Loading...
1985 02 19 CC Minutes# MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting of the City Council held at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. February 19, 1985 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Cox called the La Quinta City Council meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. A. The flag salute was led by Andy Vossler. Z. ROLL CALL Present: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox. Absent: None. Also Present: City Manager Usher, City Attorney Longtin, Administrative Services Coordinator Jennings, Community Development Director Stevens, Acting Community Safety Coordinator Hirdler. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT The Mayor announced that this time was set aside for citizens to address the Council on matters relating to City business, and reminded those present that a three 3) minute time limit on comments would be enforced. Comments were heard from the following persons: A. John Bund, 54-865 Avenida Alvarado, La Quinta, addressed the Council expressing concern regarding the notice of intent to circulate a petition relative to Adams Street which was filed with the City today. Mr. Bund stated that he felt the petition to be an insidious threat in its scope and nature towards the City, and cited problems it would cause for the schools, Sports & Youth Ass'n., and its impact on future recreational facilities. Mr. Bund urged the Council to call for a special municipal election to resolve the? matter, if this measure would expedite a final solution regarding the Adams Street question. B. Juanita Gayer, 49-845 Lago Drive, La Quinta, stated that she had attended a ome- owners meeting, and explained that 72 units at Lago La Quinta are in favor of Adams Street being extended. Ms. Gayer cited future hazards of increased traffic and rampant growth as reasons for her stand relative to Adams Street. C. Paul Fisher, 51-475 Calle Rondo, La Quinta, expressed support for the proposed Grove project, and cited the benefits which would accrue to the City and community in connection with this project. Mr. Fisher stated that he felt benefits from development would far outweigh any associated problems. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:03:14PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 Minutes - City Council February 19, 1985 Page Two. 5. COMMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS A. Council Member Wolff addressed the Adams Street circulation element issue, and explained background discussion from the previous Council meeting, at which time the Council had continued further action relative to calling a special election to the present Council meeting. Mr. Wolff explained that previous proponents who were circulating a petition ~o open Adams Street had subsequently withdrawn their petition, after reaching a solution which was acceptable to all parties. Mr. Wolff stated that now another petition on the same issue was being circulated, and he believed it would be very detrimental to the school and community, and was going to ask the Council to call for a special election to settle the matter. However, Mr. Wolff stated that there were a number of people who hoped to reason with the current petitioner and to allow another two weeks to seek withdrawal of the petition. Mr. Wolff moved that his motion to hold a special election be continued to the March 5th Council meeting, which was seconded by Council Member Pena, and unanimously adopted following discussion. B. Council Member Wolff expressed concern regarding the General Plan process, and explained that he was concerned that it was moving too slowly with not enough input from General Plan Committee membership. Council Member Wolff reported that the City's contract with the consultant had called for completion within six months, and the process was seriously behind schedùle. Mr. Wolff explained that the Advisory Committee would be meeting tomorrow night, and both he and Council Member Bohnenberger would be reporting back to the Council with recommendations. C. Council Member Bohnenberger reported regarding the annual La Quinta Firebelles Luncheon and Fashion Show held today, and stated that they had raised over $700 and gave away over 30 door prizes which had been donated by community merchants. Council Member Bohnenberger thanked the merchants and La Quinta Hotel for hosting this event. D. Mayor Cox announced that Boy Scout Troop 150 was in attendance tonight, and would be selling tickets to their annual Scout Fair, to be held at College of the Desert in March, 1985. Mayor Cox announced that the ticket sales would be held during a break in the Council meeting, scheduled for .later in the evening. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. A. The Minutes of a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held February 5, 1985, were approved as submitted. B. RESOLUTION NO. 85-11. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEMANDS. C. Final Tract Map No. 18765-2, La Quinta Hotel Tennis Villas, was accepted as submitted. D. Notice of Completion for Washington/Eisenhower Traffic Signal and Lighting Project; Paul Gardner Corporation, Contractor, was accepted as submitted. E. Notice of Completion for street improvements associated with Washington/Eisenhower Traffic Signal and Lighting Project, KMY Construction, Contractor, was accepted as submitted. #Minutes City Council February 19, 1985 Page Three. HEARINGS A. The City Manager introduced a continued public hearing regarding an amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code to adopt various uniform codes establishing Building and Construction regulations, and asked the Community Development Director to present the Staff report. The Community Development Director explained that the matter was a continued hearing from the February 19th Council meeting, with details of the Ordinance having been covered at the last meeting. Mr. Stevens explained that the proposed Ordinance would adopt, with minor changes, the group of Uniform Codes designated as the 1982 Edition, with the exception of the Electric Code, which is the 1984 Edition. Mr. Stevens further explained that adoption of these Codes is mandated by State law, and explained modifications contained in the proposed Ordinance, i.e., 5' height around swimming pools and clarification of language on gate controls, which would be incorporated into the proposed Ordinance should Council choose to adopt second reading of the Crd?nance. Mr. Stevens recommended adoption of the proposed Ordinance, with stated modifications. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing to public comment. There being no public comment, Mayor Cox closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Council discussion centered around pool fencing, safety considerations, and appointment of members to the Appeal Board. It was Council consensus to direct staff to return to Council with appropriate names for appointment at a future meeting. The City Manager read the title of the proposed Ordinance, as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 68. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ESTABLISHING TITLE 8 ENTITLED BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION?, REPEALING EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION, AND ADOPTING, BY REFERENCE, THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 1982 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1982 EDITION, INCLUDING CERTAIN SPECIFIED APPENDICES AND THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE, 1984 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION; THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1982 EDITION, INCLUDING ALL APPENDICES AND THE INSTALLATION STANDARDS, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS: THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1982 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1982 EDITION, INCLUDING CERTAIN SPECIFIED APPENDICES AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS, PUBLISHED BY THE WESTERN FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS,' THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE, 1982 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM SIGN CODE, 1982 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1982 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, AND THE DANGEROUS BUILDING CODE, 1982 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 68. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:03:14PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #M1N?ES City Council February 19, 1985 Page Four. B. The City Manager introduced a public hearing regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny Plot Plan No. 84-088 and Street Vacation No. 84-005 regarding a request to construct a golf course maintenance building at the south- east corner of Avenida Obregon and Calle Tampico and to vacate portions of Avenida Obregon and Calle Tampico; Landmark Land Company, Applicant, and stated that the hearing would begin with a report from the Planning Commission, presented by Community Development Director Stevens. Mr. Stevens noted that the appeal was submitted on January 23, 1985, and a copy of the appeal letter had been incorporated into the Council 5? packets, and reported that at the Planning Commission meeting held January 8, 1985, a public hearing regarding Plot Plan 84-088 was held and subsequently denied unanimously both applications. Mr. Stevens explained Landmark's application to construct a golf course maintenance building at the intersection of Calle Tampico and Avenida Obregon, and described the proposed facility. Mr. Stevens further explained Street Vacation 84-005, consisting of minor vacation of portions of Tampico and Obregon. Mr. Stevens explained that the Planning Commission had focused on the following concerns: premature nature of the vacation request, particularly as it related to flood improvements and portions of the rights-of-way which would ultimately be abandoned for additional flood improvements'. compatibility of the proposed building with the surrounding residential area; traffic and related concerns and circulation patterns; appropriateness of building design and its orientation; adequacy of parking; Applicant?s ability to comply with Fire Dept. requirements for access and fire flow; perimeter fencing and landscaping and noice and other operational factors. Mr. Stevens reported that it was the consensuc of the Commission that there were problems with the project as currently proposed, but since both the Applicant and property owners had pushed for a decision and there was little indication of substantive changes, the Commission deemed it necessary to deny the requests. Mr. Stevens explained the Council's alternatives, including denial of the Plot Plan and Street Vacation, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration which could be done due to the considerable modifications which had been made by the Applicant since the Commissions 5 recommen- dation), or approve the Plot Plan and Street Vacation. Mayor Cox asked if the Applicant wish to make a presentation. Mr. Andy Vossler, P.O. Box 1000, La Quinta, asked Brian Curley to make the Applicant 5 presentation of site plans, exhibits, etc. Mr. Brian Curley, P.O. Box 1578, described the revised site plans, project phasing, traffic circulation planning, fencing and landscaping, along with improvements along Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico. Following Mr. Curley's presentation, Andy Vossler explained Applicant5s concerns and expressed their need for the building due to their need to vacate their present maintenance facility. Mr. Vossler stated Applicant's willingness to work with Staff, and explained the difficulty in landscaping;the sloped portion of the current golf course dike. Mayor Cox opened the hearing to comment by the public. Comments were heard from the following persons: 1) Rupert Yessayian, La Quinta, opposed construction of this facility in a residential area, and cited hazards of large delivery trucks and increased traffic, noise, aesthetic objections, and stated that he felt approval would be very unfair to persons living in this area. 2) Bruce Robinson, La Quinta, a homeowner in the adjacent neighborhood of the project site, stated that he now supports Landrr?ark5s application and cited reasons for his reversal, such as additional conditions with which Applicant has agreed to comply, landscaping measures and Landmarks willingness to work with the surrounding neighbors. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:03:14PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council February 19, 1985 Page Five. There being no further public comment, Mayor Cox declared the hearing closed at 8:40 p.m. After discussion, it was moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Allen, to refer Plot Plan No. 84-008 and Street Vacation No. 84-005 to the Planning Commission for reconsideration and recommendation to the City Council, and continue the public hearing to the Council meeting to be held March 19, 1985. Unanimously adopted. Mayor Cox declared the Council would adjourn for a ten-minute break. Mayor Cox reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. The City Manager read the title of a proposed Ordinance, as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 69 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 33 WHICH ESTABLISHED A HUMAN RELATIONS COMMITTEE. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Allen, to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 69. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. B. The City Manager read the title of a proposed Ordinance, as follo?s: ORDINANCE NO. 70 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN CHANGE OF ZONE CASE NO. 84-013. Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Allen, to adopt Ordinance No. 70. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. C. The City Manager read the title of a proposed Ordinance, as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 3.8(H) OF ORDINANCE NO. 460 RELATING TO LAND DIVISIONS. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Pena, to adopt Ordinance No. 71. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. D. The City Manager presented a report from the Administrative Services Coordinator regarding applications for the Human Services Commission, and explained that Council had discussed continuing this item to the meeting of March 5, 1985, to allow more time for Council to solicit applications to the Commission. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:03:14PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MIN?ES City Council February 19, 1985 Page Six. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Pena, to continue selection of members to the La Quinta Human Services Commission to the Council meeting to be held March 5, 1985. Unanimously adopted. E. The City Manager presented a report regarding financial assistance to the La Quinta Sports & Youth Association. Mr. Usher reported that funding which he was recommending to the City Council would be the provision of up to $20,000 for a two-year period. Mr. Usher recommended appropriation of $17,500 to cover estimated costs of $17,283 for certain improvements which would be transferable to a permanent location in the future, and explained that the equipment would be placed on the temporary ballfields on Avenue 52. Mr. Usher stated that the equipment to be purchased included nine chain-link backstops, ten team benches, six bleacher sets and two portable restrooms. Mr. Usher recommended appropriation of $17,500 for improvements in 1984-1985 and stated that he would be recommending appropriation of $2,500 for fiscal year 1985-1986, adding to a total donation of $20,000. The City Manager read the title of the proposed Resolution, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 85-12. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, TRANSFERRING $17,500.00 TO ACCOUNT NO. 01-4191-5500, COMMUNITY SERVICES IMPROVE- MENTS OTHER THAN BUILDINGS, FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS, GENERAL FUND. Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to adopt Resolution No. 85-12, and reserve $2,500 for FY 1985-86. Unanimously adopted. F. The City Manager presented a report from the Acting Community Safety Coordinator regarding a proposal for Fire Marshal services, and explained that the City was now in need of a more comprehensive level of fire marshal services if the provision of the Uniform Fire Code were to continue to be met as adopted by the Council, and asked the Acting Community Safety Coordinator to present an oral report. Roger Hirdler, Acting Community Safety Coordinator explained that the cities of La Quinta and Cathedral City had discussed the possibility of entering Into an agreement whereby a County Fire Marshal would be hired and shared by both cities. Mr. Hirdler explained that the agreement would benefit both cities by providing timely plan checking services, and would benefit City departments by the additional Staff assistance the position would provide. Mr. Hirdler explained that the cost to the City would be $27,500 for the first year, and recommended approval of a Letter of Intent for the City to enter into a contractual agreement with Riverside County Fire Dept. and Cathedral City to establish a i-time Fire Marshal position. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Allen, to approve a Letter of Intent to enter into a contractual agreement with the Riverside County Fire Department and City of Cathedral City for the purpose of establishing a half- time position of Fire Marshal in La Quinta. Unanimously adopted. G. The City Manager presented a report regarding school impact fees for the Coachella Valley Unified School District. He explained that the matter had been discussed with the Council in December, 1984, to seek Councils direction relative to providing authority for school impact fees for this District, as the Council had provided for Desert Sands Unified School District. Mr. Usher explained that the proposed Resolution was identical to the Resolution adopted for Desert Sands Unifiec School District, providing for a fee of $628 per residential dwelling unit. Mr. Usher further reported, that Council should amend the proposed Resolution, adding the $628 fee in specific language as appropriate. Mr. Usher explained that he felt it was very important for the City to work with Coachella Valley Unified School District and Desert Sands District on an equitable basis, since the Citys boundaries now included both districts. Mr. Usher recommended adopting the following proposed Resolution, providing authority for C.V. Unified School District to collect school mitigation impact fees, in the maximum amount of $628 per residential dwelling unit. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:03:14PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council? February 19, 1985 Page Seven. RESOLUTION NO. 85-13. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR MITIGATION OF LOCAL SCHOOL IMPACTION. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Pena, to adopt Resolution No. 85-13, as amended. Unanimously adopted. H. The City Manager presented a report from the Community Development Director regarding Award of Bid for Specification No. 85-001 Palm Tree Trimming and/or Skinning). The Administrative Services Coordinator explained that one bid was received, from Economy Tree Service, in the amount of $10,860.00 for palm tree trimming, and $2,375.00 for skinning of 19 trees. Ms. Jennings reported that Staff was recommending rejection of the bid because?only one bid was received, and there had been difficulty with mail delivery, resulting in several potential bidders not receiving bid packages in a timely manner, and that readvertising for this work be done as soon as possible. Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to reject the bid from Economy Tree Service, in the amount of $10,860.00, and readvertise Specification No. 85-0001. Unanimously adopted. I. The City Manager asked the City Attorney to present a report regarding a proposed Resolution, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 85-14. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE TO BE IMPOSED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT. URGENCY MEASURE). The City Attorney explained that the Council had adopted, at its meeting February 5, 1985, Resolution No. 85-8, which established an interim community infrastructure fee of $4,000 per dwelling unit, $8,000 per acre for commercial development and $1,000 per dwelling unit in the Cove area of the City. Mr. Longtin stated that several days later he had discovered a section in the Government Code which requires a prior noticed public hearing, followed by a 60-day waiting period, before any new fee or increase in a fee can be adopted. Mr. Longtin explained that this legislation became effective January 1, 1985, which meant the Council would need to redo the Resolution establishing these fees, with the addition of a section which would determine that the resolution was an urgency interim measure. Mr. Longtin stated that it was his recommendation the Council adopt Resolution No. 85-14, with the addition of Item 7. adopting it as an Urgency Measure, and also recommended Council adopt the thirty 30) day extensions at the appropriate time. Mayor Cox asked the Community Development Director to read to the Council a commun- ication received relative to the proposed Resolution. Mr. Stevens read a letter from Robert Trent Jones, representing The Grove Associates, indicating that they object to the amount of the fee. Mr. Stevens also explained a change which had been made in the Resolution, to paragraph 1.), relative to time of fee payment. Mayor Cox stated that she had received notice of persons in attendance who wished to comment relative to this item, and asked them to address the Council, as follows: 1) James Resney, representative of Sunrise Company, 75-005 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, objected to the fee, and expressed concern that it was an outrageous amount, not comparable with fees in other local jurisdictions, and indicated that Sunrise Co. would be considering withdrawal of their option to purchase land in the PGA West project if the fee were adopted as proposed. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:03:14PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council February 19, 1985 Page Eight 2) John Bohak, representing M.B. Johnson Company, 74-140 El Paseo, Palm Desert, opposed the proposed fees, and explained that these fees would have to be passe along to the homebuyers, and stressed the unfa?rness of causing the new home- buyers to bear the entire burden of future infrastructure improvements. 3) Bill Emery, 54-018 Avenida Juarez, La Quinta, expressed opposition to the proposed fee, and recommended Council reduction of the fee, which he felt would be detrimental to developers, and subsequently people who worked for developers, contractors, construction trades, etc. 4) Peter Sherman, counsel for Land?ark Land Company, 74-333 Highway 111, Palm Desert, asked Council to table this matter and develop a fee which was competitive and in-line with other Valley cities. Mr. Sherman stressed the complex nature of the proposed fee, and stated that it should not be rushed through or imposed in an arbitrary manner. Mr. Sherman further stated that he did not believe Gov. Code Section 65962 had been followed correctly, and stated that he did not believe there was a current threat" which would constitute development of this fee. Mr. Sherman urged tabling of the issue, and careful development of a permanent, equitable fee, based upon development impact on the area. 5) William Tackabery, President of Aspen Pacific, 4970 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 109, Irvine, California, developer of the Hidden Palms project, expressed surprise at the fee imposition, while he was in the midst of obtaining financing for his projects. Mr. Tackabery stated that the fee would have an incredible impact on his projects. Mr. Tackabery called for more accountability on how the fees collected would be spent, and stated that he felt this fee was much higher than fees collected in other communities. He urged the Council to develop certain goals to account for expenditure of the fees. The City Attorney responded to the above comments, and clarified several Issues fair apportionment of fees to appropriate improvements, burden of fee payment, interim urgency measure requirements, and accountability of fees collected. After lengthy discussion, it was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Pena, to establish an interim community infra- structure fee of $2,000 per dwelling unit, and $4,000 per acre for commercial acreage, and amend the proposed Resolution thereby, and to delete the reduced exception for the Cove area from the proposed Resolution. During discussion, Council Member Wolff explained that he was in favor of the ifrd?tructur? fe?, c??ld lot sukport a fee *?hich levied the same amount for an o,,ner-builder as that of an expensive developr?ent, where prices or valuation of the homes could be from $65,000 to $350,000. Council Member Member Wolff explained that while he supported the need for an infrastructure fee, he could not support one which was not equitable, and felt that a provision should be made for the one-time, small owner-builder. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:03:14PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council February 19, 1985 Page Nine After further discussion, it was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Pena, to amend the motion and revise the proposed interim community infrastructure fee to $2,000 per dwelling unit, eliminate the reduced exception for the Cove area and reduce the commercial development fee to $4,000 per acre. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena and Mayor Cox. NOES: Council Member Wolff. ABSENT: None. Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Pena, to adopt the Resolution No. 85-14, as amended: RESOLUTION NO. 85-14. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE TO BE IMPOSED.ON NEW DEVELOPMENT. URGENCY MEASURE). Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena and Mayor Cox. NOES: Council Member Wolff. ABSENT: None. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Pena, to adjourn. Unan. adopted. The regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was adjourned at 10:07 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 1985, at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:03:14PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 19-U02 1985-U02