1986 06 04 CC Minutes# M?NUTES
CITY 1?IL CITY LA QIm?IA
An adjour?? rugular iteeting of the
City uncjl of the city of la inta,
California, held at the La Cuinta
Krrrunity Center, 77-961 Avenida
La inta, California.
June 4, 1986 5:00 pm.
1. CALL To
M?yor Pena called the regular uncil fleeting to order at 5:01 p.m.,
and led the Council in the flag salute.
2. IL r?T.T
present: Council rrbers Allen, Bohnen??ger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena.
Absent: None.
Also Present: City M?ager U?er, Deputy City Manager Jennings, ty Develcpee?t
Director Stevens, and oounity Safety Coordinator Hirijier.
3. PUBLIC
4. WRITI??? CNlCATI?S
5 BY U?4CIL
6. C?SENr CAL?AR
ved by Council BOhnenberger, seconded by Council r?r Cox, to adopt
the Consent Calenddr.
Poll Call Vote:
AYES: COuncil Trbers Allen, BO?berger, Cox, lff and Mayor Pena.
NOES: None.
ABSE??: None.
ABSIAAN: None.
A. The Minutes of a City Council meeting held May 20, 1986, re a?reved as
suuuitted.
B. R?RESOLUTION? NO. 86-43. A RESOLUTION? OF ThE CITY UNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA CAL:??IA, APP?VING D??NDS.
C. Final Parcel Map No.19834, Rufus and Associates, s accepted as rec?r?ded.
D. RESOLUTION?I? 86-44. A RESOWrI? OF THE CIT'Y CX]???IL OF ThE CITY
OF LA APP?PRIATING FUNDS,
Th?TRANSFERRING?? $1,827.00 10 A?ACCOUNT No. 01-4812-111-000, MILES?? AVENUE
SE?TICFS, AND $33,578.00 10 A?LTh?I No. 01-4812-145-000, MILES. AVENUE
r?; THE UNAPPROPRIATED??P?SURPLUS GENERAL, FUND, 10 iTk? THE
CITY'S SIABE OF THE tIITx? AVE??UE R?S'I?J?fl? P?.
It was requested by the Q?Tmnity Develo?ir?nt Director, and a?roved by the Council,
that a letter be drafted for the Mayor's signature, to Eldon L? of the City of Indio,
thanking him &nd his staff for the rk they did on the Miles Avenue Pcconstr???ction
project.
Council Allen said that he uld like to see tr?re positive ublicity on joint
projects such as the Miles Avenue reconstruction project, be?en the cities of Indio
and La iinta, and that he was happy to see cities rking oooperatively ter
Mayor Pena unoed that the Council uld take the SEsSI? portion of;?
agenda next, out of Agenda order, and uld begin the portion of the a?
at 7:30 p.m., the COuncil reconvened following a dinner break.
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
# city unci1
Jur? 4, 1996
Page 2.
6. BUSINESS SE?SI?
A. he City Manager presented a report regarding an Agreement bet'w'? the City of
la Cuinta and County of Riverside for ecor??nic devel?rr?nt servioes, and
provides for services as discussed by the city uncil at a cost of $30,000 for
Fiscal Year 1986-87. Mr. Usher reported that it was etted that this arrang?T?nt
u1d expedite econanic develo??nt in IA Cuinta and the financing thods for
the provision of necessary infrastructure ich will facilitate business
devel?xr?nt. Mr. Usher explained that the individual hired w?d be a contract
loyee of the County, selected by the Industrial Develo?r?t Director of
Riverside County and the City Manager of Ia Cuinta. Mr. Usher stated that the
City would pay the County $2,500 per ironth over a 12?ronthly period, or a total
of $30,000 annually, a cost VAlich woild be matched by the County.
Council lff reiterated discussion hich occcrred at the study session,
that it be the Council 5 intent that the focus of the person hired be airrost
100% towards bringing new business into the c?TTrunity and publicizing IA Cuinta.
Mr. lff urged that the person d?osen for the job possess these necessary type
of skills. Mayor Pena stressed that the Council, at tirr?, sit and
prioritize the types of businesses the public and Council woild like to See in
IA inta.
It was by ur?il Bohnenberger, seconded by Council lff,
to apprv've an for nami'c Develo???nt Services beteeen the County
of Riverside and City of IA Quinta, for a Stin of $30,000, with a correction to
page 2., paragraph 4. to read I? ThCFusand Five Hundred $2,500.00) each.
UnanjirDusly adopted.
Mr. Usher stated that he believed a person would be selected and *?on board"
s?r?tji between gust 1 15th, 1986.
B. The counity Develo?ir??t Director presented a report regarding a bid project
for City Bid Specifications No. 86-002, Striping and Marking of Various Streets,
and explained that five Sections of City streets had been identified for this
project. Mr. Stevens explained that seven 7) bids re received, varying fr?n
$5,115.14 to $8,985.10, and recooeded award to Safety Striping Qir??y of
Filyrore, California, for $5,115.14. Mr. Stevens further requested Council autho
zation to expanding the scope of the project up to the budgeted &r?unt for this
budgetary line it? $8,500), ich uld pick up three additional City streets.
Meeed by Council lff, seconded by Council Meeer Allen, to award a
Bid Specifications No. 86-002 to Safety Striping Co., Filore, California, in th4??
ai?i?t of $5,115.14, and authorize Staff to expand the project scope of work toI?
a total of funds $8,500) as budgeted for striping in the FY 1985-86 budget.
Unanirbusly adopted.
C. The C?zrtriycity Safety Coordinator presented a report regarding proposed dog license
fees, and presented a proposed RESOLUTION establishing dog license fees as
revised:
R?RESOLUTION?? NO.86-45. A PESOUYrI? ThE Cl? WCIL flE CIT
CF IA QUI??rA, CALIF??IA, EST??ISHING DOG
M?SE FEE?.
Mr. Hirdier rec?rtended adoption of solution No.96- ich Qld bring the
City's dog license fee schedule into a parity situation with other Coachella
61? Valley cities and the County, would provide for a late penalty to be assessed at
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
# city Cnnncil
June 4, 1996
Page 3.
50% of the basic dog license fee, and uld levy an impound fee of $10 as a
surcharge for animals retrieved of f the animal control truc? before the animal?
is deliv?red to the CDunty anim? oontrol shelter.
ved by Council Bo?berger, seconded by Council x, to adopt
Resolution No. 86-45. Uaanirr?u sly a?ted.
Mayor Pena declared the Council neeting adjourned at 5:14 p.m., and stated that the
Council Qld reconvene at 7:30 p.m. for the HEARINGS portion of the Agenda.
The City Manager ann?ced, for the benefit of the??14?l?ic., that the hearings ich
uld be continued v?ere Agenda items 7. B., 7.1., Mr. Usher stated that
these hearings re to be continued until the Council r?eting of June 17, 1986.
1) Mayor Pena reconvened the Council reeting at 7:34 p.rn., and requested that all persons
wishing to address the Council on any aring agenda it?ns please lete an Intention
CD to Speak form and turn it in to the City Clerk prior to hearing of that it?.
m
7. HEARINGS
A. The O?roooity Develo?rr?nt Direttor presented a public hearing regarding
abat?rent/lot cleaning assessr?nts for placeeent on the 1986/87 property tax
roll, and explained that the intent of the public hearing s to provide the
Council the opportu?ty to hear and consider all public objections and protests,
if any, to the report filed with the Council ntining a description of each
real prop? parcel cleared or cleaned by the City. He stated that notices of
tonight S public hearing re sent to each property c?ner, and that no written
c??unicati?is were received regarding the matter. Mr. Hirdler recocended
adoption of the foll?ing proposed solut ion:
RE?OWrI? No.86-46. A RESO?I? ThE CITY IL i1? CITY
IA Q?UA, CAU?, ASSESSINQ T.T? AND
P1?JIDI? TAX U I?IN p?p? R AR?E??r
PUBLIC NUIS??E.
Mayor pena opened the public hearing to ent fr? the public. Hearing no
axrtm?ts, Mayor Pena declared the hearing closed.
ved by Council lff, seconded by Council Bohnenberger, to
adopt ReSolution No.8646. an?usly adopted.
B. The Mayor introduced a public hearing regarding General Plan No. 86?11,
a request to arr?d the General Plan And Use Plan on a 154. 5-acre site, fr? Righ
Density Residential to ixed Use oercial, M.B. Johnson Pr?erties, Applicant.
ved by Croccil seconded by Council Bohnenberger, to continue
this matter to June 17, 1986.
Mayor Pena asked if there e any public occent regarding this matter, and
hearing none, closed the public hearing. tion una?iccusly
C. The Mayor introduced a protest hearing regarding the PGA West Assessment District
relativ? to establishn?nt of Landscape Maintenance District for PGA st, and
asked the i?UUflity Developeent Director to present the Staff report. Mr. Stevens
explained that the City E?gieeer, Bob Weddle, uld present the Staff report.
Mr. ddle stated that the proceedings re to formally establish the formation
of a landscape district for the Z? st devel??nt, to fund the l?caping
rredian maintennce costs on Avenue 54 and Madison Street and maintenance of the
landscaped areas surrounding the PGA st fire Station on Avenue 54.
explained that the total assesseent for E'iscal Year 1986-87 xild be $93,947, to
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
# city il
J?m? 4, 1986
4.
be split umg the pr?2?ies in the st devel?t. &ta? that no
itten protests had been received on the project, and rec??? uncil
a?tion of the solution ordering the formation of the Quinta
District No. 1, as follows:
R?WI'I? 96-47. A RE?WT?? TIIE Cl? CIL THE
CF IA C?UFD?IA, O?E?ING ThE
E IA QLm?T]?? U?SC?pi? DIST?ICT 1 C?FI?G THE DIAC?M
ASSES?(E??T AND P?YIDING FDR ASSES???? 1?.
Mayor pena declared the public hearing c?en. aring no o?rirents, Mayor Pena
closed the public hearing. It was n?ved by uncil menberger, seconded
by C??un?il Allen, to adopt solution No. 86-47. unanirr?usly adopted.
D. The Mayor introduced three public hearings, to be held concQrrently, regarding
neral Plan ndrr?nt No. 86-009, a request to arerd the text of the Q:??ty
Developee?t Eleeent by adding a new classification Very High Density Pesidential?'
16-24 units/acre), and to arrend the land Use Plan on a 30.01 acre site fr?
dium Density sidential 4-8 units/acre) and High Density sidentiil 8-16
units/acre) to Very High Density sidential 16-24 units/acre); stern Corp.,
licant; and
E. ge of Zone No.85-020, a request for a zone change on the 30.01 acre site fr?
R-2-3350 iltiple Farily D'?llings, 3350 sq.ft. net lot per dwelling unit) to
3 General rcial); stern Corp., licant; and
F. Plot Plan No.65-254, a request for approval of a 688-unit apartrant project
on a 28.64 acre portion of the 30.01 acre site, stern Corp., licant.
larry Stevens, C?TTrLmity Developrent Director, presented the Staff report and
report fr?n the Planning Q:IT??ssion, and explained the two requests associated
with It?n 7.D. further explained the request relative to nge of Zone
No.25-020, and its relationship to the Duna la Quinta Specific Plan.
Mr. Stevens explaired, that relative to the General Plan A?ndrr?nt, the Plaiiing
O:irmission had conducted public hearings on May 13 and 27, 1986, and had
reviewed four 4) alternatives contained in the Staff report. Mr. Stevens
detailed the alternatives #1-Applicant's quest), #2-Affordable bLlsing Bonus),
#??other Bonuses), and #3-Staff mrendation, hich uld deny the pplicant's
request). Mr. Stevens reported that the Planning Cor?ssion had, on a 3-2 vote,
approved the General Plan A?erdrr?nt per Alternative No. as set forth in the
attached May 27 Staff report. explained that this reccrrr?dation ret&?red the
e)dsting diuni and High Density designations on the 30-acre site, but created a
density bcrius syst? as follows:
* Up to 25% for affordable for n?rate incomes
* Up to 35% not cumlative) for housing affordable to low and very low
incomes
* Up to 10% for particularly desirable design amenities
Mr. Stevens explained that it had been the ensus of the Planning ssion
that a Very High Density or Affordable High Density sidential land use
designation d not be appropriate, but that a density bonus system? with
associated text modifications to the General Plan oQ1d be the better approach to
allowing S(?i? higher density projects. Mr. Stevens reported on the Applicant 5
presentation and su?port on the project, outlined those appearing in favor and
in opposition to the project and reccrrrrended denial of General Plan ndrr?t
No.86-009, as outlined in the Staff report dated May 13, 1986, and because it
as felt that denial was appropriate priaarily due to the proposed density and
that the proposed density was inconsistent with the intent of the Plan and
inconsistent with Staff's interpretation of the Village" concept that was
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
# city il
3?e 4, 1986
Page 5.
discussed in the Plan. He further stated that Staff believed the intensity
inappropriate for the c?Txunity, including both density, traffic, building
height limits and other features of the plan. Mr. Stevens stated that the
uncil 5 tions e outlined in the Staff report, and explained that the
solution hich the uncil IrList adopt to raake a decision on an arr?n?t to a
General Plan had not been prepared, and a?ed tat upon conclusion of the hearing,
and that in rn?king a decision, direct Staff to bring back the solution for
adoption at a subsequent fleeting. He further explained that this was also due to
the fact that the other General Plan A??Amendment to be considered had been continued
and that all arr??ddents should be considered in the same cycle, at the sarr?
neeting, in order to ocoply with the vereeent Code sections rugulating neral
Plan axr?ndrrents.
Mr. Stevens then presented the Staff report on It?n 7. E., ange of Zone No.
85-020, and explained that the request for a change of zone fr? R-2-3350
iltiple Family sidential) or 13 dwelling units/acre, to R-3 General sidential)
ich does not specify a maxir density. He stated that the R-2-3350 zoning
s placed u? the property as part of the Duna la Quinta Specific Plan. He
stated that the Planning QIrThission had conducted public hearings on May 13 and
27, 1986, and was rec?rrcending approval y a 4-1 vote), to appr'ove the requested
zone change to R-3. Mr. Stevens explained that there were no substantive
discussion by the Planning Q?mission on this matter and no public o?TTT?ts on
matters related to the zone change. further stated that the Staff
had denial of the request, for generally the sarre reasons that Staff
did not support the General Plan rendeent request.
Mr. Stevens then presented the Planning ission and Staff report regarding
Plot Plan No.85-254, the specific design approval of the project. He discussed
the project and site plan, and stated that the Planning O:rrymission had conducted
public hearings on May 13 and 27, 1986 and had unanin?usly approved the apar?t
project subject to conditions attached in the Staff report, with revisions.
Mr. Stevens reported on the Applicant?s presentation at the Planning O:KTmission
hearing and those persons speaking on the matter. Mr. Stevens revieeed the
57 conditions as contained in the Staff report of May 27, 1986. Mr. Stevens stated
that the Staff r??dation was for denial to consistency with their
rec?rimndat ions on the General Plan r?drr?nt and ge of Zone, above.
There ere extensive questions fran the Q?uncil regarding density, height of
buildings, underground parking, crirr? and manned gating. FOllc,nng uncil
questions, Mayor Pena asked to hear fran the Applicant.
Tim Ealy, representing the Applicant, The stern proration, introduced the
various project consultants: Craig rrbs, O?Tts & Associates, project architect;
Mike Smith, J.FEBRUARY. Davidson & Associates, project engineer; George Parmeter, J.F.
Davidson & Associates, registered traffic engineer; Wayne Gerelnik,
zundel & C1anahan, gen?al conoel; Noa Sr. Vice President, Merrill
Lynch Capital Marketing Group; and Mr. Randy Greene, local representative, Merrill
Lynch. Mr. Ealy stated that he had rcents relative to certain nditions, but
uld like to withhold those ents at this point in tire and focus on the
project, and allow stern's various consultants to go through the project with
the Council and audience.
Craig s, 1535 nro'via Avenue, N?rt Beach, presented slides of various
stern aparent pro?ects and described the teents in re detail. Mr.
George Parmenter, J.F. Davidson & Associates registered traffic engieer for
The stern rporation, presented the traffic report for the Applicant. 0 6
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
# city oncil
June 4, 1986
Page 6.
Wayne Gerelnik, general counsel for the Applicant, addressed the iss?ie of the
General Plan, and provision for density us? for lo? and moderate
houSing. There was nsiderable discussion between the uncil and staff, and
Applicant? S o?sel, relative to the issue of State-mandated density nus'.
Gideon Nolan Ne?nart, Managing Director of Merrill Lynch?? Capital Markets Group,
addressed t? uncil regarding financing of the project. Tim Ealy, Western
rp., then a?ed vin Marling of lan&n?rk to address the uncil, regarding
the Dnna IA Quinta Specific Plan and General Plan dment.
Mayor Pena declared the iblic ent portion of the Treeting n Those
addressing the uncil in favor of the proposed project ere:
1. Dr. Arthur Davis 4 Morgan Ward
10170 No. Broadway 48-800 San Pedro
ythe, California IA inta, California
2. Mr. les Jirrenez 5. arles F. White, Jr.
1900 E. Thhguitz, Suite 4 P.O. Box 1030
Palm Springs, California IA inta, California
3. Suzanr? odry, ecutive Director 6. Earl Ellson
IA linta iarr?er of Firs?rld avel
P.O. Box 255 78-435 Highw?y 111
IA linta, California IA inta, California
Persons ing in favor, oontin.ued.....
7. Pobert C. nroe 12. T? Sleight, President
48-750 Avenida El Nido L.Q. Property Ow'ers Assoc.
IA inta, California 46-600 C?o Palms
8. bin R. Groat IA iinta, California
Anders?? avel 13. I?is Canpagna
IA QQinta, California P.O. Box 1286
9. Warren Bradshaw IA inta, California
Box 292 14. Chris Haenel
IA linta, California 49-475 Avenida bntero CD
10. BrUoe Cathcart IA inta, California
P.O. Box 346 15. i?' Jones C,
IA inta, California 49-300 Avenida Fernando
11. M?rk ran IA QUinta, California f\)
54-510 Avenida Rubjo 16. Steven Brurm?l
IA inta, California 50-026 Calle Posarita
IA inta, California
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
# city ur?il
4, 1996
Page 7.
Those persons speaking in opposition to the proposed project were:
1. Jim Parnell 9. John C. urguhart Jock)
52-337 Avenida Navarro 54-705 Avenida Madero
La Cuinta, California La inta, California
2. Diana Searcy 10. Audrey ostrc?
52-279 Avenida Navarro P.O. Box 351
La linta, California La inta, California
3. stanley sniff 11. Marie bbrgan read 2 letters)
P.O. Box 1414 53-780 Avenida Diaz
La inta, California La Quinta, California
4. Kay lff 12. Eleanor F. Shepherd
77-227 Calle Ehsenada 52-885 Avenida Goregon
La Quinta, California La Quinta, California
5. rothy Hed(er 13. ye C. Nystron
53-700 Avenida Diaz 78-094 Calle Norte
La OLlinta, California La Quinta, California
6. Gene Scheftner 14. Jane Utquhart
P.O. Box 1368 54-705 Avenida Madero
La Quinta, California La Quinta, California
7. Carol Ann Nelson 15. Ann Young
78-660 Avenida La Fonda, 5 77-526 Calle b?ales
La Quinta, California La Quinta, California
8. Tr'? Young
77-526 Calle Negales
La Quinta, California
N?: Mr. inson, 51-251 Avenida Coregon, La Quinta, also spoke in favor
of the General Plan arr?drr?nt and quality developeent, questioned the wi?
of very high density, t supported the ooncept of the project.
Mayor Pena adjoieeed the rreeting for a 5?ninute break. Mayor Pena declared the
meeting nver?d. Mayor Pena reeeened the hearing to let soeeone Speak had
earlier be?i overlocked. Mr. Bab Baier, 77-701 s Arboles, La Quinta, expressed
concerns reganling a Very High Density designation in the &?nt?fl area. Mr. P'
Vogelaar,54-145 Avenida Diaz, La Quinta, also spoke in o?position to the proposed
project.
uncil discussion then took place, with Council Maeer lff addressing the Council
formally in opposition to the proposed project, change of zone and plot plan. Mr.
lff s c?o? centered on density, beilding height, quality of life, traffic
and incc?tioility with the *`village'9 concept, along with size of apar?t units.
Coincil tter Allen spoke in favor of the proposed project, t expressed conce?
regarding dnnsity, stating that he uld not be opposed to continuing the matter
until the density issue was more clearly understood. felt that traffic concerns
uld be addressed before traffic fr?n the project becce a prool? and stated that
he did not believe the height of ildings to be a p?l? because a 36' height had
been approved for Duna La Quinta. further stated that he believed manageeent and
control of the apar?ts was a key in keeping the project respectable.
uncil rters Bohner?erger and Mayor Pena all spd?e favorably relative to? 6
the pr?osed project, eadh expressing their concens regarding the density
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
#L??Es city uy?il
4, 1986
Page 8
of the project, pace of wth in the &1Wfl?Wfl area, pooulatic? density in the
area bounded by Calle Tampico and Washington Street, affordable using, crime?
and other areas of concern of each uncil During this discussion period,
yor Pena asked Mr. Ealy to provide clarification regarding certain questions.
Discussion regard? height of bQildings and size of units continued for scoe
tirr?. Mr. s, architect for the project, clarified of the i? size
ncerns and identified design features of the units of hich he felt the Council
should be aware. Discussion also centered around bonus incentives for design
features, such as underground parking, and the State?nardated requireeent for
density bonus' in projects with low and rr?derate inc?r? housing.
It was rr?ved by uncil Allen to approve the project, using the 16 units/acre
figure, with a 25% bonus for affordable housing, giving the Applicant a im?xir of
20 units/acre, but deleting the three-story units fr?n the design. bbtion failed
for lack of a second.
uncil B?eeerger suggested the Council focus on It?n 7.D., the requested
General Plan A??n??nt No.86-009, and att?r?t to reach agreeeent on this itE?n.
Mr. Bohnenberger seconded by Council Allen, to adopt Alternative
of the alternatives presented in the Staff report of May 27, 1986, and directing
Staff to prepare a Resolution to aeend the General Plan to inseet in it the language
generally set forth in Alternative After lengthy discussion, with Council
lff in sition, the foll?ing roll call vote was taken:
AYES: Council Ma?s Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox and Mayor Pena.
NOES: Council lff.
ABSI?IN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The uncil then began delileration on It?n 7.E., the nge of Zone No. 85-020.
It was rr?ved by Council Cox, seconded by Council 6? Allen, to approve
a ange of Zone r?quest No. 85-020 and direct Staff to bring back an Or?ance
for first reading at the next v?ting.
ll Call Vote:
Council rbers Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox and Mayor Pena.
Es: Council lff. C)
ABSE??: None.
ABSIAIN: None. 0
The Q)uncil then considered It?n 7.?., Plot Plan No.85-254. It was rruved by
uncil Allen, seeonded by Council LIL?? Cox, to approve Plot Plan No.
85-254 and adopt the Negative Declaration, subject to the rccc?ndation of the
Planr?g O:?riniss ion Oonditions, with revisions.
ll Call Vote:
AY?: Council bers Allen, Bo?berger, Cox, and Mayor Pena.
NOE?S: Council lff.
ABSE??: None.
AB??IN: None.
Mayor Pena ann?ed the u?eting adjoered for a 7?riinute break. Mayor Pena
reconvened the fleeting at 1:36 p.m.
J6?
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
# ty uncil
J?ir? 4, 1986
9.
G. Mayor Pena introduced a public hearing regarding ecific Plan No.83-001, Arrendeent
No. 3, a request to anend the Duna La Quinta project by decreasing the site fr? 246
to 160 acres, increasing the total nurrber of dwellings fr?n 1,146 to 1,225 units;
I?d?k Land eny, Inc., Applicant. Mr. Stevens presented the Staff report and
findings of the Planning C?mmission. Mr. Stevens further reported that he had just
been advised that the Applicant w?s in disagr?eent with the conditions, hidh re
not evident at the Planrdng O:irinission rr?eting, and he therefore not object if
this matter cc?tinued for two eeks.
ved by Cour?il lff, seconded by uncil 1.6L?r BOhnenberger, to Continue
It?n 7.G. to June 17, 1986. L?ianirrously adopted.
H. The Mayor introduced a public hearing regarding Steeet Vacation No.85-010, appraval
to vacate porti?is of Adams Street between a point 1826.2 feet north of the Avenue 50
centerline, southerly to a point approximately 2630 feet south of the Avenue 52
centerline; City initiated and andaark land Applicants. Mr. Stevens,
Q:Kr'?ty Devel?ent D?tor, presented the Staff report, and the Council heard
frc?n Mr. b tito, CWT Engineering, expressed conceres regarding a laddl?ed
situation caused by the Adams Street vacation. Mr. Lotito requested access to their
parcel fr? a tr?re direct route off of Washington?? Street.
There being no furher ooents, Mayor Pena closed the public hearing.
bved by Council L?r Allen, se?nded by Council Qz?c, to adopt the
solution No. 86-48, as follows:
RESOWrI? No. 86-48. A R?IYrl(? ThE CITY ThE CITY
OF IA JIflA, CALIP??, VCCATING
PO?I'I?S AD?S
unanix?ously adopted.
I. ved by Council ii? Allen, seconded by Council Bohnenbnrger, to continue
It?s I J. public hearings regarding an &r?ndeent to the text of the Municipal Land
Use Ordinance, a request to aeend the Ordin?ce by adding the Special sidential
Single-FarrLily Zone?'. Unanirrously adopted.
9.
ved by Council hnen??ger, seconded by Council 6?r Allen, to adjourn.
The reuular adjoarned fleeting of the City Council of the City of La inta, California,
was adjourned sday,June 4,1986, at 2: am., at the La Quinta xricunity Center,
77-861 Avenida nteztnna, La inta, California.
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02
BIB]
02-27-96-U01
02:42:56PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
06-U02
04-U02
1986-U02