Loading...
1986 01 21 CC Minutes" 14I?MINUTES 345 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting of the City Council held at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. January 21, 1986 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mayor John Pena called the La Ouinta City Council ineeting to order at 7:30 p.m., and led the Council and audience in the flag salute. 2. ROLL GALL C\J Present: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena. Ln Absent: None. Manager Usher, Deputy City Manager Jennings, City Attorney Longtin, Fresent:City Co"'munity Development Director Stevens, and Administrative Secretary Cr) Wright. PL'BLlC CO??NT 1. Audrey Ostrowsky, P.O. Box 351, La Quinta, suggested the City hire a parliamentarian in 1986, to ensure that City Council meetings were conducted according to Robert 5 Rules of Order". 2. Jacques Abels, P.O. Box 1416, La Quinta, La Quinta's Director on the C.V. Recreation and Park District Board, brought the Council up to date on Recreation District activities. Mr. Abels reported that the District had recently hired a new District Manager and two new Recre?tion Supervisors, commencing March 1, 1986. Mr. Abels explained that the new District Manager would begin his duties February 15, 1986. 4. WRITTEN CO?J\.'ICATlONS 5. COMMENT BY COU\:CIL M??ERS A. Council Member Wolff thanked Mr. Abels for his updates on Recreation District business. Mr. Wolff also expressed his sorrow at the passing of Council Member Mike Wolfson of Rancho Mirage, and spoke in praise of Mr. Wolfson's leadership abilities and humanitarian activities. B. Mayor Pena expressed sympathy also for the passing of Council Member Wolfson, and also to Supervisor Corky Larson, on the passing of her husband Keene Larson. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Wolff, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. A. Minutes of the regular City Council meeting held January 7, 1986, were approved as submitted. B. RESOLUTION NO. 86-6. A RESOLUTION OF ThE CITY COL?NCIL OF ThE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEMA???S. C. Final Tract Map NO. 20717-4 for Sunrise Co?p3ny at PGA est was accepted as ubitted. BIB] 02-27-96-U01 08:40:43AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 01-U02 21-U02 1986-U02 " MINUTES?S City Council 21. 1986 Page Two. 7. HEARl?GS 6. BL'Sl?ESS SESSlO? A. OkDINANCE 0 8i. AN ORDI?A?CE OF THE ClT? COU?ClL OF THE CITY OF LA QUl?TA, CALlFORNIA, AMENDINC THE LA Q?INTA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING? THE PARkING OF CERTAIN COMmERCIAL VEHICLES IN ThE ClTY. The title of the proposed Ordinance was read by Mayor Pena. It was moved by Council Meuber Cox, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance o. 87. Council Member Wolff suggested the City Manager explain to the audience the purpose of the Ordinance. Mr. Usher explained that the Ordinance would prohibit the parking of certain commercial vehicles in the City, and was an extension of a previously existing ordinance. Mr. Usher explained that there would now be a City-wide prohi- bition on parking of large, commercial vehicles those larger than 20' long and 6' high). Roll Call Vote. AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena. OES: one. ABSENT: one. ABSTAIN: one. E. The Deputy City Manager presented a report regarding an agreement between the City and County of Riverside for a Job Training Partnership Program. Ms. Jennings s explained that under the Agreement, the City would provide job training servic for a Public Works Maintenance Worker Trainee, and pa??ent of salary and benefits would be provided by the County. She explained that the program was for a duration of 28 weeks, a total reimbursement amount of $2,623.00. Ms. Jennings stated that the position had been filled, and recommended approval of the Agreement between the City and County for the Job Training Partnership Progra? JTP), and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. Council Member Wolff asked about the possibility of expansion of this program, and the probability of bringing in office/clerical staff. Ms. Jennings explained that the program was supervised by the County, and positions were allocated according to the County's funding structure. She further explained that an additional position of Office Aide I had been secured from the County, and that a young woman had begun employment with the City last week, with the subsequent Agreement to follo?. It was moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to approve an Agreement between the City and County of Riverside for a Job Training Progralil, and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document on behalf of the Citv. Unanimously adopted. C. The Community Development Director presented a report regarding a request for an off-site sign for Landmark Land Company at Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. Mr. Stevens explained that the intended sign would identify subdivision sales Landmark's hotel and tennis club facilities and at Duna La Quinta. Mr. Stever explained that the Citv currently has a moratoriu? ordi?ance which prohibits from approving or processing this type of sign. Mr. Stevens further explained at upon receipt of Landmark's request for this sign, Council had directed Staff to prepare background information evaluating the proposal and alternatives to the moratorium? ordinance. BIB] 02-27-96-U01 08:40:43AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 01-U02 21-U02 1986-U02 " MiN?TES City Council 347 January 21, 1986 Page Three. Mr. Stevens stated that Staff had presented this information to Council, and said that the City h3d, to date, expended approximately $1,000 for provision of City?installed subdivision directory signs currently in use throughout the City. He noted Staff concerns relative to modification of the current moratorium ordinance in relation to allowing off-pre?ise advertising signs, espec?ally in light of the schedule recently provided to Council pertaining to a new sign ordinance. Mr. Stevens stated that it was Staff's feeling that the moratorium? should re-?in effect and a sign such as the one requested by Landmark not be approved. Mr. Stevens further stated that, at Council's request, Staff had identified several standards as alternatives for consideration in the moratorium ordinance should Council desire to approve a sign of this type. He explained that Ln Staff had further provided a detailed list of standards which could be inserted in the moratorium ordinance should the Council desire to approve a sign of the type 3 requested by Landmark. Mr. Stevens itemized these standards for the Council, and recommended that if the Council wished to modify the moratorium ordinance to allow signs of this sort, they adopt, on an urgency basis, an amendment to Ordinance No. 75, which would insert in Section 1 an exception to allow processing of plot plan applications subject to Section 3. At this point, City Attorney Longtin stated that he had prepared, in Ordinance form, an action to modify the moratorium ordinance, if desired. Mr. Stevens then explained the procedure which would be used by Landmark to process their application, if the ordinance amendment were approved. Council Member Allen pointed Out that Item 2.C. of Staff's suggested standards would require signs to be 2' less in height than the proposed Landmark sign. He further questions Staff's suggestion that a $500 fine be imposed for failure of a developer to remove their sign at the requested time. Mr. Stevens explained that if an outside contractor were used for sign removal, this would cover the City's cost; it would be much less it City staff handled the matter. Council Member Allen also questions the number of allowed signs suggested in Item D one sign per development). Mr. Stevens explained that each subdivision could have one sign, for example, Duna La Quinta could have a sign and the Hotel Tennis Villas could have one sign. He stated if these were merged onto one sign, then two signs would be permitted. He cited examples. such as Laguna De La Paz one sign), Villa Vista one sign), PGA est one sign). Council Member Wolff questioned the typical" size of a billboard sign, such as how many square feet. Mr. Stevens stated that they were approximately 12' x 30', or 300'-400' sq. feet. Council Member Wolff urged that Staff have quality control over these signs, to prohibit a proliferation of unsightly signs. Council Member Cox explained to Mr. Wolff that this matter had been discussed by the Council during their study session, and had expressed this concern to Staff. Council Member Allen asked if a two-sided sign would be acceptable. Mr. Stevens explained that it would be, up to a certain point. Council Member Wolff questioned location of these signs. He questioned how Staff would handle a situation where a developer might desire to place a sign which was considered undesirable by the City. Mr. Stevens stated that he felt this could be handled through proper language requiring signs to be within a certain distance from the subdivision. BIB] 02-27-96-U01 08:40:43AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 01-U02 21-U02 1986-U02 "NL"LTES City Council 1986 Following continued lengthy discussion regarding placement, nu?ber, size and design of signs, and a discussion with Andy Vossler, Project Director of Landmark Land Company, regarding their needs in this regard, City Attorney Longtin suggested a review of the substantive text, as follc?s: * that the signs be located within reasonable proximity of the subdivision; * that the nu?ber of directory signs per subdivision be set at one; * change the Section number to 2a instead of 3; * Section C., sign height, be amended to make it 15' instead of 12'; * Section D., text and heading will be changed to read: Location, Number and Spacing of Signs: Subdivision directory signs shall be located within reasonable proximity to the sLibdivision. No more than one subdivision directory sign for each subdivision shall be allowed in the City. All such subdivision signs shall be spaced a distance of at least 1,000' or similar language) between signs. * G.4. will be changed to read: 4. The plot plan for the sign shall be null and void, the sign removed and the cash deposit forfeited. Then the same language down to the word City, at which point it will read: provided, however, City shall provide written notice of such unauthorized signs and Applicant shall have a period of seven 7) working days to correct such violation. Mr. Longtin then presented the Council with the Ordinance format, as follows: ORD?ANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ThE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AM??ING ORDINANCE NO. 75, RELATIVE TO SUBDIVISION DIRECTORY SIGNS AND DECLARING ThE URGENCY THEREOF. The City Council of the City of La Quinta does ordain as follows: Section 1. Mr. Longtin explained that Section 1. would be the Section 2.A. the Council has before them, as amended). Mr. Longtin further explained the reason for the urgency measure, and read to the Council the urgency finding pursuant to Section 65858 of the Government Code of the State of California. Mr. Longtin explained that the effective period of the Ordinance would be until May 7, 1986, which is the date the urgency ordinance, in full,expires. It was moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to adopt Ordinance No. 88, as above, on an urgency basis. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Mayor Pena adjourned the meeting for the purpose of a 5-minute break at 8:37 p.m. Mayor Pena reconvened the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m. D. The Community Development Director presented a regarding a Pavement Management System in the La Quinta Cove area. Mr. Stevens stated that at the request of Council Member Wolff at the previous Council meeting, Staff had prepared a report detailing the status of the City's budgeted pavement management system. Mr. Stevens reported that Staff had started the preliminary work, and asked the City Engineer to prepare a background memo emphasizing the Cove area to show BIB] 02-27-96-U01 08:40:43AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 01-U02 21-U02 1986-U02 " MiNUTES City Council January 2?. 986 349 Pa?e Five. Mr. Stevens explained that the City Engineer's report discussed the factors involved in road evaluation nd analysis, to determine the appropriate level of improvement in various areas. He explained that the report also estimated possible Costs of road improvement in the Cove area, and evaluates various levels of improvement which might be done. Mr. Stevens stated that BSI Consultants, Inc., is continuing to work on this task, but that he had not yet received their schedule for complete pavement management system. Mr. Stevens stated that it was Staff's intention to use the pavement study to direct Staff efforts on where to do improvernents in the Capita? Improvement Program and Street Maintenance Program, basically for next year's budget. He stated that Staff would also attempt to have the Current street program operate in a more systematic manner, with more regularly scheduled evaluation and correction of problem areas undertaken by Staff. Council Member Allen asked if the report was intended for action or information. Mr. Stevens responded that it was intended for information only. Council Member wolff expressed concerns regarding current status of Citv Streets, primarily in the Cove area. He stated that he has not observed improvements other than usual maintenance and repair of potholes. He expressed concern regarding the generality of the study done, and timelines regarding future improvements and assessment of repairs and improvements to be done. Council Member wolff strongly requested immediate action regarding a practical study for repairs and improvement to facilitate this work being done in the very near future. Mr. wolff requested a plan which would result in timely Street repair. The City Manager stated that as a result of Council Member wolff's comments, it appeared that there were two levels of report that would be useful to the Council: the first would be a long-range report by BSI addressing the issues of the structure of the streets in the City's Cove area, for the purpose of being the basis of the City's long-term capital improvement program. Mr. Usher stated that some of the more obvious and immediate problems such as potholes and rough intersections could be addressed by a field inspection and report. Mr. Usher suggested that City staff go Out and in a concentrated and quick fashion, provide a field report of tho?e locations where the City could use the funds it presently has budgeted in a mcre rapid and direct way in this fiscal year. Mr. Stevens explained that Staff had expended portions of the 1985-86 budget on such items as materials, drainage work, etc., and were continuing to make the street program more systematic rather than reactionary. He further explained the lack of engineering Staff through a portion of the first half of this fiscal year, which had contributed to Staff delay in response time. Council Member Cox suggested that the Street Maintenance Foreman be reimbursed on mileage and utilize his own vehicle to better survey City streets. Mr. Stevens stated this could be done, but would possible require some budget adjustments to provide this reimbursement. Council Member Allen stated that he would like to see a capable Staff mem?er do a street survey, street by street, and initiate the necessary improvement work, whether it be slurry seal, patching, etc. It was the consensus to ask Staff to proceed with a systematic approach to begin immediate street improvements, with regular progress reports at each Council study session. It was also recommended to include the Indian Springs area in this work. BIB] 02-27-96-U01 08:40:43AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 01-U02 21-U02 1986-U02 "MINUTES City Council January 21, 1986 pa?6?ix. E. The Community Development Director presented a report regarding an appeal of is decision regarding street address. Ann Young, Appelant. Mr. Stevens reported that Mrs. Young had requested a change of address fro? Avenida Ramirez to Calle nogales since her home fronts on Calle nogales. Mr. Stevens reported that, based on Council discussion at the study session, it would be Staff's intention to modify their pre\ious methods of assigning addresses so that addresses are assigned based on the location of the front door for corner parcels if the front door faces a Calle, that would be the address; if the front door faces the Avenida, that would be the address). Mr. Stevens explained that if was the Council's desire, he would recoTmnend they approve Mrs. Young's appeal, at hich time Staff would undertake the necessary change of address notifications. such as Fire Department, Sheriff's Department, etc. It was moved by Council Member wolff, seconded by Council Member Cox, to approve an appeal on behalf of Ann Young regarding street addressing, and direct Staff to modify their present street address assignment procedure to reflect the Council desire relative to addressing of corner lots in the Cove. nan?ously adopted. F. Community Development Director Stevens reported that the Indio Citv Council had agreed to participate jointlv with La Quinta for the purpose of reconstructing a portion of Miles Avenue at Jefferson Street. He reported that lndio will be the lead agency in this reconstruction project, and will begin road plans in immediate future, probably within the n?xt 45 calendar days. He reported that a schedule would be forthcoming when available, and that Staff would be reporting back with budget figures and a request for a budget appropriation, if necessary. G. The City Manager reminded the Council that it would be necessary to adjourn this meeting to February 1, 1986, at 9:00 a.m., at the Embassy Suites in Palm Desert, for the purpose of a mid?year budget studv session. 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Council Mernber Cox, seconded by Council Member wolff, to adjourn to Saturday, February 1, 1986, at 9:00 a.m., at the Embassy Suites in Palm Desert, for a budget revie? session. Unanimously adopted. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Quinta was adjourned at 9:37 p.m., on Tuesday, January 21, 1986, at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. BIB] 02-27-96-U01 08:40:43AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 01-U02 21-U02 1986-U02