the other utilities are being moved at the cost of the utility. However, at this point, the CVWD has not felt that they have to accommodate our construction work. Council Member Bohnenberger offered a point of clarification in that the irrigation system under discussion is located within federal rights-of-way reserved by the Federal Government. They are not in and under an encroachment permit issued by the County or the City. The District has prior rights in these areas. That's the difference between their irrigation facilities and other utilities. It's a matter of who was there first as who has first rights. See Pages 7, 8 and 31 for additional discussion) 7. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND 50TH AVENUE. Mr. Speer advised that this project consists of the widening of Eisenhower Drive and the installation of median islands. The project is estimated at $1,000,050 and is in the current budget. There is some finalizing on the final scope of work, which leaves a shortfall of about $150,000. He added that CalTrans will fund 10% of the work. Council Member Bohnenberger asked if any of the streets are within CVAG's regional plan and Mr. Speer advised not. Council Member Sniff asked if there are any problems with availability of the funds and Mr. Kiedrowski advised that the funds are available given the conversations about setting aside for any future losses that may be contemplated. This is a project that staff believes needs to be done and would like to have it done before the season. Council Member Sniff asked why CalTrans is funding part of the cost and Mr. Speer advised that the State has a program called BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 11 April 21, 1992 the State and Local Partnership Funds, which is part of gas taxes. The City proposed $10 million worth of work to the State and they have agreed to fund a total of $1 million 10%) Council Member Sniff questioned the number of days to complete the work and Mr. Speer advised between 120-150 days. Council Member Franklin wished to go through the budget process for 1992-93 before proceeding with this project even though it has been budgeted, given the City's current financial status. Council Member Bohnenberger stated that major reconstruction of 50th Avenue has to be done. He favored proceeding with the project. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/ Rushworth to authorize a call for bids for construction of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue when the plans are completed. Motion carried with Council Members Franklin, Sniff voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-76. 8. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE DATE PALM TREE LOCATIONS FOR 60 TREES TO BE REMOVED FROM NEW CALLE TAMPICO STREET RIGHT-OF- WAY. Mr. Speer advised that the need to remove about 60 date palms is a result of the proposed realignment and widening of Calle Tampico. Some options are 1) locate them in clusters at the upper end of the Cove along Tecate, five at the end of each street about 12 clusters) at an estimated cost of $36,000, including irrigation; or 2) place them in a row along the Bear Creek Bike Path between Chillon and Tecate at an estimated cost of $42,000; or 3) cluster them in groupings and/or rows in the vicinity of the CVWD water tank at the southeast corner of the Cove at a cost to be determined. In response to Council Member Rushworth, Council Member Sniff advised that these trees have been harvested annually. Council Member Rushworth asked if it can be determined how much revenue could be derived from them if they are transplanted. Council Member Sniff did not believe that would be cost- effective, that the aesthetic value is all we can realistically look at. You can find someone to farm them for the City. He felt that they would be very pretty at the top of the Cove. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 12 April 21, 1992 Council Member Franklin questioned the feasibility of using some of them to replace the ones in bad shape along Obregon and Council Member Sniff pointed out that they are different the ones along obregon are ornamental. Mayor Pena asked how much they could be sold for and Mr. Speer said that staff could look into it. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Sniff to approve implementation of staff's recommendation No. 1. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Pena stated that he would like to see staff look into how much they could be sold for. Council concurred on carrying this matter over so staff can investigate how much they could be sold for. 9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25499 REVISED) REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION WHICH INVOLVES THE DIVISION OF 88.5 ACRES INTO 33 LOTS AND PERMITTED 308 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF 58TH AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET AND WEST OF LAKE CAHUILLA IN THE PGA WEST DEVELOPMENT. APPLICANT: SUNRISE COMPANY. Mr. Trousdell, Associate Planner, advised that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the requested one-year time extension. Council Member Franklin referred to the staff s report in which a condition has been imposed to improve 58th Avenue without the timing of that requirement having been determined and questioned the reason for that. Mr. Trousdell advised that since some of the maps to the south of 58th haven't moved forward, it hasn?t been called forward. Probably in a few years, there will be a need for it. Mr. Kiedrowski noted that it will be bonded for. RESOLUTION NO. 92-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING? TENTATIVE TRACT 25499 REVISED), 1ST EXTENSION OF TIME TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Franklin that Resolution No. 92-43 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 13 April 21, 1992 10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING VARIANCE 92-021 TO ALLOW RESIDENCE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 53-185 AVENIDA BERMUDAS TO EXCEED 17' BUILDING HEIGHT. APPLICANT: JOHN GUENTHER. Mr. Sawa advised that on April 14, 1992, the Planning Commission considered an application for a variance to exceed the 17 maximum building height in the SR Zone. The property is located at 53-185 Avenida Bermudas. The building is currently under construction it has been framed and is ready to be tiled and exterior stucco. During a recent inspection, the Building Department found that the building actually exceeded the 17' height limitation. Based upon their estimates, it will be 18' to 18'3". He noted that it was pointed Out in the staff report that during the Plan Checks, the applicant was notified that it appeared that the building would exceed the 17' limitation. The applicant, or his representative assured the City that it would not. The Planning Commission believed that the findings necessary to approve a variance could not be made and therefore, denied the request. The effect of this action is that the applicant will have to cut down the height of the building and comply with the 17' maximum building height. Mr. Sawa then presented photos. Council Member Bohnenberger asked for clarification of a discrepancy in the height of the building and Mr. Sawa advised that the 17 5 1/2" is what the Building Department measured from the finished floor to the bottom of the sheeting inside the house. However, you count the height of the building from the finish grade outside, so it was obvious that it was going to exceed 17'. Mr. Sawa noted that this is only a report of action, so if the Council wishes to consider taking an action other than what the Planning Commission took, the Council would have to appeal that decision and it would then be advertised as a public hearing; or the applicant can appeal and have a public hearing. In response to questions by Council, Mr. Hartung advised that at the first plan-check the height was noted and they re- submitted, and it was called again at that plan-check, which was done before the Building Permit was issued. Therefore, the building is not being built according to the approved plans. Mr. Rusty Rhodes, advised that at the time of plan-check it was noted that there might be a problem and it was re- BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 14 April 21, 1992 submitted to their architect, who said that it would just barely make it. Unfortunately, all of their specialists, the architect, engineer, etc. were measuring from the top of finished floor. When it was brought to his attention at first plan-check, it called for a 5 in 12 roof and it was then modified to be a 4 in 12, and the architect said that it would meet the requirement. He added that he saw his job as having to insulate his boss Mr. Guenther) from petty problems, so he dealt with the architects and the truss engineer, etc., without letting him know about the difficulties that had come up. He advised that there are other homes which exceed the height limitation and asked that enforcement be consistent. Mr. John Guenther, 53-235 Bermudas, believed that the City staff has been selective in their enforcement. If you take his plans as submitted to Plan Check, which includes a truss calc, you 11 find that there's no way the home can meet the City Code, which he didn't know until about a week ago. He noted that none of the problems found in Plan Check were submitted to him, as the applicant and believed that they should have been. Council Member Bohnenberger interjected that the only action which can be taken today is to set the matter for a public hearing the variance cannot be granted at this time. Mayor Pena believed that Mr. Guenther is looking for some direction from the Council as to whether or not he should proceed with the variance. Mr. Guenther expressed concern that the City?s process in these matters is so long, it's not workable. If the Council can't give him some way to proceed, then the work to cut off the roof will begin tomorrow. Mayor Pena stated that at this point, he would be inclined to grant the variance and supported the scheduling of a public hearing on the issue. He has been by the house and it is not out of character with the neighborhood. Council Member Rushworth supported the decision of the Planning Commission. He was sorry about the problems with staff, but if they had conformed to Code, there would have been no problems. Council Member Bohnenberger supported the scheduling of a public hearing. Council Member Franklin also supported the scheduling of a public hearing and is inclined to grant a variance. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 15 April 21, 1992 Council Member Sniff also favored a public hearing. The roof- line does not depart from the roof-lines immediately adjacent to it. Ms. Honeywell suggested that the Council consider an amendment to the Municipal Code as an alternative to granting a variance. Technically, a variance should not be granted unless there is something peculiar to that site that makes it impossible to build according to the standards of the zoning. Mr. Kiedrowski said that staff can look into it. MOTION It was moved by Council Members sniff/Bohnenberger that a public hearing be scheduled on Variance No. 92-021 for May 19, 1992. Motion carried with Council Member Rushworth voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-77. Council recessed until 7:00 P.M. 11. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET COMMITMENT FOR FY 1992-93 FOR CONTINUATION OF GENERAL PLAN UP-DATE, PHASE II CONTRACT WITH BRW, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO PHASE II CONTRACT WITH BRW. Mr. Fred Baker advised that this matter which was continued from the previous meeting is a request to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and sign a contract and make a project commitment of $100,000 with BRW for Phase II of the General Plan Up-Date. John McNamara, Principal of BRW, addressed the Council advising that Phase I of the General Plan Up-Date is 95% complete. They are at the beginning of Phase II, which is preparation of the General Plan Elements, EIR, public hearings, etc. About a month ago, they prepared an initial cost estimate for preparation of Phase II Elements for a total of $187,000. That amount is slightly more than double the original estimate in the proposal submitted August 1990. Some of the reasons for the increases are due to inflation; and they under-estimated the cost of doing the EIR as they were unaware that cities in this area have a preponderance to sue other cities, so more extensive work is necessary. They have gone back and sharpened their pencils and have submitted a revised figure using their 1991 hourly rates. They've also made an assumption after meeting with staff, that the EIR will not be as controversial as they had originally thought. The new estimated budget is $151,000 to complete the entire scope of work for Phase II including responses to the EIR comments. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 16 April 21, 1992 Council Member Franklin asked what has been spent to-date and Mr. Herman advised $97,000 and this will be an additional $51,000. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Franklin to approve a budget commitment for FY 1992/93 of $100,000 for continuation of the General Plan Up-Date Phase II contract with BRW, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and sign the Phase II contract with BRW, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $150,990. Motion carried with Council Member Bohnenberger voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-78. 12. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES. ORDINANCE NO. 204 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 91-069 AND CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. CASE NO. CZ 91-069 BESTCO & CITY OF LA QUINTA. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Rushworth that Ordinance No. 204 be adopted on second reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Franklin, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 13. CONTINUED RECONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED DIVISION OF THE INLAND EMPIRE DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES. Mrs. Juhola noted that she did a survey of the Valley Cities, which has been presented to the Council relative to actions taken on this matter. Council took no further action. 14. CONSIDERATION OF ADVERTISING BUDGET FOR TENTH ANNIVERSARY COMMITTEE. Council Member Bohnenberger suggested that the Tenth Anniversary Committee be given an advertising budget for the final week-end's activities. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 17 April 21, 1992 MOTION It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/ Rushworth that the Tenth Anniversary Committee be given $2,000 for advertising. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-79. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS TRACT 26524 THE ORCHARD STROTHER COMPANIES. 3. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS PARCEL 26525 THE ORCHARD STROTHER COMPANIES. 4. APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 26524 THE ORCHARD STROTHER COMPANIES. 5. APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL 26525 THE ORCHARD STROTHER COMPANIES. 6. Removed from the agenda. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bohnenberger that the Consent Calendar be approved as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-80. Council recessed until 7:00 P.M. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Pena announced that Leslie Rue, 54-960 Avenida Diaz, won the Landscaped for Ecology Award for the month of March. Mayor Pena presented John Klimkiewicz and Thomas Thornburgh with plaques recognizing their service on the City's original Planning Commission in commemoration of the City's Tenth Anniversary. Mayor Pena presented Lucia Moran, Sue Steding and John walling with plaques recognizing their past service on the City's Planning Commission in commemoration of the City's Tenth Anniversary. Mayor Pena presented Sylvia Lawson mailed), Wilfred Lawson mailed), Beverly Montgomery, Jim Montgomery, Dottie Rice, Fred Rice, Kay Wolff and Roxie Yessayian mailed) with plaques recognizing their participation on the City's Incorporation Task Force in commemoration of the City's Tenth Anniversary. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 18 April 21, 1992 Mrs. LiCalsi, Administrative Analyst, advised that as part of the City's Tenth Anniversary celebrations, the Library hosted a sleep- over" for the children and they baked the City a birthday cake, which she presented to the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. TENTATIVE TRACT 23773 PHASE 2) STARLIGHT DUNES A REQUEST FOR A SECOND ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION 101 LOTS ON 28 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET. APPLICANT: STARLIGHT DUNES PARTNERSHIP. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/sniff that public hearing on Tentative Tract 23773 be continued to May 5, 1992. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92 81. 2. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 27131 FOR FOUR PARCELS AND REMAINDER PARCEL ON 142+ ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON ST. & FRED WARING DR. APPLICANT: VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT. APPELLANT: COMMITTEE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION OF BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA. Mayor Pena advised that he was going to abstain from this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Sawa, Principal Planner, advised that the matter before the Council is a Parcel Map request to create four parcels and a remainder parcel he depicted the location of subject property on a display map). The parcels vary in sizes, with the largest parcel Parcel #2) about 66 acres and the smallest is the remainder parcel, which is about 10.75 acres, with a total acreage of about 142 acres. The applicant is proposing to create a new street through the property which would align with Palm Royale Drive on the south and with Mountain View on the west. Darby Road, which is an easement, will be relocated and intersect with the new road. As a result of an approval of the Parcel Map at a Director's Hearing, the Committee for the Environmental Preservation of Bermuda Dunes and the Bermuda Dunes Advisory Council appealed the decision to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, on March 24, 1992, reaffirmed the action of the Planning Director and denied the appeals. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 19 April 21, 1992 This matter is exempt from CEQA, therefore, no environmental review or negative declaration has been prepared or has been deemed necessary. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, read a Section 15315 of the State's CEQA Guidelines and Section 66424.6(a) of the Subdivision Map Act with regards to categorical exemptions. She further noted that the remainder parcel is not considered a parcel. Tom Thornburgh, 42-600 Cook Street, Palm Desert, addressed the Council reviewing the history of the project through the general planning, zoning, etc. He believed that since the general plan and zoning are in place, that it's too late to protest at this point, and the procedure at this point, is merely to move on with the project. The reason the street was brought through and the reason the Parcel Map was used as an instrument to proceed with was they needed to establish all the proper easements and set-backs. He asked for Council's consideration so that they can move forward with their project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Frank Goodman, 78-200 Hidden River Road, Bermuda Dunes, advised that he is Chairman of the Bermuda Dunes Community Council, owner of the Washington Street Apartments and is a homeowner in the area. He was opposed to the Parcel Map because the project has not had a proper environmental review. It is their feeling that this project is not exempt from CEQA because the remainder parcel was designed for this type of map and, therefore, is an illegal subdivision. He believed that under law, this must be treated as a subdivision. The design of the present Parcel Map is not consistent with the pre- approved zoning of the property some of the lot lines have been changed and therefore, requires a zone change, which is subject to CEQA. In response to Council Member Rushworth, Ms. Honeywell advised that one of the reasons this Parcel Map is exempt from CEQA is because there is not yet a proposed project. The other thing to keep in mind is that when each of these parcels are to be developed, they will have to come forward for a Subdivision Map and at that time, there will be a CEQA review. Gil Holmes, 43-871 Via Granada, Desert Breezes, stated that they feel strongly that with 3 quadrants of the intersection of Washington and Fred Waring zoned residential, that it's inappropriate to super-impose a commercial development. He commented on the traffic impacts and noise impacts. He felt that an EIR needs to be done. He also noted that no one has BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 20 April 21, 1992 ever been notified of a meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council relating to this property. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman advised that notices were sent in accordance with requirements of law. Judith Mandell, 43-686 Via Montego, representing the Board of Directors of a 247 member homeowners association of Desert Breezes, commented on the number of vacant offices and apartments in the area, so they do not believe that this project is needed or necessary. She commented on the traffic problems at this intersection. She also asked why they have not been notified of meetings regarding this property and also asked why the CEQA guidelines were not followed. They oppose changing this area from residential to commercial. John McGay, 78-661 Avenue 42, commented that 55 acres is the size of the Town Center. He read the remainder of the Code Section Ms. Honeywell read stating that if the gross acreage of the remainder parcel is five acres or more, it need not be shown on the map, so he asked why it's being shown unless there's some specific purpose the developer has in mind. He then reviewed the history of this property concluding that he was opposed to the proposed parcel map. In response to Council Member Franklin, regarding Mr. McGay's reading of the Code, Ms. Honeywell advised that someone could argue whether or not it's four or five parcels, but she had no problem with our interpretation that, as it was brought to the City, as a remainder parcel. There are restrictions on the remainder you can't go ahead and sell it without coming back and doing other things. She also noted, that the applicant could have merged the remainder with Parcel No. 2. She also pointed out that there is no zone change before the Council this is simply a parcel division. Frank Goodman stated that the reason why the people were not involved in the General Plan Amendment or zoning was because there was not a requirement for a public hearing. Tom Thornberg advised that all proper public hearings were held on the General Planning and Zoning of this property. Mrs. Mandell stated that they are not contesting that there were no public hearings, but that no one was notified. John Garber, 43-548 Desert Breezes, stated that he has never seen a project like this without having an EIR. In the interest of good neighbors, there should be one. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 21 April 21, 1992 Earl Watson, 43-500 Via Magellan, stated that they only heard about this two days ago and they have not had adequate time to research the matter. He is an architect and Chairman for Desert Breezes and asked for additional time to study the issue. Gene Mccauliffe, 43-761 Port Maria, advised that his home is the closest to the property in question and he just found out about this meeting last evening. He urged the Council to be considerate of the things expressed here, as he believes that this is another mini-mall in the City. Stan Garnett, 43-674 Via Montego, advised that they have not received any notices in the four years he?s lived at Desert Breezes. He noted that across the freeway, there's going to be 6,000 homes within the next ten years, which means at least 6,000 more cars on Washington, which is going to create havoc. He asked that this be taken into consideration. Pete Glucier, 42-205 Washington, noted that there are two accesses out of Darby Rd. for 150 acres and felt that this is a problem. Leslie Goetz, 40-791 Encino Way, Bermuda Dunes, didn't believe that the Planning Commission and City Council fully understand the depth of the emotion and bad feeling that has resulted from the annexation and the planned extensive commercial development. She supported a serious environmental assessment and urged the Council to consider the affect of this project on a community which is so opposed to this type of development. Sherrie Trevor, 43-516 Via Magellan, stated that she and her husband moved here from Los Angeles for a quieter life-style and hoped that it isn't going to change. There being no one else wishing to speak, the PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to Council Member Bohnenberger, Mr. Herman advised that the action before the Council at this time will give the applicant no further development rights than what he presently has. The General Planning and zoning was done under a public hearing and in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Council Member Rushworth stated that it seems that the concerns of the residents are not before the Council at this time. It appears that the only matter of concern is the legality of the remainder parcel. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 22 April 21, 1992 Council Member Sniff felt that the matters being surfaced here that are legitimate are 1) the interpretation of the remainder parcel, and 2) notification of the surrounding residents. Mr. Herman advised that developers are required to submit a list of surrounding property owners within 300' prepared and certified by a title company for the City to utilize in meeting the notification requirements. Council Member Franklin noted that as each of the parcels come up for approvals for specific projects, they will be re- evaluated, which will provide the residents an opportunity for input. Council Member Sniff asked what kind of project will require an EIR and Mr. Herman stated that is undetermined. If all of the issues can be mitigated in the environmental assessment, then an EIR would not be required. If we believe that some of them need to be further evaluated, then a focused EIR could be required. Council Member Bohnenberger stated that this appears to be a legal parcel map and that all legal procedures have been followed. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/Franklin to deny the appeal of Parcel Map 27131 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion carried with Council Member Sniff voting NO and Mayor Pena abstaining. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-82. Gil Holmes, asked if the Council would entertain a petition to consider the rezoning of this property. They do not feel they've had due?process. Ms. Honeywell advised that it's always within the Council's prerogative to consider rezoning a particular site. The citizens would not be able to be an applicant, since they are not the property owners; however, they could do a petition asking the Council to reconsider the zoning. 3. PREANNEXATION ZONING 91-071 ANNEXATION NO. 8 FROM COUNTY DESIGNATION A-1-20 TO CITY OF LA QUINTA A-1-20 LIGHT AGRICULTURAL) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 8TH AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 2,600' EAST OF MADISON STREET. APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA. Mr. Herman presented staff report showing the property in question on a map advising that the zoning is proposed to be the same as the County's, which is A-1-20,000. The property involves the Imperial Irrigation District property. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 23 April 21, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED No one wished to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bohnenberger to take up Ordinance No. 206 by title and number only and that further reading be waived. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 206 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, PREZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE CITY AS DESCRIBED IN CHANGE OF ZONE 91-071, PURSUANT TO SECTION 65859 OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CODE. CASE NO. CZ 91-071. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bohnenberger that Ordinance No. 206 be introduced on first reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Franklin, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-023 CITY-WIDE TO ADD TITLE 7 *`HISTORIC PRESERVATION" TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE. APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA. Mr. Herman advised that the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on the adoption of an Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is before the Council at this time. A minor modification was made redefining Historic District and Historic Resource and also changed the composite of the Commission, and the enforcement to Building and Safety. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Fred Rice, 48,780 Eisenhower, President of La Quinta Historical Society, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. He asked that the composite of the Commission be amended to add that the members with expertise in architecture, archaeology, history, etc., be members of the Historical Society. There being no one else wishing to speak, the PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 24 April 21, 1992 Mr. Kiedrowski suggested that the Council might wish to consider modifying the section regarding composition of the Commission and instead, state that the Planning Commission shall also serve as the Historic Preservation Commission. He noted that the reason for this suggestion is the amount of staff time involved in staffing a separate commission. Council Member Sniff stated that he favored the ordinance and that the Commission should be set-up to meet quarterly. He was not pleased with the composition, he wished to see it more inclusive. He preferred that it be re-written to state The Commission shall consist of five members. All members of the Commission must have knowledge of and a demonstrated interest in historic preservation and of local history. All members shall be residents of the City for three years." He didn't believe that the remainder of the criteria was necessary. Additionally, he noted that the term is set at two years; whereas, all other committees/boards/commissions are for three years. Mayor Pena agreed with the need for the ordinance, but not for forming a separate Commission at this time. Later on, when there is more space and more staff, if a need is demonstrated, then a separate Commission can be established. He noted that the Historical Society can and probably will monitor it. He agreed with the need for a museum and will work with Fred Rice to see that one is established. Council Member Franklin agreed with the need for the ordinance and wished to see the criteria for the Commission set-up, because there's nothing in the ordinance which states that they must meet. Council Member Bohnenberger agreed with the composition being the Planning Commission until such time as it becomes necessary, through work-load to set-up a separate Commission. The Planning Commission can hold joint meetings, in the same way the Council/Redevelopment Agency currently does. Council Member Sniff felt that it would be an error not to set-up a separate Commission. You need to have dedicated historians to serve in this role. He didn't believe that, as a group, the Planning Commission has the real interest or dedication to serve as the Historic Preservation Commission. Mayor Pena disagreed, he felt that the Planning Commissioners are dedicated and will serve in this additional role adequately. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 25 April 21, 1992 NOTION It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/ Rushworth that Ordinance No. 207 be taken up by title and number only and that further reading be waived as amended. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 207 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TITLE 7 HISTORICAL PRESERVATION" TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND CONCURRENCE WITH THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. CASE NO. ZOA 92-023 CITY OF LA QUINTA. It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/Rushworth that Ordinance No. 207 be introduced on first reading as amended to state that the Planning Commission shall act as the Historic Preservation Commission. Council Member Sniff felt that the interests between the Planning Commission and the preservation of history are too different and believed that this is a mistake. He stated that he will vote for the motion in the absence of anything else. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Franklin, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 40 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE CITY ON EXISTING APPROVED LOTS. APPLICANT: STOCKMAN DEVELOPMENT/CITY OF LA QUINTA. Mr. Herman advised that staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment of the proposal by the City of La Quinta and Stockman Development, and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for filing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AUDREY OSTROWSKI, P.O. Box 351, La Quinta, asked if this is the self-help program and Mayor Pena advised not. There being no one else wishing to speak, the PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 26 April 21, 1992 MOTION It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/ Rushworth to concur with the environmental determination by adopting a Negative Declaration for the Stockman proposal to construct 40 single-family lots dispersed throughout the City. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-83. At this time, Mayor/Chairman Pena called the meeting of the Redevelopment Agency to order noting that all members are present. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BETWEEN CITY OF LA QUINTA/LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. 1. DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY THE AGENCY TO WES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PURSUANT TO A PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that the proposal will allow Mr. Stockman to develop a number of single-family homes in the Cove with assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Honeywell noted that the program is currently designed to be a 40-year loan, in which the covenants are released from the property at the end of that time frame. The loan then becomes due, and the money then comes back to the low-mod fund of the Agency. That seemed appropriate, because with the covenants coming of f, they will then be able to sell the property or refinance it at fair-market value. However, if the Council does not wish to do that it can be re-written to have the note forgiven at the end of 40-years. One idea discussed with the Mayor was to leave the covenants on for 30- years and have a declining balance the last ten-years of the note. Mayor Pena suggested that if someone is in the home for 40- years, the loan should be forgiven; but if it is transferred and sold several times during the last ten years, it wouldn't be fair for the person in there for a short-time to get the full benefit of the 35-years prior to that. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Audrey Ostrowski, P.O. Box 351, La Quinta, felt that it's important that everyone have a place to live, but many people in the Cove are upset at having these homes in the Cove, because they are concerned as to whether or not the people will be able to afford to keep them up and pay the taxes. She felt that mobile homes may be more appropriate for this program or fixing up existing homes to today's standards. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 27 April 21, 1992 Walter Stockrnan, advised that they are enthusiastic about this program and felt that they are bringing value with the homes they're bringing to the Cove. There being no one else wishing to speak, the PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mayor Pena felt that the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement is one of the strictest he has seen, especially the C.C. & R's that are applied to the homes. He noted that the C.C. & R's can be re-addressed and changed at a later date, if it's found necessary. Council Member Franklin asked why the Agency is buying the land and conveying title. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that it's because of some of the discussions we ve had with C.V.H.C. Council reserved the decision of designating the lots and it's easier to roll them through escrow and then deal with Stockman later. RESOLUTION NO. 92-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO THE APPROVAL BY THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/Rushworth that Resolution No. 92-44 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. RA 92-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND MAKING OTHER FINDINGS. It was moved by Mr. Sniff, seconded by Mr. Bohnenberger that Resolution No. RA 92-5 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the joint meeting of the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL WAS ADJOURNED. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 28 April 21, 1992 STUDY SESSION 1. PRESENTATION BY DR. MARK BENSON OF EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF A MEDICAL CACHE. This matter was continued to May 5, 1992. 2. REVIEW OF REVENUE PROJECTIONS FOR 1992/93 FISCAL YEAR. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that the current estimate for next year's revenue is basically flat we're in a recession, building has not picked-up, so we're not projecting a significant pick up in building for the next year. This says that anything we add to the budget is going to be difficult this year. Staff will take another look at the revenue projections in 60-days as we get closer to adoption of the budget. 3. DISCUSSION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION AND ACQUISITION LOCATIONS IN PHASE V AREA OF THE COVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Mr. Speer, Assistant City Engineer, advised that this matter is two-fold, it has to do with the abandonment of Tampico between Eisenhower and Carranza, in which we would be creating five cul-de-sacs he presented a map depicting the proposed plans), and expanding the width of the green-belt. There is currently only one property that takes access off of Tampico. That is the real estate office at the corner of Eisenhower and Tampico and in order to provide them with continued access there is a proposal to build a public parking lot there, in which there would be ten spaces, which will also provide an opportunity for the public to use it to park their vehicles and use the bikepath. If the Council is desirous of proceeding in this direction, then staff will go through the formal procedure of processing it through the Planning Commission to vacate. Mr. Bohlen, Parks and Recreation Manager, advised that the Community Services Commission has recommended that a trail- stop be placed at the Duna Site at the corner of Tampico and Carranza, which over-looks the golf course. The current design is going to be impacted, however, if the Council decides to proceed with the cul-de-sacs, as there will be a security issue, because the Cul will make more difficult for the police to patrol that park. If the design is approved, then he will go back to the Commission and focus on an Eisenhower/Tampico site, or a Tecate site, or some land that Fritz Burns Foundation might be interested in assisting the City in. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 29 April 21, 1992 In response to Council Member Franklin, Mr. Bohien advised that the trail-stop is budgeted. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that the trail-stop is budgeted, but we more than likely, would do the improvements in conjunction with Phase V and be a part of that budget. He added that at this stage, we are moving forward with Phase V however, it was 9originally discussed to include both the residential and commercial? in Phase V, but that is no longer being done only the residential is being included. Council Member Franklin questioned the cost to cul the streets, and Mr. Speer advised that it will be minimal. The cost of the parking spaces would also be minimal, as we will be laying asphalt in and around the area anyway. Council Member Franklin asked if the Yucatan residents have been contacted and Mr. Speer advised that he has talked to a couple of them about the proposed closure of Tampico. Council Member Sniff stated that he was opposed to abandoning Tampico. He had no problem with the trail-stop, but felt that there is some danger in locating a facility so close to a golf course. Mayor Pena had a problem with the 5-legged intersection at Eisenhower and Montezuma and would like to see a proposed design before we do anything with Tampico. He suggested that it be revisited at a later date after he sees how the traffic is going to be handled at Eisenhower and Montezuma. Council Member Rushworth asked if the residents of the proposed culled streets, including the Yucatan residents can be surveyed before getting into a public hearing situation to see how they feel. Council concurred on a survey of the residents and agreed to add the trail-stop issue to the survey. 4. DISCUSSION OF STREET LIGHT POLICY FOR ARTERIAL STREETS IN COMMERCIAL AREAS AND SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR NON-COMMERCIAL AREAS. Continued to May 5, 1992. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 30 April 21, 1992 5. DISCUSSION OF AESTHETICS OF NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT PROPOSED FOR WASHINGTON STREET/HIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION. Continued to May 5, 1992. 6. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 90-020 VISTA SANTA ROSA STUART ENTERPRISES. Council Member Bohnenberger left the dias at this time. Mr. Craig Bryant of Winchester Asset Management, representing the applicant, Stuart Enterprises, addressed the Council advising that there are a number of conditions they wish to discuss with the Council for interpretation and/or modification. Condition No. 16 Council concurred that Mr. Bryant's illustration was acceptable and achieved the intent of the condition exhibit was not left with the City). Condition No. 23 Council concurred that the meandering sidewalk is to be on the west side of Madison with the equestrian trail on the east side. Condition No. 25 Council concurred that the applicant would be permitted to come back to the Council at a later date to discuss a Landscape & Lighting District versus a Homeowners Association. Condition No. 32 Council concurred on interpreting his pictures of homes as being representative of rural and ranch type. Condition No. 33 Council concurred on interpreting the fact that at each corner there is 1/4 acre meeting the requirement for 1/2 acre amenity core. Mr. Bryant asked that the Council ratify these interpretations at the next meeting and that the remainder of the concerns, which would need to be revised also be scheduled for consideration. Mr. Bryant then began to review proposed modifications amendments to conditions when Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, interjected that any amendments to the Specific Plan needs to go back through the process. Mr. Herman advised that he will submit the exhibits and interpretations of Council to the Planning Commission. He BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 31 April 21, 1992 noted that there is a $1,500 fee for filing an amendment to a Specific Plan. Ms. Honeywell suggested using the exhibits as attachments to the Specific Plan. Mr. Bryant noted that they plan to come in and wrap it up in a Development Agreement. Ms. Honeywell advised that before we could agree to anything in a Development Agreement, it would have to be consistent with the Specific Plan and Parcel Map, so you may want to process them concurrently. Mr. Mike Rowe, Engineer for the applicant, questioned the matters of fees, and asked if they can be reduced in light of the fact that these matters will be processed together, City costs will be reduced. There was no action taken on the request for reduction in fees. 3. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 9-B ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1, AREA B' TO REROUTE EXISTING 18" IRRIGATION LINE TO CLEAR STORM DRAIN AT LA FONDA AND WASHINGTON. See Pages 7, 8 & 31 for additional discussion) Council Member Bohnenberger abstained from this issue. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Rushworth/Sniff to approve Contract Change Order No. 9-B for Assessment District 91-1, Area B". Council Member Sniff modified the motion to state that the Change Order is to reroute existing 18" irrigation line and approve the allocation of $16,887.28 in Redevelopment Agency Funds. Council Member Rushworth accepted the amendment. Motion carried with Council Member Bohnenberger abstaining. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-84. Council Member Bohnenberger returned to the dias. BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 l City Council Minutes 32 April 21, 1992 CLOSED SESSION a. Discussion of potential pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Agreement with Riverside County Fire Department b. Discussion of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) International Treasury Management/Denman Company Iowa Trust C. Discussion of land acquisition pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Review of land acquisitions for Tampico Right-of-way d. Discussion of personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. Council reconvened with no action being taken. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Res?Respectfully submitted, SAUNDRA L JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02 BIB] 01-29-96-U01 04:27:41PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 04-U02 21-U02 1992-U02