1984 05 01 CC Minutes$n
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LA QUINTA
An adjourned regular rr?eting of
the City Council held at the
La Quinta Coirmunity Center,
77-861 Avenida ntezuma,
La Quinta, California.
May 1, 1984 7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Allen called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
A. The flag salute was led by Mayor Allen.
2. LL CALL
Present: Council Mebbers Bajer, Cox, Henderson, Wolff and Mayor Allen.
Absent: ne.
Also Present: City Manager Usher, City Attorney Longtin, Planning Director Stevens,
Assistant to the City Manager Jennings, C?TTrUnity Safety Coordinator
Brown, Code Enforc?r?nt Officer Mazza
3. PUBLIC
The Mayor indicated that this tjir? was set aside for citizens to address the Council
on matters relating to City business, and reminded those present that a three 3)
minute ti"e ljmit on cat?ts would be enforced. The Mayor further instructed the
audience that persons wishing to speak regarding the public hearing relative to
PGA West should do so at that tirr?. There were no corocents from the audience.
4. WPI??EN MUNICATIONS
5. BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
A. Council nber Wolff thanked those responsible for planning the City, S second
birthday party held April 29, 1984, at the La Qilinta Park, and cceeended the
people who made the City, S incorporation and subseguent cityhood successful.
He further stated that he was delighted to see the turriout at this fleeting.
Council Memeer Wolff stated that the City Attorney had received a letter fr?n
Rupert Yessayjan citing a possible conflict of interest between Council r?r
Wolff and Landmark Land s?eeinq fr? donations made by Landmark prior
to incorporation, to the City Incorporation C?rrflittee, and a later donation
by landmark to the La Quinta Arts Fouddation, both organizations in which Council
Wolff was involved. Council Mebber Wolff stated that the City Attorney
had responded to these allegations, both by letter and in person, and stated
that the charges were not valid. Council Mebber Wolff explained that he had
discussed the issue publicly in order to put the matter to rest.
B. Mayor Allen explained that he too had been a n??nber of the City Incorporation
Q?ttee and the La Quinta Arts Foundation, and felt that there was certainly
no conflict of interest involved.
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Two.
Mayor Allen further noted that the first meeting of the La Quinta Historical
ooittee would be held at 7:30 p.In., at Marcella Press, 78-035 Calle Estado,
headed by Chainn?? Alice Bailes. Mayor Allen urged any persons having inform?tic
to contribute to the Historical C?ttee in La Quinta to please attend this
ir?pcrtant first n?eting.
Mayor Allen announced that any person wishing to address the Council under public
c?rrnent during the PGA st public hearing should turn in the questionnaires
provided. He further explained that persons not wishing to speak, but who would
like to state c?rm?ts for the record could use this forrri for that puppose
N&r?s of persons wishing to speak would then be called by the City Clerk during
the appropriate portion of the hearing.
6. HEA??GS
Prior to opening the public hearing regarding the PGA est project, Council Men?er
lff ved that It?ns 6. A., B., C., and D. be tabled by the Council until a
La Quinta General Plan has been adopted and the area in question has been annexed
to the City of La Quinta. There being no Second to the rr?t ion, Mayor Allen
declared the rr?tion dead for lack of a second, and opened the public hearing.
Mayor Allen announced that Council Henderson would step down fr? the
dais due to a conflict of interest regarding it? under consideration, and
would be recalled by the Council following the public hearing portion of the
Agenda.
The City Manager read the titles of it? ccp?sing the subject of the Hearing:
A. Bequest for Certification of the Environeental Impact Report prepared by TMT
Developeent Corporation of California for Specific Plan No. 83-002, PG? West".
B. General Plan rr?ndeent No. 84-002, a request to aeend the La Quinta General
Plan Land Use and Circulation Eleeents, and to aeend the Riverside County
C?rrprahensive G?eral Plan Q'pen Space and Conservation El?nnt and Circulation
Eleeent on that portion of the site to be annexed) to allow for the proposed
developeent of Specific Plan No. 83-002, PGA West'?, TMr Developeent Corp.,
Applicant.
C. Specific Plan No. 83-002, a request to develop a 1665+ acre site with four
18-hole golf courses, 5000 single-farrLily dwellings, a 65-acre resort village
and a 35-acre general o?rrr?rcial center. The resort village area will contain
a 400-unit hotel, 250 apart?t/condoniniurn hotel units, and a major recreation
center, TMT. flevelopeent Corp. of California, Applicant.
D. Change of Zone Case No. 84-007, a request to change zoning fr?n A-i-b, A-1-20
and W-2-20 to R-2, R-3, R-3 75' height ljmit), R-5 and C-P-S, in accordance
with proposed Specific Plan No. 83-002, PGA West", TMr. Developeent Corp. of
California, Applicant.
The City Manager explained that the four public hearings on the above items would
be held concurrently, and all testirr?ny given would relate to any and all parts of
the four public hearings. The City Manager indicated that Larry Stevens, Planning
Director, would present reports fr? the Pia?g Cccoission and Planning staff.
Mr. Stevens explained that the proposed project would enc?rpass 2.65 square miles,
1665 acres, both within and adjacent to the City of IA Quinta, and stated that the
pro?ect was bounded by Avenue 54 on the north, Madison Street on the east, Avenue
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
IINUTES City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Three.
58 on the south except for the portion of the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and
Madison Street), and by ake Cahuilla and the Coachella Channel on the west
The Planning Director explained that the land is currently zoned A-i, with varying
min? lot sizes from five to 20 acres. He stated that the General Plan designates
the property Very I? Density Residential which is three units per acre or less, for
the property lying within the City. The portion of ground within the County is
designated Agriculture in the County Open Space & Conservation Eleeent. He explained
that roads in the area which serve the site are Jefferson Street 110' arterial),
Madison Street 88' secondary), Avenue 54 and 58 100' wide majors) and Airport
Boulevard 110' arterial).
He explained the Applicant 5 reguests as listed above, and stated that the reguests
were being made by the Applicant to facilitate a development consisting of at least
four principal el?r?nts: a 65-acre resort village intended to include 400 hotel Units,
250 additional units designated as apar?ts, condominiums or hotel units and a
fitness/recreation center; a 35-acre c?rcial center which would include offices
and related a?rir?rcial facilities; construction of four 18-hole golf courses and
related facilities; and 5000 residential dwelling units, with a total overall
density of approximately 3.2 units per acre. The Planning Director went on to
explain such considerations relative to the Specific Plan as height proposals,
road closures and construction phasing.
The Planning Director further explained that prior hearings regrrding the PGA West
project had been heard before the Planning O?ssion, and that it had been the
re?rmhdation of the Planning ocission that the project be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration. He discussed the &ivironeental Inpact Report,
and explained that it consisted of four d?ents: the Draft Erwironeental Irrpact
Report, T?chnical Appendixes to the E.I.R., the Responses to Q??ts on the
Draft E.I. R., and the Suppleeental Archeological Asses?r?nt, all of which had
been available at City offices for public inspection over the past several months.
The Planning Director explained that the E.I.R. acts to gather information relative
to the proposed project to facilitate the decision making process the City is
reguired to go through. He further explained the California viron?ntal Quality
Act, and stated that this particular doaurt?nt has determined that there are sane
Significant associated with this project which can be reasonably mitigated, such
as in the soils/geology portion of the docurr?t, the hydrology/flood control segments
of the document and in the cultural resources/archaeology portion of the dooment.
He further explained that the E.I R. had determined that there would be significant
enviraneental effects which could not be mitigated, such as vegetation and wildlife,
traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, energy, land use, agricultural soils
and public services and utilities. He noted that the doaents presented to the
Council discuss each of the rrpacts & identify ways to reduce their impact to the
maxi extent feasible, and explained that A does not reguire projects of this
type to be denied, especially where socicecononic benefits can be derived.
The Planning Director explained that the Council 5 role would be to balance the
risk of the environnental concerns against the benefit derived from the project.
He briefly mentioned areas of overriding consideration, essentially areas where
there would be environmental ippacts but are offset by benefits of the project,
such as bene fitting the City through redevelo?r?t and flood control, substantial
ennanceeent to the quality of life in the project area in terms of attracting new
residents and businesses to the area and procoting increased investment and return
on property values. The Plani?g Director stated that many of the environeental
concerns associated with the project would be those concerns generally associated
with normal progress and prosperity, and that if the project were inplemented benefits
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
MINUTES City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Four.
would accrue through the creation of new jobs for the provision of services,
construction and staffing of businesses ultirnately developing within the project.
He also stressed benefits through the creation of area-wide public facilties,
including sewage treatment facilities, schools and fire Stations, along with
enhanceeent of the City 5 econanic base.
The Planning Director stated that it was the reccnndation of the Planning
C?r?nission and Planning staff that the City Council certify the E.I.R. as being
adequate and in c?pliance with provisions of C.F.?.A., and adopt the proposed
resolution stating the overriding considerations and stating other findings of
fact associated with mitigating other significant affects that cannot be
c(?npletely avoided.
The Plnnning Director presented his report regarding the General Plan Anendent
No. 84-002, and reported that this request would anend the City's General Plan
and predesignate the unincorporated area that, should the project be approved,
be annexed to the City. He explained that at the present time the City of La Quinta
did not have a Sphere of Influence due to being recently incorporated, and that the
project was contiguous to the City, with a?roximately 1/3 of the City being located
within the City and 2/3 currently in the County area. The Planning Director noted
that it appeared this area would be urbanized, and cited several factors such as
existing land Ownership pattern and significant purchase of land by non-farming
interests, a decrease in famming activity on this land and sur??ing land,
land costs which, in the judgrt?nt of staff, make it not productive to continue
farming, and the irru?diate proximity of urban services, pr??cipally sewers and
other facilities. He therefore concluded that each of these factors pointed to
ultimate urbanization of the project site, and change of the General Plan presented
a logical extension of cuxi?t City designation in the area.
The Planning Director discussed the circulation ippact relative to the closure of
Jefferson Street, and explained that staff had looked at other area streets, with
both nroe and Jackson Streets providing access to Highway 111, and explained
that Jefferson Street did not have direct access to Interstate 10. It was noted
that since the Santa Rosa rr?tmtains already presented a terminus to any transpor-
tation syst? into the area, the project proposal would essentially alter
that terminus slightly to the north and east. It was fther noted that the proposal
would ippact two uses in the immudiate area: the County gravel operation and
Lake Cahuilla, and would, if approved, result in s?r? additional traffic in the
surrounding traffic circulation pattern on M?dison Street, nroe Street and
Avenue 58. He explained that efforts were made to sur'?y the inpacts of these
two uses and determine the effects upon th?. The Planing Dittctor pointed
out that Lake Cahuilla is a regional park and as such draws a wide range of
use fr?ri areas outside La Quinta and a high use fr? areas essentially to the
east and north of the projects, and the project would present insignificant
effects on terTns of altering the traffic pattern in order to utilize the
facilities at the Lake. He noted that there was considerable discussion relative
to the uripact upon residents of the developed portion of La Quinta who would have
a longe?r travel distance to the Lake in an effort to mitigate the inconvenience
which would result. The Planning Director stated that conditions are included in
the Specific Plan which result in an adequate adjustment for the loss that would
occur.
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
IrNUTES City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Five.
The Planning Director discussed Specific Plan 83-002, and explained that the
specific plan was principally used far large-scale developeents such as the
West project to provide a more uniform review and coordinated planning process.
He exolained several of the issues raised during the Planning C?ririission process,
such as the size of the proposed c?rrr?rcial at Jefferson and Avenue 54, and stated
that although the Applicant had requested the ability to cOnstruct 300,000 square
feet of building area on 35 acres, staff and the Planning C?rinission had agreed
that there was insufficient population in the area to support that arr?unt of
c?TTrErcial. It was therefore initially rec?rrnended by the Planning Carrnission
and staff that the c?m?rcial center he reduced to 15 acres, and a study of other
area-wide carir?rcial centers was made for ccp?ative purposes. In evaluating these
factors, the Planning Ctccission had therefore concluded that 20 acres would be an
appropriate size the the requested coercial center.
The Planning Director indicated that the Planning ccission had considerable
discussion regarding the building height issue, particularly regarding six Story
structures, and had concluded that due to the visibility of the structure fran the
perirneter of the project, at least mile or rr?re fr? public roads, these building
heights were appropriate with the understanding that the design of the buildings,
as noted in the Specific Plan, he carefully evaluated to miflir*ze the appearance
and impact of height. The Planning C?rtnission also required that the locations
be carefully scrutinized in conjunction in subsequent reviews required by the
Specific Plan doc?rr?t or by the zoning ordinance.
The Planning Director further discussed the third major issue discussed relative
to the Specific Plan regar?g access to Lake Cahuilla, and reported that staff
had initially rec?ty?ded that the Applicant provide, through the project or
contigu?us to the project, bicycle paths to partially mitigate the loss of Jefferson
Street. vwever, after discussion, he reported that it was the consensus of the
Planning C?rinission that this rec?endation was not appropriate or OCp?tible with
this type of developeent.
The Planning Director reported that the Planning Cacnission had also discussed
M?dison Street, appropriate improveeents to Madison Street, and i'r?roVn?t of
Madison between Avenue 50 and 52. The Planning Director stated that the Planning
C3rinission ultimately decided that improvements of Madison Street hetween Avenue 52
and Avenue 54 where it does not now exist) and lirprovements of Madison Street
beteeen Avenues 50 and 52 he required of the Applicant.
In discussion the ippact of the closure of Jefferson Street upon the residents of
a Quinta, the Planning Director reported that the Planning onission had
rec??ded the Applicant make a contribution to the City which would he used for
the puppose of constructing a swirrming pool and/or related park facilities which
would be rr?re accessible to people inconvenienced by the longer distance to the
Lake Cahuilla area. He further reported that the Planning Cacoission had been
uaable to reach agreement as to the amount of this contribution, but that staff,
in negotiation with the Applicant, had deternined the amount at $200,000, which
could he approved or anended by the City Council. In addition, the Planning
ccccission had rec?rrnended the Applicant contribute monies to improve facilities
at Lake Cahuilla as well, and staff, in negotiation with the Applicant, had
set the figure at $50,000, to he approved or aeended by the City Council.
The Planning Director reported that the Specific Plan doc?irr?ts contains 45
rec?r?ded conditions relative to the proposed project, such as plot plans,
conditional use permit and tentative map approvals otherwise required by the
Subdivision and zoning ordinance of the City; ocopliance with certain seisnic
design criteria; establishment Cf requireeants that the Applicant complete a
hydrological analysis of the site relative to flood control; use of a water
conservation plan; wildlife and landscaping requireeents; archaeology; air quality;
traffic and circulation; noise abatement; energy; land use; public services and
utilities; and miscellaneous requirenents.
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
MINUTES City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Six.
The Planning Director presented a report fr? the Planning Q?ssion relative
to Change of Zone Case No. 84-007, a request to change zoning fr?n A-i-b, A-1-20
and W-2-20 to R-2, R-3, R-3 75' Ht. Limit), R-5 and C-P-S. He reported that
on M?ch 13 and 27, 1984, the Planning coission Conducted public hearings on
the Change of Zone and rec?rt?ded approval of the request, except that the
proposed c?Tnercial Center be decreased fr? 35 acres to 20 acres. In accordance
with this change, the Planning O:?rmi.ssion recarrtr??ded that the Change of Zone
request be anended to provide for 20 acres of C-P-S Scenic Highway C?rrnercial)
zoning and 1472 acres of R-2 zoning, in addition to the other requested zones as
shcwri On the Planning Cccciss ion Pecceeendat ion exhibit. He concluded that staff
was recocending certification of the E.I. R. and adoption of the appropriate
resolutions and ordiri?ces subject to the findings and conditions incorporated
in these docueents.
The City Manager explained that the next it? in the proper order of public
hearing would be to hear fr? the Applicant, LML Develo???rit Corporation of
California, represented by Kaye Chandler, Vice-President of TMr in charge of
planning and design. Mr. Chandler presented a report regarding the PGA West
project and a video tape of the PCA of American press release and a slide
presentation outlining the Specific Plan relative to the proposed project.
yor Allen announced that the meeting would adjourn for a ten minute break,
and reconvened the neeting at 9:02 pm.
Mayor Allen opened the hearing to C?r?t f? the public. cent, in alphabetical
order, was heard f? the following persons:
1. Martin Beck, Box 1043, La Quinta, questioned the Council regarding the future
of the project if annexation of the area crrrently in the County was
UflSU?cessful; if the Council had considered seeking an independent E.I.R.;
why the La Quinta Traffic Safety C???ttee had not been consulted regarding
proposed traffic Circulation concerns; whether the proposed residences were to
primary or secondary residences; and requested the Council place the West
question before the people for a vote.
2. Dale Bohnenberger, 51-100 Calle Obispo, La Quinta, addressed the Council and
spoke in favor of the PG? West project.
3. Janice 51-905 Avenida Villa, La Quinta, spoke in opposition to the
proposed project and asked the Council to put the issue to a referendum vote
of the people.
4. Earl Elison, 80-082 Palm Circle, La Quinta, addressed the Council in favor of
the project, stating that he felt the advantages would far outweigh the dis-
advantages of the project.
5. Bill Gates, 51-930 Avenida Martinez, La Quinta, spoke in favor of the PCA
West project, and stressed the benefits of flood control through the
edevelopeent Agency.
6. Garry Von Gleich, 51-455 Avenida Herrera, La QIinta, a resident for 20 years,
spoke in support of the proposed project.
7. Michele Miele Jensen, 77-836 Avenida ntez?na, congratulated Landmark on the
deve1o?xr?nt of the La Cuinta tel and urged the Council to approve the PGA
West project.
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Seven.
8. David Keeley, 54-365 Avenida Herrera, La QLinta, spoke in favor of the proposed
West project.
9. Becky hell, 51-035 Avenida ndoza, La Quinta, urged Council approval of
the proposed project.
10. po?rt ull, 81-200 Avenue 54, Thenrial, expressed concerns and Objections
relative to increased traffic along Madison Street and asked if traffic
could be diverted West along the Coachella Canal. He also expressed
concern relative to the proposed location of a fire station at the corner
of Avenue 54 and Madison, and stated that he would prefer to see the fire
Station located in the c???rcial center of the project, and water consumption
for private usage.
11. Fred Rice, 48-780 Ei5eri???r Drive, La Quinta, spoke in oppositio? to the
proposed project, and particularly the closure of Jefferson Street. Mr. Rice
asked if the developer could construct a road along the canal, which would
constitute 2/10th of a mile further than the present route along Jefferson.
Mr. Rice also spoke in opposition to the height proposals associated with
the project, and size of the proposed co?rrr?rcial area.
12. Perry Sandiford, 53-521 Eisenhower Drive, La Quinta, expressed concerns
relative to the closure of Jefferson Street, and asked that the route to
Lake Cahuilla be constructed to the west along the Coachella Canal, and
questioned additional costs for services to the new developeent. Mr. Sandiford
also expressed concerns relative to suuito abatement measures.
13. Steve Sixr?nson, 54-665 Avenida Pamirez, La Quinta, clarified questions
relative to the La Quinta H?r?wner s Association poll conducted relative
to the PGA West project, and asked the Council to cooent publicly regrrdin?
their reactions to the recent poll.
14. Stanley Sniff, P.O. Box 1414, La Quinta, expressed environeental concerns
relative to the proposed project, such as overdevelopeent, traffic congestion,
air pollution and increased hurrLidity; questioned the closure of public roads
and requested the Council adopt a rr?ratorium on all developeent until a
master plan and a?nplete EIR have been caripleted. Mr. Sniff further asked the
Council to place this issue on the November ballot for a vote by the citizenry.
15. Dan Snenson, 80-600 Avenue 58, Thermal, stated his opposition to the proposed
closure of Jefferson Street, and expressed concerns relative to increased
traffic flow along Avenue 54 and Madison Street, and suggested a scenic route
to Lake Cahuilla be created.
16. *i? Thornburgh, 78-042 Avenue 52, La Quinta, spoke in favor of the proposed
West project.
17. Jarr?s S. Wheatley, 151W. Yale p, Trvine, owner of 1800 acres on the
southeast periir?ter of the West project, expressed support for the project
and requested Council support of the project.
18. Charles F. Qhite, Jr., P.O. Box 1030, La Quinta, spoke in favor of the project,
and expressed hope for future developeent of the downtown La Quinta business
area.
19. Chuck Drjrikworth, 54-490 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, expressed support for the
project and asked that roads into the project be kept away fr? the City of
La Quinta proper.
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Eight.
The City Manager indicated that Mr. Drinworth 5 c?TT??nts concluded the list of
Persons indicating a desire to speak, and that he would read Ca?Tnents into the
record fr?n persons who so indicated earlier in the hearing, as follows:
1. Jay E. Callin, 52-661 Avenida Mendoza, La Quinta, supporting the project.
2. Eileen ley, 51-310 Avenida Velasco, La Quinta, opposing the closure of
Jefferson Street.
3. Jim Montg?nery, 53-025 Avenida Carranza, La Q\:iinta, speaking in favor of the
project.
4. Christa Duncan, 54-090 Avenida Herrera, La Quinta, opposing the closure of
Jefferson, six Story height l?injtation and loss of srn?ll town quality of life.
5. John Thuro Jensen, 77-836 Avenida Montezuma, supporting the PG? West project.
6. Na? Willoughby, 54-353 Avenida Velasco, La Quinta, opposing the project and
closure of Jefferson Street.
7. Mrs. E.L. Shepherd, 52-885 Avenida Obregon, La Quinta, supporting the project.
8. Helen Bradford, 52-865 Avenida Obregon, La Quinta, supporting the project.
9. Eleanor L. Shepherd, 52-885 Avenida Obregon, La Quinta, supporting the
project.
10. Neil Hercules, 2443 Sierra Madre, Palm Springs, representing the Public Record.
11. Joyce White, P.O. Box 1030, La Quinta, supporting the project.
12. Ingrid Werner, 55-400 Madison Street, Thermal, opposing the closure of
Jefferson Street and Airport Boulevard.
13. Dietrich Werner, 55-400 Madison Street, Thermal, opposing the closure of
Jefferson Street and Airport Boulevard.
14. Bernadine Sutton, 51-930 Avenida Martinez, La Qiijnta, urging the approval of
the PGA West project.
15. Edward C. Stock, 81-599 Airport Blvd., Thermal, objecting to rrrultiple story
buildings which might block view of rr?unta ins.
16. Angela B. Stanley, P.O. Box 473, La Quinta, reguesting an independent E.I.R.
17. Eleanor Shive, P.O. Box 294, La Quinta, opposing the project, road closure,
environeental inpacts and urbanization.
18. Ed Searcy, 52-279 Avenida avarro, La Quinta, opposing the closure of
Jefferson Street.
19. Richard A. Moreno, 50-825 Calle Ronda, La Quinta, opposing the closure of
Jefferson Street, building height limjtations, loss of agricultural lands,
water usage and urbanization.
20. Audrey M. Marshaan, 53-955 Avenida Velasco, La QLiinta, opposing the closure of
public roadways, high density, high rise buildings, but otherwise in favor of
project.
21. rothy M. Kull, 81-200 Avenue 54, Thermal, objecting to traffic diversion to
Madison Street and proposed location of fire station at Ave. 54 & Madison Streei
22. Judith 0. Burns, 78-390 Palm Garden Place, La Quinta, stressing the need for
mitigation by ll? relative to the impact of this project.
23. ra Bohnenberger, 51-100 Calle Obispo, La Quinta, urging Council approval of
the r? West project.
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
MINT?S City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Nine.
24. Posser nley, 51-700 Madison Street, Indio, supporting the project but requesting
placeeent of television cable service by the developer to mitigate the impact of
increased traffic along Madison Street.
25. Dietrich & Ingrid Werner, 55-400 Madison Street, Thennal, opposing the closure
of Jefferson Street and Airport Boulevard and placenent of overhead powerlines
along Madison Street.
The City Manager answered questions raised during the public ent rtion of
the public hearing.
There being no futther public coenent, Mayor Allen declared the public hearing
closed.
After lengthy discussion and cceeent by Council M???rs Baier, Cox, lff and
Mayor Allen, it was rr?ved by Council Wolff that the City Council put the
issue to a referendum Vote. There being no second to the ir?t ion, Mayor Allen
declared the tion dead for lack of a second.
The City Manager explained item 6.A. relative to certification of the E.I.R.
for Specific Plan No. 83-002, PGA est, and stated that staff is rec?rrending
adoption of the proposed resolution certifying the E.I. R., as follows:
RESOL?JrlON NO. 84-28. A ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA QUIb??A, IFYFNC THE
IMPACT EPORT P?EPA? FOR ThE WEST P?ECT IS RE?IZED As ADEQUATh
AND MpLEIE, REOCONIZING THE O?7E?ING CONSIDER??ICNS To CEETA? ADVERSE IMP;?CTS;
AND, CONIZING THE SIGNIFIC??NT ENVl?AL EIIICTS HiCH BE AVOIDED, BLYr
HICH C?N HE EBLY MITIGEI?, IF ThE PPOPOSED P?ECT IS IMPI?4E?IED.
ved by Council M??er Cox, seconded by Council r?er Baier, to adopt Resolution
N?. 84-28.
Poll Call Vote:
AYES: Council M?rs Bajer, Cox and Mayor Allen.
NOES: Council nber Wolff.
ABST?IN: Council Henderson.
The City Manager read the title of a proposed Resolution, as follows:
RESCL?ION NO. 84-29. A PESOWIION OF ThE CITY COUNCIL OF ThE CITY
OF LA QtJINTA, QALIFO?IA, ME?DINC THE L?
USE AND CII?CULATION EL?ME?TS OF THE LA QUINTA AL PL? FOR GE?:AL PLAN
NO. 84-002.
ved by Council 4?ber Cox, seconded by Council ber Baier, to adopt Resolution
No. 84-29.
ll Call Vote:
AYES Council ME?flber5 Baier, Cox and Mayor Allen.
NOES: Council inber Wolff.
ABSTAIN: Council nber Henderson
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
City CouncIl
May 1, 1984
Page I?n.
The City Manager read the title of a proposed Pesolution, as follows:
ESOLUTION No. 84-30. A PBSOLLJTION OF ThE CITY CODNCIL OF ThE
CITY OF LA QUI??A, CALIFORNIA, PREDESIGNATING
FOR PLAN PUI?POSES TAIN ADJACENT TO Th:E CITY TO IN
GE?? PLAN AME??[? NO. 84-002.
ved by Council ner Cox, seconded by Council eeber Baler, to adapt ResolutIon
Na. 84-30.
ll Call Vote:
AYES: Council ME?flbers Baler, Cox and Mayor Allen.
NOES: Council D?nber Wolff.
ABSIAIN. Council nber Henderson.
The City Manager stated that the next i? of business would be It? 6. C. relative
to Specific Plan No. 83-002, and stated that staff was rec?r?ing adoption of
a proposed ResolutIon, as follows, with certain specific changes in the conditions.
RESCLtj?ION NO. 84-31. A RESOLtyn? OF THE CITY UNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPPO'ONG, WITH
O?DITICNS, SP?IFIC PT? NO.83-002 FOR AIN PROPE? IN AND ADJACENT TO ThE CITY.
bved by Council Mao? Cox, seconded by Cooncil Mern:?r Baler, to adopt Resolution
84-31, with the change that the 35 acre o?r[t?rcial area be reduced to a maxi
total of 20 acres for the future developeent of a r[m?cial center and offices and
a change to Condition No.34 stating that height limitations shall be as shown in
the Specific Plan, e)?ept as follows:
a. The portion of the area designated for six-story 72-feet) height south of
the Airport Boulevard alignrr?nt shall be deleted.
b. All bLuldings or structures in excess of four 4) stories shall require
the prior approval of a Conditional Use Permit and said Conditional Use Permit
shall reqtiire a public hearing before both the Planning O?inisslon and City
Council. In conjunction with review of said Conditional Use Permit, the City
may require a reduction in building height to no less than four 4) stOries,
a change in building location, a revision to building architecture or design or
other adjustrt?nts deeeed necessary to assure cappatibility of such stuucture
with the ir?untain background and with existing and future uses on surrounding
properties.
Council nber Cax also included in her rr?tion, seconded by Council Mebber Baler,
that Condition No. 37, relative to encouraging agricultural production on undeveloped
portions of the property when feasible, and to include the revision to Finding No. 5,
that changes outside the control of the Applicant would not adversely affect the
Specific Plan approval without reconsideration of the Specific Plan by the City
Council.
ll Call Vote:
AYES. Council MEnber Baler, Cox and Mayor Allen.
NOES: Council Mebber Wolff.
ABST?IN: Council M??er Henderson.
The City Manager read the title of a proposed Ordinance, as follows
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
MINUTES City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Eleven
P?POS? AN O?IN?? OF CITY COUNCIL OF ThE CITY
OF IA QUINTA, CALIFO?IA, A??DING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY, BY REZONING AIN PPOPEF?TY TO IN OF ZONE
CASE NO. 84-007.
ved by Council ME?flber Cox seconded by Council M?ber Baier, to waive further
reading and introduce the proposed Ordinance
Roll Call Vote:
Es. Council M?nbers Baier, Cox and Mayor Allen.
NOES: Council lff.
ABSTAIN: Council Mebber Henderson.
The City Manager explained that it uld be noted for the record that ibit
No. 1 attached to the proposed Ordinance rezoning certain property referred to
in Change of Zone Case No. 84-007, would be anended to change the R-3-75 zoning
designation to reflect R-3 only.
The City Manager read the title of a proposed Ordinance, as follows:
P?PoSD ORDIN?NCE. AN O?INANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF IA QUINTA, CAL??RNIA, PREZONING AIN
P?PEF?? ACE?? TO ThE CITY REU?RRED TO IN OF Z?E CASE 84-007,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 65859 OF THE CALIFORNIA PL?NING AND Z?ING L?.
The City Manager noted that, for the record, the Eh?it attached to this ordinance
would be change to reflect R-3 instead of R-3-75.
Ted by Council Cox, seconded by Council nber Baier, to waive futther
reading and introduce the proposed Ordinance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: Council nbers Bajer, Cox and Mayor Allen.
NOES: Council Tiber lff.
ABSTA:N: Council r?er Henderson.
7. CONSENT CALJ?AR
ved by Council Mebber Cox, seconded by Council Mebber Henderson, to adopt
the Consent Calendnr.
A. The Minutes of the regular eting held April 17, 1984, were approved as
suuuitted.
B. RESOLUTI? NO. 84-32. A RES(??UTI? OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ThE CITY
OF IA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APP?OONG DEMANDS.
ll Call Vote:
AEES: Council Mebbers Baier, Cox, Henderson, Wolff and Mayor Allen.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
8. BUSINESS SESSI?
A. The City Manager presented a report regarding renewal of liability, property
and bond insurance policies, and reca??nded acceptance of a proposal fran
Twin City Fire Insurance with no deductible, at a pr?nium of
$10,182, for the period of May 1, 1984, through April 31, 1985.
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
MINUTES-City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Twelve
ed by Councll r?er Baler, seconded by Council n?er Cox, to accept a
proposal fr?n win City Fire Insurance CJn??y in the amount of $10,182,
for the period May 1, 1984, through April 31, 1985. Unanirr?usly adopted.
B. The Planning Director presented a report regarding Final Thact Map No. 14496-5,
14496-6 and 14496, and rec?tTnended approval of the final tract maps and
acceptance of the bonds gaaranteeing the construction of street, Water, sewer,
and drainage irr?rcveeents.
ved by Council ber lff, seconded by Council M?r??r Ccx, to approve
Final act Map Nos. 14496-5, 14496-6 and 14496, and accept the bonds
guaranteeing construction of street, Water, sewer and drainage improveeents
irr?usly adopted.
C. The City Manager presented a report regarding award of a contract for the
construction of slurry seal and striping in Avenida La Fonda and Calle
Estado in the arrount of $21,010.00.
ved by Council nber Cox, seconded by Council mber Baler, to award
a contract for the construction of slurry seal and striping in Avenida
La Fonda and Calle Estado to D & D Asphalt Maintenance, in the arr?unt of
$21,010.00. Unanirr?usly adopted.
D. The City Manager presented a report regarding award of a contract for the
construction of chip seal in Avenue 52 west of Jefferson Street to Avenida
Bermudas in the arr?unt of $25,116.00.
ed by Council Henderson, seconded by Council Cox, to table
this it?. Unan?r?usly adopted, with Council M?er Cox abstaining.
E. The City Manager presented a report regarding arrrd of a contract for
construction of street inprov?r?nts at the intersection of Jefferson Street
and Westward Ho Drive in the arr?unt of $10,718.50.
ved by Council Mab?r lff, seconded by Council Henderson, to
award a contract for the construction of street ir?roveeents at the inter-
section of Jefferson Street and Westward Ho Drive to Curb Corp., in the
unt of $10,718.50. Uaanirr?'usly adopted.
F. The City Manager presented a report regarding an urgency ordinance of the
City Council establishing regulations prohibiting outdoor advertsinq displays
and structures, specifically relating to billboard signing, and recceeended
adoption of the urgency ordinance and read the title of the proposed Ordinance,
as follows:
ORDIN?? NO. 55. AN O?INANCE OF THE CITY CIL OF THE CITY OF
LA UD?IA, ADO?ING As AN URGE??CY MEASURE,
CII? EIATIONS P?HIBITING OUTDOOR ADVER?ISING DISPLAYS, OOR ADVER?S INC
ST??ItJIES AND OUTDOOR AD?7EI?ISING SIGNS WHICH MAY BE IN C?FLICT WITh A F?4-
PLATED ZONING PROPOSAL, SAID R?TICNS To BE IN ON AN INTERIM ST]DY
BASIS PURSLU?NT TO GOVE???EOT CODE SECTION 65858.
Moved by Council M?r?er lff, seconded by Council M?nber Henderson, to Waive
further reading and adopt Ordinance No.55.
ll Call Vote:
AYES: Council rr?ers Baier, Cox, Henderson, Wolff and Mayor Allen.
NOES. None.
ABSV?: None.
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02
$n
MINUTES City Council
May 1, 1984
Page Tbirteen
9.
ved by Council r?r lff? seconded by Council nber Cox, to adjourn.
Unanirr?us ly adopted.
The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held May 1, 1984, was adjourned
at 12:10 p.xri., Tuesday, May 1, 1984, at the La QLlinta Cooounity Center, 77-861
Avenida ntez?ITia, La QLiinta, California, to Tuesday, May 15, 1984, at 7:30 p.m.,
at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.
BIB]
03-13-96-U01
02:47:24PM-U01
CCMIN-U02
05-U02
01-U02
1984-U02