Loading...
1996 02 20 CC Minutes*E LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council on February 20, 1996 was called to order at the hour of 3:00 p.m. by Mayor Bangerter, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Bangerter ABSENT: None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Mr. Genovese, City Manager, asked that Study Session Item No.2 be continued to March 5th. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Genovese, City Manager, introduced Mark Weiss as the City's new Assistant City Manager. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Bangerter presented awards to volunteers of the Kidsline Program She also announced that the program recently won the Helen Putnam Award for Excellence. Council Member Sniff commended Mayor Bangerter for her efforts in initiating the program. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the City Council Minutes of February 6, 1996 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 2 February 20, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Seth Etinger, 78-720 Avenida La Fonda, expressed appreciation to Joaquin Rubio of Coachella for volunteer tile work he did recently at the Historical Society. Ms. Audrey Ostrowsky, P. 0. Box 351, commented that she hasn?t received a response from the City yet regarding her property rights and asked for a response within two weeks to avoid any further action. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that she would receive a response by the end of the week Ms. Karen Kuenzler, 44-450 Camino La Vanda, advised that she understood when she purchased a home in Rancho Ocotillo, that two-story homes could not be constructed next to an existing development. However, she recently learned that the Quinterra development plans to build two, two-story homes behind hers. She believed that such construction would diminish the value of her property as well as take away her privacy and urged the Council to prohibit the construction of any two- story homes along the perimeter of the existing development. She has obtained approximately 58 signatures on petitions in opposition to the construction of the two- story homes. Council Member Perkins advised that he's also been concerned about this as well as other problems in the area that need to be addressed. He urged the Community Development Director, City Manager, and City Attorney to look into these problems and take appropriate action immediately. Ms Ann Brown, 480 Camino La Vanda, agreed with Ms. Kuenzier and echoed her comments. Ms. Joan Foster, 78-234 Hacienda, President of the La Quinta Arts Foundation, introduced Ms. Johna Davis as the Foundation?s Interim Executive Director and Ms. Susan Francis as the Arts Festival Coordinator and they presented the City with the 1 996 La Quinta Arts Festival Poster. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 3 February 20, 1996 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE LETTER FROM GREATER COACHELLA VALLEY SOAP BOX DERBY REQUESTING FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR THE SECOND ANNUAL SOAP BOX DERBY TO BE HELD ON MARCH 23, 1996. Ms. Lucia Moran, P.O. Box 1305, advised that a lot of entrant applications have been received for the race, but they've had difficulty raising the $1,100 needed for the franchise fee which allows the use of the name and provides the needed insurance. They are working with some time constraints, but arrangements can be made with the Soap Box Derby Association as long as they're assured that the fees will be paid. Council Member Sniff supported the request. In response to Council Member Sniff, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that this matter should be agendized as a Business Session item on the next agenda if the Council wishes to take action to which Council Member Sniff advised that he wished to do so. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. Moran advised that the City supported the event last year through in-kind services only and the franchise fee was funded through a donation from Colony CableVision who allocated their youth funds this year to the school system. Sponsorship fees will cover the cost of transporting the winning derby cars and participants to the national event. In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Moran advised that the event will include a super stock" division this year which will accommodate youths 10-16 years of age and up to 150 lbs. Their appeal through a Desert Sun article for private funding was never printed. Council Member Perkins supported the event. Council concurred on agendizing this matter for the next agenda. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 4 February 20, 1 996 BUSINESS SESSION CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION OF THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION TO COMMISSION BARBARA GRYGUTIS TO DESIGN AND INSTALL ARTWORK AT THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER RETENTION BASIN WITH THE APPROPRIATION OF AN ADDITIONAL $30,000. Mr Herman, Community Development Director, advised that on January 16, 1 998, the Council approved a contract with Ms. Grygutis pending their final approval of the maquette. The maquette has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Arts in Public Places Commission APP). A description of the project written by Ms. Grygutis was read which stated that the land-mass portion of the sculpture will be formed from existing soil within the basin and will not alter the purpose of the retention basin. Through the use of natural rock, the earth sculpture will emulate the color and texture of the surrounding mountains and an illuminated arch sitting atop the earth sculpture will be visible from the street. If Council approves this project, a contract will be negotiated in an amount not to exceed $50,000 which will leave a balance of $38,871 in the APP Fund. The contract will be brought back to Council for final approval and will include a scope of services and construction timeline. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Herman advised that the proposed earth sculpture would include a pedestrian path that leads out to the arch in the center of the retention basin. Any nuisance water that exists in the basin due to storm water runoff will be removed through a sump pump in the bottom of the basin. No plans exist to install any type of safeguard to prevent children from falling into the basin, with or without the proposed art. Council Member Adolph asked for clarification on the selection process and the difference between a normal bid and the contractual quotations received on this project. Mr. Herman advised that a Request of Interest" is distributed to various artists and then the APP, with the help of two appointed Council Members, select three to five artists that they feel are capable of designing appropriate artwork for the particular site. A recommendation is made to Council as well as a request to appropriate funds for the project. The time frame and contract amount up to $50,000) on this project will be brought back to Council for approval once a contract is negotiated. He reviewed some history of the project and how Mr. Koenig, the developer, gave the City permission to select the artwork for this site. Council authorized a budget of $20,000 and the distribution of an Expression of Interest and Qualifications," which has also been referred to as an RFP). After distributing 35 Requests of Interest, the BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 5 February 20, 1996 APP received five proposals, but rejected them and redistributed the Request of Interest to a new list, including the five artists who had submitted previous proposals. Twelve proposals were received, of which approximately half were from local artists, and three finalists were selected. A proposal from Mr. Rineman was for $20,000 to construct an arched-sundial theme to which he was willing to add additional artwork, but would not specify a dollar amount until he was awarded a contract. Mr. Berlier indicated that he would need an additional $3,000-$5,000 to install lighting on his artwork proposal. Ms. Grygutis presented a proposal for $20,000, but the APP asked if she could modify it to include terracing and that's when discussions began to increase the budget another $30,000. The proposal before the Council includes a vertical element design, but no terracing. He advised that the APP understood that if they wished to have landscaping, etc. in the basin, any of the three finalists would require more money. The APP liked Ms. Grygutis' concept of integrating artwork into the basin as opposed to just placing artwork there and began to discuss how much it would cost to construct terracing into the basin. All of the proposals were received by the December 29th deadline except Mr. Simpson's which was received on December 30th. Council Member Henderson felt that this matter has come to this point through unintentional, yet, inappropriate actions and she could not support its approval. She stated that the request of interest was referred to as an RFP for $20,000 in all of the Commission meetings and since it was never clarified differently, that's what she considers it. Council Member Perkins shared Council Member Henderson's concerns in addition to a concern that the proposed artwork design would create an attractive nuisance for children that the City might be liable for. He felt that it's an unsafe design for that site and he wouldn't support it. Mr. Alibaba Farzaneh, 39-902 New Castle Drive, Rancho Mirage, owner of the Sesame Restaurant, stated that he, too, was concerned about the safety element of the proposed design. He was not only concerned for children, but also for adults that may stumble and fall as they attempt to walk out to the arch. He calculated that it would take approximately eight hours to pump out four hours of heavy rainfall and pointed out that it would be difficult for children to climb out of a grassy basin filled with mud and water. He was also concerned that the construction for the artwork wouldn't be completed in time for the opening of his restaurant in late May or early June as opposed to other artwork designs that could be constructed elsewhere and installed at the site within a few days. If the proposed design is approved, he wished the City Attorney to write him and his attorney a letter stating that he would not be held liable for any accidents there. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 6 February 20, 1996 Mr. Ed Kibbey, 77-584 Country Club Drive, Suite 400-B, Palm Desert, representing the Building Industry Association, advised that the building industry provides 100% of the APP Funds and questioned the increase on this project from $20,000 to $30,000. He also questioned where the funds would come from to pay for relocating the sump pump and engineering costs, as well as regular maintenance of the basin. He urged the Council to consider the additional costs before proceeding any further and direct the APP to maintain a budget limit of $30,000 maximum for this project. Mr. Dennis Chappel, 74-856 Joni Drive, Palm Desert, President of the Desert Contractors Association, asked if the APP?s additional requests had been submitted to the three finalists in a manner in which they could respond in a written proposal. If not, he requested that it be done to be fair to everyone including all of the local artists. Mr. James Preston, 47-755 Del Coronado Drive, lndio, presented a geological engineering report prepared by Koenig and asked that the limitations on structures within the basin be looked at. He felt that it might take more than $50,000 to conquer the process necessary for beautifying this particular site. Mr. Seth Etinger, 78-720 Avenida La Fonda, suggested that a wrought-iron fence be installed around the perimeter of the basin as a safety measure. He felt that the drainage issue should be looked at and referred to drainage problems that exist during rainstorms at the drainage tubes at Calle Rondo and Avenue 52 that he feels were inadequately addressed. Mr. John Walling, 45-190 Club Drive, Indian Wells, Chairman of the Art in Public Places Commission, felt that the problem at hand is endemic to the site and that a nuisance exists, with or without artwork. HG suggested that the Council provide guidance to the APP before proceeding any further if safety is a concern. He advised that the issue of increased funding came up during discussions of adding some type of stone around the basin on the two street sides and after an artist was selected, they felt that it would be better to spend the additional funding on artwork instead of a stone amphitheater. He felt that the construction time frame was a legitimate concern for the restaurant owner, but believed it could be worked out. He understood that the developer is responsible for the maintenance of the basin He advised that the two overriding reasons the APP selected Ms. Grygutis as the artist was because of her experience with this type of project and the fact that her design would be visible from the street. Council Member Henderson quoted a portion of the APP ordinance that states that artwork acquired through APP Funds becomes the responsibility of the BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 7 February 20, 1996 City to maintain and advised that this particular site has been referred to as an ail encompassing" site. Mr. Walling stated that the basin is not considered a part of the artwork. The developer is responsible for maintaining the basin, with or without artwork. Council Member Perkins believed that the site is a nuisance with or without artwork, but felt that placing artwork within the basin would attract people, making it more of an attractive nuisance. Council Member Adolph advised that a retention wall is required only if the retention slope goes beyond a two to one slope. He didn?t see any safety problems with the current three to one slope, but would if increasing the depth of the basin also changed the slope. Mr. Paul Berlier, 39-386 Tandika Trail, Palm Desert, stated that the artwork design that he proposed was complete with the exception of lighting which would cost an additional $3,200-$3,800. The developer has agreed to provide him with the utilities needed for his project as well as annual maintenance at no cost to the City. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44-215 Villeta Drive, asked how deep the basin would be under the current proposal. Mr. Dennis Chappel advised that he would donate $1,000 worth of artwork if a local artist is selected for this project. Council Member Perkins felt that all of the proposals should be rejected and a new RFP distributed with a budget limit of $30,000 to allow funds for lighting. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Herman advised that it would be necessary to install water inlets or move the sump pump if the current artwork proposal is approved. Details regarding the sump pump still remain to be worked out with the artist. Council Member Henderson understood that the consensus of the APP at their January 8th meeting was that the design would include terracing and asked if it?5 included in the current proposal to?which Mr. Herman responded no. Council Member Adolph didn?t wish to second guess the artwork selection done by the APP and the two Council Members, but was concerned that the total cost is still unknown because of the drainage problems. He felt that more BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 8 February 20, 1996 definite parameters should be set for the project and the three finalists asked to resubmit their proposals, In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman advised that the sump pump and landscaping were installed by the developer due to his responsibility to landscape and maintain the retention basin. No improvements existed at the onset of this proposal and the intent W85 to select artwork prior to improvements being done to avoid complications. He didn't know how much it would cost to move or accommodate the sump pump. In response to Council Member Sniff, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that if it currently stands that the developer owns and maintains the basin, then he is liable for the property, However, once the contract is negotiated, it will need to be a three-party agreement between the City, artist, and landowner to allow for an easement whereby the City can maintain the art or else the developer will need to accept that responsibility. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the restaurant owner or developer to request the City to provide some type of indemnity for the type of artwork proposed. A risk analysis could be done that could consider the possible impacts from the geological study. She reiterated that there would be many details to work out during contract negotiations. Council Member Sniff felt that the primary risk factor is the basin, with or without artwork. He felt that the artwork selection was fair and reasonable and he supported the project. He suggested that this matter be continued for two weeks to give staff time to address the risk factor. Mayor Bangerter thanked the APP for the efforts they?ve put into this project and advised that she, too, is concerned about some of the issues mentioned. She suggested a continuance to March 1 9th to insure sufficient time for staff to look into these matters. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Sniff and seconded by Mayor Bangerter to continue the matter of the artwork in the La Quinta Village Shopping Center to March 19, 1 996 and direct staff to look into the maintenance, risk factor, and liability and how these issues can be addressed. Council Member Henderson felt that the Council should make a decision on the current artwork proposal so that Ms. Grygutis as well as the other artists aren't kept waiting for a decision. She agreed that the additional information is necessary and if the City needs to distribute RFP's again, so be it. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 9 February 20, 1996 Council Member Perkins agreed with Council Member Henderson and wished to see a new RFP distributed. He also felt that the liability and maintenance responsibility issues need to be looked into and that lighting should be a requirement regardless of the artwork installed. He advised that he would vote NO on the motion. Council Member Sniff didn?t want to make a decision until the Council receives all of the information requested. Council Member Adolph felt that it's important to give the APP guidance and hoped that information would be obtained to work out some of the details of this project. He, too, felt that there are concerns, but would support the motion. Motion carried with Council Members Henderson and Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-22. 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF AN ALTERNATE VOTING REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CVAG MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY MRF) TASK FORCE. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that in November, 1995, the Council appointed Council Member Sniff as the voting member on the MRF Task Force and Fred Baker as the technical support member, but no voting alternate member was appointed. He reviewed the options available to Council which were to 1) appoint an alternate Council Member as a voting member, 2) appoint an alternate Council Member and Fred Baker as voting members, 3) appoint Fred Baker as a voting member, or 4) do not appoint an alternate voting member. Council Member Sniff recommended that Fred Baker be appointed as the voting alternate because of his involvement with this effort since its inception two years ago. He advised that the purpose of the task force would be coming to a close within a few months and if the issue proceeds to the next level, the Council will be able to consider new appointees at that time. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to appoint Fred Baker as a voting alternate to CVAG?s MRF Task Force. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-23. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 10 February 20, 1996 3. CONSIDERATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES NECESSARY TO PREPARE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR VARIOUS CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. Freeland, Senior Engineer, advised that on December 19, 1995, the Council authorized staff to request proposals from consultants for design services necessary to prepare plans, specifications, and engineer?s estimates PSE's) for the following landscape improvements: Washington Street Sound Wall Extension, Eisenhower Drive median fr6m Calle Nogales to Avenida Montezuma, Washington Street Frontage Road, Calle Tampico median from Washington Street to Eisenhower Drive, and Washington Street median from Avenue 47 to Avenue 48. Add alternates were also authorized for medians on Washington Street from Avenue 52 to the Evacuation Channel and Avenue 50 from Eisenhower Drive to Washington Street. The RFP was distributed to five consultants and two responses were received with David Evans & Associates being selected as the firm most closely complying with the requirements of the RFP and a Professional Services Agreement for $52,000 was negotiated. The consultant also submitted a proposal of $22,590 to complete the cost of designing the two add alternates and because of the two-phase approach of the project, there may be adequate funding currently appropriated to construct all raised median areas to a Phase One level and portions of the proposed improvements to a Phase Two level. He reviewed the alternatives before the Council and asked for further direction for staff. Council Member Henderson asked if there was a plan to develop a master plan for construction of medians in future developments. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that a general planting plan exists, but the proposed PSE's will primarily be engineering specifications for the irrigation of these specific improvements. Council's previous direction regarding the use of desert-type landscaping is taken into consideration with each consultant. Council Member Henderson questioned the necessity of City commissions reviewing these projects, pointing out that substantial costs are added to the contract as well as additional time to process. She suggested that the Commissions be notified that the plans are available for review in the Community Development Department and that they can relate their comments at the Planning Commission meeting. She wasn't sure that it was the Council's intention for Commissions to individually review these projects. Mr. Genovese advised that it was staff's understanding that the Council wanted the Commissions to review projects that fell within their area of BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes II February 20,1996 specialty. However, they can be notified about the Planning Commission review and offer their comments there as members of the general public. Council Member Henderson pointed out Commission review of this project would add five weeks to the process as well as extra costs for the consultant to attend the meetings. She asked if their review could be removed from the contract. Mr. Genovese didn't feel that a modification to the contract would be a problem Mayor Bangerter concurred with Council Member Henderson because of the importance of moving these projects forward without unnecessary delays. Council Member Perkins supports Commission involvement, but felt that in this case it would be redundant. He pointed out that there are additional staff time costs each time a Commission is involved in the process. Council Member Adolph advised that the Council supports a user-friendly City, but didn't feel that delaying projects would be considered user-friendly. He asked why local contractors didn't submit bids. Mr. Freeland advised that one stated that they were too busy, but he didn't know why the others didn't submit bids. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Freeland advised that the consultant registry was used to select experienced consultants of which two were local. Council Member Perkins felt that it's important for the City to make an honest effort to request bid submittals from qualified local contractors whenever possible. Council Member Henderson felt that it should be noted that the C?City does support and request bid submittals from local contractors. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 12 February 20, 1996 MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the Professional Services Agreement for design services necessary to prepare plans, specifications, and engineer's estimates for various Citywide landscape improvements and authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement; approve Change Order No. 1 to include add alternate design services necessary to prepare plans, specifications, and engineer?s estimate for the Washington Street medians Evacuation Channel to Avenue 52, and the Avenue 50 medians Eisenhower Drive to Washington Street) for $22,590; approve the reappropriation of $22,590 of Public Works landscape maintenance, contract service 101-454-609-000) to the various Citywide landscape improvements project fund; and that there be one meeting before the Planning Commission and that all other appropriate Commissioners be notified of said meeting, thereby, deleting the presentations before the Art in Public Places Commission and the Parks & Recreation Commission. Motion carried unanimously MINUTE ORDER NO.96-24. 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION FOR COACHELLA DRIVE SWALE REPAIRS. Mr. Johnson, Maintenance Manager, advised that the City received a complaint regarding the accumulation of nuisance water at the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Coachella Drive which is caused by a relatively flat It will be necessary to reconstruct the spandrel and approximately 100 feet of curb, gutter, and adjacent paving to correct this problem. The actual cost to complete this project won?t be known until engineering and design plans are prepared, but the cost will be at least $20,000. Since no funds exist for this project at this time, it will be necessary to use Emergency Reserve General Funds to complete it if approved. Mayor Bangerter advised that several homeowners from that area have contacted her regarding this problem and some of them brought it to the Council's attention over a year ago, pointing out that the problem has existed for some time. Council Members Sniff and Adolph felt that it should be taken care of. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Johnson advised that the nuisance water is primarily caused by the irrigation of the perimeter landscaping at the entrance to the La Quinta Country Club. The landscaping is on a slope and irrigated with a spray irrigation system that the country club installed prior to the mandate to install drip-systems. He added that the drainage problem is also affected by blow sand from across the street. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *E City Council Minutes 13 February 20,1996 Council Member Henderson asked if staff had looked at costs to correct the problems at the other three sites listed in the staff report to which Mr. Johnson responded that $20,000 would probably not be enough. Council Member Perkins advised that Laguna De La Paz was required to install dry wells for water runoff and when that failed to be sufficient, they paid the City for pumping the water out. He asked if similar provisions were made at the country club. Mr. Speer, Senior Engineer, advised that one dry well exists, but not on the north side of the driveway. An additional dry well would take care of the problem and could be installed by the City or the City could require the country club to install it. Council Member Perkins felt that the country club should be required to install a dry well just as Laguna De La Paz was. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that the question is whether or not the City can require them to put a dry well on public property. Their current dry well is not functioning well. Council Member Perkins felt that the country club should be required to keep their irrigation water on their own property since the City?s ordinance prohibits flooding the streets with water and suggested that they be asked to share in the cost of this project with the City. Mr. Speer advised that it will be difficult to get a good, satisfactory design for $20,000 and a dry well might be the first approach to solve this problem as reconstruction of the swale is a limited solution. Council Member Perkins suggested notifying the property owners of the City's intent to correct the problem and that they are responsible for keeping their irrigation water on their own property. Mr. Speer advised that a letter citing the municipal code section regarding the prohibiting of dumping on public right of-way could be sent. Council Member Henderson wasn't opposed to taking corrective measures to expedite the water flow when it?s the City?s responsibility, but she had a problem with it when it's the property owner's fault. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 14 February 20,1996 MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the appropriation in an amount not to exceed $20,000 from the Emergency Reserve General Fund for Coachella Drive swale repairs and also to direct staff to send a letter to the appropriate entities regarding our current ordinances and direct them to other possible solutions to these problems. Council Member Perkins advised that he would vote no because he felt that the property owner is responsible for the problem and that use of Emergency Reserve General Funds to correct it would be inappropriate. Motion carried with Council Members Henderson and Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-25. 5. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE MILITARY ROLL OF HONOR PROJECT IN HONOR OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY RESIDENTS WHO LOST THEIR LIVES WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY EN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. Mr. Wilson, Management Assistant, advised that the City of Riverside has requested the City to endorse the Military Roll of Honor Project which will honor Riverside County residents who died during their service in the armed forces. They also have requested assistance in identifying any such honorees from the City of La Quinta. No funding source nor memorial location have been identified at this time. Mayor Bangerter suggested that the newsletter be utilized to inform residents of the memorial project. Council Member Perkins didn't have a problem with the endorsement, but felt that it would soon be followed with a funding request which he wouldn't support for the same reason that he hasn't supported similar projects in the past. Council Member Sniff was concerned that an endorsement was an incremental commitment that would lead to a request for funding and felt that the project is still yet ill-defined. in response to Council Member Sniff, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that an endorsement would not be a legal commitment to funding. Council Member Perkins suggested asking the City of Riverside to resubmit their request once more definite plans are made. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 15 February 20,1996 Council concurred on having the Mayor send a letter asking for more information when it?s available CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Henderson asked that Item No.11 be pulled for discussion. 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED FEBRUARY 20, 1996. 2. TRANSMITTAL OF TREASURY REPORT DATED DECEMBER 31.1995. 3. APPROVAL OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR ONE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO ATTEND THE FIFTH ANNUAL INSPECTION INSTITUTE PROGRAM. ELECTRICAL INSPECTION I?' SEMINAR AT THE WHITTIER HILTON HOTEL, MARCH 25,1996. 4. APPROVAL OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PUBLIC WORKS OFFICERS' INSTITUTE IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA ON MARCH 13-15,1996. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO ATTEND THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING CENTERS 1996 CONVENTION IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, MAY 5-9,1996. 6. DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED BY WILLIAM D. SIKES II AND JAN ELLEN SIKES, DATE OF LOSS SEPTEMBER 13, 1995. 7. DENIAL OF AMENDED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED BY WILLIAMS J. SIKES, DATE OF LOSS, SEPTEMBER 13,1995. 8. DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED BY BREANA FERNANDEZ, DATE OF LOSS, SEPTEMBER 13, 1995. 9. AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE SPORTS COMPLEX LIGHTING- SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. 10. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR PROJECT 95-06 SLURRY SEAL/STRIPING PROGRAM. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes February 20, 1996 11. APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES NECESSARY TO PREPARE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS. 12. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF AVENIDA CORTEZ. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of Item No.11, with item No. 12 being approved by RESOLUTION NO. 96-07. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-26. lt?m No. 11 Council Member Henderson questioned the necessity for the Parks & Recreation Commission to review the plans. Council Member Sniff didn't have a problem with it either way, but pointed out that they are somewhat involved with the project. Council Member Henderson felt that it's important for the Council to be consistent in their direction to the Commissions and pointed out that it was decided earlier in the meeting that the Commissions didn?t need a separate review of the project plans. Council Member Perkins wasn't sure that anyone on that Commission is qualified to review parking lot plans. Council concurred on sending this matter to the Parks & Recreation Commission as an informational item and advise them that their comments may be offered at the Planning Commission meeting. MOTION- It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Perkins to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 11 as recommended with the modification that it not be presented to the Parks & Recreation Commission, but notify them of the date that it will be submitted to the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.95-27. STUDY SESSION Council concurred on taking up Study Session Item No.2 which has been continued to March 5th) to allow an out-of-town speaker to present his comments at this time. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 17 February 20, 1996 2. DISCUSSION RELATED TO LARGE VACANT LOT ASSESSMENTS, LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1. Mr. Richard Mever, P.O. Box 3046, Newport Beach, spoke regarding the high tax rate in the Travertine area. He advised that no legal access exists to the property which makes current development prohibitive. He suggested that an open-space tax rate be used to make it more equitable for that area since it's more open space than usable land or defer the tax to a future capital impact tax. He advised that his tax bill quadrupled as a result of the Landscape & Lighting Assessment He said that he would recommend that others in that area wishing to be annexed, postpone their efforts because of the current tax burden. Mayor Bangerter asked that Mr. Meyer comments be included in the staff report when the matter is discussed by the Council on March 5th. 1. DISCUSSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that staff, with consultant assistance from RSG, was directed to outline the current development review process as part of the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan. The current development process methods have been evaluated by staff, particularly with respect to time frames and the requirements made of applicants. He advised that the consultant would review the attachments to the staff report. Mr. Dan Miller, 540 N. Golden Circle, Suite 305, Santa Ana, consultant for RSG, advised that this document provides applicants an outline of the process they must go through to get approval of their project and serves as a guideline for staff. Interdepartmental checklists were prepared during the drafting of the process. The document serves as a documentation and assessment of the requirements. He advised that the time frame related to the development process has been estimated by staff, but pointed out that it?s difficult to estimate complicated or unique projects because of revision-response times by the applicant, both at staff and Planning Commission review. Council Member Adolph asked if local developers were contacted for input into this document. Mr. Miller responded no and advised that the purpose of this study was to document the City's current process and the department requirements. The document will serve as an educational tool that should make the process more BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 18 February 20, 1996 efficient for the developers. He advised that many of the problems experienced by developers happen during the construction phase which is not covered in this document. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Miller advised that no determination has been made on how this information will be shared with the development community, but it will be a part of the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan. Mr. Herman advised that the flow chart will be used during discussions of potential developments with developers. Council Member Sniff suggested that staff document the steps that are taken during the development review process with developers for the purpose of future reference. Mr. Herman advised that staff has done that, but will consider doing it in more detail in the future. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Miller advised that the proposed development process is typical of.what is used by other cities and it does include all of the departments that are a part of the entitlement process. Council Member Perkins referred to references on Page 2 of the document that states certain actions may" happen and he felt that it should state which staff member is responsible for making that determination. He also felt that a reference on Page 5 which refers to issues being resolved between staff and the applicant should be softened. He felt that the City should provide a one- stop desk for developers and homeowners to use to keep them from having to go to multiple departments or write multiple checks for their project. He didn't feel that the present system is a developer/resident-friendly program. He suggested implementing a program whereby developers deposit funds on account against their project and that staff apply it to applicable fees at the appropriate time. Mr. Genovese advised that a developer handbook is perhaps where this process is leading. He wasn't sure how a deposit-on-account system would work because of the time span between the different processes and questioned whether a homeowner only needing a room-addition permit would want to participate in the entitlement process. Council Member Perkins was concerned that the system be as friendly as feasibly possible to developers and homeowners. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 19 February 20, 1996 In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Herman advised that under the current process, a project planner is assigned to each project and that planner communicates with the other departments, but he felt that a one-stop process would be totally different. Mr. Genovese advised that the City is currently trying to adopt a program similar to Council's suggestions. Planners are assigned to particular projects and interact with the other departments as needed, but they don't always have the technical expertise of the other department's staff. Joint meetings between the applicant, project planner, and other department staff members are scheduled whenever possible to discuss questions on the project, but sometimes more timely responses are received by the applicant when individual meetings are scheduled between the applicant and appropriate staff from another department. Council Member Perkins felt that that would serve the purpose of a one-stop desk because there's a contact person for the applicant to reach when they're unsure of how to proceed further. Council Member Adolph suggested that that process be defined in the handbook so that the developer is aware of it. Mr. Herman advised that the Community Development, Building, and Engineering Departments meet each week to discuss the current projects for the purpose of insuring that all issues of concern are being addressed. A computer network system is also in the works so that all departments can know the current status of each project. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Miller advised that this document will now become a part of the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS All reports were noted and filed. Council Member Henderson was concerned about the length. of time it takes for the Council to receive Minutes from the various Commission meetings. She was also concerned about the lack of direction the Commissions have received from the Council and referred to the Minutes of November 6th of the Cultural Affairs Commission meeting where they discussed appointing task forces for various issues. She wasn't sure that the Council wants the Commissions to do that and asked if the BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 20 February 20,1996 Commissions can legally appoint committee members that aren?t members of their Commission. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that they can if it's necessary as long as the ordinance defining the Commission doesn't prohibit it. She advised that subcommittees who meet on a regular basis and/or report back to the Commission on a regular basis are subject to the Brown Act. Council Member Henderson pointed out that committee meetings require staff time as well. She felt that this matter should be brought back in a study session for discussion as soon as possible because. the City is currently recruiting commission members to fill some vacancies that exist which may not be the direction the Council wishes to go. Council Member Sniff felt that a good point had been brought up and believed that the Council should decide if they still wish to have all of the commissions and if so, set some basic parameters for their operation with some firmness. n response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Genovese, City Manager advised that this issue could be discussed during the budget review process or earlier if Council wishes. Council Member Perkins wished to discuss it as soon as possible and place a moratorium on further recruitments until this matter is resolved. Council Member Henderson supported placing a moratorium on further recruitments with the exception of the Planning Commission. Council Member Sniff felt that it should be scheduled as a study session item at the earliest possible date. Mr. Genovese felt that the Council should inform the applicants during the upcoming interview process that the Council is looking at this issue. Council Member Sniff wished to see a summary prepared for each of the commissions as to what direction they're heading at the present time. Council concurred on looking at all of the City's Boards/Commissions at the earliest possible date and interview the applicants for the Art in Public Places Commission and Human Services Commission with this understanding. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 21 February 20, 1 996 DEPARTMENT REPORTS All reports were noted and filed. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS Mayor Bangerter asked if the Special Meeting scheduled for February 24th could be postponed to March 9th because of a personal situation that will prohibit her from attending on the 24th. Council concurred. * * * * * * * * * * ** Council Member Perkins asked when the time frame for considering a Charter City status would be scheduled on the agenda. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that it would be on the March 5th agenda. Council recessed to and until the hour of 7:00 p.m. 7:00P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Josie Galvan, 54-710 Tyler, Thermal, stated that she and her family are on a waiting list to receive one of the 50 homes that La Quinta Properties is trying to release and wished to know what is causing the delay. Mayor Bangerter advised that staff would contact her regarding this matter. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 22 February 20, 1 996 PUBLIC HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT 24890 REQUEST FOR A THIRD ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PHASE 9 OF TENTATIVE TRACT 24890 TO CREATE 37 LOTS CONSISTING OF THREE SINGLE-FAMILY, 34 DUPLEX, AND FIVE LETTERED LOTS ON TEN ACRES WITHIN SP 85-006. APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that a request has been received to continue this matter to March 5, 1 996. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to continue the matter of Tentative Tract 24890 to March 5, 1 996. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-28. 2. AMENDMENT TO LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING CHAPTER 6.17 RELATING TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that the Landscape Maintenance Operations Ordinance was drafted as a result of the Council?s review of a Noise Ordinance in December, 1 993 and April, 1 994. n December, 1995, the Council directed staff to schedule it for a public hearing. Mr. Nesbit, Associate Planner, advised that the proposed ordinance is basically prepared to address landscaping maintenance operations as they pertain to noise as well as other nuisances such as dust and litter control, and disposal of tree trimmings and other items that are related to the use of blowers or vacuums. The ordinance?s primary purpose is to regulate the hours of operation for landscape maintenance activities. It does not address decibel levels because of the difficulty in enforcing them. The proposed hours of operation are basically from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with no provision made for seasonal operation except for thatching and reseeding operations at golf courses. Within the ordinance golf course?Iandscape operations have been defined separately from real property maintenance. Exemptions and minor use permits may be issued, providing some flexibility in the ordinance. Leaf blowers will be prohibited on golf courses without a minor use permit. Golf course operations were separated out in the ordinance because their landscape operations affect their economy. Staff recommended that the Council receive public testimony and provide staff with further direction regarding the adoption of this ordinance. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, was concerned about setting different standards for golf course operations as opposed to other large scale landscaping BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 23 February 20, 1 996 operations such as homeowners associations. She was also concerned about the number of exemptions and provisions for minor use permits. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Herman advised that the noise ordinance would be addressed during the review of the zoning ordinance. Council Member Perkins shared some of the City Attorney's concerns, but felt that it was a workable ordinance. Council Member Adolph didn't believe that anyone at PGA West has a problem with the golf course itself being mowed at an early hour, but rather the greenbelt area located between the golf course and the homes. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman advised that, based upon complaints, Code Enforcement could issue citations for ordinance violations. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Mr. Chevis Hosea, 56-140 PGA Boulevard, Director of Real Estate for KSL Recreation, was concerned about the lack of differentiation between golf communities and non-golf communities. He believed that when buyers purchase golf-community homes, they realize that some unique problems will exist because of the golf course-maintenance requirements. He asked that they be allowed to begin maintenance operations at daybreak so that the course is ready for their members and guests for early tee times. Mr. Scott Dalecio, 49-499 Eisenhower Drive, President of La Quinta Resort and Country Club, emphasized that there is a definite difference between golf course and non-golf course communities. He advised that early morning hours are prime time on golf courses and their research shows that the ordinances in other cities allow some flexibility for the golf clubs to basically regulate themselves. He advised that the proposed ordinance would economically impact their operations by reducing the number of sellable tee times which would also reduce the number of occupied hotel rooms and the City's transient occupancy tax. He estimated that such losses would impact their revenue by approximately $4 million and the City?s transient occupancy tax for $500,000. Operation hours wouldn't be a problem for leaf blowers. He also questioned the need of a minor use permit for reseeding since it's an annual operation. Council Member Perkins asked what time their operations begin. Mr. Virgil Robinson, 78-650 Avenue 42, Bermuda Dunes, Golf Course Superintendent for KSL, advised that they. begin at daybreak and the time BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 24 February 20, 1996 varies according to the season. Leaf blowers are generally used after 8:30 a.m. and the grass areas near homes are mowed after the golf course mowing has been completed. Mr. Robert Tyler, 21 5 Villeta Drive, commented that operations at the Palm Royale Golf Course have begun as early as 4:30 a.m. and noted that sounds travel a great distance in the early morning hours He felt that weed whackers should also be addressed in the ordinance because they are just as loud as leaf blowers and he didn?t understand why there's a variance allowed for leaf blowers from September 1 5th to December 1st. He felt that the proposed ordinance is an improvement, but needs some fine-tuning. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Council Member Sniff questioned the difference in time between daybreak and sunrise and wasn't sure that daybreak is a well-defined time. Council Member Perkins believed that the two are about 30 minutes apart, but pointed out that it?s affected by weather conditions. He felt that it?s better to go by the sunrise times stated in the newspaper. Council Member Sniff felt that homeowners who live on golf courses are most- likely aware of the maintenance operations that are needed to prepare the course. He felt that the golf course operators should be allowed to begin their operations as early as reasonable to accommodate the prime tee times. He pointed out that golf is a very significant component of the City's economy and urged the Council to consider the comments that were offered. In response to Mayor Bangerter, Mr. Robinson advised that they receive a complaint about noise once every few weeks and it's usually from the same residents. Council Member Perkins advised that it was the use of leaf blowers that triggered this ordinance and he wished that their use could be eliminated altogether. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Robinson advised that the regulation of blowers and week whackers aren't a problem with them because they are used in the secondary phase of their maintenance which would fall within the ordinance's operation hours. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 25 February 20, 1996 Council Member Perkins pointed out that they could obtain a minor use permit if blowers are needed earlier in the morning during reseeding operations. He suggested more leniency in the ordinance for golf course-maintenance procedures, possibly using sunrise as a guide. He asked if the ordinance could be left as-is and grant an exemption to golf courses. Ms. Honeywell advised that an exemption could be granted on the basis that golf courses have an economic impact on the City and the City could deal with any complaints of unfairness as they come up. Council Member Sniff felt that the suggestions regarding golf and non-golf communities should be dealt with up front. Mayor Bangerter felt that they need to be separated. Ms. Honeywell suggested that minor use permits could be tailored to the needs and problems of each golf course. Council Member Henderson felt, tod, that golf and non-golf communities should be separated in the ordinance. Council Member Perkins felt that protection from noise nuisances for the homeowner living adjacent to a golf course is important, but interference with landscaping operations should be kept to a minimum. He suggested that this matter be referred back to staff for consideration of all the comments that were made. Council concurred. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to direct staff to address and incorporate the modifications discussed by Council and bring the Landscape Maintenance Operations Ordinance back to Council at the earliest possible date and solicit input from the various homeowner associations. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-29. CLOSED SESSION None BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02 *ECity Council Minutes 26 February 20, 1996 MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Resp??ctfully submitted, SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:24:05PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 02-U02 20-U02 1996-U02