Loading...
1985 03 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. March 19, 1985 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Cox called the La Quinta City Council meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. A. Mayor Cox led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Council members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox. Absent: None. Also Present: City Manager Usher, City Attorney Longtin, Admin. Services Coordinator Jennings, Comm. Dev. Director Stevens, Acting Comm. Safety Coordinator Hirdler. 3. PUBLIC CO?1?ENT Mayor Cox announced that this was the time Set aside for public comment, and reminded those present that there would be a three minute limit on comments relating to items of City business which were not listed on the Agenda. Comments were heard from the following: A. Jacques Abels, P.O. Box 1416, La Quinta, Director of Division 4, Coachella valley Recreation & Park District, updated the Council on activities of the District and explained that bleachers would be installed within the next 10 days at the La Quinta Community Park ballfield, and stated that poles had been erected around the park to prevent vehicular traffic in the park. 4. WRITTEN CO?WNICATIONS A. The City Manager presented a communication from Supervisor Corky Larson requesting the support of the City Council relative to an Inland Empire" postmark. Mr. Usher stated that he had obtained clarification from Supervisor Larson S office, and that the request originated in Supervisor Younglove's office relative to a portion of his District in the City of Riverside area. Mr. Usher explained that the intent of Supervisor Larson 5 request was to request the support of cities in Riverside County for those areas of Riverside County now receiving San Bernardino" postmarks, to be identified with an Inland Empire" postmark. After discussion, it was moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to table this matter for two weeks, and discuss it again at the Council meeting of April 2, 198S. Unanimously adopted. B. Mayor Cox read a communication received from Dorothy Becker, Chairman, Citizens for La Quinta Cove, which enumerated seven concerns relative to City services in the Cove. Mayor Cox responded orally to the group S concerns, and indicated that she would send a written reply as requested in the letter. COMMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS A. The City Manager responded to concerns raised by Council Member Wolff during the study session held March 18th relative to street striping plans for Eisenhower Drive and Washington Street. Mr. Usher stated that Berryman & Stephenson, an engineering firm, had been retained by the City to do a complete striping plan for both the widened area of Washington Street, as well as Eisenhower Drive. He stated that the plan should be provided to the City by Friday, March 22nd, at which point staff will review the plan and ensure Council Member Wolff's BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council March 19, 1985 Page Two. concerns are addressed, after which time the work will commence. Mr. Usher stated that the total cost should not exceed $5,000. B. Council Member Allen discussed traffic enforcement in La Quinta, stating that he had witnessed a Sheriff's deputy issuing a. citation on Avenida Bermudas, at the 4-way stop at Avenue 52. Council Member Allen stated that he was very pleased to see heavy recreational use at La Quinta Park last Saturday, and reiterated the need for more parks in La Quinta. C. Council Member Wolff stated that the Council should discuss the Y.M.C.A. request for funding at their next meeting April 2, 1985), which was the consensus of the Council. Council Member Wolff reported on the success of the Third Annual La Quinta Arts Festival, and stated that both artists and attendees were very pleased with the event. Council Member Wolff stated that approximately 6,800 persons attended, and approximately $130,000 of artwork was sold. Council Member Wolff explained that artists unanimously expressed a desire to return next year, and thanked the hundreds of local volunteers who worked at the Festival, from selling tickets, to parking cars, which made the event a real community activity, and Mr. Wolff congratulated all those involved in this year?s Festival success. D. Mayor Cox explained that the City had received a letter from Boy Scout Troop #150, expressing their desire to utilize a City landscaped median island on either Avenida La Fonda, Calle Estado or Avenida Bermudas as their community project. She explained that the Troop would plant and maintain this island as a continuing project, if the Council so desired. Mayor Cox stated that the letter would be on the April 2nd Council agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Pena, to approve the Consent Calendar as corrected. 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 March 5, 1985, were approved, with the following correction: Item 5.A., paragraph 1, corrected to indicate that the Date Festival should remain in the eastern Coachella Valley area. B. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 85-23. A RESOLUTION CF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEMANDS. 7. HEARINGS A. The City Manager introduced a public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment No. 85-005, a proposal to amend the La Quinta General Plan by adding a Public Buildings and Facilities Element, initiated by the City of La Quinta, and stated that the hearing would begin with a report from the Community Development Director. Larry Stevens, Community Development Director, presented the Planning Commission's report, and explained that the Commission conducted a pub?.ic hearing regarding this matter on March 12, 1985. Mr. Stevens reported that the Commission, after limited discussion, unanimously adopted the proposed General Plan Amendment, and that no BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council March 19, 1985 Page Three. persons appeared before the Commission during the hearing. Mr. Stevens further noted that the proposed General Plan Amendment should be handled separately from the ongoing General Plan project because of its relationship to the proposed Community Infrastructure Fee Program. Mr. Stevens stated that it was the recommen- dation of both the Planning Commission and Staff to adopt the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 85-005. Mayor Cox declared the hearing open to comment from the public. Comment was heard from the following persons: A. Myron Etiennene, P.O. Box 1818, Salinas, California, an attorney representing Landmark Land Company, requested the Council consider Item 7.A.(4) following the hearing on item 7.C., and voiced objections to the proposed amendment. B. Kevin Manning, P.O. Box 1578, La Quinta, representing Landmark Land Company, voiced objections to General Plan Amendment No. 85-005, and stated objections to information contained in the Staff Report of March 12, 1985. C. Lloyd Watson, 81-720 Arthurs Ct., Indio, representing Landmark Land Company voiced objections to General Plan Amendment No. 85-005, and commented on several aspects of the Staff Report dated March 12, 1985. D. Myron Etiennene, attorney for Landmark, stated that the Council had heard objections regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment, and asked that the Council not adopt the proposed Resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 85-005. There being no further comment from the public, Mayor Cox declared the public hearing closed. After discussion, it was moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Pena, to adopt Resolution No. 85-24, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 85-24. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-005 AMENDING THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING A PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES ELEMENT THERETO. Unanimously adopted. B. The City Manager introduced a public hearing regarding the extension of Resolution No. 85-8, establishing an interim community infrastructure fee to be imposed on new development, and explained that the hearing would begin with a report from the City Attorney. James Longtin, City Attorney, explained that the Council had adopted Resolution No. 85-8 at their meeting on February 19, 1985, as an urgency measure, and that the action was taken pursuant to Gov. Code section 65962, requiring a prior noticed public hearing and a 60 day waiting period prior to taking any action enacting or increasing a fee on residential development. Mr. Longtin stated that section 65962 contained provisions for adoption of an interim fee as an urgency measure without hearing, with two 30-day extensions, following noticed hearing. Mr. Longtin stated that Resolution No. 85-8 expires March 19th, and recommended the Council adopt the proposed Resolution extending the interim fee for 30 days. Mayor Cox declared the hearing open to comment from the public. Comment was heard from the following person: A. Peter Sherman, 74-333 Highway 111, Suite 204, Palm Desert, attorney for Landmark Land Company, voiced objections to the proposed Resolution and interim community infrastructure fee; particularly the urgency nature of the proposed Resolution. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council March 19, 1985 Page Four. There being no further public comment, Mayor Cox declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to adopt Resolution No. 65-25. as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 85-25. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-8 INTERIM C0?ITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE TO BE IMPOSED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT) FOR 30 DAYS. Unanimously adopted. Mayor Cox declared that the Council would adjourn for a 5-minute break at 8:24 p.m. Mayor Cox reconvened the meeting at 8:42 p.m. C. The City Manager introduced a public hearing regarding the establishment of a permanent community infrastructure fee to be imposed on new development, and explained the content of the Staff presentation. Mr. Usher stated that the Community Development Director would address, during his presentation, changes in the proposed fee schedule which had been made by Staff following comments by the Council at the study session. Mr. Usher stated that the proposed fee program was designed to provide the necessary infrastructure to meet the expected growth in population in the City over the next 10 years, and addressed areas such as public buildings, including city hall, public library, subsequent city hall expansion, community center and corporation yard. He explained that it also addressed public safety buildings, consisting of three fire stations, recreational facilities, bridges, major thoroughfares and traffic and pedestrian signals. Larry Stevens. Community Development Director, presented the Staff report regarding this matter, explained changes made in the proposed infrastructure needs, addressed apportionment criteria as recommended in the staff report, and explained the amended Staff report as presented. Mr. Stevens recommended a community infrastructure fee policy calling for an amount equal to 2.1S percent of the building permit valuation for each residential dwelling or structure, and $6,000.00 per gross acre for indus- trial and all other non-residential construction, which was a result of Staff deletions in the infrastructure program, from the original $49,286,000.00 to $38,063,900.00. The City Attorney explained the community infrastructure program and presented a legal analysis regarding this program, fairness in the development of the methodology of the policy and the application of the policy. Following questions by Council directed to Staff, Mayor Cox declared the bearing open to comment from the public. Comments were heard from the following persons, who opposed the community infrastructure fee program as recommended: 1) Myron Etienne, P.O. Box 1818, Salinas, CA., Attorney for Landmark Land Company. 2) Bill Tackabery, 4970 Irvine Blvd., Ste. 108, Irvine, GA., representing Aspen Pacific Co., developers of the Dune Palms project. 3) David B. Downing, 54-085 Avenida Obregon, La Quinta, CA. 4) John Bohac, representing M. B. Johnson Company, developer of the Laguna de la Paz project. 5) Rupert Yessayjan, P.O. Box 251, La Quinta, California. 6) Kevin Manning, P.O. Box 15?8, La Quinta, representing Landmark Land Company. 7) Lloyd W. Watson, 81-720 Arthurs Ct., Indio, CA., representing Landmark Land Company. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council March 19, 1985 Page Five. 8) James Resney, 78-005 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, representing Sunrise Company. Mayor Cox announced that the hearing would. be adjourned for a 5-minute break at 10:12 p.m. Mayor Cox reconvened the meeting at 10:22 p.m., and heard comments in Opposition to the proposed community infrastructure program, as follows: 9) Peter Sherman, Attorney for Landmark Land Company, asked that previous comments by Kevin Manning, Lloyd Watson in Item 7.A. be incorporated into the record and also the La Quinta unicipa1 Code, City Infrastructure Fee Study of March 19, 1985, the La Quinta Draft General Plan and also the County General Plan as adopted by the City. The City Attorney explained what constitutes an administrative record to the Council, which would be composed of all the documents before the City Council, plus a synopsis of the proceedings. Mr.. Longtin recommended the Council deny Mr. Sherman's request as unnecessary and inappropriate, unless Mr. Sherman would be willing to be more specific as to the nature of his request. Subsequently, there was no Council action on Mr. Sherman's request. 10) Joe Walser, Sr. Vice-President of Landmark Land Company. There being no further comment from the public, Mayor Cox closed the hearing at 10:31 p.m. The City Council discussed the proposed Community Infrastructure Fee program, and a summary of each Council Member's suggestion was as follows: 1) Council Member Allen stressed the need for future roadways, which he feels should be constructed to meet maximum traffic needs, which included seasonal traffic which contributed to congestion greatly; questioned the credit policy as proposed and the period and length of the infrastructure fee program; and expressed fears related to jeopardizing the City's flood control project by setting the infrastructure fee too high. Mr. Allen stated that he could not support an infrastructure fee over 1.5% for residential dwellings. 2) Council Member Bohnenberger expressed concern over future governmental funding, whereby the federal government will no longer be a source of funding for local government; Mr. Bohnenberger stressed the need for cities to become more independent financially. Mr. Bohnenberger expressed his concern at the dollar amount of the City's future needs, and stressed that he could not ignore the Staff's report; Mr. Bohnenberger stated that he felt any discrepancy between what La Quinta's fee would be and other cities would be lessened in future years as those cities raised their fees to pay for infrastructure needs also. Mr. Bohnenberger,however, expressed caution over fees which might be too high, and stressed the City's need for flood control in the very near future. Council Member Bohnenberger favored keeping the infrastructure fee at 2.1% with a cap on the building valuation of?$100,000, and suggested the City consider in the future an exemption for retail sales and transient occupancy tax commercial development to stimulate this portion of the local economy. 3) Council Member Pena stated that he shared the concerns presented during the hearing, and felt the City would have to look at different sources of income. Mr. Pena stated that he felt developers, both corporate and individual should not be unfairly saddled with a new City's growing pains, and expressed concern over the future real estate market locally. Mr. Pena favored a reduced infra- structure fee of 1.5%, with a ceiling of $2,000 maximum. Mr. Pena stated that he favored language in the resolution which would allow the Council to revie? the fee in the future and adjust it if necessary. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council March 19, 1985 Page Six. 4) Council Member Wolff discussed the impact of development upon La Quinta, and expressed concern that developer S were definitely contributing a major impact on the City's infrastructure needs; Mr. Wolff stated that he felt development in La Quinta would be of a scenic, residential, resort nature, with little commercial or industrial development occurring, and urged the Council to implement the 2.15% infrastructure fee program so that the City could implement its future infrastructure needs. Mr. Wolff recommended that if the Council wanted to lower the infrastructure fee program rate, they must be willing to lower their expectations for future infrastructure needs. 5) Mayor Cox expressed concern regarding the 10-year time frame proposed in the infrastructure fee study; lack of traffic studies to back-up traffic signal and roadway improvements; effects of prOposition 13 and the Subdivision Map Act; and future commercial fees. Mayor Cox expressed fears regarding slow growth and its effect on the City's flood control project. Mayor Cox favored an infrastructure fee program of 1.5% with a cap on the fee, which would help both large and small builders. Following discussion between Staff and Council, it was moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to implement an community infra- structure fee of 1.5% of building permit valuation, with a not-to-exceed building permit valuation of $200,000. After discussion, consisting of various alternatives relative to a possible infrastructure fee, the following roll call vote was taken: ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Council Member Allen. NOES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox ABSENT: None. It was then moved by Mayor Cox, seconded by Council Member Pena, to adopt a permanent community infrastructure fee of 1.5% of building permit valuation, with a $2,000 maximum fee cap. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Clean-up matters concerning the proposed community infrastructure fee resolution were discussed, particularly relating to the matter of developer credits and commercial fees. It was moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Wolff, to amend the second paragraph of Paragraph 5. of the Resolution, as follows: Provided further, that in the event developer is required to directly provide infrastructure improvements specifically provided for in the fee structure e.g. major thoroughfare widening or fire station construction), developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against the fee", unanimously adopted. Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Wolff, to amend Paragraph 2.b. of the proposed Resolution, setting the fee for commercial, industria. and all other non-residential construction at $6,000 per gross acre. Unanimously adopted. Moved by Council Member Pena, to adopt the Resolution, as amended. Motion subse- quently withdrawn. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seccnded by Council Member Pena, to stipulate that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and waive the requirement for an E.I.R. Unanimously adopted. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 # City Council March 19, 1985 Page Seven. Moved by Council Member Pena, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger,to adopt the proposed Resolution, as amended, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 85-26. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF L k QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE POLICY TO BE IMPOSED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT. Unanimously adopted. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Allen, to approve the form of Agreement to be used between the developer and City for payment of the community infrastructure fee. Unanimously adopted. Mayor Cox stated that the Council would adjourn for a 5-minute break at 11:55 p.m. Mayor Cox reconvened the meeting at 12:06 a.m. D. The City Manager introduced a public hearing regarding Street Vacation No. 84-005, E. requesting approval to vacate portions of Calle Tampico and Avenida Obregon, and a public hearing regarding an appeal of the Planning Commissions 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 southeast 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 hearings would be held concurrently. Mr. Usher stated that the hearing would begin with a report from the Planning Commission, presented by the Community Development Director. Larry Stevens, Community Development Director, presented the Planning Commission and Staff recommendation to vacate portions of Avenida Obregon and Calle Tampico, subject to the four conditions as described in the Planning Commission report dated March 19, 1985, and adopt the proposed Resolution. Regarding Plot Plan No. 84-088, Mr. Stevens described changes to the conditions pursuant to Staff meetings with the Applicant as directed by the City Council. Mr. Stevens presented a report regarding changes to conditions, and described the two conditions Nos. old 13 and 16). Mayor Cox asked if the Applicant would like to make their presentation. Comments by the Applicant were heard from the following persons: 1) Andy Vossler, P.O. Box 1000, La Quinta, representing Landmark Land Company, addressed concerns regarding conditions, particularly expressing concerns regarding pavement analysis, landscaping and traffic signal agreements. Mr. Vossler also asked the Council to indemnify Landmark following completion of landscaping along Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico. 2) Peter Sherman, Attorney for Landmark Land Company, discussed the proposed landscaping and signal agreements, and stated that he believed he would be able to reach an agreement with the City Attorney in concept. 3) Myron Etienne, Attorney for Landmark Land Company, contested the old No. 13 condition relating to Plot Plan 84-088, and requested the Council eliminate both conditions old #13 and old #16. Mayor Cox opened the hearing to comment from the public, and announced that the Deputy City Clerk would read a letter from Mr. Maurice Beidler, 51-293 Avenida Alvarado, opposing the golf course maintenance building, into the record of proceedings. 1) Rupert Yessayian, P.O. Box 251, La Quinta, spoke in opposition to the proposed use in a residential area. There being no further public comment, Mayor Cox closed the public hearing at 12:40 a.m. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council March 19, 1985 Page Eight. The City Council discussed the proposed golf course maintenance building and related conditions, and a summary of each Council Member's suggestion was as follows: 1) Council Member Allen felt that a pavement analysis was unnecessary, and had not been required of previous developments, and further stated that he felt the number of large trucks would be limited in this usage as outlined by Mr. Vossler. 2) Council Member Bohnenberger stated that he did not believe this would constitute a nuisance in its proposed location, and expressed his belief that all residential streets in La uinta would need improvement as traffic increased, which would necessitate assessment districts as development occurred. r. Bohnenberger explained that he would fully expect Landmark to participate in an assessment district to improve Calle Tampico when it became necessary to do So. 3) Council Member Wolff echoed Council Member Bohnenberger' 5 Statements, but expressed concern over the amount of traffic Calle Tampico would carry as a result of this proposal. 4) Mayor Cox stated that she felt street improvements should be looked at on a City-wide level, with assessment districts formed, and that Landmark should participate at that point. Further discussion occurred concerning Condition No. 25, and it was the Council's consensus that the condition be left as proposed. Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Wolff, to adopt Resolution No. 85-27, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 85-27. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, VACATING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF CALLE TAMPICO AND AVENIDA OBREGON. Unanimously adopted. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Allen, to grant an appeal of the decision to deny Plot Plan No. 84-088 and Street Vacation No. 84-005, and approve Plot Plan No. 84-088 and Street Vacation No. 84-005, subject to revised conditions in the Staff report dated March 19, 1985. Unanimously adopted. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. ORDINANCE NO. 72. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA qUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ThE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING PARKING OF CERTAIN CO?1MERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND PROHIBITING REPAIRING OF VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 72, following its reading by the City Manager. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Pena, Wolff and Mayor Cox. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council March 19, 1985 Page Nine B. Mayor Cox announced that the Council would continue discussion concerning appoint- ment of the seventh members to the newly created Community Services Commission, and explained that an application had been received from Margarita Engle, in addition to an expression of interest on the part of Steven Brummel. Mayor Cox reminded the Council that Ms. Engle had attended the Study session and expressed her interest in sitting on the Commission, and was very well qualified in the area of community/human services. After discussion, it was moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to appoint Margarita M. Engle to the La Quinta Community Services Commission. Unanimously adopted. C. RESOLUTION NO. 85-28. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AUT?0RIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE. Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to adopt Resolution No. 85-28, designating Mayor Cox and other non-inclusive members of the community, to file a written argument regarding a city measure. Unanimously adopted. D. The Community Development Director presented a report regarding stop signs at the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 50, and explained that the traffic reports recently conducted indicate? a necessity to maintain in existence a temporary 4-way stop implemented in December, 1984. It was Mr. Steven 5 recommen- dation that Council adopt the following proposed Resolution, following the traffic analysis recently completed by the Automobile Club of Southern California. RESOLUTION NO. 85-29. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF STOP SIGNS TO FACILITATE A FOUR-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION CF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Allen, to adopt Resolution No. 85-29. Unanimously adopted..- E. The Community Development Director presented an informational report and explained that the La Quinta Planning Commission had taken action to amend its Rules and Procedures to establish a second regular meeting on the 4th Tuesday of each month. There was no action on this item, as it was informational only. F. The City Manager presented a report regarding a City computer system. Mr. Usher explained that the City's consultant, T. Tug" Tamaru had completed Phase I of the study, and that the next step would be the preparation of an RFP Phase II) and the evaluation and recommendation of a system Phase III). Mr. Usher recommended the Council authorize proceeding with phases II and III, at a cost of $1120 and $1680 respectively. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Allen, to authorize the City lanager to enter into an Agreement with T. Tug" Tamaru, Inc., for Phase II and Phase III, for a City computer system, at a cost of $1120 and $1680 respectively. Unanimously adopted. G. The City Manager presented a report regarding bids for baseball backstops at the Avenue 52 ballfield, and explained that two bids had been received. Mr. Usher recommended Council award of the bid to Bob Kline Fence Co., in the amount of $6,180.00. Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Pena, to award a bid for construction of baseball backstops for the temporary ball fields on Avenue 52, to Bob Kline Fence Co., in the amount of $6,180.00. Unanimously adopted. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02 #MINUTES City Council March 19. 1985 Fage Ten H. The City Manager presented a report regarding a workers' compensation and liability insurance study by an ad hoc committee of CVAG. Mr. Usher explained that CVAG was requesting $300 from each interested city to cover minor costs in connection with this study, and recommended Council authorization of this expenditure. It was the consensus of the City Council that the City should participate in the CVAG insurance study, at a cost not to exceed $300. I. The City Manager presented a job description for the position of Administrative Assistant Community Services Commission) for Council approval and discussion. Moved by Council Member Pena, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to approve the job description of Administrative Assistant. Unanimously adopted. J. Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Wolff, to approve contract specifications regarding abatement of weeds and litter on privately owned lots, and authorize Staff to enter into formal bid procedures regarding same. Unanimously adopted. K. The City Attorney explained that it would be necessary for the City Council to formalize action taken at their March 5, 1985, Council meeting regarding adoption of Resolution No. 85-22, which provided for the filing of rebuttal argumentS. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Allen, to approve the Minutes of March 5, 1985, and Item 8.B., nunc pro tunc' confirmation of the action taken in absentia at the March 5, 1985, Council meeting. Unanimously adopted. 9. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to adjourn. The regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was adjourned at 1:10 a.m., Wednesday, March 20, 1985, at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. BIB] 02-28-96-U01 03:22:12PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 19-U02 1985-U02