1984 10 24 CC Minutes$ MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LA Q?
An adjourned meeting of the City
Council held at City Hall, 78-105
Calle Estado, La QLiinta,
California.
tober 24, 1984 2:00 p.m.
1. CAli TO OPD?
yor Allen called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.
A. The flag salute was led by Planning C?rmissioner Klirr??iewicz.
2. T.T CALL
City Council
Present: Council Maobers Baler, Ccx, lff and Mayor Allen.
Absent: Council r Henderson.
Also Present: City Manager Usher, Administrative Services Coordinator Jennings,
Carinunity Develo??nt Director Stevens and City Attorney Lcngt in.
Planning Cccoission
Present: OOOissioners Kliskiewicz, lling and Chaiaaan Thornburgh.
Absent: C?missicners Goetcheus and Salas.
Dtved by Council Wolff, seconded by Council rber Cox, to excuse Council
i?:?i??r Henderson. Unariusly adopted.
3. PUBLIC C?E?
4. WRI? C?UNICA?ICNS
C?t?UIT BY COUNCIL
A. Council fr?ber lff asked several questions pertaining to residency requirements
for Council candidates, and stated that one Council candidate, ii??y Ostr?sky,
had leased her h? for one year and was not living within the City, but was
residing in Palm Springs Council r Wolff asked the City Attorney what
effect her Palm Springs residency would have on her runing for and/or taking
office if elected.
The City Attorney stated that a Council L?r elect rtust be an elector of said
City at the tine they take office; and for the purpose of rnnning, they must be
a qualified voter of the City at the tine they taae out nomination papers. He
further defined an elector as sate?e is or has been a resident of the City
for 30 days prior to the tine they are seated as a Council and a resident
was defined as a person whose permanent place of residence is within the City.
6.
7. CCNSE? CALEND?R
8. BUSINESS SESSI?
BIB]
03-14-96-U01
10:33:42AM-U01
CCMIN-U02
10-U02
24-U02
1984-U02
$M?ThS C:TY COUNCIL
October 24, 1984
Page Twa.
A. The City Manager introduced a joint City Council/Planing C?ITnissiOn study session
to discuss the status of the project and traffic circulation issues related to
Specific Plan 84-04 The Grove Associates, Applicant The City Manager further
explained that this session was discussion only, with no action to be taken
until the Council hearing on November 6th and the Planning Ccccission hearing
October 31, 1984.
1. The C?rimccity Develo?xrent Director presented the staff report regarding
Specific Plan No. 84-04, Zone Caange Case No. 84-014 and the FIP Addendum to
s?, and explained that the hearing had been s?eduled to review the status
of the project and circulation issue. Mr. Stevens presented a chronology of
events relative to this project up to the present tirre.
Mr. Stevens further reported on the unresolved issue of traffic circulation
extension of an additional north-south corridor, i.e., Adams or Dune Palms
I?oad) through the project, and discussed traffic studies done by JHK and
Berr? and Stephenson. Mr. Stevens pointed out that at present, his
rec?rrreridation supported the conclusion in the Berryman & Stephenson study
calling for the eteension of Adams Street through the project, but stated
that he ould continue to evaluate the traffic information prior to making
a formal recarmendation to the Planning Cccmission at their October 30th
public hearing on the matter.
2. Mr. Dave Howerton, representing The Grove Associates, Applicant, introduced
Mr. Dave 1ly and Mr. Jack Marshall, parners in The Grove Associates,
presented a slide show and background information regarding projects the
Applicants had been involved in recently.
3. Following the presentation, Mr. Caarlie Abrahams, Traffic Engineer for the
applicant, explained details of the traffic study done by JIlK, and pointed
out the reasons behind their recceeendation that an extension of Adams Stree?
was not necessary through the project. Mr. Abramms explained the JHK study
area used and various traffic r?de1s utilized.
4. Following Mr. Abramams presentation, Mr. Jim Kawuura of Berryrrian & Stephenson
presented the traffic study done by his cop?y, and pointed our the criteria
used which ultimately led to their recarrmendation of the extension of Amams
Street through this project.
5. The Council and Planning Cccoissicners questioned both traffic engineers at
length regarding the various traffic studies, and criteria used for determining
rec?rriandations of both studies.
6. A s?irma?? was presented by the City Manager.
N?Th: Council fld?5On arrived at the meeting at approximately 2:32 p.m.
B. The City Manager presented a report regarding the effect of Proposition 36 on
the City if it should pass on the Noverr?er 6, 1984, election, and rec?rriended
Council adoption of the following Pesolution:
RES?UTI? NO.84-74. A RESOLUTI? OF ThE CITY C?JNC? OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINT??, CALIFO?IA, OPPOSING PPOPOSflI?
ved by Council rrber lff, seconded by Council r Cox, to adopt
Pesolution No. 84-74. U??ari?usly adopted.
9.
Mayor Allen announced the rr?ting adjourned at 5:28 pm.
The adjourned meeting of the La Cuinta City Council was adjourned at 5:28 p.m. on
Tuesday, October 24, 1984, at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La QQinta, California.
BIB]
03-14-96-U01
10:33:42AM-U01
CCMIN-U02
10-U02
24-U02
1984-U02