Loading...
1996 03 05 CC Minutes*` LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 5, 1996 Regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council on March 5, 1996 was called to order at the hour of 3:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Perkins, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRES?NT: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Pro Tern Perkins ABSENT: Mayor Bangerter MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to excuse Mayor Bangerter. Motion carried unanimously. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Confirmed APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the City Council Minutes of February 20, 1 996 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS None PRESENTATIONS Mr. Shell Pessin, Director of Sales & Marketing for Ministrelli Development, presented the City a check in the amount of $55,900 for the Sports Complex lighting system improvements. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Lucia Moran, P.O. Box 1305, advised that she was present to answer questions on Business Session Item No.2. Ms. Kathryn Hull, 77-260 Calle Chillon, advised that she was present to answer questions on Business Session Item No.3. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 2 March 5, 1996 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE LETTER FROM STEVE BERLINER RESIGNING FROM THE CULTURAL COMMISSION. Council concurred on sending Mr. Berliner a letter of appreciation for his service on the Cultural Commission and placed a moratorium on filling future Commission vacancies until after the Council reviews the City's Boards and Commissions on March 19th. BUSINESS SESSION CONSIDERATION AND SELECTION OF YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES. Ms. Nicholson, Parks & Recreation Director, advised that the Youth Advisory was established in 1993 for the purpose of receiving youth counsel regarding youth concerns. The Committee has been inactive since May, 1 995? but is still needed for the City to meet funding criteria for grants related to juvenile diversion and at-risk youth grants. She reviewed the application and interview process and asked the Council to approve the recommended appointments and allocate $195 from the General Fund Emergency Reserve to cover minor travel, printing, and meeting expenses. In response to Council Member Sniff, Ms. Nicholson advised that alternates also attend the meetings and would replace, by staff appointment, any regular members that drop out. Council Member Henderson felt that this matter should be placed on hold because of the moratorium placed on Board and Commission appointments. She was in favor of addressing youth issues, but felt that this committee might be a duplication of effort since other organizations already have education and youth committees in place that might be applying for the same grant funds. She was also concerned about the age-diversity in the Committee, noting that sixth graders and high school students have very diverse interests. Council Member Adolph concurred with placing this matter on hold until all of the City's Boards and Commissions have been analyzed. Council Member Sniff advised that the City's Youth Advisory Committee is comprised of youth members unlike the adult membership of the other agency BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 3 March 5, 1998 committees. He was in favor of moving forward with this now to put the City in position to apply for grants. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins supported the Committee, but felt that it should be reviewed along with the other Boards and Commissions. Council Member Henderson pointed out that gang prevention is a youth issue that's included in the Human Services Commission's Work Plan and suggested that they could appoint a youth subcommittee to work with them on that issue. In response to Council Member Sniff, Ms. Nicholson advised that the City's collaboration with other agencies is a key component in receiving grant funding from the Office of Criminal Justice, but youth voice is the element that's missing in the City and with some of the other organizations. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. Nicholson advised that these Federal grants are available annually in the fall. MOTION- It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to postpone any action on selection of the Youth Advisory Committee until such time as the Council discusses all of the various Committees/Commissions which is scheduled for the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-30. 2. CONSIDERATION OF GRANT REQUEST TO FUND THE GREATER COACHELLA VALLEY SOAP BOX DERBY IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,100. Ms. Nicholson, Parks & Recreation Director, advised that the Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby has requested financial assistance in the amount of $1,100 for the Second Annual Soap Box Derby event to be held on March 23, 1996. The funding would be used to pay the franchise fee which will allow use of the Soap Box Derby name and provide insurance coverage for the event. The City?s participation last year consisted of in-kind services totaling $2,223. She advised that approval of this request would leave a balance of $9,500 in the Special Projects Contingency Fund. Council Member Henderson asked what type of support the other cities have provided. Ms. Lucia Moran, P.O. Box 1 305, advised that the City of Desert Hot Springs has contributed $1,000 for two super-stock cars and will possibly contribute an additional $1,000. The City of Rancho Mirage's support is dependent upon BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 4 March 5, 1996 La Quinta's as well as further support from the City of Desert Hot Springs. She advised that the Mayor of Cathedral City is helping by seeking sponsorships from City businesses, but no funds are expected from the City itself. Council Member Henderson felt that the event should be supported and suggested that it be included in the City's annual budget since it's an annual event that the City is likely to be involved with each year. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. Moran advised that approximately 30 participants are expected in this year's event. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the request to fund the Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby in the amount of $1 100, said funds to come from the Special Projects Contingency Fund, Account No. 10?-101-663-000. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-31. 3. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CULTURAL COMMISSION'S WORK PLAN. Ms. Nicholson, Parks & Recreation Director, advised that the proposed changes to the Cultural Commission's Work Plan, which includes the Cultural Master Plan as an assignment, have been recommended by the Commission and contain no additional fiscal costs. Any additional costs that may arise from assignments within the Work Plan would be brought before the Council for approval. MOTION- It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to approve the changes to the Work Plan as developed by the Cultural Commission, Mayor Pro Tem Perkins advised that he wouldn't support the motion because he felt that it should be continued until after the Commissions have been reviewed. Council Member Henderson advised that these are changes she would have suggested during the review process and, therefore, has no problem with approving them now, Motion carried with Mayor Pro Tem Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-32. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 5 March 5, 996 4. MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96. Mr. Falconer, Finance Director, advised that the purpose of the Mid-Year Budget Report is to inform the Council of the City's financial position mid-way through the fiscal year and request any additional appropriation of funds if needed. The City's revenues currently exceed the budget due to increased building activity and are expected to continue in that manner for the remainder of the fiscal year which will increase the City's Emergency Reserve Fund. Staff requested that the Mid-Year Budget Report be received and filed and that new appropriations totaling $54,076 be approved. Council Member Adolph asked how the requested increase relates to past increases. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that the average increase has been approximately $80,000 and that such increases are for minor clean-up items in the budget. Council Member Sniff felt that the staff has done an excellent job, noting that the adjustments are minor. MOTION- It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the new appropriations as outlined in Attachment No.2 of the report and to receive and file the Mid-Year Budget Report. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-33. 5. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins asked if the Council wished to move forward with these interviews or continue them until the Commissions are reviewed on March 19th. Council Member Henderson advised that she understood that the Council would go ahead with these interviews because they had already been advertised. At this time the following applicants gave a brief presentation on their qualifications and background: Judi Cothrun Nel Olson Ivancich Jack Knox Jack Tapleshay BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 6 March 5,1996 Mr. Raymond Hill and Ms. Shell Stivers were not present to give presentations. VOTING: BALLOT NO.1: Council Member Adolph voted for Judi Cothrun Council Member Henderson voted for Jack Tapleshay Council Member Sniff voted for Judi Cothrun Mayor Pro Tern Perkins voted for Jack Tapleshay VOTING: BALLOT NO.2 Council Member Adolph voted for Judi Cothrun Council Member Henderson voted for Jack Tapleshay Council Member Sniff voted for Judi Cothrun Mayor Pro Tern Perkins voted for Jack Tapleshay VOTING: BALLOT NO.3 Council Member Adolph voted for Judi Cothrun Council Member Henderson voted for Jack Tapleshay Council Member Sniff voted for Judi Cothrun Mayor Pro Tern Perkins voted for Jack Tapleshay MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to continue consideration of an appointment to the Art in Public Places Commission to the meeting of March 19, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-34. 6. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT. At this time the following applicants gave a brief presentation on their qualifications and background: William Morea Joan Rebich Patrick Sheridan BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 7 March 5, 1996 Ms. Mary Santos was not present to give a presentation. VOTING BALLOT NO.1 Council Member Adolph voted for Joan Rebich Council Member Henderson voted for Joan Rebich Council Member Sniff voted for Joan Rebich Mayor Pro Tern Perkins voted for Joan Rebich MOTION- It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to appoint Ms. Joan Rebich to the unexpired term on the Human Services Commission. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-35. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Pro Tern Perkins requested that Item No.9 be pulled for discussion and Council? Member Adolph asked that Item No.10 be pulled for discussion. 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED MARCH 5, 1996. 2. APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 28150 PGA WEST. 3. APPROVAL OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR DANNY JOHNSON, MAINTENANCE MANAGER, TO ATTEND A TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION SEMINAR IN SAN DIEGO ON MARCH 6-7, 1996. 4. APPROVAL OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR ROMANO VERLENGIA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER II, TO ATTEND A HIGHWAY DRAINAGE DESIGN CLASS IN SANTA ANA ON MARCH 11-13, 1996. 5. APPROVAL OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR MARCUS FULLER, ASSISTANT ENGINEER I, TO ATTEND AN INSPECTION PRACTICE WORKSHOP IN SANTA ANA ON MARCH 14?15. 1996. 6. APPROVAL OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR STEVEN D. SPEER. SENIOR ENGINEER. TO ATTEND A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CLASS IN SANTA ANA ON MARCH 13-15, 1996. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 8 March 5, 1998 7. APPROVAL OF ATTACHMENT NO.6, AGREEMENT REGARDING COVENANTS TO DEVELOP, USE & MAINTAIN THE SITE AS PART OF THE RECENTLY AGENCY-APPROVED, OWNER-PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN 11-ROOM, 9,000 SQ. FT. BED AND BREAKFAST INN ON APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE OF PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE LAKE LA QUINTA PROJECT. APPLICANT: HAROLD & HARRIET HARRIS. 8. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING TAX-DEFAULT PROPERTY. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. 9. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ALLOWING TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE SOUTH LEG AND PORTIONS OF THE NORTH LEG OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, AROUND THE FRANCES HACK PARK, BETWEEN EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENIDA NAVARRO ON MARCH 14-17, 1996, FOR THE LA QUINTA ARTS FESTIVAL IN COMPLIANCE WITH MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT PERMIT MTOE 95-097). APPLICANT: LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION. 10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-023 AND PLOT PLAN 96-571 FOR A 116-UNIT, AFFORDABLE APARTMENT COMPLEX ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO ON 1.6 ACRES IN AN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: KEITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. This item was scheduled for a Public Hearing.) 11. DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BY CLAIMANTS GEORGE HANOVER AND MARSHA HANOVER. DATE OF CLAIM, SEPTEMBER 13,1995. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended with the exception of Item Nos. 9 and 10 and that Item No.8 be approved by RESOLUTION NO.96-08. Motion carried MINUTE ORDER NO.96-36. Item Np. 9. Ms. Audrey Ostrowsky, P.O. Box 351, commented that she wasn't notified of the proposed street closure and has invited investors to visit her property during that week. She asked that her property frontage along Avenida Montezuma remain accessible. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 9 March 5, 1996 Mayor Pro Tern Perkins advised Ms. Ostrowsky to properly post her property to prevent festival attendees from parking there and urged the Arts Foundation to assist in any way that they can to prevent cars from parking on private property without permission?ssion because they will be subject to tow-aways. Council Member Adolph advised that he has emphasized these concerns to the Arts Foundation and urged them to take special care in protecting the area?s various properties as well as insure access to the businesses. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, advised that the Arts Foundation has been asked to rope the *`no parking? areas and that staff will monitor the situation throughout the festival. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Cosper advised that the Arts Foundation has not indicated to staff which option they intend to take to enforce the requirements. Council Member Henderson wished to see this notice and all other Public Notices posted by the City, posted at the bulletin board at Albertsons. Ms. Susan Francis, P.O. Box 777, Festival Director for the La Quinta Arts Foundation, advised that ropes and orange cones will be used to protect Ms. Ostrowsky's property from being used for a parking area. Signs will be posted every 50 feet and a security guard will be on-site. Ms. Ostrowsky appreciated that the parking problem would be solved, but objected to the road closure. RESOLUTION NO.96-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ALLOW THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE SOUTH LEG AND PORTIONS OF THE NORTH LEG OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA BETWEEN EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENIDA NAVARRO FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON MARCH 14-17, 1996, FOR THE LA QUINTA ARTS FESTIVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT 95-097. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 96-09 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 10 March 5,1998 itaiiLNDAQ Council Member Adolph advised that he has a conflict of interest and left the dais. A brief discussion ensued relative to placement of items such as this on the Consent Calendar with no concurrence or action being taken. Council Member Henderson continued to have problems with this project and stated that she was dissatisfied with it. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the Council can decide to review this project in its entirety by directing the Community Development Director to schedule it for a Public Hearing and to meet all of the noticing requirements. Council Member Henderson wished to have it scheduled for a Public Hearing. MOTION- It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to schedule the matter of Conditional Use Permit 96-023 and Plot Plan 96-571 for a Public Hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. Motion carried with Council Member Adolph ABSTAINING. MINUTE ORDER NO.96-37. STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION RELATED TO LARGE, VACANT LOT ASSESSMENTS LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1. Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, reviewed the history of assessments on large vacant residential properties and outlined the current parcel classifications and assessments applied to them. Because of complaints from owners of large vacant residential parcels, particularly in the Annexation No. 9 area, citing remoteness and inaccessibility and low-assessed valuations, Council directed staff to take another look at those assessments. Clear differences were found when comparing vacant, non-residential parcels within Annexation Area No. 9 with other vacant, non-residential parcels in the district. These differences included: 1) physically separated from the improved areas of the City and LLAD 89-1 improvements; 2) limited access to City and LLAD 89-1 improvements; 3) limited identity with the City and LLAD 89-1 improvements; and 3) parcels are not readily able to develop due to difficult access and lack of utilities. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 11 March 5, 1996 These considerations set Annexation No. 9 parcels apart from other vacant, non-residential parcels within the district, which staff found may make a new classification and assessment formula necessary. In evaluation of possible assessment formulas, the following parameters were used to determine the impacts various assessment formulas have on the district. 1) adjust the parcel size cap downward from its current level of 20 acres; 2) maintain a parcel size cap of 20 acres and an EDU rate of less than 1.65 EDU's/acre; 3) eliminate the parcel size cap and use an EDU rate less than 1.65 EDU's/acre, and 4) combination of a downward adjustment of the parcel size cap and EDU rate less than 1.65 EDU's/acre. He then reviewed staff's analysis of each of these options respectively with a 20-acre parcel size cap. He stated that Option 2, Column 3 provides the greatest relief to property owners in Annexation No.9 area. Council Member Sniff asked what guidelines the Council should follow to determine a fair assessment. Mr. Cosper advised that the proposed formula was developed by the engineer- of-record in an effort to tie benefits derived from the assessment to these parcels. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Cosper advised that the large parcels would be appropriately reassessed once they are developed and the next 20 acres would then be considered vacant land in the Assessment District. Council Member Sniff didn't have a problem with staff's recommendation and suggested that Council decide on a 50% or 75% reduction. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Cosper advised that the land designation is not affected by curb and gutter improvements, but rather existence of a structure on the parcel. Council concurred on directing staff to utilize the 50% EDU rate with a 20- acre, parcel-size cap. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING ISSUANCE OF CITY CREDIT CARDS. Council Member Henderson questioned the annual $40 fee on the credit cards. Mr. Falconer, Finance Director, advised that the bank requires the fee to be charged, but will waive it later upon request. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 12 March 5, 1996 Council Member Henderson felt that credit cards are unnecessary for Council Members. Council Member Sniff was ambivalent about it, but wasn't aware of any significant problem under the current policy that had reached a legal point nor did he know what process might be used to replace the credit card system. He has never used his City credit card, but feels that its availability could be beneficial in times of emergency. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins advised that the City has experienced some adverse publicity in the past regarding the use of credit cards as have some of the neighboring cities and he felt that they are an unnecessary temptation. He pointed out that personal credit cards can be utilized or cash advances requested when conferences are attended. Council Member Henderson supported supplying a credit card to the City Manager only. Council Member Adolph suggested including the Mayor since Mayor Bangerter has previously expressed that a credit card would have helped her during a past situation. Council Member Sniff's first choice of recommendations would be that no one have a card, secondly that only the City Manager have a card, or thirdly, that all Council Members and the City Manager have cards because he felt that it was wrong to differentiate between the Council Members. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins supported giving a card to the City Manager. Council concurred on directing staff to prepare a policy for Council's adoption, utilizing Option 4 of the staff report which would allow only the City Manager to have a credit card. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Council Member Henderson suggested that the Council direct staff to submit Commission Meeting Minutes to the City Council prior to their being approved. Mayor Pro Tem Perkins concurred. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that a draft copy of the Human Services Commission Minutes were distributed to the Council's mailboxes and all draft BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *` City Council Minutes 13 March 5, 1996 Commission Minutes would be distributed in the same manner until a consistency is reached with all of the Commissions and some legal concerns are addressed regarding unapproved" Minutes being on the agenda. All reports were noted and filed. DEPARTMENT REPORTS A2. REPORT REGARDING CHARTER CITY RESEARCH. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that the Council would receive a complete report on the Charter City Research at the next meeting, adding that a complete packet of information is currently available in the City Clerk's Office. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS RELATIVE TO DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES. Council Member Sniff felt that a discussion regarding potential conflicts of interests of Council Members relative to discussions of litigation and economic development issues should be placed on the next agenda when all Council Members are present. He felt that a clear understanding is needed as to what appropriate participation is, relative to the recent marriage of Mayor Bangerter and Council Member Holt of the City of lndio. He was personally unfamiliar with the ramifications that might exist with this unique situation and wished for appropriate City Staff to research the issue for the purpose of finding out how the Council should deal with this, at what level, and with what level of involvement. He asked them to report back to the Council at the next meeting. He felt that all reasonable ramifications should be researched regarding possible conflicts of interests, particularly regarding potential litigation and economic development issues that could surface between the City of La Quinta and the City of lndio. Council Member Henderson agreed and commented that this is an issue of great concern, not only to the Council, but to the citizens of both cities as well. She felt that the more comfortable the Council is with discussing this in open session, the higher the community's comfort level will be. She felt that the BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 14 March 5, 1 99? best way to deal with the situation is in a Council meeting and questioned whether any of the Council's concerns should be retroactive. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins agreed with placing the issue on the agenda for the Council to discuss in an open meeting, commenting that it's a situation few cities have had to face. He felt that the Council should look into it for the purpose of defining some guidelines, pointing out that a lot of issues could arise between the two cities wherein guidelines would be needed to determine when the mayor should abstain Council Member Sniff commented that sometimes benign discussions may lead to more complex situations that were not anticipated. He felt that it?s important to deal with these issues up front in a legal and fair manner. Mayor Pro Tem Perkins felt that the Council would be derelict in its duty if it failed to take a real hard look at this issue in an effort to protect everyone involved. Council concurred on placing the issue on the next Council agenda for discussion and directed the appropriate City Staff, namely the City Attorney and City Manager, to research the issue and report back to the Council. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING ACCESS TO VON'S SHOPPING CENTER. Council Member Sniff felt that traffic-access problems at the Von's Shopping Center should be addressed for safety reasons, possibly through placement of a traffic signal at the west entrance. He felt that it's imperative to find a solution to the problem because the shopping center is at the entrance of the City and the vacancy rate is increasing. Mayor Pro Tem Perkins suggested that the City Engineer look into this and report back to the Council with suggestions as soon as possible. Council Member Henderson felt that this would be best addressed after the completion of the current construction. Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, advised that staff would look at this, based on the completion of the current construction. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 15 March 5? 1996 3. DISCUSSION OF REPORTED SALE OF CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins referred to a recently-reported sale of Continental CableVision and was concerned that Continental may not have been up front with the City during recent negotiations. He wished to let Continental know that he was upset and opposed to such dealings. Council Member Sniff suggested that staff be directed to look into it. Mayor Pro Tem Perkins wished for the Minutes to be researched to find out what commitments Continental made during negotiations. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that Council would get an opportunity to review this when Continental applies for a contract transfer. 4. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION MEETINGS BEING HELD OUTSIDE CITY HALL AND FORMATION OF COMMITTEES. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins advised that a Cultural Commission meeting was recently held at a private residence which he felt was inappropriate and hoped that it wouldn't happen again. He also questioned their right to make committee appointments and looked forward to discussing this during the review of Boards and Commissions. Council recessed to Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council reconvened and recessed to and until the hour of 7:00 p.m. 7:00P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT None BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 16 March 5, 1996 PUBLIC HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 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 the application has been withdrawn and no action is needed. 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26148 REQUEST FOR A SECOND ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 54 LOTS ON 14 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50 IN THE SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL SR) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT. MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES FOR AMCOR REALTY FUND III). Ms. di Iorio, Planning Manager, advised that the request is for a second one year time extension for Tract 26148 that was initially approved in 1990 and consists of 54 lots located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50. The first one-year time extension was approved by Council in 1993 and an additional two years was permitted by the State which extended it to December, 1995. The General Plan designation for the property is Low- Density Residential" and the zoning is Special Residential." The time extension was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on February 13, 1996. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. di Iorio advised that the tract would be subject to one more time extension. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Mr. Bob Mainiero, 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, of Mainiero, Smith & Associates, representative for AMCOR Realty Fund, advised that he was available to answer questions. Mr. Michael Smith, 78-467 Calle Orense, felt that the developer should construct a sound wall along the west side of Washington Street from Avenue 50 to the end of Montero Estates and be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the development. He also demanded that a speed study be prepared and a traffic signal be installed at Washington Street and Avenida BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 17 March 5, 1996 Montero because of the additional safety hazards the traffic increase would cause. Mr. Jim Montgomery, 78-483 Calle Huerto, challenged the findings of the environmental assessment and referred to a statement in a report prepared by a previous City Engineer that a 10 to 12-foot wall was needed to help alleviate the noise impacts in that area. Mr. Bob Mainiero, advised that a wall would be constructed around the perimeter of the development. Ms. Betty Hartz, 78-467 Calle Orense, wanted the developer to construct a sound wall along the access road on the west side of Washington Street, similar to the sound wall on Washington Street near the Catholic Church. She also stressed the need for a more up-to-date environmental study and related traffic and noise study. MOTION- It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Adolph wasn't sure that the developer should be responsible for constructing a wall across the street and pointed out that increased traffic is a result of City growth. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that the sound wall near the church was built as part of an environmental settlement for a commercial development across the street. Council Member Henderson didn't feel that it would be unrealistic to request an update of the environmental reports, pointing out that a traffic and noise study prepared in 1 985 was not reviewed in relationship to this project and there's been a lot of growth since 1990. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the tract's conditions of approval require the developer to prepare a noise study prior to recording a Final Map, but the only noise under consideration would be the noise created by the development. She advised that the City is restrained by the U. S. Supreme Court from placing off-site improvement conditions on a development that are not necessitated by that particular project, but rather necessitated by general growth of the City. She advised that the sound wall near the church resulted from a lawsuit and was not a condition required by the City. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 18 March 5, 1996 Mr. Herman advised that a median is planned for Washington Street which wi?i require all streets between Avenue 50 and Sagebrush to be cul-de-sacs or right-in, right-out streets. Washington Street was designated as a six-lane arterial with a median when the General Plan was adopted in 1992 and was determined to be capable of handling the current traffic as well as the traffic generated from the vacant properties identified in 1992 as part of the Land Use Map, including the property under discussion. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins asked if additional studies could be required as part of the time-extension approval. Ms. Honeywell advised that new conditions could be added, but would need to be related to a change existent in an environmental issue. She pointed out that the additional two-year extension permitted by the State might make it possible for the Council to make a finding that the environmental issues need further review for purposes of the extension since the extension period has been extended longer than normal. She advised that making such a finding would be somewhat aggressive, but could be done if the Council feels that the conditions have changed enough to warrant it. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins asked if a decision on the traffic impact could be made after a traffic analysis is prepared during the requested one-year, time- extension period. Ms. Honeywell advised that it would depend on if the Council's purpose was to determine whether or not the developer should be required to construct a wall across the street from his development, because she didn't feel that could probably be done. In regards to the sound wall near the church, she advised that the commercial development that was approved across the street from the residential properties was expected to generate a significant increase in traffic which would cause a noise burden to the residential properties. The residents filed suit against the developer and the City, and the wall was a resolution to that lawsuit. Although the City was named in the lawsuit and agreed to the construction of the wall, the developer was the real party in interest. Mayor Pro Tem Perkins commented that the developer could work with the residents to try to resolve the issues. In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Honeywell advised that any additional conditions imposed on the tract would have to be done at this time. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Perkins, Mr. Cosper, Public Works Director, advised that traffic counts are taken on Washington Street on an annual basis BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 19 March 5, 1996 by CVAG, but those counts would not include turning movements nor determine traffic capacity at that intersection. He advised that Washington Street can currently withstand a significant increase in traffic. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Cosper advised that major arterials are designated with certain levels of service by CVAG from the traffic counts, but no projections are made. Council Member Sniff recalled that the Council discussed this noise concern some years ago, but no solution was determined. He wasn't sure that addressing the traffic study in the tract's conditions of approval would so?ve the residents' wish for a sound wall because they are two different issues. Mr. Cosper advised that a traffic study completed during the General Plan and Circulation Element Updates, was based on future build-out and took into consideration the number of generated trips attributed to particular land uses. That information was used to construct a traffic model in which impacts on certain streets at future build-out were identified and Washington Street was designated as a major arterial and is designed to accommodate traffic at full build-out. He advised that a traffic problem that's addressed outside of a development's nexus becomes a communitive impact that is a result of contributions from multiple developments and the costs should be shared. Mayor Pro Tem Perkins didn't believe that the amount of traffic generated by this project would be excessive given the capability of Washington Street. He was concerned about the noise factor, but wasn't sure how it could be solved. Council Member Sniff felt that the time extension should be dealt with first and then address the second issue which is the current and ever-increasing noise factor that the residents would like to see resolved, He advised that cost responsibility was never determined when this issue was discussed five or six years ago and suggested that staff be directed to research this issue for possible solutions to address the noise factor. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that construction of a sound wall could be funded through an assessment district whereby the subject property owners would pay for it on their tax bill; funded through the General Fund, or built by a developer. He pointed out, however, that there seems to be some concern that this corridor is affected by traffic throughout the City and not restricted to this development alone. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Cosper advised that the right-of- way on the west side of Washington Street is only six to eight feet. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 20 March 5, 1996 Ms. Alise Finn, of Montero Estates, advised that her property is very close to Washington Street and she is unable is use her patio or leave her windows open at night because of the noise level. Ms. Betty Hartz commented that Washington Street is the only corridor that connects the Cove area with Highway 111 and felt that it?s unfair for the property owners to have to suffer with the results of poor planning. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins felt that the sound wall near the church is very unsightly and was concerned about constructing another one. Council Member Sniff suggested the possibility of extending the height of the existing wall between Washington Street and the residential properties. He felt that it would be unfair to impose the responsibility for constructing a wall on the west side of Washington Street onto the developer because the general growth of the City is the primary contributor to the traffic increase and the development's contribution only minor. He felt that the noise concern is a valid issue, but should be dealt with separate from the time-extension request since the two issues aren't connected. Council Member Henderson agreed that the wall is not the developer's responsibility. Council concurred on moving forward with the extension and directing staff to explore options for resolving the concerns of the Montero Estates residents, bringing those options back to Council for consideration in the near future and notifying the concerned residents of said meeting. RESOLUTION NO.96-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SECOND ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 26148 TO ALLOW A 54-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND SALES SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to adopt Resolution No.96- 10 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 21 March 5,1996 3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.96-049 AMENDING CHAPTER 9.212 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS FOR USE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. Ms. di Iorio, Planning Manager, advised that some of the changes to the City's sign ordinance are clarification and organization of the standards, creation of a Downtown Village Directional Sign Program, allowance of small directional signs on arterial streets for public, quasi-public, and non-profit organizations, limitation of 30 temporary signs for political campaigns, garage sales, etc., and regulations and procedures for abatement and removal of illegal and unsafe signs. The sign regulations have been revised in conjunction with an update of the entire Zoning Ordinance, but were separated from the remainder of that ordinance at the request of the Council. There were three workshops held during 1995 by the Planning Commission regarding this issue and all recommendations have been incorporated into the draft ordinance. On February 1 3, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and sign regulations. Council Member Sniff advised that he had serious concerns with the ordinance?s excessive limitation on political signs and what he felt were somewhat business-unfriendly regulations regarding business-oriented signs. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Ms. Michelle Dallas, P.O. Box 255, Executive Director of La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, advised that the Chamber wishes to erect directional signs in five different locations to help visitors locate some of the harder-to-find businesses in the City as well as the new Chamber Office. They don?t have any problems with the ordinance and only request that the encroachment fees be waived. She urged the Council to approve the ordinance or at least the section dealing with The Village Directional Sign Program and their new location signage so that they can maximize their visibility and accurately reflect their impact at Plaza La Quinta In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. Dallas advised that the Chamber has applied to erect a total of five directional signs, but the exact locations have not been determined; probably one on each side of Highway 111 near Downey Savings and possibly one on Washington Street near the Beer Hunter. Mayor Pro Tem Perkins advised the Chamber to check with the various CC&R's at the Von's Shopping Center and suggested that an improvement in their office signage would help their visibility. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 22 March 5, 1 9g6 MOTION- t was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Henderson felt that the minimum removal time for temporary signs should be changed from seven days to three working days, noting that the weekend would increase it to five. She also wished to see the permit number printed on the back of each sign next to the posting date. Council Member Adolph pointed out that events such as the Bob Hope Chrysler?er Classic might have trouble removing their signs within three working days since they have signs all over the valley. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Perkins, Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that extensions to remove signs wouldn't be allowed and signs not removed by the deadline would be subject to the City's removal procedures. Council Member Sniff felt that three days was insufficient time to remove signs and suggested five days. He also didn't see any value in printing permit numbers on signs. Ms. Honeywell pointed out that a deadline of three working days would require political signs to be removed by Friday after an election on Tuesday. Council Member Adolph advised that golf tournaments would be affected in the same way since they end on Sunday. He also questioned the printing of posting dates and permit numbers on cloth banners. Council Member Henderson felt that permit numbers should at least be printed on permanent signs. Ms. Honeywell advised that it would be difficult for Code Enforcement to know if a temporary sign permit had expired without a posting date on the sign. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins questioned the need for printing permit numbers on temporary signs such as campaign and tournament signs since the end of each event is evident, but supported printing them on permanent signs. Council Member Henderson felt that if the ordinance is going to require the printing of posting dates on signs, that the permit numbers could be added as well. Council Member Adolph wasn't sure that it's necessary for temporary signs. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 23 March 5, 1996 rn response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Honeywell advised that the correct wording for Section 9.160.060(E) is In no case shall the total number of temporary signs?ns on anv permit exceed 3O.?' She advised that the ordinance will allow up to five temporary signs to be erected without a permit and was included for purposes such as real estate open house" signs. Real estate signs cannot be regulated separately because of First Amendment rights that forbid regulation of signs by content. Council Member Sniff advised that he wouldn't support the ordinance with the limitation of 30 political signs because he felt that it's almost a prohibition of such signage given the fact that the City contains 31 square miles and asked staff how that number was derived. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that the Planning Commission felt that 30 temporary signs were adequate for advertising temporary events, Council Member Sniff commented that the ordinance must be defensible and questioned the consistency between business and political signs. Ms. Honeywell pointed out that the limit of 30 signs would apply to all temporary signs and although political signs are typically erected during a set 60day period, the ordinance does not prohibit them nor business signs from being erected any time throughout the year. Council Member Sniff felt that there's a difference between temporary political signs and business signs, pointing out that political signs are only posted every two years during an election period. Ms. Honeywell agreed that's true from a practical standpoint, but pointed out that the rule is the same for both types of signs and reiterated that the City cannot regulate signs by their content. Council Member Henderson felt that the community was clear during the last campaign that they want a limitation on political signs and she felt that the 30- sign limit is in direct response to the community?s feelings. Council Member Sniff felt that a limitation of 30 is excessively small. Council Member Adolph advised that when the Planning Commission reviewed this they found that the highest request for signs in the past for events such as the Arts Festival, Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, Legends Golf Tournament, etc., was 26 signs. Given that fact and the fact that the community had BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 24 March 5, 1998 spoken out against sign proliferation, the Planning Commission felt that the limit should be set at 30. Council Member Sniff felt that such a small limit gives incumbents an advantage over other candidates that may not be well known and suggested a limit of 50. Ms. Honeywell advised that a two-faced sign would be considered one sign. Council Member Sniff felt that the sign quality should be addressed in the ordinance. Council Member Henderson was concerned that that might be a problem in regards to First Amendment rights. Mayor Pro Tem Perkins advised that he would support a limit of 50, but no more. Council Member Henderson concurred and advised that she also supports the 200-foot minimum distance between identical signs. Council Member Henderson referred to Section 9.160.060(H)(2,3) and felt that a three-day notice was unreasonable. Ms. Honeywell advised that the notice period could be changed to five days. Council Member Henderson also felt that a clarification was needed in Statement H(3) regarding the mailing, delivering, or posting of notices. Council concurred on changing the wording to read....comply with the notice within five days after such notice is given... Council Member Sniff asked if there was a consensus to require printing of the permit number on semi-permanent signs to which the Council concurred. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Perkins, Mr. Herman advised that advertising is no longer allowed on temporary subdivision flags. Staff will investigate any such flags that remain to make sure that they were approved prior to adoption of the new policy. Council Member Henderson questioned the allowable posting time and one-year extension for semi-permanent signs. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 25 March 5, 1996 In response to Mayor Pro Tern Perkins, Ms. Honeywell advised that the 60 days or less is the basic temporary sign, the semi-permanent signs are meant to address the more solid sign. That classification is intended for signs advertising things such as model homes or future developments, wherein removal is expected at the conclusion of the sale or construction. Council Member Henderson had a problem with future developments being allowed to erect a sign for up to two years without any development being on the site. Ms. Honeywell advised that semi-permanent signs are not off-site signs and that the number of extensions can be limited if the Council wishes. Mr. Herman advised that model home signs fall in this category and may need several extensions before the subdivision is completely sold He advised that the length of time a sign is permitted at one given time determines whether it is temporary, semi-permanent, or permanent. Model home signs and future development signs are considered semi-permanent signs, but can't be regulated independently by their content and extensions need to be made available so that developments can sell their homes Council concurred on changing the wording in Section 9.160.070(H)(2) to read given... In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Honeywell advised that the specific physical characteristics of The Downtown Village should be outlined under purpose" in the ordinance. She added that the boundaries of The Village Specific Plan can be moved at any time through a Specific Plan Amendment. Council concurred on changing the wording in Section 9.160.080(B) to read does not require a sign permit is mounted............ In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Herman advised that the Chamber is expected to request authorization to be the administrator of The Village Directional Sign Program for which a Memorandum of Agreement would be negotiated. Council Member Henderson wished to see negotiations between the City and BIA regarding the BIA sign program. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 26 March 5,1996 In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. di Iorio advised that design, construction, color, and materials for The Village Directional Sign Program signs will be approved by the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tern Perkins suggested that the BIA directional signs be designed differently from neighboring cities to make them more identifiable. Council Member Henderson expressed concern about Section 9.1 60.080(E) 1 & 2 with Ms. Honeywell advising that it's necessary to have clear definitions. Council Member Henderson didn?t see the point in prohibiting logos from the directional signs. Following discussion, Council concurred on deleting the line in E-2 which prohibits logos on the directional signs. In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. di Iorio advised that the prohibited signs referred to in Section 9.160.100 4) are signs such as trailer- billboards that direct traffic to a particular business. Staff will revise the wording to clarify the intent. Council Member Sniff asked staff to review the process for obtaining permit& for both political and business temporary signage to which Mr. Herman proceeded to review the administrative process. In response to Council Member Sniff, Ms. Honeywell advised that the size of temporary signs can be restricted Council Member Sniff reiterated his belief that the ordinance should address the quality of signs. Mr. Herman advised that the criteria used by the Community Development Director to approve or disapprove sign designs is defined in the ordinance. In response to Council Member Sniff, Ms. Honeywell advised that the message cannot be regulated unless it's considered obscene. Council Member Henderson suggested that submittal of a design layout could be added as a requirement. Council Member Sniff advised that he has some level of concern about becoming too bureaucratic, but was also concerned about staff not knowing what the content of the signs would be. Mr. Herman advised that approval and expiration dates would be noted on the application. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 27 March 5, 1996 Council Member Sniff suggested that adhesive labels be used on the signs for posting dates and permit numbers. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman advised that sign applications would be approved or disapproved within a ten-day-review period by appropriate staff, as assigned by the Planning Manager. Council Member Sniff questioned the necessity for 10 days to review applications. He felt that the ordinance should be business-friendly and suggested that staff obtain copies of the recently-adopted sign ordinances of Palm Springs and Cathedral City for reference. Council Member Adolph didn9t have any problem with the ordinance except for the increase in the number of political signs because it's almost double the amount recommended by the Planning Commission who spent a lot of time reviewing the issue. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Perkins, Mr. Herman advised that Section 9 160.130(V) would be changed to read, Flag means a visual display device without copy. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mayor Pro Tem Perkins advised that the prohibition of rotating, revolving, or otherwise moving signs is standard because of the danger of them being perceived as police or other emergency vehicles. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman advised that the prohibition of balloon signs in Section 9.160.100(17), should be changed to read, 9... except as permitted by the temporary permit process...." because Chapter 5.64 Special Advertising Devices) has been replaced. The temporary permit process will be utilized to address special events such as the Mainstreet Marketplace and golf tournaments. RESOLUTION NO.96-li A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-314 PREPARED FOR ZOA 96-029. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to adopt Resolution No. 96-11 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 28 March 5, 1996 It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to take up Ordinance No. 281 as amended by title and number only and waive further reading. Motion carried with Council Member Adolph voting NO. ORDINANCE NO.281 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 9.212 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to introduce Ordinance No. 281 as amended on first reading. Motion carried with Council Member Adolph voting NO. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 4. FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND E.G. WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that the proposed amendment would allow the developer to remove 1 5 of the 40 moderate- income housing units from the Agency's affordable housing program and sell them as market-rate units. It will also allow the Agency to make assistance available for the acquisition of approximately three additional low-income units. The Mayor Pro Tem declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. RESOLUTION NO.96-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST RESTATED AND AMENDED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND E. G. WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to adopt Resolution No. 96-12 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Council recessed to Closed Session. BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02 *`City Council Minutes 29 March 5, 1996 CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with legal counsel regarding on-going litigation with Granite Construction Co., Case No.086195 pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(A). 2. Conference with City?s property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning potential terms and conditions of acquisition and/or disposition of real property located at the southeast corner of Simon Drive and Highway 111. Property Owner Negotiator: Richard Gattis. 3. Conference with real property negotiator Public Works Director) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 instructing the negotiator concerning the terms of potential acquisition of real property located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 Council reconvened with no decision being made which requires reporting pursuant to Section 54957.1 of the Government Code Brown Act). There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. AUNDRA L. JUHOLA OLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California BIB] 05-20-1996-U01 12:27:16PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 05-U02 1996-U02