Loading...
2006 03 28 PCCity of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California MARCH 28, 2006 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2006-011 Beginning Minute Motion 2006-003 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC AGENDA.doc PUBLIC HEARINGS: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item ................... CONTINUED — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005- 550, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-106, ZONE CHANGE 2005-126, SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMEND MENT #5, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32752. Applicant ............. Ray Shaffer Location .............. Between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus Golf Courses, immediately south of PGA Boulevard, within PGA West Request .............. Consideration of: 1) A Negative Declaration of environ- mental impact; 2) A Specific Plan amendment; and 3) Review of a Parcel Map to subdivide 2.3+ acres into three single-family lots. Action ................. Resolution 2006-_, Resolution 2006- and Resolution 2006- B. Item .................... SPECIFIC PLAN 2006-078 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 Applicant ............. Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Location .............. 14.8 acre parcel, north of Avenue 48, west of Dune Palms Road Request ............... 1) Review of "Dune Palms Neighborhood" Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Development Standards for a 250 unit apartment complex and, 2) Accessory buildings; and review of the Dune Palms Neighborhood 218 unit apartment complex elevations and landscaping plans. Action ................ Resolution 2006- and Resolution 2006-_ P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC AGENDA.doC C. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-845 Applicant............ KB Home Coastal Location .............. Northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61 Request ............... Consideration of three prototypical floor plans, common areas, clubhouse, walls, entry gates, and landscaping plans for a 125 lot single-family home subdivision on 38.3± acres. Action ................ Minute Motion 2006- D. Item .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 Applicant ............. KB Home Coastal Location ............. Southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60 Request .............. Consideration of common areas, clubhouse, walls, entry gates, and landscaping plans for a 197 lot single-family home subdivision on 39.7± acres. Action ................. Minute Motion 2006- E. Item .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-855 Applicant ............. Desert Elite, Inc. Location .............. Southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52 Request .............. Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for two prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 31202 (Rancho Santana) Action ................ Minute Motion 2006- F. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 Applicant ............ Blake Jumper Location ............. West side of Madison Street, 500 feet north of Avenue 60 Request .............. Consideration of the subdivision of ±2.58 acres into eight single-family lots and associated lettered lots. Action ................ Resolution 2006- and Resolution 2006- G. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-557 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 Applicant ............. Innovative Communities (for Masque Development) Location ............. North side of Avenue 58, 1,000± feet west of Madison Street Request .............. Consideration of subdivision of 20± acres into 70 single- family and miscellaneous lots. Action ................ Resolution 2006- and Resolution 2006-_ P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC AGENDA.doc BUSINESS ITEM: A. Item .................... MINOR USE PERMIT 2006-763 Applicant ............ Mark Ladeda Location ............. 55-075 Monroe Street Request ............. Consideration of the placement of a manufactured home on a residentially -zoned 4.19 acre parcel. Action ................ Minute Motion 2006- CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Consideration of final landscaping plans being reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee. B. Review of City Council meeting of March 21, 2006. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on April 11, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING ;etty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, March 2006, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle npico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, March 24, )6. TED: March 24, 2006 fTY'/J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary y of La Quinta, California P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC AGENDA.doc Public Notices The La Quinta City council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24 hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background materials is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC AGENDA.doc PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-550, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-106, ZONE CHANGE 2005-126, SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #5, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32752 APPLICANT: RAY SHAFFER ENGINEER: MDS CONSULTING LOCATION: BETWEEN WEISKOPF AND JACK NICKLAUS, IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF PGA BLVD. WITHIN PGA WEST REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF: 1) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; "G"GO' F= Q011QC�Err TO .1 GITAD€PISIT, Y R€SIaDENITIT.Al DETERMINED NOT TO BE NEEDED - SEE REPORT 2) A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE EXISTING DESIGNATION FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO GOLF COURSE/OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE COMMON AREA; AND, 3) REVIEW OF PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 2.5+ ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-550 WAS PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) - SEE REPORT FOR DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend # 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt 3-28.doc ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) — SEE REPORT FOR DETERMINATION OF ZONING SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: CT / VACANT ACROSS PGA BLVD. SOUTH: GC / GOLF COURSE EAST: RL / SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WEST: RL / COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: This request was first brought before the Planning Commission at the meeting on December 27, 2005 (Attachment 1). At that time the Planning Commission, after testimony and discussion, continued the hearing to January 10, 2006, and requested the applicant provide additional information from the two applicable PGA West homeowners associations and Fire Marshal. On January 10, 2006 the request was again continued to the meeting of January 24, in order to allow all of the previously requested information to be submitted (Attachment 2). Prior to the January 24"' meeting, Staff was informed that the driveway access between proposed Parcel 1 (westerly most parcel) and Jack Nicklaus (street) to the west, would be sold to the applicant instead of being an access easement as was originally proposed (Attachment 3). This necessitated continuing the hearing to February 14 in order to re -advertise the expanded site and for the applicant to submit an amended Parcel Map. Staff also requested additional information (covered later in report) deemed relevant for the Planning Commission's consideration. At the February 14 meeting, staff informed Planning Commissioners that the applicant had requested the hearing be continued to the April 25 meeting in order to allow time to prepare technical exhibits and conduct a neighborhood meeting (Attachment 4). The Planning Commission moved to continue the hearing to the March 14 meeting. On March 14, due to lack of a quorum (a quorum is a minimum of three of the five members present and available to deliberate) of the Planning Commission for this item, the request was continued to this meeting. PGA WEST DEVELOPMENT: A specific plan was approved in 1984 to allow the original development of PGA West. The land use map identified the subject site in an area generally shown as part of the golf course/common area improvements; however the specific location P:\Reports - PM2006\3-28-06\$P 83-002 Amend # 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pe rpt 3-28.doo of the project site was not apparent. Amendments were subsequently approved in 1988, 1989, 1996 and 2000. The approval history of the Specific plan and land use designations for the subject property are as follows: Original approval Amendment #1 Amendment #2 Amendment #3 Amendment #4 May, 1984 September, 1988 June, 1989 August, 1996 October, 2000 golf course/common area golf course/common area golf course/common area "resort core" commercial "resort core" commercial Based on research of City case files, Staff has found that until Amendment #3 of Specific Plan 83-002 in 1996, the property in question did not exist as a definable site due to the different circulation and land use configuration of PGA West. Amendment #3 appears to show the subject property as "Resort Core" commercial, in conjunction with the proposed hotel site to the north across PGA Boulevard, with a street running through it connecting Jack Nicklaus and Weiskopf. Amendment #4, approved in 2000, was intended to redesignate the southeast corner of Avenue 54 and PGA Boulevard from commercial to Medium Density Residential in order to allow a fractional ownership project (which is under construction at this time), lower the maximum number of units in PGA West and revise several development standards. None of these changes pertained to the subject property. Subsequent to Amendment #3's approval, the Specific Plan for PGA West has and still identifies the subject property as Tourist Commercial. This site is part of a larger Tourist Commercial designated area to the north of the site across PGA Boulevard. In the Tourist Commercial zone the City Zoning Code does not permit residential uses, while golf courses require a Conditional Use Permit and open space and parks are a permitted use. However, as permitted by State law, the current Specific Plan land use designation of Tourist Commercial allows various residential uses, including single family residences, golf courses, open space and parks as a matter of right. Between Amendments #3 and #4, KSL Land Corporation received approval for Tentative Tract Map 28444 in May, 1997. This map included the subject property and land to the south. The map expressly described the subject property as Lot "H", an open space and landscape lot, and Lot "L", a private street lot, clearly showing the property as non-residential and indicating that the developer intended the property to be used for open space, landscape and road purposes, not for residential purposes. The Final Map, recorded in June, 1998, shows the subject property as "lettered" lots indicating non-residential use. P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend # 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt 3-28.doc G " TENTATIVE TRACT 28444 As noted above Tentative Tract 28444 was approved in 1997 based on the following factors: 1. General Plan — The General Plan establishes a very broad land use designation for large pieces of land. The General Plan permits the site to be used for golf and single family residential uses. Page 11 of the General Plan's Land Use Element specifically provides that LDR should provide open space as part of residential development. The PGA West Specific Plan allowed golf and open space uses in the Low Density Residential district subject to approval of a subdivision map and a site development approval, which are required for the purpose of further refining and defining permitted land uses. 2. Zoning — The PGA West Specific Plan provided zoning parameters that permitted the project as it was proposed and approved. 3. PGA West Specific Plan — The Specific Plan designation of Tourist Commercial allowed hotel, commercial, residential and recreation/open space. The Specific Plan requires more specific planning and development such as the Tentative Tract Map that was approved for this site. As discussed below, the Specific Plan may need to be amended to conform to the General Plan's current designation for the subject property. 4. KSL Land Corporation signed and submitted Tentative Tract Map 28444 in conformance with the General Plan, zoning, and Specific Plan showing and designating the property as recreation, open space and private street. Recreation, open space and roadway uses are permitted uses. The City approved that Tentative Tract Map as proposed by KSL Land Corporation. 5. Approval of a tentative tract map is a discretionary action by the City and the City is not obligated in future decisions to remove that open space designations that were imposed in TTM 2844 and approve this Tentative Parcel Map request, although if the requested residential use otherwise complies with the general plan and zoning code standards and criteria then specific Findings are required to deny a request to subdivide for residential purposes. Surrounding properties were sold to homeowners based upon Tentative Tract Map 28444 which designated the subject property as open space with a potential street (not constructed). GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DETERMINATION FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY: When they were adopted in 2002 and 2003, respectively, the City's General Plan and Zoning Map designated the subject property and golf course to the south as Low Density Residential (Attachments 5 and 6). Subsequent to those adoptions, P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend # 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt 3-28.doc as projects were processed, Staff maintained a revised set of maps to reflect approved maps and other projects. These revised maps have been used as working maps to reflect actual approvals. The designations for the subject property and adjacent golf course to the south were modified from Low Density Residential to Golf Course in order to be consistent with Tentative Tract 28444, which specifically identified the subject site as "open space and landscape lot" and "private street", as well as to reflect the landscaped and recreational use of the properties. These map amendments were completed as an administrative correction for the purpose of permitting staff to maintain a fairly current inventory of actual approved uses. In conducting the research for this request, Staff determined that these map modifications are not the official General Plan and Zoning Code maps because amendment of the official General Plan and Zoning Code maps require public notice, a public hearing and final action by City Council. Therefore, Staff has concluded that the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the subject property is Low Density Residential as adopted in 2002 and 2003, respectively. Based upon this conclusion, the applications for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are no longer necessary. The current PGA West Specific Plan designation of Tourist Commercial further supports the potential residential use of the property because residential uses are permitted under the Specific Plan (as are open space and landscape uses). Therefore, the Specific Plan Amendment applied for is also not required to permit the proposed Tentative Parcel Map. However, if the Planning Commission determines that it does not support the proposed Tentative Parcel Map and can make appropriate Findings to support that determination as required by Government Code section 655895.(j) then, the Commission may direct staff to prepare a Specific Plan amendment to designate this property as recreation/open space/golf course to eliminate any confusion in the future. It should be noted that the current use of the property as permitted by the Final Map for Tract 28444 is open space and landscape uses. Residential uses are not presently permitted by the Final Map. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The subject property is located within PGA West south of PGA Boulevard, between Jack Nicklaus and Weiskopf Streets. The site is presently planted in lawn and includes a few trees with a part of a golf cart path and practice green used for the Weiskopf golf course being located south of the southern boundary. The northern boundary is adjacent to PGA Boulevard. Between the site and this street is a 6'-7' high solid masonry perimeter wall with no access or openings to PGA Boulevard. The land owner, KSL Land Corporation, is selling the property to Mr. Shaffer for the proposed development. The project site consists of two open space/landscape common area parcels and a 37 foot wide private road parcel connecting Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus that was never constructed. Originally, the private road was designed to provide emergency access between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus, but was not constructed because PAReports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend # 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt 3-28.doc �, alternate access was provided to Spanish Bay via Meadowbrook satisfying the emergency access requirements. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval to create three parcels to allow construction of three single-family residences on approximately 2.5 acres of land (Attachment 7). This requires approval of a Tentative Parcel Map. The proposal is to subdivide the project site into three single-family lots containing 33,500 square feet (Parcel 1), 25,000 square feet (Parcel 2) and 52,450 square feet (Parcel 3). The largest lot (Parcel 3) will be on the east side with frontage on, and access from Weiskopf. The middle lot (Parcel 2) will have access to Weiskopf via a 20 foot wide shared driveway easement across Parcel 3. This access easement will be located parallel and adjacent to PGA Blvd. Access to the westerly most lot (Parcel 1) will be from Jack Nicklaus via a 20 foot wide driveway through the common area lot between the subject property and Jack Nicklaus. This driveway area will be a part of Parcel 1 and not just an easement as originally proposed in December, 2005. The golf cart path that runs east -west through the subject property and provides access between the 18th hole and the 1 st hole will be relocated to the south outside of the project area. The practice green on a portion of Parcel 2 will also be relocated to the south off the parcel. The applicants engineer has stated that this can be done without major issues. Lot sizes in the area of the project site vary with lots along Jack Nicklaus in the area of 14,000± square feet and lots along Weiskopf varying with the primary size in the area of 19,000 ± square feet. There is an existing 10 foot wide storm drain easement (collecting runoff from PGA Boulevard) running north -south across the east portion of Parcel 1. Additionally, easements may exist on the unused private street connecting Jack Nicklaus and Weiskopf. Public Works Department has recommended several Conditions of Approval to address these easements and ensure they are relocated or if no longer needed, eliminated. A conceptual site plan showing the intent of how the lots will be developed has been submitted by the applicant for your review (Attachment 8). DISCUSSION: As identified previously in this report, the subject property has been determined to have a General Plan designation and zoning designation of Low Density Residential. The current Specific Plan for PGA West (Amendment #4) designates the subject property as Tourist Commercial, which permits single family residential. However, r^ PAReports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend # 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt 3-28.doc Tract 28444 labeled the subject property as 'open space and landscape lots" and a "private street" lot. Based upon this, it appears the intent and use of this area was for planting of lawn and trees for recreation and passive use and a private road (the road was later determined to not be needed). The designation of this property for open space and landscape purposes is consistent with other residential development in the City, where lettered landscape and open space lots are included in residential subdivisions for density purposes and to provide amenities to the subdivision and adjacent home owners. Based upon the letters and testimony received to date, the surrounding homeowners purchased their property with the understanding that use of the subject property was for recreation and passive use and assumed this would extend into the future. Additionally, they believe development on the property will negatively impact their properties, views and use of the adjacent golf course. The current state of the subject property has existed as such for approximately 10 years. The existing land use is consistent with the intent of the original project design However, based upon the underlying General Plan and zoning designation of the subject property, the applicant has applied for a Parcel Map in order to create three new single family residential lots. This will require slight revisions to the golf course that include relocating a portion of the golf cart path and practice green. The need to relocate the golf facilities reinforces the original intent that the subject property not be developed with residences. Research of the subject property has revealed that the intent established with the approval of Tract 28444 was for this area to remain open space. This was later reinforced by the administrative map amendments that were conducted with the intent to establish General Plan and zoning designations consistent with the map and the current property use. The current open space designation as a result of Tract 28444 is consistent with the City General Plan and PGA West Specific Plan. NEW INFORMATION: The applicant has submitted information to address previous questions and/or concerns raised by Planning Commissioners. Responses are as follows: 1. The Fire Department has provided written support of the parcel map design and access to all parcels as submitted. 2. Rather than grant an easement for access to proposed Parcel 1, KSL Resorts has indicated that they will sell to the applicant a portion of the common area land west of proposed Parcel 1 needed for driveway access to Jack Nicklaus (Attachment 9). P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend k 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend N5 at al pc rpt 3-28.doc a: 3. Mr. Steve Hastings, Board Director of the PGA West Master Association, has written a letter, dated January 12, 2006, stating they have no jurisdiction or responsibility for development of this area. Furthermore, they have no objection at this time, but reserve the right to review the final plans in order to make a final decision (Attachment 10). 4. Mr. Randy Ankeny for the PGA West Fairways Association has written a letter, dated January 11, 2006, stating due to the large lot sizes, single story construction, and upscale landscaping, the resulting three residences will be complimentary to the surrounding houses. Furthermore, he states that prior to submission of plans to the City for construction permits, the architecture and site design of the proposed houses must be presented to the PGA West Masters and Fairways Associations (Attachment 11). 5. A revised Tentative Parcel Map has been submitted including the westerly access as a part of proposed Parcel 1. 6. Forrest Haag, a consultant and representative of the applicant, has provided a written summary of the PGA West history of the subject property based on his research and records. Mr. Haag states why he believes the subject property was always designated to be used for residential purposes. Mr. Haag was involved in the project from its initial development in the early 1980's (Attachment 12). 7. A grading plan for the revisions to the adjacent golf course facilities to the south has not been submitted. However, the applicant has indicated the changes can be completed without substantial modifications or complications. 8. The PGA West Specific Plan currently permits 3,936 residential units along with 1,000 resort units. To date, 3,505 residences have been constructed in PGA West with approximately 100 vacant residential lots remaining. Therefore, the three proposed units would not exceed the Specific Plan residential unit allowance. 9. To date, Staff has not received additional information to indicate that the applicant has formally met with the PGA West Master Association or PGA West Fairways Association. 10. The applicant has submitted a photo -simulation of the site as it exists and with residences similar to what could be built on the site. Additionally, a photo collage showing views of the site with the simulated residences from various surrounding properties is included (Attachment 13). P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend N 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend N5 at al pc rpt 3-28.doc 11. Mr. Robert Hargreaves, representing Mr. Shaffer, has submitted a letter, dated March 23, 2006, documenting the subject site history and urging approval of the request (Attachment 14). PUBLIC NOTICE: This map application was originally advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on December 17, 2005 for the December 27, 2005 hearing. All property owners within 500 feet of the subject property were mailed a copy of the Public Hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. A second public hearing notice was published in the Desert Sun on February 4, 2006 with notices mailed out to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property. Notices were mailed out to additional owners due to the expanded subject property on the west side of the subject property described above. To date, we have received a number of letters and petitions regarding the proposed project (Attachment 15). OPTIONS: The following options are available to the Planning Commission: 1) Recommend approval of the project in order to allow creation of three single family lots. 2) Recommend denial of the project based upon testimony before the commission and historical information, including Tract 28444 that identifies the subject property as open space and landscaping lots. Direct Staff to prepare a Specific Plan amendment changing the PGA West Specific Plan designation from Tourist Commercial to Golf Course/Open Space to clarify the actual present use of the site, consistent with the General Plan, and to eliminate confusion in the future. 3) Continue the request and provide staff and/or applicant with alternative direction. FINDINGS. The Environmental Assessment Tentative Parcel Map findings needed for a positive recommendation to the City Council, as required by CEQA and Chapter 9.240 of the Zoning Ordinance can be made should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval of this request, as noted in the attached Resolutions with the recommended Conditions of Approval. If the Planning Commission decides to deny this request, staff will need to prepare findings of denial, as required by Government Code section 65589.5(j). CJ P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend # 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt 3-28.doc RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the request and determine if approval is in the best interest of the city and community as discussed above. Should the Commission determine this request is acceptable; the following actions should be taken: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-550. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 32752, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. If the Planning Commission determines the request should be denied, Staff recommends that the Commission direct Staff to prepare findings for denial and continue item to next meeting for action. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of December 27, 2005 2. Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of January 10, 2006 3. Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2006 4. Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2006 5. 2002 General Plan Land Use map excerpt 6. 2003 Zoning Map excerpt 7. Revised Tentative Parcel Map exhibit 8. Conceptual Site Plan design 9. Letter from KSL Resorts 10. Letter from PGA Master Association 11. Letter from PGA Fairways Association 12. Letter from Forrest Haag, ASLA 13. Photo -simulations 14. Letter from Mr. Robert Hargreaves, Dated March 23, 2006 15. Letters received from PGA West property owners Prepared by: i Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend # 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt 3-28.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-550 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32752 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-550 APPLICANT: RAY SHAFFER WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27" day of December, 2005, and continued hearings on January 10, 24, and February 14, March 14, and 28, 2006, to consider Environmental Assessment 2005-550 prepared for Tentative Parcel Map 32752, for 2.3+ acres, for property located between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus, immediately south of PGA Blvd. within PGA West, more particularly described as follows: Lots "H", "T", "L" and "W", Tract 28444 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2005-550) and has determined that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed application will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2005-550. 2. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map because the site is presently planted primarily in turf will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. P:\Reports PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend N 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend 5 ea 2005-550 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Environmental Assessment 2005-550 Ray Shaffer Adopted: 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends because the site is presently planted primarily in turf. 4. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map do not have the potential to achieve short- term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-550 and said reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. P:\stan\sp\sp 83-002 amend 5 ea 2005-550 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Environmental Assessment 2005-550 Ray Shaffer Adopted: 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-550 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-550 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28" day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Acting Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\stan\sp\sp 83-002 amend 5 ea 2005-550 pc res.doc Environmental Checklist Form — Environmental Assessment 2005-550 Project title: Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner 760-777-7125 4. Project location: The Specific Plan area occurs south of Avenue 54, and west of Madison Street. The parcel map occurs on the south side of PGA Boulevard, between Jack Nicklaus and Weiskopf, within the Specific Plan area, APN 762-090-004, -005, 762-070-027, -028 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Ray Shaffer 55-770 Cherry Hill Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Existing: Low Density Residential Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Tentative Parcel Map is required to subdivide the 3 acres into three single family lots of 24,300, 25,000 and 52,450 square feet, for the development of three homes. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: PGA Boulevard, Vacant Tourist Commercial land South: Developed Golf Course East: Developed single family residential West: Developed open space 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. -1 Aesthetics Biological Resources 1 Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: r— X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) 'Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact !Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) 1. a)-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of three single family homes within a planned country club community which is mostly built out. The homes will occur on lots larger than those surrounding them. The views in this area are primarily to the west, and the homes will be constructed in a north -south orientation. Surrounding homes are located in an east -west direction. There is currently landscaped open space on the land planned for development. Although this landscaping will be removed, development of the homes on lots of 24,000 square feet or more will not significantly change the character of the area. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or other visual resources on the land. The proposed project is not located on a City designated Image Corridor. d) The development of three homes will result in minor increases in light due to landscape lighting and car headlights. Given the developed nature of the project, this increase will be insignificant. J Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff. ) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Ilse Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The proposed project is developed landscaping/golf course. There is no agricultural activity within the country club, nor adjacent to it. There are no Williamson Act contracts on or near the project site. The project is designated and constructed for urban and recreational uses. No impacts to agricultural resources are expected. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 111. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for i which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone Precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aenal Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) III. a)- e) The development of air quality plans by the South Coast Air Quality Management District was based on the City's General Plan buildout. The PGA West project has built out at densities less than approved. Therefore, the addition of three homes will have no impact, and is consistent with, the air quality planning performed for the Coachella Valley, and the City. The proposed project will generate an additional 29 daily vehicle trips. The primary source of air pollution in the City is due to vehicle emissions. The addition of 29 vehicle trips will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Should all three parcels be developed concurrently, the grading of the site will generate 73.8 pounds of fugitive dust per day, below the SCAQMD threshold for PM10. Since no thresholds will be exceeded, sensitive receptors adjacent to the proposed project area will not be exposed to significant pollutant concentrations. The proposed subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on j X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) I- d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with j established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) IV. a)-f) The project site is currently developed as landscaped golf course. No habitat occurs for sensitive or threatened species. The development of the homes will not impact any such species. There are no wetlands on or near the project site. The developed nature of the site precludes its suitability as a migratory corridor. The development will not conflict with any City preservation ordinances, or with the implementation of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. ry Potentially Less Than Less Than Ni Significant Significant w/ Significant Imp. Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES--- Would — — the ro'ect_ � a) Cause a substantial adverse change in g X the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) r - d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff) V.a)-d) As previously stated, the project area is developed. Cultural and paleontological resources were analyzed as part of the original EIR for the PGA West project, prior to any ground disturbing activity. The development of the area precludes the potential for resources on the site. No human remains are expected to occur on the site. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would project: r) Expose people or structures to X potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) 4 n) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Ifave soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) — VI. a)-d) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The City will enforce Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones for the three homes. The project area is developed, and has not demonstrated a liquefaction potential. The site is relatively flat, and is not located near a hillside. The homes will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer existing within PGA Boulevard. t' V Potentially Less Than Less Than I No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS r MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through treasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MF,A, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) r-- d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ! Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Application materials) c) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) -_ X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically X with an adopted emergency rinterfere esponse plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)- — h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The development of three homes within a planned, and largely built out community will have no impact on hazardous materials. The homes will participate in the household hazardous waste programs implemented by Waste Management throughout the City. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project area. The project has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. VIII. a)-g) The development of three single family homes is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The homes will utilize ground water provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic and landscaping uses. The project area is currently lushly landscaped, and the development of the homes may actually reduce the water usage on the 3 acres. The project's drainage will be integrated into that of the existing master planned drainage system for PGA West. During construction, the City will require that silt and dust be controlled as a standard requirement for the project grading permit. There is not expected to be any change in the direction of storm flows as a result of construction of the three homes. PGA West is not located within a 100 year flood plain. SPotentially Less Than I Less Than No ignificant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: _ a) Physically divide an established community? (Aerial photo) I X b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1)_— c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) I--- - IX. a)-c) The Specific Plan was approved to allow up to 3,936 residential units, and has built out to approximately 3,505 units (including 60 units permitted by Specific Plan Amendment #4, approved in 2000. Therefore, the proposed three homes will not impact the overall development of the Specific Plan, which will still remain below its approved density. The land is currently landscaped open space, and the construction of the three homes will not divide an existing community. No impacts associated with land use are expected. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact FX. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would I the project: k a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 f .) _ X. a) & b) The site is located in an area of the City designated Mineral Resource Zone MRZ- 1, which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) -- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? (General Plan l MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) t — e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) — — �f) For a project within the vicinity of a IT X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) — XI. a)-f) The development of three single family homes will have no significant impact on the noise environment within the existing developed Specific Plan area in the long term, insofar as the homes will be consistent in character with surrounding development. The construction of the homes will have limited impacts on existing homes to the southwest and southeast, but these will be controlled and minimized by the City's regulations regarding construction hours. Even if constructed concurrently, the construction noise generated will be temporary and periodic and is not expected to be significant. The project site is not located in an airport influence area. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) Xll. a)-c) The development of three homes will have no impact on population and housing. The project has no potential to cause substantial growth, and insofar as the Specific Plan has developed at densities less than those approved, as described in the Land Use and Planning section above, the Specific Plan as a whole has generated fewer units than expected. The land is currently developed as landscaped open space, and development of the homes will not displace any person. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa Impact Mitigation Impact XIII_PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: _ Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X I Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) 1ther x public facilities? (General Plan MEA, I Ip.46ff.)L-- XIII. a) The ultimate development of three homes will have no impact on public services. The PGA West project is already serviced by the City's contract police and fire services, and the three homes will not significantly increase the need for these services. The home construction will generate park in lieu fees and mandated school fees, which are designed to offset impacts to these facilities in the City. 4 r ti Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XN. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the i facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The loss of 3 acres of landscaping in the Specific Plan area will have no impact on recreational facilities. The area to be developed is outside the limits of the golf course itself, and will not impact the recreational opportunity there. The PGA West community includes internal recreational facilities which will serve the residents of the three new homes. Potentially Less Than Significant Significant w/ Impact Mitigation Less Than No Significant Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) ' d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? (TPM 32752) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (TPM 32752) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (TPM 32752) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) X I I X X X X X XV. a)-g) The ultimate development of three residential units will generate up to 29 additional daily trips within PGA West, and on surrounding City streets. Given that the Specific Plan was designed to accommodate the traffic generated by up to 5,000 units (based on original approval, and fewer than 4,000 have been constructed, the proposed homes' traffic will not impact the project's or the City's circulation system. The homes will be required to access on the existing, fully improved PGA Boulevard. Each home will provide on -site parking as required by the zoning ordinance. There is no air traffic proposed with the project. Emergency access is already well established within the Specific Plan area. No impacts associated with traffic and circulation are expected as a result of the proposed project. - -- Potentially Less Than -T Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact tl — XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment _ X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) � c) Require or result in the construction of X j new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? I (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) — d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) _ �X 0Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) Comply with federal, state, and local X g) statutes and regulations related to solid I waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) Development of three single family homes will have no impact on utilities. The site is currently irrigated for the maintenance of turf, and development of the homes with water efficient fixtures and desert tolerant landscaping may reduce the water consumption at the site. The project is served by CVWD for wastewater treatment, and the development of three homes will have no impact on their facilities. The storm water control systems within PGA West are well established, and the proposed project will have no impact on the system, but will simply integrate into it. Waste Management of the Desert serves the entire project, and will add these three homes to their service when constructed. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Signitcant Impact Impact '.Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to X I degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- i sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ XVII. a) The project site is already developed, and has no potential to harbor biological or cultural resources. XVII. b) The three homes are well within the maximum permitted units within PGA West, and will not result in any change in the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan, or the City General Plan. XVII. c) The development of the three homes will have no cumulative impacts, particularly since the Specific Plan as a whole has developed at densities less dense than those approved. XVII. d) The proposed project will not have any significant impact on human beings. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Environmental Impact Report 83-009 (SCH 03062922), and subsequent environmental review conducted for the previous amendments to the Specific Plan. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 2.3+ ACRES INTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32752 RAY SHAFFER WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27t" day of December, 2005, and continued hearings on January 10, 24, and February 14, March 14, and 28, 2006, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of Ray Shaffer for the subdivision of 2.3+ acres into three single-family residential lots, located between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus, immediately south of PGA Blvd. within PGA West, more particularly described as follows: Lots "H", "T", "L" and "W", Tract 28444 WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment (EA) 2005- 550. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, recommends a Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Parcel Map 32752: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map and its improvement and design are consistent with the General Plan and approved Specific Plan in that the lot and street design are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size, and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision and its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because conditions have been incorporated into the project approval to ensure such impacts do not occur. I P:\Reports - PC\2006\3 28 06\SP 83-002 Amend # 5 et al\sp 83-002 amend #5 tam 32752 pc res.doc `; Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Ray Shaffer Adopted: 3. The design of the subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban infrastructure improvements are existing, or will be installed based on applicable local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the revised subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access is provided within the project and to adjacent public streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 32752 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28TR day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Paul Quill, Acting Chairman City of La Quinta, California P \Reports - PC\2006\3-28 06\SP 83-002 Amend N 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend k5 tpm 32752 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Ray Shaffer Adopted: ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2006\3 28 06\SP 83-002 Amend # 5 at al\sp 83 002 amend #5 tpm 32752 pc res.doc n Ij LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- :ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED ENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32752 IAY D. SHAFFER kDOPTED: iENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Parcel Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. This Tentative Parcel Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). This map shall expire two years after approval by the City Council, if not recorded, unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance Section 13.12.160. The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies, if applicable. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. P•\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 83-002 Amend N 5 at al\sp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc Tanning Commission Resolution 2006- :onditions of Approval - Recommended entative Parcel Map 32752 lay D. Shaffer \dopted: The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES storm water discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. P \stan\sp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 2 of 8 fanning Commission Resolution 2006- :onditions of Approval - Recommended .entative Parcel Map 32752 lay D. Shaffer kdopted: Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 3. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. Pursuant to this condition, the applicant is required to submit to the City of La Quinta written verification from the applicable HOA regarding any relinquishing and/or dedication of easements and dedication shown on the recorded Final Tract Map No. 28444 and Final Tract Map No. 28340-1 . 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Parcel Map and to include existing or relocated drainage easements applicable from the aforementioned Final Tract Maps. The applicant shall notify prospective buyers of Parcel 1 of said drainage easement and a no -build requirement in perpetuity. 8. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along the residence side of all driveway and along the proposed easement from Jack Nicklaus as required by the Utility Purveyors and the City of La Quinta. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 9. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and the date of recording of any Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. UTILITIES 10. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 11. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. P lstan\sp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 3 of 8 Tanning Commission Resolution 2006- :onditions of Approval - Recommended entative Parcel Map 32752 lay D. Shaffer kdopted: 12, Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. 13. The applicant is required to provide all required connection for each parcel to existing utilities to include but not limited to water, sewer, and electrical. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. FINAL PARCEL MAP 14. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Parcel Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Parcel Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster - image file of such Final Map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 15. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 16. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM 10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal 4 of P:\stan\sp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc Tanning Commission Resolution 2006- :onditions of Approval - Recommended .entative Parcel Map 32752 lay D. Shaffer kdopted: C. SWPPP 1" = 40' Horizontal NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. D. On -Site Storm Drain Plan to include any Modification to the Existing Storm Drain System 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. 17. The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note: the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 18. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 19. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Parcel Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 20. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. GRADING 21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 22. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. P \stan\sp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 5 of 8 fanning Commission Resolution 2006- :onditions of Approval - Recommended entative Parcel Map 32752 lay D. Shaffer kdopted: 13. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. DRAINAGE ?4. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Tract Map No. 28444 and as revised for this Parcel Map. The applicant or his design professional shall revise said hydrology and drainage report for Tract Map No. 28444 to include storm drainage improvements required to any modification. Pursuant to the aforementioned, the applicant is required to relocate and modify the existing on -site and off -site storm drainage system across Parcel 1 and on PGA Boulevard to the easterly property line and record said easement on the Final Map. Additionally, the applicant shall apprise prospective buyers of Parcel 1 of said drainage easement and a no -build requirement in perpetuity. 25. Nuisance water shall be drained to the abutting water hazard through bubbler golf course drainage as approved by PGA West. ACCESS DRIVEWAY 26. The applicant shall be required to reconfigure the access easement over Lot D of Tract Map No. 28340-1 to align with Bye Hole Way and to reduce conflict movements with ingress and egress traffic at the Jack Nicklaus Gate House to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 27. Nuisance and stormwater shall not be directed to flow to Jack Nicklaus or Weiskopf as proposed by the approved Hydrology and Drainage Report for Tract Map No. 28444. 28. A reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement shall be entered upon between prospective buyers of Parcels 2 and 3 as established in the CC&R's; or dedicated in perpetuity on the Final Parcel Map. The applicant or successor owner of Parcel 1 shall enter into an easement and maintenance agreement over Lot D with KSL Corp. or successor owner for maintenance in perpetuity. P \stan\sp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 6 of 8 lanning Commission Resolution 2006- onditions of Approval - Recommended entative Parcel Map 32752 ay D. Shaffer ,dopted: 2UALITY ASSURANCE !9. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 30. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 31. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. FEES AND DEPOSITS 32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 33. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 34. A fee of $1,314.00, payable to Riverside County, is due to the Community Development Department WITHIN 24 HOURS of City Council approval. This is required by Riverside County to post the Notice of Determination for EA 2005-550 and offset costs associated with AB 3158 (Fish and Game Code 71 1 .4). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 35, Residences constructed on subject parcels shall maintain a minimum 30 feet setback from the golf course to the south. 36. Review of architecture and landscaping for production and/or individual custom homes, shall be subject to Title 9, Section 9.60.330 and 9.60.340, LQMC, as applicable. The Community Development Director or designee shall determine whether the unit(s) applied for constitute custom homes or production -level development. Any custom home design guidelines that may be required shall be reflected or referenced in any applicable CC&R's for PGA West. 7 of P lstan\sp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa doc 'fanning Commission Resolution 2006- ;onditions of Approval - Recommended .entative Parcel Map 32752 lay D. Shaffer kdopted: 37. Rear yard landscaping shall be designed and planted so as to not create major obstructions of mountain views from adjacent properties. Landscaping plans to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation of planting. 38. Approval and recordation of this map invalidates any and all existing inapplicable Tract Map restrictions. :IRE MARSHAL 39. Access configuration and design to Parcel 2 shall be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to beginning of plan check of the Final Map by the Public Works Department. Modification to Parcel Map if required may be approved by Community Development and Public Works Departments. P:\stan\sp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 8 of 8 I DR 4rJ RDR LDR L_L_ MC LDR M/RC M;RC� TC G G LDR G Ln;Z G W LDFi LDv G MDR MC Gcc s+ f .. LDR G LDR G ton ^ LDN G LOR LDR i 1 f GEM OF :ATHE DESERT ATTACHMEN 2002 GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED UND USE R-OUCY DIAGRAM RESIDENT AL LAND USES � VERY LOW OENSffY WSIOEMRAL [0 2 WiAc. LLJd LOVd DEVXfri f,'ESL7EPR7AL [2 a oWAC, LKiDR j iW iD U 4 DG WfY RLFSlLZl`ynkL ; a a owAcl LHDR MEOaJN; I-10; 13E;-}S(i Y r:E0613,7TV L ;a 12 Wi, j _RDFl f; I DEP331 T Y RE001S IFIAL t,2 ,6 ounc] ® RU1iP,L RES'OL- mAL OVER o- CQMI6ERCGIf_ LAI`ID USES [M/RC MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CC_] COM-MWI-Y COMMERCIAL. F rdC pAE1GHOQRMOQD COM ERCULL CR COc1MERCW_ PARK W OFFICE FF , TQLIRLT C01NPdERCYFJ_ ,JC VIU-AGE COULMERGAL ® NON iiES<DET,mAL OWNLAY G,',�THEyR LAND USEES I t UMIL URBAN MIX � �MC� MAJQR CQPf.MLN. P?,GL.I"ilE3 L �- "I PARK. FAGLIIIEC OS OPEN SPAG4 C� GOLF C.OURPL Of' M- SPACE WATFRCOII[?S@/FLOL:O COMTROL 60CC�Ii �w, 2 MIT 500 iW0 2p]p 3000 C o a0o0 fiOCd 1 , uxl va 112 Y4 20 AC AOAC V` I tlOAC St USA AA i6 -DR v-, A S � ! OP l G 16oAC w ACRES 320AC Ir 61 It Ij Vil i it lI �ql 2003 ZONING MAP EXCERPT R L - Low PrE tq5 rTY i r-v w i' I A ATTACHMENT 111-10—e000 WN UZ:bl FM KSL Resorts 760 564 8030 FAX NO, 760 564 8003 P. ( E January 16, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE (760) 777-1233 Stan Sawa Assistant Planning Director City of La Quints 78-459 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 ATTACHMENT Re: PGA WEST Specific Plan Amendment 5 Weiskopf Course / Residential Lot Boundary Exhibits (attached) Property located south of PGA Blvd, north of the Weiskopf Course boundary, between lack Nicklaus Blvd and Weiskopf Way (the "Shaffer Development") Dear Mr. Sawa: This letter is being provided at the request of City staff as part of the review of the concept drawing prepared for Mr. Ray Shaffer depicting the Shaffer Development. In addition to the acquisition of the property underlying the three (3) residential lots depicted on the attached exhibits, Mr. Shaffer is also acquiring fee title to Lot D of Tract 28340-1 identified as the private drive/fire access connecting Jack Nicklaus Blvd to residential parcel 1. The lot immediately south of Lot D (Lot C of Tract 28340-1) contains a golf cart path which will remain within the boundary of Lot C. Hopefully this information satisfies any issue the City may have had relating to access to any of the proposed residential lots from adjacent private streets. We appreciate Staffs consideration of the proposed Shaffer Development concept and ask for a positive recommendation of approval of Mr. Shaffer's application. Very truly yours, Samuel I Barton Vice President Cc: Ray Shaffer Forrest Haag KSL Resorts . 50-XS Avenida 9ermudas . La Quinta, CA 92253 . 760.564,8000 . Fax 760.564.8003 . kslresorts.com THE KSL RESORTS COLLECTION . KSLRESORTS.COM TORE RESORT& 5PA. • LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA.. HO1 EL DEL CORONADOI. • GRAND WAILER RESORT HOTEL & SPA. • LA OUINTA RESORT A CLUB.. PGA WI vt alli11leeb 10:00 7605642329 PCWAMT PAGE 01A ATTACHMENT I PGA VMW UAWM A590=nM W P.O.13Ox 1516, IA idil IM, CA 9M January lye 2006 hlr. Ray Sheffer 55-770 Cherry Hill la QWnta, Ca. 92253 RE: Hem Sites between Jade Ididdaus and Wei*wf Dear Mr. Shaffer. nmk you for shumg your hme site r"Aition with as 'Ibe PGA WEST Master Association has no jorisdicdon or reVmg&ility for &Velr p* this area. Fmm what was Presented to the Hoard we have no objection at this time, however, we reserve the right to review the final Plana in vrd=to mecca a GoW 400Won. Steve Hastings Board Dimactor PGA WEST Master Association ATTACHMENT < yip FAIRWAYS ASSOCIAT14DN daenmy III 2m 11dr. Mmffu SloffmDavelowmcommy S Cherry 10 Drive I.a Qdwta, Calif maia 92253 MIR Dour Adz Shaffer: The POA WEST Fauvrap Aye ( ) adawwkzlps mccipt of the proposed develOPMOA (Shaffer Homes at POA WEM per your correapodeace and Plot plan dated Deca nber, 2W5 by Forrest k. Maag, ASLA, Inc. It is noted that the lots (three, low dmrarty reardeatisi) are bsW in acreage than the lots on both Nicklaus Blvd. and Wmalcog and that the three haffies skas will be of landscape architecdue that will be oomplltnentary to the mmamdutg homes. UPOR ram+ end acceptau m by the City of is QuiDW S place ing Com d"zssion, precise MWMPIM &lhwAft wdOwftft sad site desip wag be prm=d for htgxft to the appropriate PGA WM Masters Association and PGA WEST Fauvmp Associahon prior to submittal to the City of La QWnta far vonsawfion permits. Havidy L. Ankeny For tin PGA WEST Fairways Association Aoatoffice Box 1690 - t.a Quima, CallibrAi =47• PbOft (760) 776-5100 • Fax (7b0) 776-5111 Thursday, January 12, 2006 ATTACHMENT # Mr. Stan Sawa Assistant Planning Director City of La Quinta California La Quinta, California 9224) Re: PGA WEST Specific Plan Amendment Zoning / Land Use Boundary Issues Dear Mr. Sawa: This letter is to provide information clarifying issues surrounding the history of the Zoning and Land Use designations for the property under consideration for residential use adjacent to the northerly Weiskopf Course boundary at the south side of PGA Blvd. between Nicklaus Blvd. and Weiskopf (exhibits attached). The Weiskopf Course within the PGA West Master Plan / Speck Plan As a planner/landscape architect for the prior land owner (Landmark Land Company), I was directly involved in the master plan preparation for the PGA West project from its beginnings in the early 80's thru the 90's as well as for the 10+ years of KSL ownership after the disintegration of Landmark Land in the early 90's. In addition tc directly participating in the preparation of the land plan and routing of the Weiskopf Course adjacent to the property in question, my private planning firm prepared detailed plans and specifications of the landscape architecture of the Weiskopf Course as well as all Specific Plan Amendments to date. Over the past couple of decades, I have seen first hand, a great deal of flexibility in the interpretation of specific boundaries for land use within the master plan for PGA West. The Pattern of land Use in the PGA West Specific Plan PGA West has always been envisioned and planned as an upscale residential community overlooking premier golf course amenities. Mr. Shaffer's three lot subdivision exhibits two lots greater than one-half acre and one lot greater than one acre in area. This is consistent with the surrounding pattern of residential land use overlooking golf and greatly exceeds the standards of the adjacent residential lot -area and their provision of landscaped area on those lots. Documenting the Pattern of land Use in the PGA West Specific Plan As exhibited on documents from the current PGA West Specific Plan submitted in conjunction with Mr. Shaffer's requested Zone Change (attached herein), the land area to the north of the golf course boundary where three residential lots are proposed is shown as golf and open space. A variety of land use depictions for this lot area from Tourist Commercial, Low Density Residential, to Golf and Open Space, has existed over several years and several updates to the City's General Plan document. limp EST K. HAA6, ASLA, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - LAND PLAN NIN 1 254 M. COAST MIGMWAY LAGUNA RAMCA 92651 R (9Y9) 576-9066 t: (949) 5]6-906t G r0KKt5TarKMMA1L.00M M[MBLR ASLA Page 2 Mr. Stan Sawa City of La Quinta, Planning Dept. Attached Exhibit 2.1 is reprinted from the City's current -day version of the General Plan booklet and shows residential land use for the Shaffer application area. The current -day Web Site rendition of the same area (reprinted and attached herein) shows a road connecting Nicklaus Blvd. and Weiskopf over open space area lotted separately from the golf /open space lot. In discussion before the Planning Commission hearing of December 27`s it was stated that "this area has always been envisioned as open space" however, it should be noted that although several earlier exhibits were flawed or at lease inconsistent, current exhibits are not perfect either - possibly leading to confusion as to the "history of intended use" of the lotted area of Mr. Shaffer's application. Routing the 5 b course in the PGA West Specific Plan At the inception of the golf course planning effort for the Weiskopf Course, KSL's directive to the golf course planning team was clear; based on the earlier master plan concepts for land use, route a "Championship" style course with starting and finishing holes provided with ample take -off and landing area for the golfer's starting and finishing shots. The course (as constructed) exhibits this "template" for safe distance from the I" tee and the 18`s green to the proposed residential lots. Mr. Shaffer's proposed plan for three lots exhibits appropriate setbacks to regulation play -area similar or in excess of the play -area setbacks of existing lots on Nicklaus Blvd. and Weiskopf. With a minor modification to the cart path routing and the practice green adjacent to the starting tees, the proposed lots do not require any modification the actual course area. Mr. Shaffer's proposal is consistent with the surrounding master plan intent and with the original Weiskopf Course routing. In light of the above, the applicant's proposed low density residential lots exhibits a consistent and non -obtrusive pattern of land use with surrounding and adjacent residential use and complies with the intent of the PGA West Specific Plan from its inception. Mr. Shaffer kindly appreciates Staffs time and effort in preparing it's recommendation to the City Council for approval of these three low density residential lots. K. Haag, ASLA, Inc. l�fj���/, REST R. RAAG, ASLA, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - LAND PLANNIN 1 251 R. COAST HIGHWAY LAGUNA BEACH. CA 92651 F. (919) 576-9066 r: (9Y9) 576-9067 t: rORROTQrRRMA IL.COM MCMBCR ASLA The exhibit below represents the current layout of the golf course and the adjacent residential tract bounderi( or "Existing Site I se." -ks shown, the land area immediately south and adjacent to PG k Bhd is a remainder are "out of plaW y" within the Tom �Neiskopf Course. ithin the context of the overall master plan for this area, re! idential land use has always been envisioned and is depicted on the adjacent exhibit referenced as "Propose Site t se" EXISTING SITE USE ENLARGEMENT Lr GOLF LDR Low DENSITY RESIDENnAL l`C TOrRIST COMMERCIAL j SIIAFFER O'WN'ERSIIIY BorM)ARY Exhibit 6 PGA WEST -xhibit below represents the proposed layout of the golf course and the adjacent residential tract boundaries roposed Site ( se." \s shown, the land area to he lotted is immediately south and adjacent to PG 1 Rhd and emainder area "out of play" within the Tom NNviskopf Course. The proposed sue for three lots with similar texture and site design is within the context of the oNerall master plan for this area. PROPOSED SITE USE PNLARGFMENT 9 F / YB P9]Sf5 �! YF; \I G GOLF LDR LOT DENSITY RasmsN^nAL C TOURIST COMMERCIAL ® AREA OF CHANGE IN LAND USE MENT V Exhibit 7 �FRED y/aNNO q �f [-a QUIntE � LL - - { - LEGEND _i �- - TaevrnldpBaveBe Bediom lla !L�I�� S-, ��o..o. PLaWng area B7 � yianrdagarm B2 en ° ' x — c c a IIygPirera of hrflranea EA ' 68TN t' Bes�al land U. �----��----�� VLOR"taw Dera4y up br 2 drdk LON Lu Oemly up to 4 dW. MDR Mangum Density up to B dtdm MHOl MaOm High Densityrp m 12 dWac HDB Nigh Density up In 16 dd. uo w Nghidc tTmsiay ee VL•. a un ® AgrindWmffiWA¢dnm thmrlaV W" VS Uw Camaweid ti11d llm gP t< y y ♦ M IC MirerUBegim al Carmamcial - ° QCommmitVCOm modal NC NeWdorlmvd CommmcW CPCnmm mial Park ma ('-F mn — i RToudd Caoumaud VCvin pCamnogdal Offie lard LIM r - I hwu6ial MC Mapes CaammakV FaedIII. P Wrrli f dlwea open SI W VM n . /Fluad Cmmal Flaatlrg FaA Dori&uti®n e ace n uon e• v, u w .m o ""• Scale tn000 4,M B,BBB 12AUD Feet Riverside CounW Wink rjk4FP ULP Prepared om )us 2Is, 2002- -- -- ----�- +L-P l'�p�+'d hy: apria3lnformction 5—rrs ., _ • *enuxov�,-- __,y,1�r Vcstan N6rB pity of La Quinta Mftim Official Zoning Map C'. C', /� ni C ,.. 23-2006 15:65 From -BEST BEST KRIEGER 7803417039 ATTACHMENT BEST BEST S, KRIEGER LLP n Cx+FORnw unrtEp µ�ty'('�- ?wRIryFR4nP tNCwpnG PpOFES&O.N,, cOgpppw7pn.� RIVE;t51PE LAWYERS L9091866'1450 74.7eO I110"WAY 111, SUITE 200 San OiECo ' INOIN WEUS, CAWFORNM 02210 t6191 5as-DIE 1 300 ONTMIO t9001 089d584 ty601 red-291 i t760) J4069S F 6a 69 2Ud00 AM4AW COR 194�81 CRAMENiO IS a 61 32n-4000 ROBERT W. HARORFAVIES ROBERT MARGR€ Y959138KLAW COM Fi4.E No 79983 00001 March 23, 2006 Chairman and Planning Commission Members CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 Celle Tampico La Quinn, CA 92270 Re: Shaffer Development, F.A 2005-550, GPA 2005-I06, CZ2005426, SP 83-002, Amendment #5 and TPhf 32752 Dear Chairman and Members; 1 am writing today on behalf of the commission to approve the proposed residential referenced applications. applicant, Mr- Shaffer, to urge the planning use of the property, as proposed in the above - As discussed more fully below, staffs apparent conclusion that the parcels are permanent open space is incorrect. The parcels have never been dedicated as open space. They were initially mapped to accommodate a tentative entrance to the tract. The entrance was subsequently routed elsewhere. The parcels have remained in private hands pending ultimate decision on their use. To insist that the properly be maintained in perpetuity as open space would be in violation of the property owner's constitutional rights to make beneficial use of the property - The PGA West development plan under Landmark Land Company and KSL ownership never contemplated that the Shaffer parcels would be permanent open space or par[ of The golf course. The golf course specifically excluded this land area from inclusion in the golf/open space as described in Mr. flaag's letter to Mr. Sawa dated January 12, 2006: " KSL's directive to The golf coarse planning team was clear; based on The earlier master plan concepts for land use, route a "championship" style course with starting and finishing holes provided with ample take -off and landing area for the golfers' slatting and finishing shots. The course (as constructed) exhibits this "template" for safe distance from the first tee and the eighteenth green to the [Shaffer parcelsi. Mr. Shaffer's; proposed plan for three lots exhibit appropriate setbacks to regulation play - area similar or in excess of the play -area setbacks of existing lots on Nicholas Blvd. and Weiskopf". RMLITDMARTINV0051.1 U !3-2006 15:55 From -BEST BEST KRIEGER T603417039 T-238 P.003/004 F-001 LAW OFFICES of DEST SE51' S KRIE:GER t_LP Chairman and Planning Commission Members CITY OF LA QUINTA March 23, 2006 Page 2 The Shaffer parcels were initially conceived as part of the resort core. In the PGA West Specific Plan, the parcels were designated "resort commercial", contemplated to be part of the larger resort commercial development across PGA Blvd. In 1997, when Tract 28444 was approved, the Shaffer parcels were trapped as a potential entrance to the tract, as a private road, with landscaped areas on either side. The minutes of the Planning commission meeting regarding Tract 28444 indicate that the entrances were considered tentative: "Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification as to the main and emergency entrances into the tract. Mr. Hosea explained the entrances and stated the design is tentative until they decide whether or not there would be another entrance into the project.". On the final map, the road lot (lat "L'7 was retained as a private street, with easements offered for dedication to the City of La Quinta for public utilities and service and emergency vehicles. Lot "L" was also offered for dedication to CVWID and IID. The adjoining lots on either side of the proposed road were reserved "for open space and recreational purposes for the sole benefit of ourselves, our successors and assignees". No pan of the parcels was dedicated as common area or open space to any homeowners association, as would typically have been the case if KSL did not intend to reserve potential alleruative use of the property. The proposed entrances were tentative because it was not clear whether the master association would approve another entrance gate, which would be an on -going staffing liability for the association. It was ultimately determined to be preferable to channel the traffic through gates at the Spanish Bay project. The entrance road through the Shaffer parcels was never developcd; the offered dedications were never accepted by the City, I11) or CVWD. The Shaffer parcels were planted in grass on it temporary basis for aesthetic reasons and to control dust During The intervening years, KSL was fully occupied developing the remaining, much larger parcels within the specific plan. Nevertheless, KSL retained the expectation of eventually developing the site. The parcels were not sold to CNL as part of the golf course. The existing specific plan designation for the Shaffer parcels is "tourist commercial". Apparently, in the land use maps generated at the time of the comprehensive general plan update in 2002, the Shaffer parcels were designated as "low density residential". Subsequent general plan land use traps show the area in an "open space/golf course" designation; however, staff has been unable to confirm when, and at whose direction, those subsequent changes were made. I understand that in preliminary meetings with City staff on the Shaffer project, staff acknowledged that residential uses were pertained under the existing general plan and specific plan designations. Nevertheless, staff requested that the application be processed with a specific plan amendment to facilitate public review. RMUrwMARTM 67osh I 3-2006 15:56 From -BEST BEST KRIEGER 7803417039 T-238 P.004/004 F-001 tnw OMCEs of BEST E3FST & KRIEGER LLP Chairman and Planning Commission Members CITY of LA QUINTA March 23, 2006 Page 3 Nevertheless, we believe that the Shaffer parcels retain the tourist commercial designation under the approved specific plan, or at worst The low density residential designation under the 2002 general plan, both of which designations are appropriate for Shaffer's contemplated residential use. When Shaffer purchased the right to develop the Shaffer parcels, he acceded to KSL's reasonable expectation of being able to put the parcels to beneficial use_ A requirement that the parcels be maintained by the owner in perpetuity as an open space amenity for adjoining properties would not only destroy the owner's reasonable expectations for beneficial use, but also impose an uncompensated maintenance burden, both in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (see Loveladtes Harbor. Inc v; I/nired States 28 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). As you can appreciate, the land retains considerable value that any property owner would be compelled to pursue. The proposed use — high end, low density residential — is much more compatible with adjoining residential uses than the tourist commercial uses initially contemplated for the parcels. The environmental analysis concludes that the residential development will not have any significant negative impact on adjoining properties and, in all likelihood, will generate an increase in market value for the new and existing homes in the neighborhood. f urge the planning commission to approve this project. It will be much preferable to reach an agreement at this point on the proposed residential use, that will enhance the value of the neighborhood, than to leave the ultimate disposition of the property open to continuing uncertainty while the issue is resolved in court. Very truly ours, obert naves of HES ST KRIEGER LLP RWil:dm cc: Stan Sawa, Principle Planner Kathy Jenson, Esq, City Attorney Ray Shaffer RMLMDMARTINW051.1 1. _ ATTACHMENT #1; /2006 13:17 7607712113 J OR B DONDERO _ PAGE 51 March 21, 2006 Joseph & Barbara Dondero 56190 Jack Nicklaus Blvd. La Quinta, Ca 92253 760 771-2113 City of La Quints, Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Ray Shaffer Proposed Development Dear Panning Commission Members: My name is Barbara Dondero and I live at 56190 Jack Nicklaus Boulevard, Is, Quinta, California, which is the first house on the left as you enter the Nicklaus Gate at P.G.A. West. We purchased our home here in December of 2000. A compelling reason for our purchase was that the location of the property was 4acent to open Wke that existed next to us. Accordingly. I believed it was a fully developed area; and, therefore, we paid more for our home site than some of the other homes. It is truly a disappointment to think that the area could be rezoned after we invested so much in our home; since it was brought to our attention that we would never have to deal with further home encroachment. I am disheartened that we have been misrepresented by K.S.L., the owner of the property in question. At no time have we or nearby homeowners been shown any kind of a map that implied that additional homes would be located on this open area. Additionally, there exists enough traffic congestion with the cart path and the Nicklaus Gate. Adding another driveway immediately in front of the Nicklaus Gate exit will only further complicate the problem. Carrying this one step further the proposed development area has been enjoyed by golfers coming from the clubhouse to park and leave their carts upon joining with their friends. The beautiful putting green which is currently very challenging would he downsized or could be taken from us. Should this proposal be approved, in just a matter of time other open area in picturesque P.G.A. West would experience problems as we two. This decision would be setting precedence. Accordingly we urge you to deny this request to rezone this property. We enjoy our neighborhood the way it exists and are happy to be living in La Quinta. Barbara Dondero Mr. Douglas R. Evans Community Development Director, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico, P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Evans: CITY OF LA CUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This letter is in support of the application of Mr. Ray Shaffer of PGA West to rezone three building lots on the Tom Weiskopf golf course to low density residential from the presently designated tourist/commercial. As a concerned resident of PGA West, I attended the February 23'd public hearing on the subject, held in the stadium clubhouse at PGA West, and heard both sides of the issue discussed. I support Mr. Shaffer's petition for the following reasons. • His plans to develop the properties represent a significant improvement, both aesthetically and physically, over their presently undeveloped and unattractive state. I often play golf on the Weiskopf course and have wondered why these lots were not built out, since their overview of the course is especially attractive. In the interest of fairness, there would be no alteration or obstruction of the views of adjacent property owners. I confirmed this by personally visiting the site after the 23'd meeting, since some comments from attendees seemed to raise this as an objection. Looking south or west from the south property line of the closest house, the one immediately to the east, there was hardly any visibility of the lots in question. • Instead of being detrimental to their sight lines or subsequent values, neighbors property values would likely increase significantly as a result of the upscale housing Mr. Shaffer has planned for these lots. This was clearly pointed out several times during the meeting. • One property owner in attendance who is designing an estate house on the Peninsula Estates development directly to the South across the lake from Mr. Shaffer's property, strongly favored Mr. Shaffer's plan as a vast improvement over the vacant and unimproved appearance of the lots as they exist. As was pointed out during the February 23'd presentation, Mr. Shaffer has the legal right to bring forward his development proposal. The fact that the property has not been developed before, or that adjacent owners may have incorrectly perceived the lots to be public space, should not deter fair consideration for Mr. Shaffer or any other legitimate owners of properties who wish to develop them in a manner compatible with the community. As a PGA West homeowner since 1999, I believe that compatible low density housing on open lots will not only add value to adjacent homes, but will also lend continuity to these neighborhoods by closing conspicuous gaps which were clearly intended for development from the beginning. In this regard, I am confident that you and the commission, as city leaders, will take a balanced and objective view of this issue, looking beyond the narrow self interests of the vocal minority mischaracterizing the Shaffer proposal. On the other hand, large scale high density condominium projects such as the 297 units proposed in lieu of the former hotel site, would not be compatible with the existing community, would diminish property values overall, and would be an unwanted drain on the nearby golf facilities, the surrounding infrastructure, and other club services. This project should be actively opposed by PGA West residents, while attractive projects like Mr. Shaffer's should be encouraged. Please add this letter to the public record of discussion and debate on this issue ;oleBGarrett, 'rely/ I s' ✓ ,7 21'� 80126 Merion, PGA West, La Quinta, CA 92253, Phone 760 7718030 CC: Mr. Ray Shaffer CC: Mr. Forrest Haag JOANNE & MYRON MINTZ 80-355 Weiskopf La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: 760-771-0402 Fax: 760-771-1101-6- DesertMintz@aol.com H r.�� ,(0 2(006 March 1, 2006 Mr. Doug Evans Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 CITY OF LA COMMUNITY DEVOELIOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Gentleman: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to his application for rezoning and the constant rescheduling of the hearings, some of which we know could not be avoided. We are very pleased that Mr. Tom Kirk as been appointed to the City Council and wish him well. As you know, the winter time is the time when most homeowners make reservations far in advance to various functions like the Philharmonic and the McCallum. It has been very hard on the homeowners to keep giving up their time and tickets only to be told that there is another hearing postponement. We also understand that researching the land in question is very difficult and time consuming. As we are one of the families that will be most affected by this possible rezoning, and as we have been continuously involved and responsible for keeping in touch with the other homeowners, we would be greatly appreciative if the next hearing on this matter could be rescheduled until the 11`h of April. This would give Mr. Shaffer and his staff adequate time to present their case and this would also give the Planning Commission adequate time to research the land. Hopefully, the meeting on April 11ih will finalize the matter, and no additional Planning Commission Meetings will be necessary. Your consideration in the above request would certainly be appreciated by the 100 or more PGA WEST Homeowners that have sent in letters in opposition to the rezoning request. Having the Meeting postponed to March 28 would cause a hardship for us and many other PGA West homeowners. Thank You, I K)V. )-l- Joanne and Myron Mintz Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta � `C• 78-495 Calle Tampico F-7 2 1 La Quinta, CA 92253 CITY OF LA QUINTA RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,nment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. **The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. *"Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. i to y% ek4m6tAAI. Mr. Stan Sawa City of La Quinta Planning Commission 14 February, 2006 I wish to oppose the postponement of April 25, 2006 hearing regarding the possible building of homes on the Schaffer tract. I believe that many interested persons will not be present if the hearing is delayed until May or June. T �cn' you' sephiE. Mo�aha�-2Y`4— 79-730 Arnold Palmer Drive La Quinta CA February 14, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Gentleman: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray 0. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. • The City of La QOnta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. • The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. • Many existing home views will be obstructed. • Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. • We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 propO9ed homes. • The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we am Opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. C y -7 %Q c �G Sal - ✓ 9U �-; �= -n7-Lt � � �t r-J February 14, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quints 78-495 Celle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Asesesmerd 2005.550,General Plan Amendment 2005.106. Zone Change 2005.126, Specific Plan OW2 Amendment # 5, Tgnt.#Jlyp, Parcel Map 3Z76Z Gentleman it Is our understanding that Mr. Roy 0, $ is applying for a tare d ange in to atoremenOntd Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this apprlcetion for rezoning, ' 1�Gi�o1lIQIJ d 1o1di �101�idi�► W*9 as open space. • The City of La Quints had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. • Many existing lame views will be obstructed. s CII90(pOO MID 2801 UNII M ONWA tit &Ang for olker parcels of lend now considered open apace and this is very alarming. Waquj0N0I 101EMMV���sab�� �9 homes. • The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course vAll be severely changed and we AN OppOesd to this change. Thank you for your consideration. ROBERT AND JANET HELLER 80558 HERMITAGE LA QUINTA, CA 92253 FEBRUARY 14, 2006 Planning Commission City of La Quinta La Quinta, CA. We have been residents of PGA West for six years and strongly recommend that the Planning Commission deny the request by Ray Shaffer to convert the open space land on the Weiskopf to single family lots. When KSL acquired this property through the Resolution Trust they have presented to the planning commission and the City Council multiple plans for the development of this property. Contained within those plans this area was deemed open space. If the planning commission approves Mr Shaffer's request. then KSL or the current holder of open space land can request to convert open areas to additional building sites. This is not in the best interest of the residents who live at PGA West as it increases the density of the area Also, I am tired of going to Planning Commission meetings only to find out that Mr. Shafer continues to ask for postponement. It is obvious that his hidden agenda is to appear in front of the City Council when many of the homeowners have gone to their summer homes. 1v7�_� ;R ert Heller Janet Heller Page I of 2 Subj: Re: Rezoning Date: 2/13/2006 11:44:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time From: Ppgawest To: JMMt M CC: dren(;Iino@dc,rr.com, bbfgb@gmx,net, Ppgawest yron and Joanne, Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow night, as )m in New Jersey. As I have mentioned in the past, Danny and I are tally opposed to any building being done on the area you mention letween the Nicklaus Gate and the Weiskopf Gate.) Barbara and Gabriel Bauer are opposed, as well. I act on their )half when they are not in town, and they are in Austria now. They )ve asked me to voice an objection on their behalf. Please feel free to print out this email and bring it with you to wn hall tomorrow. Thank you. riscilla and Dan Rendino )390 Weiskopf —Original Message-- ,om: JMMEM ): bkfoord@earthlink.net; chitwood@dc.rr.com; Chsbrdiy; Tsifferman; aynemoore@were-organized.net; stkcap@dc.rr.com; Deneandwillie; )Knudsen@hotmail.com; dgbrill@earthlink.net; BrooksideSwanson; rrymoloughney@dc.rr.com; h_harkness@hotmail.com; RGreen4680; ANCYPGAW; trbo@earthlink.net; GolfMom0011; Walt-Jan@dc.rr.com; ancheroti@hotmail.com; ad madia@msn.com; jed@quest5.com; ndersen@lagc.com; Anita@apshutter.com; bbfgb@gmx.net; nbetzl@msn.com; CLBLACK63; TBLUE1143; Bregman; budbrewer@budor.com; ONCBOB; Efinadvsr; rogeremerick@hotmail.com; emmo353; ifitz@sympatico.ca; JohnF0213; kfoulkes@powercom.net; WPGreen@aim.com; arbarahelwigl@msn.com; Nrherman; ixora@pacbell.net; RJat6470; idy@cossette-investment.com; Justsadie444; kmk2650@yahoo.com; HARKORN; Milcharlie@cs.com; jack32@ix.netcom.com; Whirlwnd; mnalefever@yahoo.com; marklefever@yahoo.com; JMuckel; Tsnovi; mesold@sboglobal.net; HomesBySPhillips; jlporter@adelphia.net; eorge.Porter@USI.Biz; drendino@dc.rr.com; Ppgawest; hggs999@msn.com; calpelafp; dsherva@optonline.net; UKTOLA; jimwisener@comcast.net ant: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 2:24:43 PM Eastern Standard Time ubject: Rezoning Dear PGAWEST Home Owners, he saga goes on re the rezoning of the Property between the Nicholas ate and Weiskopf. /e spoke with Stan Sawa, Principal Planner for the City of La Quinta, his morning. Mr Ray Shaffer has hired an attorney and at tomorrow ght's Planning Commission Meeting will be asking to postpone once 3ain. In fact, he will be asking for this agenda item to be postponed htil April 25. his is outrageous, as far as we are concerned. If the application for rzoning is not heard before the Planning Commission until the end of pril it is more than likely it will not come before the City Council htil the summer. We see this as a sneaky ploy to get this through the ity when so many of us are not here. Monday, February 13, 2006 America Online: JMMEM �, Page 2 of 2 LOO(ding to Mr. Sawa, the Planning Commission can deny Mr Shaffer's :quest, can modify it, or accept it. We will be there to ask that iey either deny the request of at least modify it, so the issue of .zoning is heard on February 28, or no later than the March 14th teeting. Ve know it's Valentine's Day, but PLEASE, if you can be at City Hall )morrow night at 7PM to voice your objections to this postponement, or e there to support us when we make the request, it will send an nportant message o date the City has received close to 100 letters opposing this zoning. It's not too late to bring or fax a letter to City Hall or i us and we will take it with us tomorrow night. lease feel free to forward this a -mad to any of your friends and sighbors. hank You, panne and Myron Mintz D35.5 Weiskopf 71-0402 IN4onday, February 13, 2006 America Online: JrINIM A(l r U �- 1-2006 08:12 PM SWB ELBOW BRACE LTD. 925 838 9266 P.01 rnrr KAAA c �., c�-z fO4- ,r Gentlemen: � 1 our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the ementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. have numerous objectiIbns to this application for rezoning. ie City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open ce. ie City of La Quinta hacl told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin he Golf Course. any existing home v' will be obstructed. hanging this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered n space and this is ver� alarming. b question th=opf ibili of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. ie use of the olf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this nge• (/h cF40< Fwd-t 4 -, (d- /7�-753 2/12/2006 '_-06 01:31P STOKE CAPITAL 7605648277 P.a V4- 55 -. Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. ""We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you forr your consideration. 0�al�0 SS 335 Rio 6.cr)'�, February 3,U _'� '-='� wMr. Tom Kirk I Mr. Stan Sawa 1 L006 Planning Commission, City of La Quints CITYOFLAQUINTA 78-495 Calle Tampico COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT La Quinta, CA 92253 DEPARTMENT RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 115, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel. Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. - The City of La Quints had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. - Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space. This is very alarming. - We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the three proposed homes. - The City of La Quints had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the golf course. - The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. - Many existing home views will be obstructed. Thank you for your consideration. S inc c�y Charle1s^R. Bradley h c Rita M. Bradley PGA West Residents and Members 81-555 Tiburon Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 February 4, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 MR. AND MRS. RICHARD H. FRYE 80-015 Merion La Quinta, CA, 92253 Telephone (760) 7712025 Fax (760) 7713725 City of La Quinta HP% 7=0 c_ . _3 - 9ru06 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Mr. Kirk and Mr. Sawa: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zoning change in the referenced Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We find the requested rezoning to be objectionable for the following reasons: 1. The parcel in question currently serves as open space and as a catch basin for the adjacent Tom Weiskopf golf course. The placement of houses on the parcel would severely damage the feeling of openness as one approaches the first tee from Jack Nicklaus Boulevard, and as one plays the Weiskopf eighteenth hole. 2. Homeowners on both Weiskopf and Nicklaus Boulevards will have their views of neighboring mountains obstructed or eliminated. 3. Building on this parcel would set a precedent that could lead to the loss of many other open spaces on and around the golf courses of our community. We oppose the rezoning and urge the Planning Commission to turn down Mr. Shaffer's application. Sincerely, / chard H. Frye -mwt,c� )V-5A*� Marcia M. Frye r Mr. Tom Kirk FE9 - 9 2336 Mr. Stan Sawa CITY OF LA QUINTA Planning Commission, City of La Quints COMMUNITYDEPARTMENTPMENT Re: Enviromental Assessment 2005-550 General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. The City of La Quints had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. The City of La Quints had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course Many existing home views will be obstructed. Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. We question feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you. William and Sandra Phillips 80495 Weiskopf La Quints, CA 92253 � r /9�4 11:27a Larry and Carol Riggs 7605649797 p.1 LARRY RIGGS 80720 WEISKOPF WAY LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 760-564-9797 February 7, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 45, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is my understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. I have numerous objections to this application for zoning. • The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. • The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. • Many existing home views will be obstructed. • Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. Very Larry 30 January 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA 92253 COMMUNITY DEVOELIOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Speck Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. 1. The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. 2. The City of La Quinta told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Weiskopf Golf Course. 3. Many existing home views will be obstructed. 4. Changing of this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. 5. We question the feasibility of emergency vehicles being able to access the three proposed homes. 6. The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are adamantly opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, �j(� Walter and Marjorie Malishka 54-636 Southern Hills La Quints CA 92253 i Kirk n Sawa g Commission, Calle Tampico ta, CA 92253 City of La Quinta IECIE V ED FEB - 7 2006 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT rironmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 antlemen: understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned re Parcel Map 32752. e numerous objections to this application for rezoning. ity of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. ity of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf epsting home Views will be obstructed. Sing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and eryalarming. jestion the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed tomes. se of the Weiskopf Golf Corse will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. vu for your consideration. �v•NT.�/ C� 9l zs3 Fom Kirk Ran Sawa ning Commission, City of La Quinta 95 Calle Tampico luinta, CA 92253 Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone nge 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 r Gentlemen: our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the Bmentioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. e City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open ;e. ie City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin he Golf Course. any existing home views will be obstructed. ranging this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered n space and this is very alarming. e question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. ie use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this nge. .d OSSS-ILL-09L eOI:60 90 so ank you for your consideration. 0 • ' 1 ; ` iE �N `11 ' 'd Oass-ILL-09L eOT:aO 90 60 -2006 10:20 AM DON.MANN 17607771116 P.01 Don Mann & Karylene Mann Fax Routing Sheet To: Fax: a&9 2- 3 3 Date: - - o4 Number of pages including cover page_ 4285 PEBBLE BEACH DR. STOCKTON CA 95219 (209) 951-2009 HOME FAX: (209) 951-1128 LA QUINTA #s Condo (760) 777-1116 FAX (760)177-4061 L` IU:2ba Jeanie 760-564-6363 p.1 ladle & Jeanie Reyes -301 Oak Hill Quinta, CA 92253 s/Res: 760564-5562 is 760564-6363 11: 760-408-7721 nail: charlieandjeanieWc m.com Fax ®Februay 3, 2006 City of La Quinta Palnning Commission 760-777-1233 IiilY�Mr. Tom Krk and Mr. Stan Sawa Charlie Reyes General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005- is Transmission contains 1 pages Including this cover letter ar Gentlemen, our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative cal Map 32752. wife and i would Pike to go on record as opposed to this application. We have numerous objections to this Dning but uppermost is the severe change it will have on the golf course. ink you for your consideration. rou did not receive all pages or transmission was not legible, please call: 760-564- M2 Cell: 760-408-7721 arol Emmons Interiors; 760 564 1449; Feb-3-06 11:32; Page 1/1 February 2, 2006 Robert and Carol Emmons 80560 Weiskopf La Quinta, CA 92253 760-564-1449 Ar. Tom Kirk Ar. Stan Sawa 'tanning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico .a Quinta, CA 92253 t.E: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, ipecific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 ;ontlemen: is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned entative Parcel Map 32752. Ve have numerous objections to this application for rezoning: I. The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. 2. The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. 3. Many existing home views will be obstructed. 4. Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. 5. We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. 6. The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. lank you for your consideration. sry truly y rs, )bert mmons Carol Emmons 2006 10:20 AM DON.MANN 17607771116 om Kirk tan Sawa ling Commission, City of La Quints 15 Calls Tampico jints, CA 92253 'environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone ge 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Gentlemen: ur understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the mentloned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. ave numerous objections to this application for rezoning. City of La Quints had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open i City of La Quints had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin Golf Course. ry existing home views will be obstructed. inging this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered space and this is very alarming. question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this Is, BJ T %�',,.rg_ r/. ma Av `' "�YZ-Q'[..t1'.'.;!,�A ..�. �� ..!!. ±+:.7a`T/�� .�.G':.i ICI .'�C•�!i`G_I_'.+.�i...� 9 JK I/— Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calls Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 � 74�31ga06 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "*The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "*Many existing home views will be obstructed. ""Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. � � t C r agc a vi . i 7 1 760 771 9378; Feb-2-06 10:43PM; Page 1/1 321�2 5a6 ,is/ b'Cs �ws�s ,oPF CA, 9z�5 S460 wuot czs o_ 2 06 10:25p Alexander Korn MD _ 760 771 0275 P.1 Alexander Korn MD Charlene Korn 80795 Weiskopf La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 771-0775 February 3, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Via Facsimile 760-777-1233 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D_ Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. " Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. "We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thapb r your consideration. AlexanderAlexander Kom Charlene Kom Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 FEB - 1 2006 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPME DEPARTMENT RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752 and we are opposed to this change. Please note the following objections we have concerning this application for rezoning. 1) We were told by our real estate agent, upon purchasing our home, that the area mentioned would always be a green belt. The City of La Quinta had told homeowners in this area that the land in question has always been perceived as "open space". 2) The City of La Quinta had told homeowners that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. 3) Many existing home views will be obstructed and privacy will be jeopardized. The new homes will be looking directly into the backyards of some existing homes that now enjoy privacy. 4) Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. 5) We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. 6) The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. We purchased our homes "believing" we would be protected from further development at the proposed new home sight. We strongly urge you to deny the zone change that will impact existing homeowners in many negative ways. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, January 26, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 City of La Quinta pCC�L��MC FEB - 1 2006 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. **Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Goff Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **As members of PGA West we pay high monthly dues to maintain our golf courses. This proposed change is a change for the negative with absolutely no benefit to us as members. Thank you for your consideration. Charles R. and Carol R. Reed 55-307 Winged Foot La Quinta, CA 92253 February 1, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 City of La Quinta RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Gentleman: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. • The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. • The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. • Many existing home views will be obstructed. • Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. • We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. • The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. i /1 ^ )9:30p The Blackburns 1-760-564-6925 p.1 Jim and Patricia Blackburn 54-652 Tanglewood La Quints, CA 92253 760-564-7825 Fax; 760-564-6925 January 28, 2006 Ar. Tom Kirk Kr. Stan Sawa Manning Commission, City of La Quinta i8-495 Calle Tampico :a Quinta, Ca 92253 Re: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005- 106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative ?arcel Map 32752 dear Gentlemen: JVe understand that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zoning change in the above mentioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. ffe are concerned about this rezoning application. 1. According to the City of La Quinta, they have always perceived the land in question as open space. 2. The City of La Quinta has stated that a portion of this land serves as a catch basin for the golf course. 3. If this zoning is changed it will be precedent setting for other land parcels now considered open space. 4. It appears that it will be difficult for emergency vehicles to access the three proposed homes. 5. Weiskopf Golf Course kccess and use will be severely changed. We opposed this change. 6. Views of existing homes will be obstructed. rhank you for consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Jim and Patricia Blackburn pb\La Quinta\Weiskopf rezoning 012000 2006 12:54 PM MINTZ 7607711154 P_01 jocitn.w6 AV601 Midrow M%vwtz 80.355 Weiskopf La Quints, CA 92253 Phone Number 7e0-771 W2 Fax Number 760-771-1154 Email DesertMintz®aol.00m r-/!X 7 "N5MITTAL- or !&4p s Sat aa, To: Pi"13i145 COmnniss (CA Date Sent: Number of Pages: I reb Q(o Fax:177-123S 140 90001„KMS Kr PGR-WGSt 00009tr-►a WI(Ricknne 7^.\Lo t^_b.nwmp massage: 11, ►Yloatr Wrneowr %2-3 t vst►xl Mr. Sheer Vmsk ?f Zow Cha 'c August 25,2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 W ��S4 �.AN 3 1 2006 GITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUpEPARTMENTPMENT RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. * *The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. * *The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. * * Many existing home views wiI I be obstructed. * *Changing this zoning wiI I be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. * *The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. Jack and Georgia Morris 55-296 Big Spring La Quinta CA M53 1, i, Ib Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 F77IJAN .. 11.CL I 116 CITY OF LAOUINTA COMMUNITY ENTPMENT RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "*The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "*Many existing home views will be obstructed "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. ""We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. *"The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. .J John Clay PGA Resident SS- o`o ut- MARILYN 6 LLOYb GINSBERG . 55-142 Southern Hills. La Quints, CA 92253. Phone: 760-564-5313. Cell: 760-220-9855, FAX: 760-777-1539. E-mail: M26R@aol.com Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 June 26, 2006 pC �viIE JAN 3 1 2006 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. **The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. **Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Goff Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. .IAN-31-2006 11:10 AM MINTZ 7607711154 P.02 1'ahuu! Mad - bettycloi5C@Oyahoo.com Y%1"-• .7vrn �tiAc 78-495 Celle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Page 2 of 3 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2006-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of Le Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. "We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. John & Betty White 54-378 Shoal Creek La Quinta CA 92252 hup./n,y.17p0.�nail.yaquwcom/ym/Shnwl.ctler?Iw;=Inbox&Ms rid= 6 3043_1085393159-2... 1Q6/2006 JAN-31-2006 11:09 AM MINTZ 7687712154 P.01 joav we aWd MIJ. row M%wtz 00-356 WeisW La Quime, CA 92253 Phone Number 760-771-0402 Fox Number 7eo-771.1154 Email DeeertMintzaeol,com FAX T"NSMITTAL FORM To:'TbtA K%P, ( 0,,Y62 S-64 Swi; te Sent: Number of Pages: 4 21aJww Oki Fax r] rj'1 - (2 33 Message: See keAtV- f"M �stis A �� Ckkrr- CEL2b,\I MICHAEL HERMAN 91 JAN 3 U 2006 @PGA West 80-690 Weiskopf Way CITYOFLAOUINT, La Quinta, CA 92253 COMMUNITY DEVELOP, DEPARTMENT January 20, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa of La Quinta Planning Commission, City 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 io General Plan Amendment RE: Environmental Assessment Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Zone Change 2005-126, Sp Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous Objections to this application for rezoning. **The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed- **Changing this zoning will be precedentt settingforother parcels of land now considered open space and this is very **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. iskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are *The use of the opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, TAN-29-2006 20:25 THE BLACKBURN GROUP In ivironmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-12 c Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 ientlemen: r understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Ter Map 32752, ie numerous objections to this application for rezoning. Nty of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. Nty of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf existing home views will be obstructed. ging this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space a ery alarming. uestion the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. se of the Weiskopf Goff Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. iou for your consideration. J~tv\cev-e`y K, A Gv, e? lame �uvh TOTAL P.E SEGAL DESART PHONE NO. : 760 771 9100 Jan. 27 2006 07:30PM P] Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA.92253 (Via Fax) Re: Environmental Assessment 2005-550. General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126' Specific Plan 83- 002 Amendment #57 Tentative Parcel Map 32752. Dear Sirs: As residents and members of PGAWest, we are opposed to the above application for rezoning. Unfortunately, we are not able to attend the Commission meeting on February 14, 20066 so wish to express our objection to this proposal - which will negatively impact our community in many ways - via this letter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Marvin & Stefanie Segal 80-769 Spanish Bay La Quinta, CA. 92253 momsegal@rnsn.com JAN-27-2006 10:25 AM MINTZ 7607711154 P.02 Page 2 of 2 78-495 Calls Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2D05-126, Specific Plan 83.002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D, Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quints had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Ouinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home verws will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. "We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. 123/2DD6 7-2006 10:25 AM MINTZ 7607711154 P.0 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quints, 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 January 24, 2006 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752 and we are opposed to this change. Please note the following objections we have concerning this application for rezoning. 1) We were told by our real estate agent, upon purchasing our home, that the area mentioned would always be a green belt. The City of La Quinta had told homeowners in this area that the land in question has always been perceived as "open space". 2) The City of La Quinta had told homeowners that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. 3) Many existing homc views will be obstructed and privacy will be jeopardized. The new homes will be looking directly into the backyards of some existing homes that now enjoy privacy. 4) Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. 5) We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. 6) The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. We purchased our homes "believing" we would be protected from further development at the proposed new home sight. We strongly urge you to deny the zone change that will impact existing homeowners in many negative ways. Thank you for your consideration. in `� U V C Sincerely, IAN 2 7 20M Uoy nderh 90395 Weiskopf La Quints, Ca. 92253 �7 b�Y- 777 iZ-3- Dr. & Mrs. Phillip J. Goldstein 80546 Hermitage La Quinta, CA 92253 760-771-3991 January 27, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 F C [V : CUMAIDE b&M 0pMtM1I i Re: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. After attending the Planning Commission Meeting, on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 our concerns are growing and we have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. We also think that the Fairways HOA board should have objections as well, if they are truly representing the HOME OWNERS! 1. The City of La Quinta had told us that the land in question has always been perceived as "OPEN SPACE". 2. We were also told by the City of La Quinta that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Weiskopf Golf Course. 3. Many existing home views will be obstructed. 4. This zoning change will be "PRECEDENT SETTING" for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming to all home owners and members of PGA West. 5. We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicle ability to access the 3 proposed homes, which may result in an increase in the fire insurance for the entire HOA. 6. The look and use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. As a resident of the Weiskopf Golf Course and member of PGA West, we thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, , ' jI oldstein Sharon E. Gn JOAN SOMPER & SHERWYN TURBOW 57-161 MEDINAH • LA QUINTA, CA 92253 January 26, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quintar 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change -in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. **The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used -as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. *Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be sevirely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this potentially devastating change. s PHONE 760 564 0850 • FAX 760 564 0860 L'd 0980 499 09L sJuewJsanul 1Jl e8h 60 Fork- city of La Quinta Page 1 of 1 2006-01-26 17:06:50 (GMT) 17604066156 From: Jin FAX COVER SHEET TO Mr. Tom Kirk - City of La Quinta COMPANY Planning Commission FAX NUMBER 17607771233 FROM Jim Betz DATE 2006-01-26 17:09:07 GMT RE Envior Asses. 2005-550 COVER MESSAGE Dear Mr. Kirk, This letter is in reference to Envir. Assess. Amendment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106 Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752. I have numberous objections to this application rezoning. When we purchased our home at 80520 Weiskopf, PGA West and the builder/seller of our home assured us that this land was designated as open space. I also object to this rezoning as the Weiskopf Golf Course the use of the course would severely change. I am a member of PGA West Golf Course and do not want the first tee and putting green to be relocated. It appears that there is limited Emergency Vehicle access for the three proposed homes. To solve this situation it appears that additional land would be required to solve this situation and thus alter the Weiskopf course even more. Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. The City of La Quinta has told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the golf course. The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and I am opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideraton. Jim Betz, 80520 Weiskopf, La Quina, CA 92253 760 777-8880 www.etax com 1 54-901 INVERNE®B LA QUINTA, CA 92253 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 3anuary 26, 2006 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. **The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many eAsting home views will be obstructed. **Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. Carol and Ron Nolte PHI3NE AND FAX (760) 564-ZZ67 E-MAIL: CRrol.ron@verizon.net 25,2006 13:35 7605645649 Pac )"ky 75(Zegooe Tom Kirk F M E' U' r i Stan Sawa jAN 2 2006 J anning Commission, City of La Quinta 1.495 Calle Tampico :uMhlTUIm%4e,WMENT j i Quinta, CA 92253 DEPARTM -: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, iecific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 gar Gentlemen: s our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned rotative Parcel Map 32752. e have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. low The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf )urse. Many existing home views will be obstructed. :hanging this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and s is very alarming, fhe use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change, ank you for your consideration So87� S�A-a Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 JAN 2 5 2006 CITY OF LA OUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. 1. The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. 2. The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. 3. Many existing home views will be obstructed. 4. Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. 5. We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. 6. The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. James C. Wisener 80-920 Weiskopf La Quinta, Ca. 92253 -2006 04:22 PM MINTZ 7607711154 P,02 Page 1 of 1 Sub]: "City Halt Meeting" Date: 1/23/2006 7:14:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time From: JKdyf&rnsc.coih To: dmiad 022041_cam o Whom ft May Concern: As are totally opposed to the subject zoning change. he consequence of allowing three single family tomes to be built on a onion of the Weiskopf golf course can only lead to additional zone honge requests. he integrity and prestige of the PGA West community is certainly Ullenged if areas previously dedicated to open space are now turned do another building area. Ike most others who live in PGA West, the fact that the community does njoy open area - areas that were presented as permanent to buyers - dded to the desirability of the area. it would be a severe abuse to is land i1 this proposed project Is allowed to go forward. revious commitments preclude our attending the meeting. incereiy, Nilson & Judy Fleldhouse 0205 Jack Nkt ous a Quin* Co. 92253 1`60)771-3785 JU U T k. ulJot I I t IbUf /11962 5 p 1 ?age L RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as opl space. "The City of La Quints had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. "We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to th change. Thank you for your consideration. C1,1,4jaw ,- as -off p CCu-iEdVVC JAId 2 3 2006 0 1/22/2006 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Page >awa Jim & Kim [kimjames.cox@verizon.net] Monday, January 23, 2006 8:41 AM tkirk@la-quinta.org Stan Sawa t: Zone Change 2005-126 i Kirk ;awa ;ommission, City of La Quinta Ile Tampico CA 92253 onmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendmu Parcel Map 32752 n: iderstanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. tumerous objections to this application for rezoning. y of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. y of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. xisting home views will be obstructed. rg this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. stion the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. i for your consideration. lox & Kimberley L Cox k Kimberley L Cox ae Burn ,CA J )6 -2006 04:21 PM MINTZ 7607711154 P.01 M : RPPC: E STf IMLESS PCR WES- PFOE NO. : 760 771 97E6 Jan. 23 28% 09:22AM P1 Mr. & VIM Duane Foulkes 80-555 Weiskopf LaQuinta, CA 92253 January 221 2006 Mr. Toth Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission; City of LaQuinta 78-495 Wit Tar IAQttinta,CA 92253 Re-. Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005.106' Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83.002 Amendment 45, Tentative Parcel lv1ap 32752 eientlemen, 111 jW understanding, that Mr. Rat 1). SkWfier ie applying for a zone change in the {aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752, we bought our property in LaQuinta in 2001 and it Nvas our understanding that the land in question has always been perceived by the City of LaQuinta as open space and that it is currently used an a catch basin for the golf comae. We believe that changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space etld the would deflubely be opposed to that hopper*. we would also be opposed to the way that the use of the Weiskopf Oolf course would be changed. We would also question the soCcES of emergency vehicles to the three proposed homes on this parcel as well as the obstruction of views of existing homes near or adjacent to this Parcel. For the drementioned reasons, we would hope that you would trjOct his Z611106 change. Thank f ou for your consideration. &Q{athleen Foulkes T 4-2006 04:09 PM SHEAFER 760 771 4712 P.0 January 24, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 FAX: 760 777-1233 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005- 106, Zone Change 2005-1269 Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Schaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. • The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. • The City of La Quinta had told us that pan of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. • Many existing home views will be obstructed. • Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. • We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the three proposed homes. • The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. Nick /2006 09:43 FAX 212 6839784 MAIL BOXES ETC1227 11001 January 23, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,Genergl Plan Amendment 2005- 106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Goff Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "*Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. ""We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. *"The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. 6 01:04p William Madia 7607719790 Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005 Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone chant aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. *"The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been I space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land open space and this is very alarming. "We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 "The use of the Weiskopf Goff Course will be severely changed and we change. Thank you for your consideration. in the a catch l this 24/2006 13:43 7607712113 January 24, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa J OR B DONDERO PAGE 01 Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 79-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005- 106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Schaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. • The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. • The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. • Many existing home views will be obstructed. • Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. • We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the three proposed homes. • The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. A 06 02:24p iN Hotmail - Message p.i 1 ar'.L WA J- VA % J 7 7 7 — / I - Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quints 78-495 Cabe Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quints had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quints had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. --Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. ""We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. J let ti!e latest updates from MSN' ISH Home I M;r M9SN I Hetmaii I Search I Shopping I Money n'' s LAI +> 1 d LX I Q5Inbox 1r- ..fj People & Chat 2006 Microsoft TERMS OF USE Advertise TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement GetNetwise Anti-Splrydtcy,/ tp://by l 05fd.bay 105.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getinsg?msg=13AB6965-10DA-4CB8-A... 1 /23/2006 FAX NO. : Jan. 24 2006 02:47PM P1 January 24, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 FAX: 760 777-1233 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005- 106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Schaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. • The City of La Quints, had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. • The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. • Many existing home views will be obstructed. • Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. • We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the three proposed homes. • The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. l Harlan & Kathleen Harkness 81040 Legends Way La Quinta, CA 92253 January 24, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 JAN A 2006 CITY OF LA OUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. **The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. **Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Harlan Harkness Kathleen Harkn Date / 2 ✓ / L ess D/17� 195 Calle Tampico )uinta, CA 92253 A,ECEIVE i JAN Q 4 ^U COM U l�A NT F INTPMA ENT ON PA Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Chang 5-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 r Gentlemen: our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the ementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. ie City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open M. ie City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin fo Golf Course. any existing home views will be obstructed. ranging this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered op ce and this is very alarming. e question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. ie use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this nge. nk you for your consideration. l- 2 S--o6 IM : John&MaxineDykstra PHONE NO. : 760 771 3402 JAN. 24 2006 03:10P Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 4 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. **The City of La Quints had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. **Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. John M. Dykstra 55-161 Shoal Creek LaQuinta, CA 92253 M : Johr&MaxineDykstra PHONE NO. : 760 771 3402 JAN. 24 2006 03:10PI Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. * *The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. *"Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is vcry alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. -)I;a'AIi,t,d1l.&t/ 1- �L/4000 Maxine M. Dykstra 55-161 Shoal Creek LaQuinta, CA 92253 v w. Ivp onan a r Uly VWIU tbu-V34-W2 p,1 January 23, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. **The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. **Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your considelratioonn. Brian & Kathy Foord 80-970 Spanish Bay LaQuinta CA 92253 A FAX N0. :7607710355. Jan. 24 2006 04:i5PM P1 /" ': yl-D 'J4�-,e - 7,�?7-/07 Ir. Tom Kirk In Stan Sawa 'lanning Commission, 8-495 Calle Tampico .a Quinta, CA 92253 City of Le Quinta tE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone ;hange 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 )ear Gentleman: 1 is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. Ne have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. ,*The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin or the Golf Course. '*Many existing home views will be obstructed. '*Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered )pan space and this is very alarming. ""We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. -The use of the Weiskopf Goff Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. /, d, Q �� (7G o) 77/- D©--;7-Z LA9. q�a5a 23 06 05:55p 7-/a33 CRRL BONGIRNO 760-564-6217 P- Page 1 of Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan f Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a z� aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has alw2 space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is curren' for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels open space and this is very alarming. ""We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to acce. "*The use of the Weiskopf Goff Course will be severely changed change. Thank you for your consideration. nailhtml:mid://00000038/ t 2005-106, Zone Parcel Map 32752 change in the been perceived as open used as a catch basin land now considered the 3 proposed homes. we are opposed to this s'3 1/23/20C 23 06 04:29p edwin novascone 760-771-0725 p.1 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quints 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is my understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in theaforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. The land in question has always been perceived as open space and partof it is currently used as a catch basin for the Weiskopf Golf Course. I am against any amendment/change that would change the contour of the golf course and the resulting reduction in the value of my house on Weiskopf Way. Thank you for considering myobjection to Mr. Shaffer's planned development. 2�,� a / 1273 / oc Edwin H. Novascone 80-655 Weiskopf Way La Quints, CA. 760-771-0112 FAX NO. :176OS646002 Jan. 23 2006 11:05PM P1 Page l of Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quints 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-WO,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: it is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning, "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of Le Quinta had told us that part of this land Is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. "We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. ""The use of the Weiskopf Goff Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration, &4L2�- 'Daniel Rendino 80390 Weiskopf Le Quinta, CA 92263 MA"Aav Tamianr 72 ')nnA FAX NO. :17605646002 Jan. 23 2006 11:03PM PS Page 1 of I Mr. Tom IQ* Mr. Stan Saws Planning Commission, City of Le Quints 78-495 Celle Tampico Le Quints, CA 9=53 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005.550,General Plan Amendment 2005-108, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quints had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quints had told us that pan of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Goff Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. "We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. Berbera Bauer 80370 Weiskopf La Quints, CA 92253 Tdn"Aaw Tenncn, 71 )AAA ..........a FAX NO. :17605646002 Jan. 23 2006 11:01PM PI Page 1 of 1 r&x --tr- 77 7- is 33 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawe Planning Commission, City of Le Quints 78-495 Celle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-W,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: it is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. '17he City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of Le Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. -Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. —We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. Priscilla Rendino 80390 Weiskopr La Quinta, CA 92253 TdnnAi r Ten»o", 7R 'WIA •— - — 23 06 08:17p Donna 760-777-4692 p.e January 21, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Plan Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen, We purchased our retirement home here at PGA West four years ago. We are full time residents here at PGA West. We picked this area for the Golf Courses and all the beauty and open space that surrounds us here at PGA West. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. We were told that this is an open space and changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed. Members now have access to a beautiful Putting Green and also the space to park our private Golf Carts as we join up with other Members to play the Weiskopf Course. We are opposed to this change, we feel that this would be a huge lost to our Members. Many of the existing home views will be obstructed and the lovely open feeling that surrounds this area would be lost forever. Thank you for your consideration. Donna and Gary Swanson 80648 Bellerive La Quinta, CA 92253 23 06 06:12p �,7-ia37 CARL BONGIRNO 760-564-6217 p.i Page I of Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan F Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have; numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has ah space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is curre for the Goff Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcel: open space and this is very alarming. "We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to acce "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed change. Thank you for your consideration. ailhtm1:mid://00000038/ t 2005-106, Zone Parcel Map 32752 change in the been perceived as open used as a catch basin of land now considered the 3 proposed homes. we are opposed to this 1/23/200i ?3 06 08:17p Donna 760-777-4692 p.1 Gary and Donna Swanson 80648 Bellerive La Quinta, CA 92253 7774691 FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: City of La Quints Planning Commission FAX # 760 777 1233 ATTN: Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550 General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126 Letter dated 1/21/06 attached with regards concerns of subject matter. 56110 Pebble Beach La Quinta, Ca 92253 January 22, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. **We understand someone from The City of La Quinta said the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **We understand someone from The City of La Quinta said that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. "*Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. *"The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. io, a d Judy Albright FYI .... Weiskopf Golf Course Zoning Change and Plan to Build 3 Single Family Homes On Jan 24th there will be a meeting at La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico at 7:OOPM, to continue to hear a request by Ray Shaffer, a developer, to change the zoning of a portion of the Weiskopf Golf Course. The plan is to acquire 2.3 + acres from KSL and to build 3 homes on 3 single-family lots. The areas of the proposed building sites are located between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus streets and involves the specific area adjacent to the Weiskopf Putting Green (which will be severely altered) and Water Retention Basin or Storm Drain Site next to 80355 Weiskopf. Currently there are no view single family homes looking down into the Weiskopf Golf Course, which is precisely what Mr. Shaffer wishes to accomplish with the building of his 3 single-family homes. Thus severely compromising the existing vistas. Mr. Shaffer, as of the 27th of December 2005, Planning Commission Meeting, had not made an application to the Fire Department and this is of serious concern. Mr. Shaffer's representative, Mr. Haag, claims the enormous Storm Drain Site would be slightly rerouted and is to fall between 2 lots. According to another statement of Mr. Haag, this site is to be moved east, these are two conflicting statements and thus it is very unclear where this storm drain will be and what the effects on the Golf Course and surrounding homes will be. Mr. Shaffer's representative, Mr. Haag, also stated that if the cart path were rerouted, as it must be to accommodate the 3 homes, it could be a 9 foot climb up to the first tee. Planning Commissioner Daniels stated that property owners in the area have always perceived this area as open space. KSL Corporation has other open space areas at PGA West that are currently not developed, and these too will be coming forward due to the value of the land. If we allow the rezoning of this portion of the Weiskopf Golf Course it can be precedent setting for rezoning of other areas throughout PGA West. The General Plan of the City of La Quinta controls the underlying use of land and its development. On December 27, 2005 Community Development Director, Doug Evans stated, "...that this entire area has been an open space portion of PGA West. It has not been proposed for development prior to this application. The area has always been referred to as open space. Property owners have relied upon what was shown to them. From a public purpose there is no need to develop this site. From a policy standpoint, ... foes not comply with the General Plan." Ne strongly believe that the proposed development of 3 single-family homes on the Neiskopf Golf Course will vastly disturb the serenity of those who live in the area as well as those playing the course. We ask for your support in addressing the City of La Quinta and the Planning Commission to keep the area as Open Space. If you cannot attend this neeting in person, your concerns may be put in writing and dropped off at City Hall, or liven to us to read at the Planning Commission Meeting. 1 r L� G u L l V JAN 2 3 x �r " 22-2006 12:32A FROM:ALLRN BREGMAN 17607771644 TO:7771233 P.1 ALLAN BREGMAN 760-777-15aa. PAX 7e0-777.1e44 BREGMAN@AOLCOM 80860 WEISKOPF LA Qu1NrA, CA 92253386a9 VIA FAX January21, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78.495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2U05-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr, Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change In the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. "We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration, YOUEF truly, JanrAgman p [ECUEOM� AN 2 3 2m CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT : APACHE STAINLESS PGA WEST PHONE NO. : 760 771 9706 Jan. 22 2006 06:40P1' January 22, 2006 Mr. & Mrs. Duane Foulkes 80-555 Weiskopf LaQuinta, CA 92253 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of LaQuinta 78-495 Calle Tampico LaQuinta, CA 92253 Re: Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Gentlemen, It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We bought our property in LaQuinta in 2001 and it was our understanding that the land in question has always been perceived by the City of LaQuinta as open space and that it is currently used as a catch basin for the golf course. We believe that changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and we would definitely be opposed to that happening. We would also be opposed to the way that the use of the Weiskopf Golf course would be changed. We would also question the access of emergency vehicles to the three proposed homes on this parcel as well as the obstruction of views of existing homes new or adjacent to this parcel. For the gforementioned reasons, we would hope that you would reject his zoning change. Thank fou for your consideration. & athleen Foulkes ) R E G" � � IE J.4N 2 3 2006 CITY OF LA OUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , .. I! 1 1 1 � V Dr. and Mrs. MYRON MINTZ 80-3SS Weiskopf La Qyrnsa, CA 92253 Phone: 760-771-0402 Fax: 760-771-1154 D"W-1Min[x(Cl�oo 1. Corn DECEIVE January 20.2006 ; P !AN 2 fl 2006 Yr. T}(oami Kirk COMA U R`/�QA%A MOf r. Niii 9AWB .__ OEPA Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-496 Celle Tampico Le Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2006-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # A., lentalive Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in The aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. • The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been porggivgd as open space. • The City of Le Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. • Many existing home views will be obstructed. • ChanIinV this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. • We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. • The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. truly. ie and Myron Mintz -20-2006 12:51 PM MINTZ TS07711154 January 16,2006 To Whom It May Concern: EIVE 56235 Jack Nicklaus VJAW2 La Quinra, CA 0 NIS 92253 ......1. This is in regards to the scheduled meeting at our City Hall at 7:00 pm on January 24 to hear a request to change the zoning of a portion of the Weiskopf Golf Course into housing lots. The proposed zoning change and housing development may be the beginning of a very troubling chain of similar requests throughout PGA West. A point of fact is that this parcel was surveyed last year as was a parcel of the Jack Nicklaus Private Course abutting the east side of the number 10 tee boxes. The surveyor informed it was to be a change to accommodate housing for KSL. As we are immediate neighbors to the number 10 tee box proposal, one would think this disclosure would have been in our purchase documentation but — NOT so! if it had of been, be assured we would not have considered the purchase of this home as our patio privacy will be obliterated and a major portion of the mountain view which garnered a premium price, will be lost. The same situation no doubt exists with the present residents on either side of this proposed project — those on the Weiskopf and those facing east on Jack Nicklaus Boulevard I also question why these parcels were not part of the KSUCNL transaction. The sinister appearance is that KSL had every intention to retain and develop these parcels when land values made it very lucrative to proceed; and, over the legitimate objections of those so negatively impacted. I feel empathy for all of you having to go through this stressful exercise and sincerely hope our City fathers reject outright this precedent setting re- zoning request. Sorry I cannot be at this important meeting but I must be out of the state for that entire week. Yours truly, Gary L. Haslam 20-2006 12:51 PM MINTZ 7607711154 P Prof. Fritz Gabriel and Barbara Bauer 80370 Weiskopf Way La Quints, 92253 CA To La Quinta City Hail La Quinta We want to have the Weiskopf Golf Course kept open space. We are against the new buildings on the Golf Course. F l Gabriel Bauer La Quinta, Jan. 141', 2008 EC VEIR JAN��2��pp0 20M COMMUNRY DEMENT Barbara Bauer �aj 20-2006 12:D2 YM MINTZ 7607711154 jAN20m MTM pf Lp�t�I1A COM ,y F RDTENVEtI PMa ,Weiskopf Golf Course Zoning Change and Plan to Build 3 Single Family Homes PA jesday, Jan. 24th there will be a meeting at La Quints City Hall, 78-495 Calls Tampico at 7:OOPM, us to hear a request by Ray Shaffer, a developer, to change the zoning of a portion of the Weiskop ;e. The plan is to acquire 2.3 + acres from KSL and to build 3 homes on 3 single-family lots. The a proposed building sites are located between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus streets and involves the Me area adjacent to the Weiskopf Putting Green (which will be severely aRered) and Water Retentic or Storm Drain Site next to 60355 Weiskopf, ave been diligently watching the process of the rezoning application and what follows is a summary evious Planning Commission Meeting. We plan on being at the Meeting on January 24, 2006 tom mcems. If you, too have concerns we urge you to be at this very important meeting. ntly there are no view single family homes looking down into the Weiskopf Gott Course, which is wly what Mr. Shaffer wishes to accomplish with the building of his 3 single-family homes. Thus say romising the epsting vistas. roperty currently is owned by KSL Corporation, this area and a few other areas were not included I A CNL transaction. haffer, as of the 27th of December 2005, Planning Commission Meeting, had not made an applies re Department and this is of serious concern. , hatter's representative, Mr. Haag, claims the enormous Storm Drain Site would be slightly reroute( loll between 2 lots. According to another statement of Mr. Haag, this site is to be moved east, rhea onflicting statements and thus it is very unclear where this storm drain will be and what the effects i :ourse and surrounding homes will be. Shaffer's representative, Mr. Haag, also stated that if the cart path were rerouted, as it must be to mmodate the 3 homes, it could be a 9 foot climb up to the first tee. ring Commissioner Daniels stated that property owners in the area have always perceived this are space. KSL Corporation has other open space areas at PGA West that are currently not develop hose too will be coming forward due to the value of the land. If we allow the rezoning of this portion ,kopf Goff Course it can be precedent setting for rezoning of other areas throughout PGA West. 3eneral Plan of the City of La Quints controls the underlying use of sand and its development On amber 27, 2005 Community Development Director, Doug Evans stated, "...that this entire area ha )en space portion of PGA West. It has not been proposed for development prior to this applieatioi has always been referred to as open space. Property owners have relied upon what was shown t . From a public purpose there is no need to develop this site. From a policy standpoint, ...it does )ly with the General Plan! strongly believe that the proposed development of 3 single-family homes on the Weiskopf Goff Cc astly disturb the serenity of those who live in the area as well as those playing the course. We ask support in addressing the City of La Quints and the Planning rnscommission n writing dropperea as d Co. It you cannot attend this meeting in person, your I\-%A,or 9tvento us to read at the Planning Commission Meeting. age feel free to forward this e-mail to anyone Th.,W.V. ~.*IV U. feel might have interest. Pop: / ;du—zwwb a :oe VM MiN14 7607711154 p clunt.V. O/W �II-.l.tll !I'ri�tiuill L,l ihlinlu, (,f fl"� , January 17, 2006 Dear Myron and Joanne, rRI ECEIVE JCCAII N��2��pp0�qUu?11ow COMMUNIT`/ DEVE EN DEPAFTMEEEEEENT Thank you for keeping the Masters Homeowners updated on the proposal to rezone the Weiskopf Golf Course and build three single family homes in the areamufn on toe TratatIVE Par6of MV wal As I understand it the entire area is currently zoned as open space. When] purchased my home on Weiskopf four years ago, the plot map of the PGA development, on view in the lobby of the Stadium Club House, shows a road running between the Nicklaus Gate and Weiskopf street. 1 Never was infned as to why the Poad was never built, but may assume it was to designate the land as open space, If that was the reason the road wasn't built, then 1 see no reason to approve this proposal and would cast my vote against approval. _ Y v _ Y _ V _ V _ V _ V What I would like to see is a cart path running from the Nicklaus Gate to where it joins the cart path that leads to the Nicklaus Tournament courses' 100' tee. Sincerely, M James A. Old 1 1 20 06 06:43p Michael Herman 760-771-6014 MICHAEL HERMAN @PGA West 80-690 Weiskopf Way La Quinta, CA, 92253 January 20, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa of Quinta Planning Commission, City 78.-4915 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 ZRE: Environmental Assessment 2005-0 General Plan one Change 2005126, Specific Plan 83- 02 Amendment # 5 Amendment Tentative tive Parcel 0 , Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning_ **The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Gott Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. **Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, R LLI vE ,j,41� 'L s i0(13 CITY OF LA OUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 20 06 09:02p Jod9 Shapiro 760 564 9075 p Jonathan D. & Patti S. Shapiro 55-525 Turnberry Way La Quinta, CA 92253-8720 Phone: 760.564.2555 Fax: 760.564.9075 January 20, 2006 Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning_ "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. **Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. **The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration. .00 Jonathan�Shapiro Patti /t�piro Polk ELIE JAP: l s /uC�0 D CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT y DEPARTMENT JUUT I It 7607711983 p,1 Page L RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "'The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as of space. "The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. ""We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to tt change. Thank you for your consideration. EC E 11 V E AN 2 3 2006 1/22/2006 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT /06/2006 09:42 7607718348 A PAGE F Fridav, lwuuary 06. 2006 Mr. Stan Sawa Assistan' Planning Director Cray of L.4 Qcuinta California La Quinti, California 92247 Re: PIA WEST Specific Plan Amendment 5 'R-quest for a continuance Dear Mr, Sawa: '11�s lett f r is provided in. order UP document illy request fora continuance to January 24 , 200, , of the above noted itetn currently schedulel before ttre City's Planning Ccammiss ion. Thank y4 a for your aueation to this mam r. Sincerely, R°n� Raj' S1�afp':T M: PO MI 8 ritaF, ASLA, tic. �CE�VI ' r, JAN 06 tn06 L ,;OMMUUN6F ft'�L MENT +; aEPARTM 1 • , Mr. Stan Sawa City of La Quinta Planning Commission 14 February, 2006 I wish to oppose the postponement of April 25, 2006 hearing regarding the possible building of homes on the Schaffer tract. I believe that many interested persons will not be present if the hearing is delayed until May or June. Thank y�u-cs— �- Caroline G. Macgregor 17 12:22p Emerick 7607714643 p.1 Mr. Tom IGrk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Via Facsimile 760-777-1233 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying.for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. ""The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. "Many existing home views will be obstructed. "Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. ""We question the feasVility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Goff Course will be severely changed and we are opposed tD this change. h 6?ec,:� /-- 3- Date � /I (;)tt 7-/�;7 =2Ce� Mr. Tom Kirk Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Commission, City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2005-550,Genera I Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Speck Plan 83-002 Amendment # 5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752 Dear Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752. We have numerous objections to this application for rezoning. "The City of La Quinta had told us the land in question has always been perceived as open space. **The City of La Quinta had told us that part of this land is currently used as a catch basin for the Golf Course. **Many existing home views will be obstructed. **Changing this zoning will be precedent setting for other parcels of land now considered open space and this is very alarming. **We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3 proposed homes. "The use of the Weiskopf Golf Course will be severely changed and we are opposed to this change. Thank you for your consideration, VIC PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 CASE NOS.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2006-078 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 REQUEST: 1) REVIEW OF "DUNE PALMS NEIGHBORHOOD" SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 250 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; AND 2) REVIEW OF THE DUNE PALMS NEIGHBORHOOD 218 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPING PLANS LOCATION: 14.8 ACRE PARCEL, NORTH OF AVENUE 48, WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION PROPERTY OWNER: LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: INTERACTIVE DESIGN CORPORATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-524 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 97- 011, AMENDMENT NO. 3 ON DECEMBER 21, 2004 AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON MARCH 22, 2005 COMPLETED AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-524 FOR SITE EVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-824. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL(M/RC) SURROUNDING LAND USE/ ZONING: NORTH: SAM'S CLUB/ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) SOUTH: RANCHO LA QUINTA/ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) EAST: DESERT SANDS ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER/ MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITY (MC) WEST: WATERCOLORS SENIOR HOUSING/ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RH) BACKGROUND: The currently vacant 14.8 acres project site is located on the north side of Avenue 48 and west of Dune Palms Road. The property is zoned Regional Commercial. High density residential housing with an affordable component is allowed in the Regional Commercial Zone if it is more than 600 feet south of Highway 1 1 1; this site is located 1,450 feet south of Highway 111. The property is owned by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. The City Redevelopment Agency has reviewed concept development plans and directed staff to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement with Coachella Valley Housing Coalition to undertake this project. General Plan The project is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and policies. The land use designation for the subject property is Regional Commercial (M/RC). The General Plan Land Use Element allows High Density Housing with an affordable component in the Regional Commercial Zone if it is more than 600 feet south of Highway 111. The project is consistent with General Plan Residential Goal 2 by providing "a broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City". The project meets this goal by providing a mix of rental housing choices for low and very -low income residents. The project also implements affordable housing opportunities, goals, policies and programs adopted in the 2004 General Plan Housing Element. Specific Plan The request is for approval of Dune Palms Neighborhood Specific Plan 2006-078 (Attachment 1) establishing design guidelines and development standards in a focused development plan for the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and requirements for public improvements on the 14.8 acres. Zoning Code Section 9.70.030 requires that a specific plan be approved for any development that exceeds ten acres located in this zoning district. The Specific Plan is designed to ensure quality development; it also provides a degree of flexibility to allow development to respond to the changes in local standards and the marketplace. The Specific Plan describes essential elements of the proposed project including the residential component that includes the potential to achieve up to 250 unit, circulation, site grading, drainage and flood control, utilities, design and sustainability guidelines, and consistent and compatible General Plan policies. The Specific Plan requests the following deviations from the Zoning Code: • Allow two story buildings up to 28 feet in height within 150 feet of a Primary Arterial; Zoning Code requires 22 feet and one story in the Image Corridor • Allow a "minimum average" of 20 feet for the perimeter landscape setback; Zoning Code requires a 20 foot landscape setback without allowance for curvilinear walls. • Allow parking post on the sides of each stall, in the parking structure, to have a 6 inch clearance on each side; Zoning Code requires an 18 inch clearance on each side. • Allow a parking standard of 1.5 spaces per unit, plus.5 guest spaces per unit for the entire project; Zoning Code requires the following for apartments and airspace condominiums: Studio - 1 covered space per unit, plus .5 guest spaces per unit One -bedroom - 1 .2 covered spaces per unit plus .5 guest spaces per unit Two -bedroom - 2 covered spaces per unit plus .5 guest spaces per unit Three or more bedroom - 3 covered spaces per unit plus .5 covered spaces per each bedroom over three, plus .5 guest spaces per unit. • Allow the project as designed which anticipates a drainage design solution that connects to a storm drain with conveyance into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel; or provide on -site retention and redesign the project accordingly. • Allow a minimum apartment unit size of 650 square feet; Zoning Code requires a minimum unit size of 750 square feet. In addition current design is a minimum 750 square feet for the one bedroom unit. • Allow a minimum 5 foot front yard and side yard setback for the Community Building and Child Day Care Center; Zoning Code requires a 30 foot setback from Primary Arterials (i.e. Dune Palms Road) Relationship to Neighboring Properties To the north of the proposed project is Sam's Club in La Quinta Centre; Sam's Club is conditioned to mitigate noise by building an 8 foot high masonry wall along the entire south edge of their property. To the east of the project and across Dune Palms Road is Desert Sands Administrative Center and bus maintenance facility. To the south of the proposed project and across Avenue 48 is Rancho La Quinta including the Dune Palms Road entrance to their maintenance facility and employee parking lot. The proposed project provides an unobtrusive transition from one story buildings directly adjacent to Avenue 48 to two and three story buildings located towards the center of the project. To the west of the proposed project is Watercolors Senior Housing; residential units are under construction. The applicant has worked with the adjacent property owner for Watercolors and proposed, as depicted on Site Detail's, a decorative masonry wall with "tree pockets" to soften the visual impact of a long flat wall surface. Project Proposal The applicant proposes developing 22 buildings with similar elevations and eleven different floor plans. Proposed on the site plan are 218 apartment units; However, the project could have up to 250 units, as identified in the Specific Plan, which is to be determined in final design. Staff is recommending a Condition of Approval that would allow the Community Development Director to approve the final design or defer the design decision to the Planning Commission. The project takes vehicle access from Avenue 48 and Dune Palms Road leading to central driveway providing access to parking for the residents. A recently revised Dune Palms Road driveway access is proposed that meets a General Plan requirement that driveways on Primary Arterials be separated a minimum of 250 feet. Pedestrian pathways are provided throughout the site with a central courtyard connecting the apartments and a half court basketball facility on the west side of the main driveway to the community building, day care center and pool which are located on the east side of the central driveway (Attachment 2). Buildings are one, two, and three stories with the one story buildings at a maximum 14 feet in height, two story buildings at a maximum of 28 feet in height, and the three story buildings at a maximum 40 feet in height. Floor plans consist of one, two, three and four bedrooms ranging in size from 750 to 1,550 square feet. The applicant is proposing a Specific Plan that would allow additional height of up to a maximum of 28 feet in the 150 foot Image Corridors along Avenue 48 and Dune Palms Road. An average minimum 20 foot landscape setback is also proposed along Avenue 48 and Dune Palms Road in order to allow a meandering perimeter wall. In addition, the Specific Plan is proposing modification to street and parking design standards. Proposed unit sizes comply with the City's minimum unit size and are as follows: Unit Size One Bedroom @ 750 sf - 810 sf Two Bedroom @ 900 sf - 1037 sf Three Bedroom @ 1050 sf - 1370 sf Four Bedroom @ 1350 sf - 1550 sf The project, as shown on the site plan, includes 218 units with the following project unit breakdown: Bedrooms Units % One 28 13 Two 63 29 Three 103 47 Four 24 11 Buildings along Avenue 48 are a blend of one and two story buildings providing a stepped back design from one story to two stories. The two story portion of these buildings are located a minimum of 80 feet from Avenue 48. Proposed along the south property line are stepped back one and two story buildings providing a transition from one to two stories along Avenue 48. The two story buildings are located farthest from the south property line. A key design element is to orient the two story buildings in such a way that units are screened from views to the south. Two story buildings along Avenue 48 are oriented to face away from the street. One and two story buildings in Neighborhood 5 face Avenue 48. This building will be screened with an upgraded carport and additional landscape. This building is setback 82 feet from the project's property line and approximately 330 from the nearest Rancho La Quinta residence. Parking and the stepped back one story buildings provide a visual transition for Rancho La Quinta homes and the maintenance facility & employee parking lot which are located across Avenue 48. Site sections portray the proposed landscape and wall treatment from Avenue 48 to the proposed one story apartment buildings. In addition, large trees (48 inch box) are required along Avenue 48 to enhance the visual buffering. Buildings are mostly two stories along Dune Palms Road. The one and two story buildings are primarily arranged in courtyard groupings creating a series of common open spaces buffered from parking areas, which will encourage safe areas for children at play and pedestrians. The proposed design provides separation from the adjacent single family detached residential neighborhoods. A core spine of three-story buildings are proposed to be located near the center of the project site oriented in a north -south fashion with additional three story buildings located towards the north and west of the property, which borders the neighboring retail area to the north and northwest. Townhouse style units make up the first two stories of the buildings. The third story units are all one bedroom and are accessible via elevator or stairs. A pedestrian bridge is provided between the third stories of the first & second and third & fourth buildings. The first and third story units are accessible from the parking garage elevators; first floor townhouse units are also accessible at ground level. Proposed along the east and north property lines are a combination of two and three story buildings providing a stepped back design from two to three stories. To facilitate a smooth transition from the adjacent single family homes (Watercolors senior housing) to the tallest buildings on site, two story buildings and parking areas are located closest to the project's western perimeter. This buffer will help ensure a reasonable interface between the proposed project and the Watercolors senior housing development, which is under construction. Site sections portray the view of the proposed two and three story buildings from Watercolors as well as a shared wall along this west property line that allows for "tree pockets" to break up the visual effect of a long expansive linear wall. Proposed are a total of 457 parking spaces for the apartments. A total of 326 covered parking spaces are proposed which includes below grade, garage and carport parking. Proposed under the four central three story buildings is a 116 space subterranean parking garage. Each of the "A-1" two story buildings are proposed to have 4 tuck under resident parking garages with doors made of sectional metal with textured paint to reflect a wood finish. Proposed are 170 carport parking spaces. Carport structures are freestanding; with two proposed designs. The first design is a standard painted metal structure with a 7 '/2 foot clearance. The second design is proposed to be a maximum 12 feet high, to be semi -custom construction with textured painting to reflect a wood finish including tiled wood frame roof design. The second design would be installed along Avenue 48 and Dune Palms parking lots. Both options propose solar panels integrated into the carport roof design. An additional131 uncovered/surface and parallel parking spaces are proposed which include guest and handicapped parking. The following compares of the proposed Specific Plan parking standard of 1.5 spaces per unit and .5 guest spaces per unit with Zoning Code parking requirements and other apartment projects built and managed locally by the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition: Project proposal: 1.5 spaces x 218 units = 327 .5 spaces x 218 units = 109 ADA required spaces = 12 Total spaces required by Specific Plan: 448 Total spaces proposed: 457 Average spaces per unit: 2.24 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition: Bedroom Units Primary Guest 1 BR 42 52.50 10.50 2 BR 103 154.50 25.75 3 BR 44 99.00 11.00 4 BR 46 138.00 11.50 Subtotal: 235 444.00 58.75 Total 235 502.80 Average space per unit 2.1 Bedroom Units Primary Guest 1 BR 12 15.00 3.00 2 BR 67 100.50 16.75 3 BR 90 204.75 22.50 4 BR 33 99.00 8.25 Subtotal: 202 419.25 50.50 Total: 202 470 Average space per unit 1 2.33 Zoning Code: Bedroom Apartment Units Spaces Required by Code Covered Spaces Guest Spaces 1 BR 28 1.2 + .5 33.6 14.0 2 BR 63 2 + .5 126.0 31.5 3 BR 103 3 + .5 309.0 51.5 4 BR 24 3.5 .5 84.0 12.0 Subtotal: 218 552.6 109 Total: 218 661 Average spaces per unit 3.0 In summary, City Zoning Code would require an average of 3.0 spaces per unit, two projects completed by the applicant have an average of 2.1 and 2.23 spaces per unit, and the proposed project identifies an average of 2.24 spaces per unit. Staff has conducted field observations at the above referenced local apartments built and managed by the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition and is satisfied with a parking ratio of 2.24 spaces per unit as proposed. The Coachella Valley Housing Coalition is requesting a reduction in parking requirements and has provided documentation from their apartment projects (Attachment 3). ArchitPeture All buildings have a similar Mission Revival design, all proposed buildings will be covered with red clay "S" the and walls will have an off-white hand -trowelled stucco finish in terra cotta, ochre, and blue-green. The proposed roofs are gable style with roof pitches at 3.5:12. Recessed building entries and architectural pop -outs for L windows with dormer roofs are prevalent on all windows. Deep recessed windows provide relief with some windows proposed to be shaded by building overhangs eaves and/or tiled wood framed awnings. All proposed windows and slider glass doors for the apartments are multi -pane. Aluminum frames with baked enamel finish painted blue grey are proposed for all windows including the sliding glass doors that lead to outdoor patios of which all first floor patios are covered and some second story patios are covered with stained wood trellis' and red clay "S" tile. Also identified on the site plan are a community building, a child care center, and a pool. The buildings will have similar design using the same materials and colors as the proposed units. These building(s) are not a part this package for review and approval and this will be considered at a future date. Landscape Plan The Landscaping Plan identifies a palette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the entries, the setbacks, the on -site planting areas, and the building perimeter planters. For the required landscape setback on Avenue 48 and Dunes Palms Road, the applicant proposes Foothill Palo Verde, Shoestring Acacia, and Lemon Scented Gum trees. Proposed for the corner of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 is a robust landscape treatment with a cluster of trees, a raised planter with shrubs and lantana, and cobble stone ground cover treatment. Foothill Palo Verde, Shoestring Acacia, and Lemon Scented Gum trees provide accent at the two project entries and along the perimeter of Avenue 48 and Dune Palms Road. Along internal driveways the applicant proposes Tipu Trees and SissooTrees with Foothill Palo Verde, Shoestring Acacia, and Jacaranda trees providing accent. A variety of additional trees for shade and accent are proposed throughout the courtyard (all with 1.25 to 2.5 calipers) and throughout the site. They include: Desert Willow, Evergreen Elm, Cascalote, Citrus, Palo Blanco, Littleleaf Ash, Golden Ball Lead, Date Palms Mediterranean Palms, and Mexican Fan Palms. Shrubs include Yellow Oleander, Bougainvillea, Baja Fairy Duster, and Texas Ranger. Some cactus and spiky plants are proposed. These plants will need to be carefully place to keep away from pedestrian traffic. A central courtyard between the three story "J-1 " and "J-2" buildings connects the apartments on the west side of the project to the community center, day care center and pool. Raised planters, colored concrete and enhanced paving are proposed to delineate all courtyards, pathways, patios, and pool decking. A meandering wall is proposed along the perimeter streets; the precise location of this wall will be dependent upon a final grading plan and noise impacts considerations. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at the March 20, 2006 meeting. The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2006-014 recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan, for the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee and Planning Commission approval, as a business item that includes plant quantities and plant locations as well as material and color details for the enhanced paving and wall designs. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit for Planning Commission approval as a business item a revised landscape plan that identifies all trees be a minimum 1.5 inch caliper and a 36 inch box, all trees proposed within 150 feet of the Avenue 48 frontage shall be a minimum 48 inch box, and add additional hedges and trees to fully screen from each view for both projects on the west property line. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit for Planning Commission approval as a business item a revised Site Plan creating a traffic calming "choker design" curbing or a speed table along the main driveway, and add a high quality pedestrian access to Dune Palms Road next to the CVWD well site to be approved by the Public Works Department. Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 17, 2006. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. ISSUES/ANALYSIS: The findings necessary to approve the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit can be made provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolutions. 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2006-857, subject to attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2006-078, subject to attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Dune Palms Neighborhood Specific Plan 2. Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscape Plan 3. Coachella Valley Housing Coalition parking reduction request PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A t 14.8 ACRE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CASE: SPECIFIC PLAN 2006-078 APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 28`h day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, to recommend to the City Council approval of a Specific Plan to establish residential design guidelines and development standards for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 48 and Dune Palms Road, and more particularly described as: PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 33588; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 17`h day of March, 2006, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 2004-524 for Specific Plan 97-011, Amendment No. 3 for the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan and completed an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2004-524 for Site Development Permit 2005-824. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify recommending approval of said Specific Plan:: Finding A - Consistency with General Plan The property is designated Mixed/Regional Commercial. The proposed project will be developed as high density residential development. The General Plan Land Use Element allows High Density Residential development with an affordable component in the Mixed/Regional Commercial designation if it is more than 600 P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 2006-075 Dune Palms\PC RESO SP 2006-078.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Specific Plan 2006-078 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Adopted: March 28, 2006 Page 2 feet south of Highway 111. The project is also consistent with General Plan Residential Goal 2 by providing "a broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City". The project meets this goal by providing a mix of rental housing choices for low and very -low income residents. The project also implements affordable housing opportunities, goals, policies and programs adopted in the 2004 General Plan Housing Element Finding B — Public Welfare Enhancement The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project is designed in compliance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element and design of the Specific Plan, as well as other County and State standards, and CEQA standards. That the proposed Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of development plans under a Site Development Permit, which will ensure adequate Conditions of Approval. Findings C and D — Land Use Compatibility and Property Suitability The project site allows the proposed use. The project will provide adequate buffering through project design, landscaping and walls to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. The project will provide adequate perimeter landscaping and acceptable architectural design guidelines, consistent with those requirements of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2006-078, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28`h day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: P:\Reports - P02006\3-28-06\SP 2006-075 Dune Palms\PC RESO SP 2006-078.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Specific Plan 2006-078 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Adopted: March 28, 2006 Page 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Acting Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 2006-075 Dune Palms\PC RESO SP 2006-078.doc �' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2006-078 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 GFNFRAI The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding tc attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. All mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-524 for Specific Plan 97-011, Amendment No. 3 and Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2004-524 for Site Development Permit 2005-824 shall be complied with. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all project related final Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated in the Final Specific Plan document. Applicant shall work with staff to correct internal document inconsistencies and update graphics as appropriate prior to final publication of Specific Plan document. Applicant shall provide five copies of the Final Specific Plan document to the Community Development Department. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 220 UNIT MULTI-FAMAILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of March, 2006, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition for a Site Development Permit for a 218 unit multi -family residential development located west of Dune Palms Road and north of Avenue 48, and more particularly described as: PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 33588: and; WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 2004-524 for Specific Plan 97-01 1, Amendment No. 3 for the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan and completed an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2004-524 for Site Development Permit 2005-824. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, at it's meeting of March 20th, 2006 did review the architecture and landscape plans for the proposed project and recommended approval, subject to conditions, to the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said Site Development Permit 2005-857: A. Compliance with General Plan- The project is in compliance with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property to be developed is designated Regional Commercial and the General Plan Land Use Element allows High Density Residential Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Site Development Permit 2006-857 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Adopted: March 28, 2006 Page 2 development with an affordable component with in the Mixed/Regional Commercial designation if it is more than 600 feet south of Highway 111. B. Consistency with the Specific Plan- The design and development of the multi -family residential project will be consistent with the design guidelines and development standards provisions of Specific Plan 2006- 078. C. Compliance with Zoning Code The design and development of the multi -family residential project will be consistent with the City's Zoning Code, where provisions of the Specific Plan do not appy, provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the Zoning Code. D. Site Design- The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, pedestrian and resident amenities, parking, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. E. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass including the stepped -back buildings concept, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development. F. Landscape Design- Conceptual project landscaping include but not be limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials that will be designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas,screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and as conditioned will comply with City and CVWD water efficiency, ensuring efficient water use. P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 2006-075 Dune PaIrnsTC RESO SDP 2006- 857.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Site Development Permit 2006-857 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Adopted: March 28, 2006 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2006-857 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 28th day of March, 2006 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PAUL QUILL, Acting Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SP 2006-075 Dune Palms\PC RESO SDP 2006- 857.doc `� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 GENERAL 1. The developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the developer shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley The developer is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the developer shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the developer; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the developer's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 3. The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The developer or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The developer's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The developer shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The developer's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the developer shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the developer shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The developer shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of- ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Dune Palms Road (Primary Arterial, Option A, 110' ROW) - The standard 55' from the centerline of Dune Palms Road for a total 1 10- foot ultimate developed right of way except for: A) An additional right of way dedication for a deceleration/right turn only lane at the Primary Entry (north end) of sixty three (631 feet from the centerline and length conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS, and B) An additional right of way dedication for a deceleration/right turn only lane and combined bus turnout at the Secondary Entry (south end) of sixty three (63') feet from the centerline and length conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 2) Avenue 48 (Primary Arterial, Option A, 1 10' ROW) - The standard 55' from the centerline of Avenue 48 for a total 110-foot ultimate developed right of way except for: A) An additional right of way dedication for a deceleration/right turn only lane of sixty three (631 feet from the centerline and length conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 B. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Developer shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement. 9. The developer shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot average minimum from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Additionally, the abovementioned perimeter landscaping setbacks shall be maintained along all public rights of way where additional right of way is required per these conditions of approval. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the developer shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 10. Direct vehicular access to Dune Palms Road is restricted, except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit site plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 11. The developer shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 12. The developer shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the developer may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. B. C. D. E. On -Site Rough Grading Plan Precise Grading Non -Residential Plan PM10 Plan SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 30' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan F. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical 1 " = 40' Horizontal G. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. NOTE: A through G to be submitted concurrently. H. Traffic Signal Modification Plan (if required) 1" = 20' Horizontal Off -Site Median Landscaping Plans 1 " = 40' Horizontal PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions to include all approaches to the Avenue 48 and Dune Palms Road. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. The developer shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. "Precise Grading Non -Residential" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 15. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering Library at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Online Engineering Library hyperlink. 16. The developer shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the developer shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 17. Per the Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map No. 33588, the developer of this Site Development Permit, shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. Execution of the required Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall be completed prior to off -site street improvement plan approval. Pursuant to this condition, the developer shall have off -site street improvement plans approved prior to precise grading plan approval. 18. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the developer and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Site Development Permit and underlying Parcel Map No. 33588, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 19. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on - site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the developer fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 20. Depending on the timing of the development of the Site Development Permit, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the developer may at the discretion of the Public Works Director be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative parcel map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The developer shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the developer shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 21. The developer shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on - site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the developer's detailed cost estimates. 22. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 23. Should the developer fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a time►y manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 GRADING 24. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 1 01160 M eCCIIMAN # 1AA WWI life fer AAV eeOYu MA, er 61AIP 01061fil, tha developer shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 26. To obtain an approved grading permit, the developer shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The developer shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 27. The developer shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 28. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. ILANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- 'ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION NDOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 29. The developer shall abandon any existing wells within the parcel Parcel Map boundaries as approved by CVWD and the City Engineer. 30. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative parcel map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the developer shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 32. As the applicant proposes discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within the overlying tentative parcel map and this site development permit excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the final development CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets and include any resulting uncaptured tributary stormwater flows 33. The applicant shall transport on site and tributary stormwater through underground storm drainage system as approved by the City Engineer. 34. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 35. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be passed through a prefilter system comparable to the MaxWell Plus Primary Settling Chamber (or C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 equivalent) before being disposed in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer If discharge of stormwater to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel is not approved by CVWD, then the following shall be applicable to this Site Development Permit. 36. The applicant shall revise proposed retention basins to comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets and include any resulting uncaptured tributary stormwater flows. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 37. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 38. For properties where sump conditions exist, the applicant must either define a diversion/overflow strategy or retain upstream stormwater as required for existing as - built conditions from all off -site tributary flow from the respective high points. The applicant must provide either on -site retention or alternative facilities of diversion/pass through, if selected. Historical flow paths should be identified and routing provided in the hydrology analysis equivalent to historical flow direction. As local topography allows, tributary areas may exceed limits of property lines adjacent to public roads. The 100-year storm shall be the governing event in the designer's evaluation. 39. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 40. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be passed through a prefilter system comparable to the MaxWell Plus Primary Settling Chamber (or equivalent) before being disposed in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. A geotechnical study shall confirm the applicability of sand filter use for the development based on the existing soil conditions. The sand filter and leach field or equivalent system shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain nuisance water surges from landscape area, residential unit, and off -site street nuisance water. Flow from adjacent well sites shall be designed for retention area percolation by separate infiltration system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter design PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow. 41. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 42. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. 43. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 44. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 45. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 46. The Applicant is hereby notified that future site modifications may be necessary including, but not limited to lot and street reconfiguration. Verification of the proposed storm water retention system is subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. If in the event, the proposed retention capacity or pass through storm water flow is found to be inadequate during final design, the Applicant shall revise what is currently proposed in the preliminary hydrology study and make adjustments to the site layout as needed to accommodate the increased retention/detention or pass through capacity required to satisfy safety issues of the Public Works Department and CVWD. Pursuant to the afore mentioned, the applicant may be required to construct additional underground and aboveground drainage facilities to convey on site and off site stormwater as well as stormwater from adjacent mountainous terrain that historically flows onto and/or through the project site. Any proposed channels that convey stormwater shall be lined to protect against erosion as required by the Public Works Department and CVWD. UTILITIES PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 47. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 48. The developer shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 49. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 50. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the developer shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The developer shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 51. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 52. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Dune Palms Road (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W option): Widen the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The west curb face shall be located forty three feet (43') west of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Dune Palm Road at the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 Primary Entry to the north. The west curb face shall be located fifty one feet (51') west of the centerline and deceleration length of 250 feet plus a transition length of 150 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. b) A deceleration/right turn only lane and combined bus turnout on Dune Palm Road at the Secondary Entry to the south. The west curb face shall be located fifty one feet (51') west of the centerline and deceleration and a transition length from the Primary Entry to the north to the Secondary Entry or as approved by the City Engineer. Other required improvements in the Dune Palms Road right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: c) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. d) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. e) An 18 - foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Site Development Permit plus variable width as needed to accommodate a dual left turn for the south bound Dune Palms Road traffic turning left to eastbound Avenue 48. The length shall be 250 feet with a 150-foot taper or as approved by the City Engineer. Additional median openings are required for the following: Dune Palms Road — North bound Traffic Left turn movement into Primary Entry with a minimum length of at least 100 feet plus a 50-foot transition. The length shall be 250 feet with a 150-foot taper or as approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall design the median opening for PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 positive restriction of prohibited movements. Dune Palms Road — South bound Traffic Left turn movements into the existing two south most driveways into Desert Sands Unified District Administrative Complex on the east side of Dune Palms Road located 400' and 1040' north of Avenue 48. The length shall be 250 feet with a 150-foot taper or as approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall design the median opening for positive restriction of prohibited movements. 2) Avenue 48 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W option): No additional widening of Avenue 48 is required along the Site Development Permit boundary, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Avenue 48. The north curb face shall be located fifty one feet (51') north of the centerline and deceleration length of 250 feet plus a transition length of 150 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. Other required improvements in the Avenue 48 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The developer shall extend improvements beyond the site development permit boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). Reimbursement for any improvements which are eligible for reimbursement from the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 City's Development _Impact Fee fund shall be in accordance with policies established for that program. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. B. INTERNAL STREETS 11 Construct internal streets per the approved Site Development Permit Preliminary Grading Exhibit and as approved by the City Engineer. On - street parking shall be prohibited except in designated parking stall areas. The applicant shall make provisions for perpetual enforcement of the No Parking restrictions. 2) All way stop conditions shall be implemented at the first and third internal street intersection off of Avenue 48. 53. The developer shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential Streets/Parking Lot (Low Traffic Areas) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Parking Lot (High Traffic Areas) 4.5" a.c /5.5" c.a.b. Primary Arterial or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. 54. The developer shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The developer shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 55. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 A. Dune Palms Road Primary Entry (north entry): Right turn in, right turn out and left turn in movements are permitted. Left turn out movement is prohibited. The developer shall design the median opening for positive restriction of prohibited movements. Secondary Entry (south entry): Right turn in and right turn out movements are permitted. Left turn in and left turn out movements are prohibited. All right -turn -out only driveways shall have a splitter median island located in the driveway throat that adequately channelizes the exiting right -turn vehicles turning onto the arterial street to eliminate illegal left turns. The splitter island shall be designed in conformance with design concepts approved by the City Engineer. B. Avenue 48 Primary Entry: Right turn in and right turn out movements are permitted. Left turn in and out movement is prohibited. All right -turn -out only driveways shall have a splitter median island located in the driveway throat that adequately channelizes the exiting right -turn vehicles turning onto the arterial street to eliminate illegal left turns. The splitter island shall be designed in conformance with design concepts approved by the City Engineer. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 56. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 57. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design. B. ADA accessibility routes between opposite Handicap Stalls shall be a minimum of 4 feet. C. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 D. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. CONSTRUCTION 58. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and signage. LANDSCAPING 59. The developer shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 60. The developer shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and parking areas. 61. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 62. The developer shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the developer shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 63. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. QUALITY ASSURANCE 64. The developer shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 65. The developer shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 66. The developer shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 67. Upon completion of construction, the developer shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The developer shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 68. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 69. The developer shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 70. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the developer makes application for plan check and permits. 71. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE 72. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan, for the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee and Planning Commission approval, as a business item that includes plant quantities and plant locations as well as material and color details for the enhanced paving and wall designs. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit for Planning Commission approval as a business item a revised landscape plan that identifies all trees be a minimum 1.5 inch caliper and a 36 inch box, all trees proposed within PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-857 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION ADOPTED: MARCH 28, 2006 150 feet of the Avenue 48 frontage shall be a minimum 48 inch box, and add additional hedges and trees to fully screen from each view for both projects on the west property line. 73. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit for Planning Commission approval as a business item a revised Site Plan creating a traffic calming "choker" design curbing or a speed table along the main driveway, and add a high quality pedestrian access to Dune Palms Road next to the CVWD well site to be approved by the Public Works Department. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 74. Prior to issuance of a building permit applicant shall submit, to the Community Development Director to approve for constuction or defer the design decision to the Planning Commission for approval as a business item, a revised Architectural Plans and a revised Site Plan for residential units and carports. 75. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director for approval an additional site section that identifies the relationship of the proposed grade to the proposed perimeter wall finished grade and wall height, the parking lot elevation, and the proposed pad height of the proposed "B" building. 76. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan for the project for approval by the Community Development Director that includes but not limited to: verification of vehicle registration, assignment of designated parking locations, and parking limitations and restrictions. STAFF REPORT PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-845 (PRADO DEL SOL/PALIZADA) APPLICANT/ OWNER: KB HOME COASTAL, INC. ARCHITECT: KB HOME, RIVERSIDE DIVISION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF 3 PROTOTYPICAL FLOOR PLANS, COMMON AREAS, CLUBHOUSE, WALLS, ENTRY GATES, AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A 125 LOT SINGLE- FAMILY HOME SUB -DIVISION ON 38.3 t ACRES LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 61 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-493 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 31733 ON JANUARY 20, 2004. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) EAST: LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL/ EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL WEST: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) & LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL/ EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 KB Home\PC staff rpt. SDP 2005-845.doc Background and Overview: Tentative Tract Map 31733, a 38.3 ± acre property was approved by the City Council on January 20, 2004. The tract consists of 127 residential lots, a recreation lot, and common lots. A previous Site Development Permit for this property had been submitted for review by Innovative Resort Communities. The Planning Commission rejected the plans and requested they be revised. Since then, Innovative Resort Communities has sold the property to KB Home. As KB Home is also developing the adjacent property to the north, Tentative Tract 31732, they have chosen to combine the two tentative tracts into one unified project. Site Development Permit 2005-842, the northern portion of this project (Tract 31732), will be heard be heard concurrently with this proposal. As of the time of this report, KB Home has proposed to rename the entire combined project Palizada. Some of the attachments may also reference portions of the project as Cielo, Viento, or Solana, which were KB Home's previous choice of residential product line names for this project. The architecture and elevations for the three prototypical residences were recommended for approval with conditions by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) during their January 4, 2006 meeting. The remainder of the project, including the wall, gate, landscaping, and clubhouse plans were recommended for approval with conditions by the ALRC during their March 1, 2006 meeting. Wall and Gate Designs: Exterior perimeter walls have a desert -white stucco color with a brick band and a terra cotta cap (Attachment 1). All exterior walls have been designed in a linear layout with pillars placed at approximately 120 foot intervals. Wall heights were originally proposed for five feet, but have been recommended in the conditions of approval to be raised to six feet based on the required noise study for the project. This noise study shall be required prior to submittal of the final grading plans. The Avenue 61 entry includes two 20' high flanking towers, one on each side of the entrance. All towers in the combined Palizada project have been designed with plaster cement faces, clay tile roofs above 6"x12" rafter tails, and a tiered base designed with double rows of stepped brick. One tower features a clock with a herringbone brick inset, the other with a simple wrought iron feature. A recent addition to the landscaping plans includes a proposed 12 foot high corner monument at Monroe and Avenue 61, designed with a brick base, plaster cement face, and logo plaques, capped with a double row of stepped brick. The wooden entry gate has been designed with a decorative wood frame, wrought iron pickets, and antiquated hinges and handles. At each side of the gate brick pilasters are proposed topped with light fixtures. All entry gates will be complimented with Italian Cypress and Fruitless Olive Trees. Ci _ P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 KB Home\PC staff rpt. SDP 2005-845.doc Interior walls are similar in design to the exterior walls but for the rear portion of interior residential lots, the wall will utilize a partial -view, split style with stucco on the lower portion and wrought iron fence on the upper portion of the wall. Landscaping Proposal: Exterior landscaping along Monroe Street has been designed to accommodate the equestrian trail corridor as designated in the General Plan (Attachment 1). Exterior ground cover is generally decorative decomposed gravel with cobblestones and small boulders placed along the street line at certain intervals and street corners. The use of turf has been limited, replaced by cobblestones and boulders at the Avenue 61 entrance. Tree plantings include 24" box Blue Palo Verde, Sweet Acacias, and African Sumac trees along the street and the addition of Italian Cypress tree columns at the entry gates. Shrub design utilizes water -efficient species. The proposed interior landscaping design is reflective of the exterior design with the addition of Mediterranean and California Fan Palms, Carob Trees, and Pink Ironbark trees. All retention basins proposed for the project have a dual use as recreational open space and all are connected with walking paths. Two of the five retention basins in the southern portion of the project site utilize desert landscaping with decomposed gravel and cobblestones to compliment the water -efficient plant palette. The remaining three retention basins are lined with turf at the bottom and desert landscaping along the banks. The applicant has proposed installing a basketball half -court and a playground as recreational features, each in one of the turf -lined basins. Landscaping plans for the residential units show two front yard trees, shrubs, mounting, decorative decomposed gravel and a very small amount of turf. An 18" gravel strip between the turf and curb is shown. A no -turf option front yard plan has also been provided. Residential Models Proposal: The applicant has submitted prototypical architectural plans for three residential models (Attachment 2). Each of the three basic floor plan models has three architectural variations, described as Spanish, Tuscan, or Italianate. Each of those three architectural variations have an additional three color and building material variations, resulting in 27 different design combinations of what are essentially three base models. The three base models are 2,272 SF, 2,615 SF and 2,793 SF respectively. Elevations of each model will vary based on the architectural variation. The proposed Spanish style features three color combinations of brickwork, Tuscan features three varieties of veneer stonework, and Italianate utilizes three combinations of colored stucco. Accents include door and window trim, shutters, and wrought iron features. All styles utilize varied earth tone building materials including concrete "S" roof tiles. Color samples have been submitted and will be available at the meeting. Building heights range from 18' 1 1 " to 26' feet, depending on the model and particular P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 KB Home\PC staff rpt. SDP 2005-845.doc 6 architectural variation applied. The Tuscan and Italianate designs are generally taller than the Spanish style. The three plan types are distinguished by their square footage number, identified in the lower right corner of their respective attachments. One and two story models are distinguished by the prefix 150- and 250-, respectively. For example, the 2,272 square foot, one story model, is identified as "Plan: 150.2272." Please note that plan 250.2793 has been incorrectly mislabeled as 250.2798 on the colored elevations. Clubhouse Proposal: Included with this proposal are the clubhouse elevations, which have been redesigned for consistency with the Spanish style home plans (Attachment 3). The clubhouse design cites the use of rust -colored concrete roofing tile but identifies random boosting (mudded tiles) in the elevations. Staff has recommended clay tiles be used instead of concrete. Other design details include off-white stucco with highlights including Moorish archways (some with tiled interiors) and cornflower -blue windows and doors. Some windowsills are proposed to be designed with the same Spanish tile as the decorative archways. The clubhouse interior will include an exercise room, office, and a "game room" with adjacent kitchen which may be used for larger gatherings. The clubhouse grounds include recreational features such as a swimming pool, bocce green, putting green, croquet lawn, and shade structures. The floor plans of the proposed clubhouse have been incorrectly marked as "Tuscan," and are actually Spanish. The KB Home Prado Del Sol/Palizada project includes two clubhouses, one for each tract. This south clubhouse (Cielo), though having a different floor plan than the northern one (Solana/Viento), will utilize the same color scheme and materials and will be stylistically identical to the north clubhouse. Landscaping around both clubhouses will utilize the same desert plant palette as the remainder of the project. Twelve parking spaces have been provided for the southern clubhouse, which the applicants feel is adequate due to their expected level of pedestrian use. Combined Prado Del Sol (now Palizada): As previously noted, the applicants are proposing to combine the northern and southern halves of the Prado Del Sol development into one unified project called Palizada. The combination of the two projects involves a street extension of Montcito Hills Avenue and Saint Francis Avenue into the adjacent tract, the removal of one entry gate at the southern portion of Monroe Street, and the redrawing of a number of lot lines. The general layout, including streets and open space, will remain essentially the same as before. Although the Council recently approved the final map and improvement plans for both portions of the Palizada project on March 21, 2006, these approved final maps do not reflect the changes identified in this submittal to combine the two tracts. As a result, KB Home will still be required to amend the final maps. To reflect the merger of the two projects, the clubhouses, landscaping, gates, and walls have been designed with the same styles, materials, and colors. The landscaping palate, P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 KB Home\PC staff rpt. SDP 2005-845.doc street layout, architectural plans, gates, and wall designs have all been designed by KB Home and RGA Landscape Architects as one unified project with two separate submittals. Analysis: In general, the residential architectural plans are designed in a size, layout, and style compatible with other residential projects in the area and each other. Although the applicants are proposing three floor plans, the variety of exterior architectural designs and color schemes will result in 27 different unique home variations. In addition, home plans proposed in this southern portion of Palizada will be different than those proposed in the northern portion, resulting in a more architecturally varied neighborhood. Staff has recommended that proposed floor plan 2615 be revised to permit interior access to the garage. Staff has analyzed both projects together and has not found any differences or incompatibilities with the dual submittals in regards to the architecture or landscaping. The proposed landscaping palate, wall and gate design, clubhouse, and recreational open space are appropriate and well designed. Unlike adjacent projects, Palizada does not have golf as its recreational focus. Though this project has been marketed as a "resort living" type development, there are a number of family -oriented features such as the basketball half -court, walking paths, a swimming pool and bocce ball. Staff recommends the clubhouse roof tile be clay "S" the with random tile boosting, rather than a concrete tile, to provide better compatibility with the architectural style. The 18" front yard gravel strip shown between the turf and curb should be deleted with turf planted to the curb and sprinkler heads maintained 18" from the curb. Irrigation overspray and seepage should provide adequate irrigation for the turf next to the curb. Staff and the ALRC recommended revisions to be made to the originally proposed entry towers, to which KB Home has provided. There are still some concerns in regards to the revised design, size, and height of the 20 foot towers and recently proposed12 foot corner monuments, and staff questions the necessity of using these features. Staff has recommended in the conditions of approval that the proposed corner monument at Madison and Avenue 61 be reduced to a size and height similar to that of a decorative bollard, about 3'x3' and no more than 4' in height. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed the prototypical residential plans during their January 4, 2006 meeting and reviewed the remainder of the project during their March 1, 2006 meeting. The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2006-845 recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. Shutters and any other wood accents used on the units shall consist of a composite material. P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 KB Home\PC staff rpt. SDP 2005-845.doc 2. Air conditioning/pool equipment cannot be located in the side yards unless five feet of clearance between equipment and property line is provided. 3. All perimeter walls shall be designed with the proposed brick band and terra cotta cap and raised to six feet, with effective height dependent on final detailed noise study based upon grading, wall and homes. 4. The clubhouse roof tile shall be a clay "S" tile. The tile to be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit for the clubhouse. 5. Additional architectural treatment shall be provided to the bottom portion of the entry towers to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department (NOTE: plan submitted to you shows additional treatment). PUBLIC NOTICE: This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 18, 2006. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW: All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. FINDINGS: The Findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below. 1. Compliance with Zoning Code- The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code, which requires a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights and planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that three facades and three color schemes for each of the three residential floor plans are proposed. 2. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with other plans approved for construction in the tract and other surrounding development in the City. PAReports - P02006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 KB Home\PC staff rpt. SDP 2005-845.doc !'` 3. Compliance with CEQA- This request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2003-493 which was certified by the City Council on January 20, 2004, and therefore, no further environmental review is needed. 4. Site Design- The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian amenities, recreational open space, and other site design elements have been established through approval of Tract 31733 and are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Landscape Design- New home and project landscaping includes, but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials will be designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space. It will provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and comply with City and CVWD water efficiency, ensuring efficient water use. 6. Compliance with General Plan- The project is in compliance with the General Plan in that the property to be developed is designated for residences as proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2006-_, approving Site Development Permit 2005-845 approving architectural and landscaping plans, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Landscaping, Wall, and Gate Plans and Elevations 2. Prototypical Residential Plans and Elevations 3. Clubhouse Plans and Elevations Prepared by: And Vw J. Mogensen, Associate Planner P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 KB Home\PC staff rpt. SDP 2005-845.doc C � MINUTE MOTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-845 KB HOME COASTAL MARCH 28, 2006 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 3. Guest houses/casitas', as defined in LQMC Section 9.60.100, are limited to one per lot/primary dwelling. A master Minor Use Permit for all guest house/casitas can be processed, subject to the provisions of said Section as determined by the Community Development Department. 4. This Site Development Permit is valid for one year, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 5. SDP 2005-845 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2003-493 • Tentative Tract Map 31733 6. In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with these conditions has been achieved. 7. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permits) P:\Reports - P02006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 KB Home\sdp 2005-845 pc coa.doc C MINUTE MOTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-845 KB HOME MARCH 28, 2006 • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 8. The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. 9. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened within or otherwise integral to the roof structure, using compatible architectural materials and treatments, so as to not be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. 10. All two car garages shall maintain the 20-foot x 20-foot minimum interior dimensions as specified in Chapter 9.150 (Parking), LQMC. 11. Air conditioning/pool equipment cannot be located in the side yards unless five feet of clearance between equipment and property line is provided. 12. A noise study shall be provided prior to submittal of the final grading plans. 13. Perimeter walls shall be capped with brick and raised to a minimum of six feet, with effective height dependent on final detailed noise study based upon grading, walls, and homes. Landscaping and/or precise grading plans shall not be approved until final wall height has been established. 14. Proposed entry towers shall be capped with a clay "S" the consistent with the roofing materials used on the clubhouse and limited to 28' feet in height. Final design shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit for the entry towers. 15. The clubhouse roof tile shall consist of a clay "S" the with random boosting. The finalized tile material used shall be approved by the Community P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 K8 Home\sdp 2005-845 pc coa.doc i ; MINUTE MOTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-845 KB HOME MARCH 28, 2006 Development Department prior to issuance of building permit for the clubhouse. 16. Exterior shutters and any other exterior wood accents used on the units shall consist of a composite material. 17. The 18" front yard gravel strip identified on the residential landscaping plans shall be deleted with turf planted to the curb. Irrigation heads shall be set 18" from the curb as per CVWD standards. 18. Revise plan set number 2615 in order to provide garage access from the interior of the residence. 19. Proposed monument at the corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61 shall be reduced to four feet in height and shall be no larger in depth and width than three feet. Final monument design shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 05-845 KB Home\sdp 2005-845 pc coa.doc C ) PLANNING COMMISSION PH #D STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 APPLICANT: KB HOME COASTAL INC. ARCHITECT: KB HOME, RIVERSIDE DIVISION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RGA, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF LANDSCAPING, WALL, GATE, AND CLUBHOUSE PLANS FOR A 197 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON 39.7± ACRES LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET & AVENUE 60 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 31732 ON JANUARY 20, 2004. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) EAST: LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL/ EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL WEST: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) & LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL/ EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL Background and Overview: Tentative Tract Map 31732 was approved for this 39.7 acre property on January 20, 2004 (Attachment 1), The tract consists of 197 residential lots and a recreation lot. P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005 842 pc rpt2.doc Some of the lots have an alley for garage access. The architectural plans for six prototypical plan types were approved by the Planning Commission on October 11, 2005. The applicant is now requesting consideration of the remainder of the project layout, including the perimeter walls, gate, landscaping designs, and the clubhouse plans (Attachment 2). The project was originally to be called Prado Del Sol, but the name was recently changed to Palizada. The land to the south is also owned by the applicant and received approval of a tentative tract map (TTM 31733) on January 20, 2004. The two tracts were designed and approved by the original developer as "stand-alone" tracts. The applicant now intends to apply for approval of amended tract maps for both tracts in order to provide internal street access between the northern (Tract 31732) and southern (Tract 31733) portions of the project. The proposed revisions will include the removal of the southernmost gate accessing Monroe Street in Tract 31733. The plans submitted for this review reflect the future proposed tract changes. Wall and Gate Designs: Exterior perimeter walls have a desert -white stucco color with a brick band and a terra cotta cap. All exterior walls have been designed in a linear layout with pillars placed at approximately 120 foot intervals. Wall heights were originally proposed for five feet, but have been recommended in the conditions of approval to be raised to six feet based on the required noise study for the project. This noise study shall be required prior to submittal of the final grading plans. The entry gate on Monroe Street near Avenue 60 includes three 20' high towers, one on each side of the entrance with a clock tower in the center of the entry street. All towers in the combined Palizada project have been designed with plaster cement faces, clay tile roofs above 6"x12" rafter tails, and a tiered base designed with double rows of stepped brick. One tower features a clock with a herringbone brick inset, the other with a simple wrought iron feature. A recent addition to the landscaping plans includes a proposed 12 foot high corner monument at Monroe and Avenue 60, designed with a brick base, plaster cement face, and logo plaques, capped with a double row of stepped brick. The wooden entry gates are designed with see -through iron pickets and antiquated hinges and handles, and brick pilasters topped with light fixtures. Entry gates will be complimented with Italian Cypress and Fruitless Olive Trees. Interior walls are similar in design to the exterior walls but for the rear portion of interior residential lots facing the retention basin, the wall will utilize a partial -view, split style with stucco on the lower portion and wrought iron fence on the upper portion of the wall. P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005 842 pc rpt2.doc Landscaping Proposal: Exterior landscaping along Monroe Street has been designed to accommodate the required equestrian trail corridor. Exterior ground cover is generally decomposed granite with cobblestones and small boulders placed along the street line at certain intervals and street corners. The use of turf has been limited to the Monroe Street entrance. Tree plantings include 24" box Blue Palo Verde, Sweet Acacias, and African Sumac trees along the street and the addition of Italian Cypress tree columns at the entry gates. Shrub design utilizes water -efficient species. Interior common area landscaping design is reflective of the exterior design with the addition of Mediterranean and California Fan Palms, Carob Trees, and Pink Ironbark trees. The open space layout features the shared use of open space with walking paths as a central focus. The two largest open space areas double in use as storm water retention basins and recreation areas. The sides of the retention basins have been designed with desertscape features and walking paths. The retention basin immediately east of the recreation lot shows a basketball half -court and shade structure at the west end of the basin. The retention basins utilize desert landscaping with decomposed gravel and cobblestones to compliment the water -efficient plant palate. Landscaping around the clubhouse will utilize the same desert plant palette as the remainder of the project. Landscaping plans for the residential units show two front yard trees, shrubs, mounting, decorative decomposed gravel and a very small amount of turf. An 18" gravel strip between the turf and curb is shown. A no turf option front yard plan is also provided. The project includes some lots with alley garage access. The plans show a five foot wide planter adjacent to the alley with a six foot high block wall at the inside of the planter to enclose the rear yard. Within this planter a small canopy tree is shown along with "enhanced" desert planting. Clubhouse Proposal: Included with this proposal are plans of the northern clubhouse, which has been designed to reflect the Spanish style home plans. The clubhouse design cites the use of rust -colored concrete roofing tile but identifies random boosting (mudded tiles) in the elevations. Staff has recommended clay tiles be used instead of concrete. Other features include the use of off-white stucco with highlights including Moorish archways (some with tiled interiors) and cornflower -blue windows and doors. The clubhouse interior will include an exercise room and a "game room" which may be used for larger gatherings. The clubhouse lot will have a swimming pool, spa and event lawn. This clubhouse, though having a different floor plan than the southern one, will utilize the same color scheme and materials as the southern clubhouse in Tract 31733 and will be stylistically identical to the other clubhouse. n P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005 842 pc rpt2.doc Combined Prado Del Sol (now Palizada): As previously noted, the applicants are proposing to combine the northern and southern halves of the Prado Del Sol development into one unified project. This involves the extension of Montecito Hills Avenue and Saint Francis Avenue into the adjacent tract, the removal of one entry gate at the southern portion of Monroe Street in Tract 31733, and the redrawing of a number of connecting lot lines. The general layout, including streets and open space, will remain essentially the same as before. Although the Council recently approved the final map and improvement plans for both portions of the Palizada project on March 21, 2006, these approved final maps do not reflect the changes identified in this submittal to combine the two tracts. As a result, KB Home will still be required to amend the final maps. To reflect the merger of the two projects, the clubhouses, landscaping, gates, and walls have been designed with the same styles, materials, and colors. The landscaping palate, street layout, architectural plans, gates, and wall designs have all been designed by KB Home and RGA Landscape Architects as one unified project with two separate submittals. Analysis: Staff has analyzed both projects together and has not found any differences or incompatibilities with the dual submittals in regards to the architecture or landscaping. The proposed landscaping palate, wall and gate design, clubhouse, and recreational open space are appropriate and well designed. Unlike adjacent projects, Palizada does not have golf as its recreational focus. Though this project has been marketed as a "resort living" type development, there are a number of family -oriented features such as walking paths, the basketball court, a swimming pool and playgrounds. The clubhouse plans are well designed and will be compatible with the previously approved residential plans. However, Staff does recommend the clubhouse roof tile be clay "S" the with random tile boosting rather than a concrete tile to provide better compatibility with the architectural style. The landscaping is designed to be water - efficient and attractive with limited turf areas. The 18" front yard gravel strip shown between the turf and curb should be deleted with turf planted to the curb and sprinkler heads maintained 18" from the curb. Irrigation overspray and seepage should provide adequate irrigation for the turf next to the curb. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC): The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 1, 2006, and on a 3-0 vote recommended approval of the request as submitted with the following conditions: 1. The front yard gravel strip adjacent to the curb shall be deleted and replaced with turf with sprinkler heads maintained 18" from the curb. n P:\STAMsdp\sdp 2005-842 pc rpQ.doc 2. All perimeter walls shall be designed with the proposed brick band and terra cotta cap and raised to six feet, with effective height dependent on final detailed noise study based upon grading, wall and homes. 3. The clubhouse roof tile shall be a clay "S" tile. The tile to be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit for the clubhouse. 4. Additional architectural treatment shall be provided to the bottom portion of the entry towers to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department (NOTE: plan submitted to you shows additional treatment). PUBLIC NOTICE: This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 18, 2006. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW: All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. FINDINGS: The applicable Findings to approve this request, as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code, can be made as noted below. 1. Compliance with Zoning Code- The project is consistent with the applicable Zoning Code requirements such as amount of landscape setback areas and planting requirements. 2. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the clubhouse, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with other plans approved for construction in the tract and other surrounding development in the City. 3. Compliance with CEQA- This request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2003-492 which was certified by the City Council on January 20, 2004, and therefore, no further environmental review is needed. 4. Site Design- The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle ways, pedestrian amenities, and other site design elements have been established through n L P:\STAN1sdp\sdp 2005-842 pc rpt2.doc approval of Tract 31732 and is compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Landscape Design- New home and project landscaping including, but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials will be designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space. It will provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and comply with City and CVWD water efficiency, ensuring efficient water use. 6. Compliance with General Plan- The project is in compliance with the General Plan in that the property to be developed is designated for residential uses as proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2006- , approving Site Development Permit 2005-842 pursuant to the above -noted Findings and subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner p:\stan\sdp\sdp 2005-842 pc rpt2.doc MINUTE MOTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 KB HOME COASTAL MARCH 28, 2006 GENERAL 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final landscaping and irrigation working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 3. This Site Development Permit is valid for one year, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 4. SDP 2005-842 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2003-492 • Tentative Tract Map 31732 5. In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with these conditions has been achieved. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permits) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) v •_ PAReports - PC\2006\3 28 06\SDP 2005 842 KB Home\sdp 2005-842 pc coa.doc MINUTE MOTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMII SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 KB HOME COASTAL MARCH 28. 2006 • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 7. The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. 8. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened within or otherwise integral to the roof structure, using compatible architectural materials and treatments, so as to not be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. 9. All two car garages shall maintain the 20-foot x 20-foot minimum interior dimensions as specified in Chapter 9.150 (Parking), LQMC. 10. Air conditioning/pool equipment cannot be located in the side yards unless five feet of clearance between equipment and property line is provided. 11. Perimeter walls shall be capped with brick and raised to six feet, with effective height dependent on final detailed noise study based upon grading, walls, and homes. A noise study shall be provided prior to submittal of the final grading plans. 12. Proposed entry clock towers shall be capped with a clay "S" the and limited to 28' feet in height. Final design shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit for the entry towers. 13. The clubhouse roof tile shall consist of a clay "S" tile. The finalized tile material used shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit for the clubhouse. 14. Additional architectural treatment shall be provided to the bottom portion of the entry towers to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 15. Proposed monument at the corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60 shall be reduced to four feet in height and shall be no larger in depth and width than P:\Reports - PC\2006\3 28-06\SDP 2005-842 KB Home\sdp 2005-842 pc coa.doc MINUTE MOTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMII SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-842 KB HOME COASTAL MARCH 28, 2006 three feet. Final monument design shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 16. Planting along the alley lots shall include one small tree or large shrub per lot. 17. The 18" front yard gravel strip identified on the residential landscaping plans shall be deleted with turf planted to the curb. Irrigation heads shall be set 18" from the curb as per CVWD standards. PAReports PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 2005-842 KB Home\sdp 2005-842 pc coa.doc `' CASE No. CASE MAP SDP 2005-842 KB HOME- N SCALE: NTS mmw PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-855 APPLICANT: DESERT ELITE, INC. ARCHITECT: LEN NOBLE CO. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RGA, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. PH #E LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 52 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR TWO PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS FOR USE IN TRACT 31202 (RANCHO SANTANA) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION: BACKGROUND: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003- 472 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31202 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-064 WHICH WERE CERTIFIED ON JULY 1, 2003. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL Tract 31202 (Rancho Santana) is a 201 lot single family project that was approved on June 10, 2003 (Attachment 1). A Specific Plan was also approved for the project to allow minimum 8,000 square foot lots (rather than minimum 10,000 square foot) and revise development standards. Thirteen of the lots within this tract are estate -sizes lots with each approximately '/2 acre in size and located in the southeast corner of the tract (The Estates at Rancho Santana). These 13 larger lots are proposed to be developed with the two proposed prototypical residential plan types. PAReports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 2006-855 Desert Elite\sdp 2006-855 pc rpt.doc Presently, residences are being constructed in other parts of the tract by the applicant and Lennar Communities. These previously approved residences range from 2,130 to 2,865 square feet for Desert Elite, and from 2,650 to 3,010 square feet for Lennar Communities. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for two additional residential plan types (Attachment 2) exclusively for the 13 large estate -size lots. Each plan is designed with two front elevation treatments. The plans utilize Spanish or Mediterranean styles of architecture and are 3,553 and 4101 square feet. Each plan also includes the option of a detached 568 square feet casita in front of the residence. All buildings are to be one story with a maximum height of 19'-8". Exterior colors are earth tones with concrete "S" roof tile proposed. Stone veneer is used on portions of the facades on the type "B" plan. Decorative shutters, exterior lights and metal accents are shown. Sectional garage doors have the appearance and color of wood, but will be constructed of an insulated urethane material. Material and color samples have been submitted and will be available at the meeting. The proposed plans are architecturally similar and compatible to the previously approved residences (Attachment 3). Preliminary typical front yard landscaping plans have been submitted for each of the unit types. Typical landscaping plans include three to four canopy trees, three small trees, shrubs, decomposed granite groundcover and a limited amount of turf. A unique feature of the lots proposed for these units is a 10' wide equestrian trail proposed along the front of seven lots (lots 1, 67-72) and at the rear of the others (lots 61-66), although no horse stables are provided on -site. These trails will lead out to and connect with the trails along Avenue 52 and Monroe Street. ISSUES/ANALYSIS: The project as presented is designed well and complies with applicable zoning and Specific Plan requirements. The residences are compatible with previously approved residences for the applicant and Lennar Communities. A no turf option for the front yards will be provided. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC): The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 1, 2006, and on a 3-0 vote recommended approval of the request as submitted with the condition that a no turf front yard option be provided to buyers (Attachment 3). PUBLIC NOTICE: This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 18, 2006. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 2006-855 Desert Elite\sdp 2006-855 pc rpt.doc V I� notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. FINDINGS: The Findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below. 1. Compliance with Zoning Code- The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code, which requires a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights and planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that two facades for each of the plans are proposed and varied planes and roof lines are provided. 2. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with other plans approved for construction in the tract and other surrounding development in the City. 3. Compliance with CEQA- This request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2003-472 which was certified by the City Council on July 1, 2003, and therefore, no further environmental review is needed. 4. Site Design- The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle ways, pedestrian amenities, and other site design elements have been established through approval of Tract 31202 and is compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Landscape Design- New home and project landscaping includes, but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials will be designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space. It will provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and comply with City and CVWD water efficiency, ensuring efficient water use. 6. Compliance with General Plan- The project is in compliance with the General Plan in that the property to be developed is designated for residences as proposed. PAReports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 2006-855 Desert Elite\sdp 2006-855 pc rpt.doc Adopt Minute Motion 2006- , approving Site Development Permit 2006-855 pursuant to the above -noted Findings and subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Samples of previously approved plans. Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner p:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-855 pc rpt.doc C �- MINUTE MOTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-855 DESERT ELITE, INC. DATE: GENERAL 1. This approval is for the following prototype plans: Plan 1 - 3,553± sq. ft. Plan 2 - 4,101 ± sq. ft. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 3. Guest houses/casitas', as defined in LQMC Section 9.60.100, are limited to one per lot/primary dwelling. A master Minor Use Permit for all guest house/casitas can be processed, subject to the provisions of said Section as determined by the Community Development Department. 4. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 5. This Site Development Permit is valid for one year, which means at least one building permit shall be issued for these units. An extension may be applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code if a building permit will not be obtained within the one year approval period. 6. SDP 2006-855 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2003-472 • Tentative Tract Map 31202 • Specific Plan 2003-064 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with these conditions has been achieved. PAReports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 2006-855 Desert Elite\sdp 2006-855 pc coa.doc 0 \' MINUTE MOTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMM SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-855 DESERT ELITE, INC. DATE: 7. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened within or otherwise integral to the roof structure, using compatible architectural materials and treatments, so as to not be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. 8. All two car garages shall maintain the 20-foot x 20-foot minimum interior dimensions as specified in Chapter 9.150 (Parking), LQMC. 9. Air conditioning/pool equipment cannot be located in the side yards unless five feet of clearance between equipment and property line is provided. 10. A no turf front yard option shall be provided for all types of lots by deleting the small turf area in the front yard and adding appropriate low water use plants. 11. One of the model units used for sales purposes (if constructed) shall have artificial turf in the front yard and be offered as an option in the front yard for all plans. P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\SDP 2006-855 Desert Elite\sdp 2006-855 pc coa.doc ATTACHMENT #1 48TH I ru 9 W Z 0 O N O U AVENUE 52ND AVENUE 54TH VICINITY MAP N.T.S. .....__.__ JL 4 } rt ya�`t� ♦i�Rµ�FtV fi`�� � � Y4 y ay 4 ice, �''•' or ILAI Ul EP PH #F STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 APPLICANT: BLAKE JUMPER PROPERTY OWNER: BLAKE JUMPER ENGINEER: BOB GRABLE, P&D CONSULTANTS LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF MADISON STREET, 500 FEET NORTH OF AVENUE 60 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBDIVISION OF ±2.58 ACRES INTO 8 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ASSOCIATED LETTERED LOTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UP TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RL / VACANT (CITRUS GROVE) SOUTH: RL / VACANT (UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL) EAST: RL / ANDALUSIA TRACT 31681 WEST: RL / VACANT (UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL) P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 Blake Jumper\TT 33801 BLAKE JUMPER PC RPT.doc Background: The project site is a former rural residence located on the west side of Madison Street approximately 500 feet north of Avenue 60. A vacant garage and cluster of tamarisk trees are all that remain on the site. The 2.5 acre property is an elongated, rectangular lot, 660 feet deep with 170 feet of frontage along Madison Street. The General Plan designation of Low Density Residential allows for up to 4 dwelling units per acre and the zoning requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. This property also lies within an existing Equestrian Overlay district which permits equestrian -related accessory uses. This portion of the City was annexed on June 25, 2002. Project Request: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 2.58 acre site into 8 single-family residential lots (Attachment 1). Three lettered lots would be created, one for storm water retention, one for landscaping, and a private street. No gate has been proposed at the entry. The proposed density of this subdivision is 3.1 dwelling units per acre, which is within the maximum four dwelling units per acre range allowed in the Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation. The smallest lot proposed for this project is 8,170 square feet and the largest is 10,028 square feet, with an average lot size of 8,688 square feet. Surroundina Residential Projects: Although the surrounding properties are currently undeveloped, all have residential projects either proposed or approved. South of the project site is Tract 32201, a 7.7 acre site approved on July 20, 2004 for 24 lots ranging in size from 8,010 to 12,375 square feet. Grading has already begun for Tract 32201. Though no homes have yet been built, a wall has been constructed along the south perimeter of the proposed site. North of this proposed site, currently the location of a small citrus grove, staff is reviewing an application for Tentative Tract 34495, a proposal for 25 single family residential properties along Calle Conchita to be an average of 18,061 square feet in size. As the perimeter lots of Tentative Tract 34495 are cul-de-sac lots, if approved they would potentially be about 8,000 feet larger than those proposed for this project. To the east and west of this site is Tract 31681, Andalusia at Coral Mountain. This single family residential project crosses both sides of Madison Street and has lot sizes ranging from ±9,800 to ± 17,000 square feet. A residential street has been proposed for Andalusia along the western perimeter of this project site. Across Madison Street to the east of the project site is the location of Andalusia's maintenance building, currently under construction. Layout and Conceptual Landscaping: The layout consists of a single, 650 foot long linear cul-de-sac street with a 12'x6' PAReports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 Blake Jumper\TT 33801 BLAKE JUMPER PC RPTAOC landscaped island at the entry. The project's un-gated entry will access Madison Street. Access onto Madison Street is limited to a right -in, right -out, due to the close proximity of adjacent intersections, within 500 feet in either direction. A recently constructed median is located at the center of Madison Street. The identified Multi - Purpose Trail proposed along Madison Street will not be required, as it is not identified in the General Plan and adjacent properties have not been required to construct the trail feature. The applicants have provided a conceptual landscaping and layout plan, but have not identified a specific landscaping palate or groundcover. Lot "B," the retention basin, and lot "C," a 6 foot wide perimeter lot along the south wall, are proposed to be landscaped. The proposed entry will be un-gated with stamped concrete paving and a 12'x6' landscaped entry island at the center. In their conceptual landscaping, the applicants have proposed to provide off -site landscaping within the triangular lot located off -site between the northeastern portion of the project and Madison Street. Details concerning the proposed landscaping and wall design will be reviewed and approved during the site development permit process. Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 18, 2006. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. The official Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on March 13, 2006 and was also published in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 18, 2006. As of this writing, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. Items of Discussion: Lot "C," the perimeter landscaped lot along the south portion of the street, has been designed to be 6 feet wide. The recommended conditions of approval are to shift the street an additional 4 feet to the north in order to increase to landscaped width of lot "C" to 10 feet. The applicants have proposed a 28 foot wide private street. Public Works has recommended the 28 foot travel width be widened an additional 4 feet to allow for parking on the south side of the street. This would result in an eight foot depth reduction to lots 2 through 8, losing approximately 520 square feet each and resulting in a revised lot depth of 124 feet. Lot one would have a negligible loss of square footage if the cul-de-sac were to remain at its current location with a 2' setback from the southern property line. Though the identified street cross section detail does not match the actual street design on the tentative tract map, it is in line P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 Blake Jumper\TT 33801 BLAKE JUMPER PC RPTAOC G with the City's standard cross section for parking on one side and Public Work's recommendation. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval of this request can be made, as conditioned, and contained in the attached Resolutions for the Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map. RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-546; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 33801, subject to attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. TT 33801 map exhibit Prepared by: Andre J. Mogensen, Asso late Planner ,. - P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 Blake Jumper\TT 33801 BLAKE JUMPER PC RPT.doc v PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 2.58 ACRES INTO 8 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 33801 BLAKE JUMPER WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28" day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Blake Jumper for the subdivision of 2.58 acres into 8 single-family residential lots and other miscellaneous lots, located on the west side of Madison Street approximately 500 feet north of Avenue 60, more particularly described as: APN 766-080-009 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2005-546 for this Tentative Tract Map in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 33801: 1. The Tentative Tract Map and its improvement and design, as recommended, are consistent with the General Plan in that its street design and lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size, and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision and its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because mitigation measures and conditions have been incorporated into the project approval to mitigate impacts where needed. Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Tentative Tract Map 33801 Blake Jumper Adopted: March 28, 2006 3. The design of the subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban infrastructure improvements are existing, or will be installed based on applicable local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the revised subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access is provided within the project and to adjacent public streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the honorable Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 33801 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28tb day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Acting Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.orq. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.ca_b_mphanilbook_s_.co_ mfor use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1► Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of- ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial, Option A 110' ROW) - The standard 55 feet from the centerline of the Realigned Madison Street (Plan Set No. 02099) for a total 110-foot ultimate developed right of way. 9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right- of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS PAREPORTS - PC\200613-28-061TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPERTC COA TM-33801.DOC `� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 1) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 32-foot travel width with parking restricted to one side and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. B. CUL DE SACS 1► The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on the tentative map. 11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1" equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement 12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along the house side of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right- of-ways as follows: PAREPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 A. Madison Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 15. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 16. Direct vehicular access to Madison Street from lots with frontage along Madison Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, access roadway, or other encroachments will occur. 18. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 19. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -image file of such Final Map. The Final Map shall be of a 1 " = 40' scale. r P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 SLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 PROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 20. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 21. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1" = 40' Horizontal D. Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical E. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. F. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical NOTE: A through F to be submitted concurrently. The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department PAREPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. G. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1- foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 22. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering Library at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Online Engineering Library hyperlink. 23. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC�. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 24. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off - site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 25. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 26. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 27. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 28. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 30. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 31. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. E. Immediately prior to the commencement of grading or other site disturbance, including vegetation removal, between February 1 and August 15th, the project biologist shall conduct Migratory Treaty Bird Act -compliance (MTBA) surveys and report the results to the City and applicant. Any necessary protection shall be put in place prior to the initiation in the areas of potential impact. 85. At least one nesting bird survey shall be conducted, and more if deemed necessary by the consulting biologist, ending no less than three days prior to grading. In the event active nests are found, exclusionary fencing shall be placed 200 feet around the nest. F. Proof of retention of archaeological monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving or clearing permit. Monitors shall include an Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians designee. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. The final report on the archaeological monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development PAREPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. Any collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. G. Prior to groundbreaking, a field survey shall be conducted by the applicant in order to identify and document potential surface fossiliferous resources. A report of findings from the field survey shall be transmitted to Community Development Department and shall be provided to site monitors. H. Proof of retention of paleontological monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving or clearing permit. On- and off - site monitoring of earth -moving and grading in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Any recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. r PAREPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 32. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 33. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 34. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more than one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments or as required by the Public Works Department in the plan review process. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 35. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 36. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 37. The applicant shall comply with the approved Preliminary Drainage Report dated February 6, 2006 and provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets and include any resulting uncaptured tributary stormwater flows. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 38. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 39. For properties where sump conditions exist, the applicant must either define a diversion/overflow strategy or retain upstream stormwater as required for existing as -built conditions from all off -site tributary flow from the respective high points. The applicant must provide either on -site retention or alternative facilities of diversion/pass through, if selected. Historical flow paths should be identified and routing provided in the hydrology analysis equivalent to historical flow direction. As local topography allows, tributary areas may exceed limits of property lines adjacent to public roads. The 100-year storm shall be the governing event in the designer's evaluation. 40. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be passed through a prefilter system comparable to the MaxWell Plus Primary Settling Chamber (or equivalent) before being disposed in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. A geotechnical study shall confirm the applicability of sand filter use for the development based on the existing soil conditions. The sand filter and leach field or equivalent system shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain nuisance water surges from landscape area, residential unit, and off -site street nuisance water. Flow from adjacent well sites shall be designed for retention area percolation by separate infiltration system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter design shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow. t P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 SLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 41. No fence or wall shall be constructed along the street sides of any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. Pursuant to the aforementioned, the applicant may be required to extend the northerly property as required by the City Engineer. 42. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shag be planted with maintenance free ground cover. For retention basins on individual lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet. 43. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 44. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 45. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. UTILITIES 46. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 47. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 48. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 49. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply P:IREPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 51. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W): Widen the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The west curb face shall be located forty three feet (43') west of the centerline. Other required improvements in the Madison Street right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, plus a single overhead street light at each street connecting to Madison Street. b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at P:\REPORTS - PC12006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPERTC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. c) The identified 10-foot wide Multi -Purpose Trail shall be eliminated and replaced with landscaping. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Lot A - Construct 32-foot wide travel width measured from gutter flow line to gutter flow line, provided parking is restricted to the south side and there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant makes provisions for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions. 2) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the curb return and away from the intersection when possible. 3) The applicant shall provide a 10-foot street setback along the southerly property line for construction of landscaping and/or the proposed retaining wall. C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. 2) The applicant shall provide a 10-foot street setback along the southerly property line for construction of landscaping and/or the proposed retaining wall. Additionally, the cul de sac shall have a 10-foot setback to the westerly property line. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. r, P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 52. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 53. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 54. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: Primary Entry (Madison Street): Right turn movements in and out are permitted. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. 58. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 59. Entry paving within Lot A shall be designed and constructed with colored, stamped concrete to the specifications of the City Engineer. 60. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. CONSTRUCTION 61. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 62. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 63. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and entry median. 64. The applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner in order to provide landscaping for the off -site, triangular shaped parcel, located between the northeast corner of the project site and Madison Street. 65. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 66. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to rough grading plans checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 67. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 68. Wildflower seed mixes, if used, that are susceptible to weed control problems shall not be used in any hydro -seed operations. An alternative seed mix which will achieve erosion and dust control, with minimal weed growth, shall be approved by the Community Development Department. QUALITY ASSURANCE P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 69. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 70. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 71. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 72. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 73. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 74. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 75. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 76. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-646 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 77. Tentative Tract 33801 shall provide for parks through payment of an in -lieu fee, as specified in Chapter 13.48, LQMC. The in -lieu fee shall be based on the fair market value of the land within the subdivision. Land value information shall be provided to the Community Development Director, via land sale information, a current fair market value of land appraisal, or other information on land value within the subdivision. The Community Development Director may consider any subdivider -provided or other land value information source for use in calculation of the parkland fee. The amount of the fee may be determined prior to Tentative Tract Map approval or the fee amount may be deferred by the Community Development Director upon written request by the applicant. The amount of parkland used in the fee calculation is .0672. 78. The developer shall pay school mitigation fees based on their requirements. Fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance by the City. FIRE DEPARTMENT 79. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 80. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 81. Final Fire Department conditions will be addressed prior to final map. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. MISCELLANEOUS 82. Should casitas be part of the home design for the production homes on the site, a master Minor Use Permit for all such casitas shall be secured in conjunction with the recordation of the Final Map. A covenant and provision in the CC&R's shall be recorded informing all property owners of the Minor Use Permit and its conditions of approval. 83. A permit from the Community Development Department is required for any temporary or permanent tract signs. Uplighted tract identification signs are allowed subject to the provisions of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Ordinance. 84. Any model home/sales complex shall comply with the requirements of Section P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - I TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 BLAKE JUMPER MARCH 28, 2006 9.60.250 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a Minor Use Permit approval and deposit, prior to establishing any model units or temporary sales facilities. P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\3-2"MTT 33801 & EA 05-546 BLAKE JUMPER\PC COA TM-33801.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546 APPLICANT: BLAKE JUMPER WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 281" day of March, 2006, held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Blake Jumper for Environmental Assessment 2005-546 prepared for Tentative Tract 33801 located on the west side of Madison Street approximately 500 feet north of Avenue 60, more particularly described as: APN 766-080-009 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that this Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2005-546. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. D•IDnnn to D!'19/1/1RI'3.9D 09ITT IQQnl R. rA OR FAR Dlnb. 1--ITT1QD(1 FA (1F FAR — — ,Inn Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Environmental Assessment 2005-546 Blake Jumper Adopted: March 28, 2006 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. S. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-546 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.51d1• 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the honorable Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. r Dn Dnnn.�o D(99nnR\Q 10 nA%TT 11Qn1 R. FA A9 RAR 14Dl11 FA /1R FAR.... .en A— I Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Environmental Assessment 2005-546 Blake Jumper Adopted: March 28, 2006 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-546 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-546 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Acting Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California D•\Rnn..nn Dr\onnR\o 10 nR\TT 110M R. FA nF FAR RIo4n 1--OTT Qggnl FA nF FAR --,— Environmental Checklist Form `i 3. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 33801 Lead agency name and address: Contact person and phone number: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Andrew Mogensen, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 Project location: The west side of Madison Street, approximately 555 feet north of Avenue 60, APN 766-080-009 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Blake Jumper 80553 Jasper Park Indio, CA 92201 6. General Plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) A proposed Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 2.39 acre site into eight single family residential lots, as well as a lot for retention, and for a private cul-de-sac. The lots are proposed to be a minimum of 8,408 square feet, and range to 9,516 square feet. Access will be taken from Madison Street. The site has been developed as a single family home. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Agriculture (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) South: Single family homes under construction (Low Density Residential) East: Madison Street West: Vacant lands (Low Density Residential) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving a least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on thi following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date -2- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequatel3 supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following eact question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information source show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the projec falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expos( sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on. site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well a: operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then th( checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less thar significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" i! appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one of more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where th( incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significan Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigatior measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant leve (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist wen within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant t( applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated o refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specifri conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to thi page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used o individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -3- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway'? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) 1. a)-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of 8 single family homes. Th, City's Zoning Ordinance allows single and two story homes to be built in the Lov Density Residential designation. This type of development is consistent with th, development currently under way or planned in the vicinity of the site. The site ani surrounding area are some distance from the Santa Rosa Mountains, and constructioi of the homes will not block views to these mountains. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic structures on the site. Th site is located on Madison Street, which is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor ii the General Plan. As such, the project proponent will be required to meet setback ani landscaping requirements for the corridor, to improve the aesthetic appearance o Madison Street in front of the property. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant. d) The construction of 8 houses will result in minor increases in light generation at th site, primarily due to car headlights and landscaping lighting. The car headlights wi' be intermittent and temporary, and will not impact the area. The City imposes stric standards for landscaping and residential lighting, which is required to contain lightin within the site boundaries. Impacts associated with light are therefore expected to b insignificant. ME Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan E1R p. II1-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract'? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) 11. a)-c) The project site has been developed as a single family home, and is not currently ii agriculture. Lands to the north, and a small area to the east, are small orchards. Th development of the site will not impact the ability of these uses to continue it agriculture. Overall, however, there is no significant agriculture in the area, and th land has been designated in the General Plan for urban uses. There are no Williamsoi Act contracts on the property. No impacts to agriculture are expected. -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I11. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) III. a)- e) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for thi monitoring of air quality in the City, and the implementation of air qualit, management plans. The development of air quality plans by the SCAQMD was bast( on the City's General Plan land uses and mapping. Therefore, the proposed project i expected to be consistent with these plans. The proposed project will generate the potential for air quality impacts during hot] construction and operation of the project. Construction impacts will be those associated with PM10, or fugitive dust, and grading equipment. The project can b, expected to generate up to 63.1 pounds of fugitive dust per day during gradinl operations. This falls below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 150 pound, per day. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact of PM 10 emissions during construction. Based on mass grading of the site, and the equipment likely to be required to grade th, property, the potential vehicular emissions from construction equipment wen estimated. The resulting emissions are shown in Table 1, below. IM, Table 1 Grading Equipment Emissions - Diesel powered Equipment Pieces hrs/day CO ROC Nox Sox PMto Fork Lift - 50 hp 0 8 - - - - - Fork Lift - 175 hp 0 8 - - - - - Trucks - Off -Highway 0 8 - - - - - Tracked Loader 0 8 - - - - - Tracked Tractor 0 8 - - - - - Scraper 1 8 10.00 2.16 30.72 3.68 3.28 Wheeled Dozer 0 8 - - - - - Wheeled Loader 0 8 - - - - - Wheeled Tractor 1 8 28.64 1.44 10.16 0.72 1.12 Roller 0 8 - - - - - Motor Grader 2 8 2.42 0.62 11.41 1.38 0.98 Miscellaneous 1 8 5.40 1.20 13.60 1.14 1.12 Total: 46.46 5.42 65.89 6.92 6.50 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance _ 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 As demonstrated in the Table, emissions from equipment used during the grading process are expected to be less than significant. The proposed project will also result in air emissions in the long term. These will bt primarily associated with vehicle trips to and from the project site. Table demonstrates the resulting emissions, based on an average of 77 daily trips. Table 2 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Tot; Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/da 77 x 15 = 1,155 PM10 PM10 PM Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wei Pounds at 50 mph 0.23 5.97 1.22 0.03 O.0 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 As demonstrated, the proposed project is not expected to exceed thresholds o significance associated with long term air emissions. The proposed subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors. 1 "Trip Generation, 71h Edition," prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, for category 210, single Tamil: detached. -7- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact !Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Biological Technical Report, EcoSystems, 2i06) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Biological Technical Report, EcoSystems, 2.06) X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Biological Technical Report, EcoSystems, 2 06) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Biological -s- Technical Report, EcoSystems, 2.06) IV. a)-f) A biological resource study was prepared for the proposed project2. The study include( both records searches and on site investigation. The on site survey identified non native plant communities on the site, consisting of grasslands, tamarisk and rudera habitats. No sensitive plants were identified during the site survey. No sensitive animal, bird or lizard species were observed, nor was sign identified. A cactus wret was observed foraging off -site. The site includes a stand of non-native tamarisk, whicl could harbor nests of species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In orde to assure that no protected species are nesting on the subject property, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 2 1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the removal of potential nesting vegetation (i.e. trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc.) supporting migratory birds/raptors shall bt avoided during the nesting season (if feasible), recognized from February 1 througl August 31. If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologis shall conduct a migratory nesting bird survey to ensure that vegetation remova would not impact any active nests. Surveys must be conducted no more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If active nests are identified during nesting bir( surveys, then the nesting vegetation would be avoided until the nesting event ha completed and the juveniles can survive independently from the nest. The biologist shall flag the nesting vegetation and would establish an adequate buffe (e.g., construction fencing) around the nesting vegetation. The size of the buffe would be based on the type of bird nesting (i.e., raptors shall be afforded large buffers). Clearing/grading shall not occur within the buffer until the nesting evert has completed. This condition assures that the impacts to nesting birds are reduced to less that significant levels. The biology study found that there is neither riparian habitat nor wetland areas on the project site. The development will not conflict with any City preservation ordinances, or with the implementation of either the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habita Conservation Plan or the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Overall, impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less that significant. "Draft Biological Technical Report" prepared by EicoSystems Restoration Associates, revised February 2006. -9- Potentially Less Than Less Than Ni Significant Significant w/ Significant Imp Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? (Cultural Resource Survey, Applied Earthworks, 9 05) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? (cultural Resource Survey, Applied Earthworks, 9.05) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. SS ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside offormal urce Survey, Applied cemeteries'? (Cultural Resource Earthworks, 9,05) V.a)-d) A cultural resource survey was conducted on the proposed project site;. The stud; included both records searches and on site investigation. The on site investigation found no evidence of archaeological resources on the property. The structures locate( on the site were constructed in the 1960's, and are not historically significant. Tht City's standard policy is to require monitoring of all properties during trenching an( grading to assure that any buried cultural resources that might be found are properl, identified. The proposed project has been required to comply with this standard polic) by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). This standard monitoring requiremen will assure that any impacts to currently unknown cultural resources are less that significant. The project site lies on the edge of the ancient Lake Cahuilla lakebed. N( paleontological resources were identified in the cultural resource survey. Whilt reviewing the survey, HPC considered the potential for paleontological resources or the site, and required the preparation of an on -site investigation prior to the initiatior of grading activities. In order to assure that no unique paleontological resources exis on the subject property, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. Prior to any grading activity, a field survey shall be conducted by the applicant it order to identify and document potential surface fossiliferous resources. A repor of findings from the field survey shall be transmitted to the Community Development Department and site monitors. This condition of approval will assure that potential impacts associated will paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels. Overall impacts to cultural resources are expected to be less than significant. 3 "Cultural Resources Survey of Tentative Tract 33801," prepared by Applied Earthworks, September 2005. -10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault'? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking'? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MLA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste watt7? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-d) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The projec proponent will be required to implement the Uniform Building Code standard: required for active seismic areas such as the City and region, to assure that impact: associated with ground shaking are reduced to less than significant levels. The site is located in an area with high potential for liquefaction. The City requires tht preparation of site specific geotechnical analyses prior to construction. In order tc assure that this analysis addresses, and provides recommendations for the potentia liquefaction hazard, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. Pre -construction geotechnical analysis shall include a specific focus on the potential for liquefaction at the site. Should high groundwater levels be encountered, the geotechnical engineering report shall include recommendation: for foundation design and site preparation to alleviate the hazard. The site is flat, and is located in an area that is similarly flat. No hillsides occur in tht surrounding area, so there is no potential for landslides at the site. Soils in the City art not expansive. The proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer, an( no septic systems will be installed. With implementation of the mitigation measure listed above, impacts associated will geology and soils will be less than significant. -12- r Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment'? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) - c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle I X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment'? (Application materials) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death 13- involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The ultimate development of 8 homes will not result in any impacts from hazards of hazardous materials. The residents will participate in the household hazardous wastt programs implemented by Waste Management throughout the City. There are n( identified hazardous materials sites within the project area. The project has beer integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There art no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. -14- Potentially less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa Impact :Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan FIR p. 111-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been anted)? ((ieneral Plan FIR p. 111_187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1106) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1,06) e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff`? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1, 06) X f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1-06)---_- --------- - -- - - -- - -- — -----�__ -15- g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1 06) Vill. a)-g) The development of eight single family homes is not expected to violate any watt' quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The homes will utilize group( water provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic an( landscaping uses. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan identifies sufficient water supplies, now and in the future, to serve its service area. The City also implement! water conservation through landscaping irrigation controls and installation of efficien fixtures. Impacts associated with groundwater are expected to be less than significant. A hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project``. The study determined tht configuration required for the retention basin to be located at the east boundary of tht site. The basin is required by the City to contain the 100 year storm on site. "Flit analysis resulted in a basin which will have a capacity of 17,220 cubic feet, which wil accommodate the 100 year storm flow of 15,839 cubic feet. The City Engineer wil continue to review the hydrology analysis through final design, to assure that capacit, is sufficient in the basin. The City requires the implementation of best management practices during construction to assure that water erosion does not contaminate surface water. Thest requirements will reduce potential impacts associated with erosion of soils to less that significant levels. The property is not located within a 100 year flood plain, as mapped by FEMA. 4 "Preliminary Hydrology Study for Tentative Tract No. 33801" prepared by P&D Consultants, January 2006. -16- Potentially Less Than Less Than :N Significant Significant w/ Significant Imp Impact :Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: ? a) Physically divide an established community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use ? plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect'? (General Plan Exhibit c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ? conservation plan or natural community conservation plan'? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) I act IX. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designatioi assigned to the property. The site contains an unoccupied residential unit, an( construction of the project will therefore not impact an existing community. Thy proposed project will be required to comply with any habitat conservation plan ii effect at the time of development of the site. No impacts associated with land use ar expected. 17- Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant In] Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) Yo pact ►0 /*4 X. a) & b) The site is located in an area of the City designated Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1 which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resource; as a result of the proposed project. 18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards X established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MFA p. I I I ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels'? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. III ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? (General Plan land use map) - XI. a)-f) The proposed project will be located in the southern end of the City, on the west sidt of Madison Street. Due to the location of the retention basin adjacent to the roadway the nearest residential property will be located approximately 100 feet from the right o way. The project also proposes a 6 foot high block wall across the frontage or Madison Street. This portion of Madison Street was determined in the General Plar EIR to be an area of relative low noise levels. Build out of the General Plan will no cause the proposed project to experience noise levels in excess of City standards -19- Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project site will generate higher noise levels during construction. However, then are no sensitive receptors adjacent to the site, and impacts are expected to be less that significant. The property is not located within the influence area of an airport or airstrip. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: X a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff, application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere'? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The ultimate build out of 8 single family residences will not result in substantia population growth, or the need for additional housing. The site is currently vacant, an( development of the project will not displace people. No impacts associated will population and housing are expected. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) — X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks i X Master Plan) _ 7 Other public facilities'? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) - - --� - - — -- -- - XIII. a) The development of 8 single family homes will have no impact on public services. The project will be required to contribute the required development impact fees, whiel include police and fire service facilities improvements, as well as park maintenance Quimby fees will be required for the purchase of park lands The project proponent wil be required to pay the school fees in place at the time of development to mitigate potential impacts to schools. _22_ Potentially Significant Impact _ XIV. RECREATION — Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'? (Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) As stated above under Public Services, the proposed project will contribute Quimb} and development impact fees to mitigate and recreation. No impacts are expected. for potential impacts associated with park: -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact FXV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --� Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. 111-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM 33901) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (TTM 33801) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity'? X (TTM 33801) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) XV. a)-g) The proposed project will generate approximately 77 daily trips. This portion o Madison Street is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service at General Pla build out. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, impact associated with the proposed project will be less than significant. The proposed project will include a single straight cul-de-sac accessing Madison Stret at a 90 degree angle. No hazards are expected. The proposed project will be required t -24- meet the City's parking requirements. The proposed project will have no impact of transit facilities. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board'? (General Plan META, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects'? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan META, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies j X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed'? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) Development of eight single family homes will have no impact on utilities. The projec is served by C'VWD for water and wastewater treatment, and the development of eigh -26- homes will have no impact on their facilities. The proposed retention basin will bi designed to control the 100 year storm, so that storm flows do not impact City streets Waste Management of the Desert serves the project, and will add these homes to thei service when constructed. They dispose of waste at several regional landfills whirl have capacity to serve the proposed project. 27 �� ` J Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF i SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory'? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals'? c) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) Biological and cultural resource studies on the project site concluded that impact: associated with these resources would be less than significant. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan, and will not affect the City"s General Plan goals. XVII. c) The development of the homes will have no cumulative impacts, because the project is consistent with the land use designations assigned to the site. XVII. d) The proposed project will not have any significant impact on human beings. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ� process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available to review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist wen within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures base( on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatio( Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -29- Y .X 0 a ro b CIO y b c� o � b 4) , �aQ o O > ¢d Fr a p on aDa�a �wU °c9 Va' v 0 cWi, cn d Q w CC a� 4n d o N 0 00 M M o � v N oo > F zVaQ 0 w F Q w a u UU a F � w 0 U Qi (li �i z a a � F � � � 0�4 A q UA UA o p G F 0 b a roOou yQ` o^u tom, U w Q a 7 D7 r U r. W OV o v Q �CC4 i F � u R a � F or o c 3b �� 'a .n x1 m o � � F a > m o� o p: R7 c F+ v 7. o: \ c /§ d; �b )§ § 4 ) � ]} ) / \ƒ iE \ (o )( > �- (\ 5§ uc ec ] )§2 !)=2°» \§ \ ƒ0 eeb4— 2 §22 §eosa —3b oeƒg§7cj § S )2)`2f® =§>1 m >;JG/0> � e2QeeeN pp. PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-557 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 34243 APPLICANT: INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (FOR MASQUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC) PROPERTY OWNER: MASQUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC ENGINEER: MDS CONSULTING LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, 1,000 t FEET WEST OF MADISON STREET REQUEST: SUBDIVISION OF 20 t ACRES INTO 70 SINGLE-FAMILY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-557 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UP TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) pP:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative IMasquehtt 34243 pc rpt.doc SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RL / RESIDENTIAL (PGA WEST AND PUERTA AZUQ SOUTH: RL / VACANT EAST: RL / RESIDENTIAL (LION'S GATE) WEST: RL / RESIDENTIAL (SANTA ROSA TRAILS) BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the north side of Avenue 58 approximately 1,000 feet west of Madison Street and immediately east of Santa Rosa Trails (Attachment 1).The site is an rectangular site 1,526' + deep and 661.3' wide. The site is vacant and void of any significant vegetation. The site is surrounded on the north, east and west by block walls. PROJECT REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 20 acre site into a gated 70 single-family residential lot project with private streets (Attachment 2). Several miscellaneous lots would be created for storm water retention, common area landscaping and private streets. The proposed density of this subdivision is 3.5 dwelling units per acre which is below the maximum four dwelling units per acre range allowed by the Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation. The existing RL zoning on the property allows a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. All proposed lots exceed this requirement with the smallest lot being 8,627 square feet, the largest at 15,888 square feet and averaging 9,100 square feet. One long narrow retention basin/recreational space of 64,468 0.48 acres) square feet is proposed adjacent the middle of the site. Twenty- six of the lots would back-up to the retention basin and have a combination block/metal picket rear yard wall to allow views into the landscaped basin. The project will have gated vehicular and pedestrian access from Avenue 58 in the middle of the site. The project will be provided with a single 36-foot wide loop street. At three of the four corners there will be a short 28 foot wide hammerhead style street to provide access to two lots in the corner. The long legs of the loop street "bow" out at approximately mid point of its length to provide a 10' wide landscape median island and traffic calming devise. At this point each one way lane is approximately 23' wide. A narrow median is shown at the entry off Avenue 58 for landscaping and a gate entry box. An emergency -only vehicle access connection to Avenue 58 is provided between proposed lots 66 and 67 near the east property line. On the east side of the proposed subdivision which is adjacent to residential lots in Lion's Gate, the proposed lots pad grades vary from the same to a maximum 3' higher (near the south end). Along the west half of the rear property line to the north in PGA West, there is a landscape strip and then a private street with houses on the north side pP:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masque)\tt 34243 pc rpt.doc v . of the street within PGA West. Along this portion of the property line the subject property site pad grades will be approximately 5-6 feet lower than the adjacent grades in PGA West. Along the east half of the north (rear) property line adjacent to Puerta Azul, the proposed grades will 2.5-3.5' lower. Along the west property line, adjacent to Santa Rosa Trails, the proposed pad grades will be lower, varying from approximately 2-4' lower. Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed pad grading and finds them acceptable. COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING AND IMPROVEMENTS: As part of the application, the common area landscaping and improvement plans have been submitted for review (Attachment 3). The plans include a conceptual common area planting plan, perimeter wall and entry gate designs. A plant palette accompanies the conceptual plan and includes an extensive list of water efficient trees and shrubs. However, specific plants to be used are not called out on any of the landscaping plans. The various plans show residences, but these are not submitted for approval nor have they been previously approved. The plans include landscaping proposed for the retention basin in the center of the site. Turf and canopy trees are shown throughout the retention basin. Additionally, a meandering walkway is shown the length of the basin and around various parts of the project. The site plans show front yard landscaping identifying two trees per lot with no other yard planting details shown. Additional planting details will be submitted with the residence plans. The vehicular entry on Avenue 58 shows a card gated entry with a center row of palm trees. Canopy trees flank both sides of the entry street. The entry street and three on - site traffic -calming "islands" in the tract will have enhanced brick paving. The islands will also have a palm tree planted in a small planter in the middle of the street. The gate shown appears to be a wrought iron or metal picket type fence with the adjacent entry walls plastered a light color and provided with a brick cap. A small water feature is shown on each side of the entry near Avenue 58. Perimeter landscaping along Avenue 58 shows a mixture of canopy and palm trees. A meandering sidewalk will be provided. Decorative decomposed gravel along with shrubs will be used along this frontage. Revisions to these plans are recommended as noted below under the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee's action. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW: The Architectural and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed the common area landscaping and entry gate design at their meeting of March 20, 2006. The ALRC on a 2-0 vote recommended approval of the project subject to Staff recommended Conditions. The Conditions recommended are as follows: pP:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masque)\tt 34243 pc rpt.doc „ V 1. Typical preliminary -level common area and front yard landscaping plans for the residences shall be submitted for review by the ALRC and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of first production home permit. 2. Turf use in retention basins shall be limited to basin entries and exits where they meet the meandering walkway. In the turf's place, decomposed granite and accent plants should be provided. Retention area wall design, heights, materials, colors, etc. shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Commission during review of architectural and landscaping plans for the residences. 3. The perimeter wall along Avenue 58 shall meander or jog in and out along the property line. Decorative pilasters shall be provided approximately 75' on center along Avenue 58 perimeter wall. The Tentative Tract Map (TTM 34243) shall be conditioned to be revised to reflect this and be approved by the Community Development Director. 4. Delete following plants from the plant palette: A. Pinus canaiensis Canary Island Pine B. Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite C. Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw D. Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass E. Ficus pumila Creeping Fig F. Bracchychiton populneus Bottle Tree 5. The residences adjacent to the east -west green belt (with walkway) shall be constructed with a setback 10' t larger than the minimum of 5' (flipping residence as shown on submitted landscape plan). The east and west ends of the green belt shall be flared out. This flare will require revision to the adjacent single-family lots. This revision and final setbacks shall be subject to Community Development Director approval. 6. The entry gate shall be re -studied and redesigned to provide an attractive and creative gate consistent with the theme and architecture of the project. These Conditions have been added to those recommended should you approve this request. PUBLIC NOTICE: This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 18, 2006. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. pP:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masque)\tt 34243 pc rpt.doc PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW: All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. Applicable comments from outside agencies are enclosed for review (Attachment 5). ISSUES: The layout of the project is primarily a grid that maximizes the number of residential lots. As noted before, this tract is proposed at 3.5 dwelling units per acre which generally is only achieved with a grid layout with a slight street meander. During the review process Staff met with and recommended to the applicant that the subdivision be re -designed to provide a more creative and attractive design. That resulted in a slight redesign amounting to the bulb in the streets and street medians. Staff still maintains a creative attractive layout can be achieved while providing a feasible project and that the site should be re -designed. The adjacent tract to the west is long and narrow with a single cul-de-sac, while the tract to the east has an irregular loop layout. Plans of these tracts will be available at the meeting. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend approval of this request can be made should the Planning Commission wish to take such action, as conditioned, and contained in the attached Resolutions for the Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider directing the applicant to re- study the tract map design and revise it. Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval, the following actions should be taken: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-557; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 34243, subject to attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. pPAReports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masque)\tt 34243 pc rpt.doc t' V - Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. TT 34243 map exhibit 3. Landscaping Plans 4. Comments from outside agencies Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner pP:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masque)\tt 34243 pc rpt.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-557 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-557 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (FOR MASQUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28`" day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Innovative Communities for Environmental Assessment 2005-557 prepared for Tentative Tract 34243 located on the north side of Avenue 58, 1,000 feet west of Madison Street more particularly described as: APN: 762-240-014 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that this Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2005-557. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. p:\stan\ttms\tt 34243 ea 05-557 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Environmental Assessment 2005-557 Innovative Communities Adopted: 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. S. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-557 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10, The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-557 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masque)\tt 34243 ea 05-557 pc res.doc '.� Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Environmental Assessment 2005-557 Innovative Communities Adopted: 3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-557 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28`" day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Acting Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:1Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masque)\tt 34243 ea 05-557 pc res.doc Environmental Checklist Form — EA 2005-557 Project title: Tentative Tract Map 34243 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: North side of Avenue 58, approximately 660 feet west of Madison Street, APN 762-240-014 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Innovative Communities 200 E. Washington Street, Suite 100 Escondido, CA 6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed subdivision of a 20.1 acre parcel into 70 single family lots, as well as lots for streets, open space and retention basin. The proposed lots will be an average of 9,100 square feet, with the smallest lot being 8,627 square feet, and the largest being 15,888 square feet. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Single family attached and detached development, (Low Density and Medium Density Residential) South: Avenue 58, vacant desert lands (Medium Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) East: Single family residential (Low Density Residential) West: Single family residential (Low Density Residential) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., pen -nits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities ' Service Systems Agriculture Resources Air Quality 1 Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Quality Noise Population / Housing Recreation Transportation/Traffic I Mandatory Findings of Significance J DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEiGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NFGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date -2- 0_ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ]) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answ ers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance I. AESTHETIC'S -- Would the proje( a) Have a substantial adverse effect ( scenic vista? (I.a Qumta General Plan Ex 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resor including, but not limited to, trees, r( outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aena photograph; Site inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site its surroundings? (Application materials d) Create a new source of substantia light or glare which would adversel) affect day or nighttime views in the (Application materials) F- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact :Mitigation Impact 4: X in at ribit rees,� X ick X and � *� I X trea? I. a)-c) The proposed Tract Map would ultimately result in the construction of 70 single family homes on lots of at least 8,627 square feet. Homes will be limited to one and two stories, as required in the 'Zoning Ordinance. This is consistent with the development within PGA West and Puerta Azul to the north, and approved Specific Plan housing to the south (Coral Mountain Specific Plan). The site is flat, and is surrounded by similarly flat lands. Views of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and west will not be significantly blocked by single family home development. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. This portion of Avenue 58 is not designated an Image Corridor in the City's General Plan. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic structures on the site. d) Single family home development will increase light in the area, since the site is currently vacant. Impacts will be those associated with landscape lighting and car headlights. The City regulates lighting and prohibits spill over onto adjacent properties. Car headlights will be a temporary and sporadic intrusion. Neither impact is expected to be significant. -4- r II. AAGRICULTURI: RESOURCES: Would the p oject: _ a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use'? ((;eneral Plan LIR p. 11I-21 ff. ) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X M M II. a)-c) The project site is not in agriculture. Lands surrounding the site are developed in single family residential land uses. Lands to the south are vacant, but are not in agriculture. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property. The proposed project site and surrounding lands are designated for urban development, and have been so for some time. No impacts to agriculture are expected. -5- Potentially I Less Than Less Than No Significant I Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: X a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation'? (scAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD (BQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description. Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) III. a)- e) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for the monitoring of air quality in the City, and the implementation of air quality management plans. The development of air quality plans by the SCAQMD was based on the City's General Plan land uses and mapping. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to be consistent with these plans. Development of the site will result in both temporary (construction) impacts, and long term (operational) impacts to air quality. Each of these issue areas is addressed below. Construction impacts will be those associated with PM10, or fugitive dust, and grading equipment. Assuming a mass grading condition, the proposed project can be expected to generate up to 530.6 pounds of fugitive dust per day during grading activities. This exceeds the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 150 pounds per day. The proposed project will be required to implement a PM10 management plan, which will include "Best Control Measures" established in the 2002 PM10 Management Plan for the Coachella Valley. These include: CONTROI. MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance These measures will reduce impacts associated with PM 10 generation at the site to less than significant levels. The equipment likely to be required to grade the property has been estimated in the table below. The resulting potential vehicular emissions from construction equipment is also shown. Table 1 Grading Equipment Emissions - Diesel powered (pounds eP r day) Equipment-- Pieces hrs/day CO ROC Nox Sox PMto Fork Lift - 50 hp 0 8 - - - - - Fork Lift - 175 hp 0 8 - - - - - Trucks - Off -Highway 0 8 - - - - - Tracked Loader 0 8 - - - - - Tracked Tractor 0 8 - - - - - Scraper 1 8 10.00 2.16 30.72 3.68 3.28 Wheeled Dozer 0 8 - - - - - Wheeled Loader 0 8 - - - - - Wheeled Tractor 1 8 28.64 1.44 10.16 0.72 1.12 Roller 0 8 - - - - - Motor Grader 3 8 3.62 0.94 17.11 2.06 1.46 Miscellaneous 1 8 5.40 1.20 13.60 1.14 1.12 _ Total: 47.66 5.74 71.59 7.61 6.98 SCAQ D Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75,00 100.00 150.00 150.00 As demonstrated in the Table, emissions from equipment used during the grading process are expected to be less than significant. Operational impacts will be those associated with vehicle trips to and from the site. Table 2 demonstrates the long term emissions, based on an average of 670 daily trips. I 'Trip Generation, 7" Edition," prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, for category 210, single famil} detached. -7- v Table 2 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Build out — — - -- ounds ep r days Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 670 x 15 = 10,050 Pollutant _ ROC Pounds at 50 mph_____ 2.00 _ SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance _ _ 550.00 PMio CO NOX Exhaust 51.91 10.65 75.00 100.00 PM10 PM10 Tire Wear Brake Wear 0.22 0.22 150.00 As shown in the Table, the proposed project is not expected to exceed thresholds of significance associated with long term air emissions. The development of a single family subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors. Potentially Less Than Significant Significant w/ Impact Mitigation IV. BIOLOGICAL Would theLroject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Biological Resources Assessment, AMEC 6!05) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Biological Resources Assessment, AMEC 6/05) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Biological Resources Assessment, AML(' 6 05) d) interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance'? ((ieneral Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan' (Biological Resources Assessment, AMEC 6 05) Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X M X 1.1 X v N. a)-f) A biological resource study was prepared for the proposed project2. The study included both records searches and on site investigation. The survey found that the site consists primarily of non-native grasses, with some native vegetation sparsely occurring on the site. No species of concern were found on the site, and none are expected to occur, due to the lack of native habitat. The study concluded that the potential for impacts to biological resources on the site is less than significant. No riparian areas or wetlands were identified on the property. The study further found that the build out of the site will not conflict with any City preservation ordinances, or with the implementation of either the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan or the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Overall impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less than significant. 2 "APN 762-240-014 Biological Resources Assessment," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, June 2M -10- J Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa4 Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? (liistortcal'Archaeological Report, CRM Tech 5 05) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? (Historical Archaeological Report, CRM Tech 5/05) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (iitstoricaPArchaeological Report, CRM Tech 5 05) V.a)-d) A cultural resource survey was conducted on the proposed project site3. The study included both records searches and on site investigation. The study found no surface evidence of cultural resources, and no historic resources on the property. The City requires, however, that projects include on -site monitoring during grading and trenching activities, due to the high probability of occurrence of resources in the City. Monitors shall include a Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians designee. The proposed project has been required to comply with this policy by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). This monitoring will assure that impacts to cultural resources are reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed tract occurs within the ancient Lake Cahuilla lakebed. A paleontological survey was prepared for the proposed project'[. The survey found shell fragments on the project site during the on site survey. In its consideration of the project, the HPC required the monitoring of grading and trenching activities. This requirement will assure that potential impacts associated with paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels. Overall impacts to cultural resources are expected to be less than significant. 3 -Historical Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-014," prepared by CRM Tech, May 2005. 4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Tentative Tract Map No. 33085 " prepared by CRM Tech. -11- i, Potentially Less Than Significant Significant w/ Impact Mitigation Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction'? (General Plan MF,A Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides'? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhtbn 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform I Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) Less Than I No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X r VI. a)-d) A geotechnical investigation was undertaken for the project site'. The study found that the site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The area is seismically active, however, and the City requires implementation of the Uniform 5 "Geotechntcal Engineering Report Proposed 20-Acre Residential Development;' prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, May 2005. -12- Building Code standards required for active seismic areas, to assure that impact associated with ground shaking are reduced to less than significant levels. The soil did not encounter groundwater in borings, and although historic data indicate a high groundwater level in this area, the study concluded that development, wate pumping and the evidence provided in the soil borings lead to a conclusion the liquefaction hazards on the site are very low. The project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat. No hillsides occur in th vicinity. The potential for landslides is therefore non-existent. Soils in the City are nc expansive. The proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer, and n, septic systems will be installed. Impacts associated with geology and soils will be less than significant. 13- ry -- -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Appt cation ma[enals) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Application materials) e) For a project located within an airport I X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a I X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death -14- V � � involving we adjacent fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) An Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), and Additional Investigation, were prepared for the proposed project6. The ESA found piles of stained dirt on the south and west boundaries warranting further investigation; that the site had been in agriculture in the past, and that pesticides, including DDT could be present; and that potential existing for underground fuel tank(s) on the property. In order to ascertain the potential impacts, additional investigations were conducted. The results of the site testing which was part of these investigations were that no significant amounts of hazardous materials were in the piles of soil; that levels of pesticides on the site were not above reporting limits; and that no underground tanks were identified on the site. The studies conclude that impacts associated with hazardous materials on the site are less than significant. The proposed project will generate waste from household cleaners and similar products in small quantities. These wastes will be disposed of through the City's franchise waste collection, Waste Management, which operates a household hazardous waste program in the City and region. Impacts associated with hazardous materials in the project are expected to be less than significant. The site is not identified in regional, state and federal databases as being the location of contamination. The site does not occur in an influence area for an airport or airstrip. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. 6 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," and "Report of Additional Investigations," both prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, April 200 and June 2005, respectively. V i VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. 111-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ((ieneral Plan EIR p_III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1'06) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1/06) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff' (Prelinunary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1106) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1,06) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact :Mitigation Impact i F4 /m X M X II 16- g) Place within a 100-year fl area structures which would redirect flood flows? (Prelirru, Study, P&D Consultants, 1/06) )od hazard X impede or iary Hydrology Vlll. a)-g) Residential development on the project site is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) will provide domestic water to the site for domestic and landscaping uses. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan identifies sufficient water supplies, now and in the future, to serve its service area. The City also implements water conservation through landscaping irrigation controls and installation of efficient fixtures. Impacts associated with groundwater are expected to be less than significant. A preliminary drainage study was prepared for the proposed project. The study found that the site drains traditionally from the northwest to the southeast. The study found that during the 100 year storm event, the site will generate 103,700 cubic feet of water which must be retained on site. The site plan includes a central retention basin, which has been sized to accommodate up to 178,800 cubic feet of water, in excess of the 100 year storm generation on the site. The retention basin is therefore sufficient to control the 100 year storm on site, as required by City standards. The City Engineer will continue to review the hydrology analysis through final design, to assure that capacity is sufficient in the basin. In compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) City requires the implementation of best management practices during construction to assure that water erosion does not contaminate surface water. These requirements will reduce potential impacts associated with erosion of soils to less than significant levels. The property is not located within a 100 year flood plain, as mapped by FEMA. 7 'Preliminary Drainage Report for Tentative Tract 34243, ' prepared by MDS Consulting, October 2005. -17- v Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) j b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? General Plan NEA p. 74 — ff. ) IX. a)-c) The proposed project site contains one unoccupied single family residence. Construction of the homes will not divide an established community. The project is consistent with the land use designation assigned to the property in the General Plan, and will be constructed in conformance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. The project will be required to conform to any habitat conservation plan in effect at the time of development. No impacts are expected to land use and planning. Potentially Significant Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of I value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p_71 ff.) -- — -- -- b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff. ) Less Than Less Than No Significant w/ Significant Impact Mitigation Impact X X. a) & b) The site is located in an area of the City designated Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. -19- V Potentially Less Than Less Than No j Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p 111 ff.) -- - -- - - - -- 1 - ---�_— c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p III ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) --- --- - A f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) A noise study was prepared for the proposed projects. The study identified current and projected noise levels in the area of the proposed project, and found that exterior noise levels at lots 1, 66 through 70, inclusive, would exceed City standards at General Plan build out. These lots are located adjacent to Avenue 58, and will have back yards adjacent to that roadway. The exterior noise levels, without mitigation, are expected to be approximately 72.3 dBA CNEL on these lots. Traffic generated in this area will be 8 "La Quinta Residential development Preltrrunary Noise Study," prepared by urban Crossroads, July 2005. -20- v the primary source of future noise. In addition, the study found that in order to provide interior noise levels which meet City standards on these lots, mechanical ventilation must be provided, to allow a "windows closed" condition. Because noise standards will be exceeded, this represents a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation, as follows: 1. The applicant shall construct a 6 foot wall on top of a one foot berm on the southern and western boundary of lot 1. The wall shall be complete prior to occupancy of the house on this lot. 2. The applicant shall construct a 6 foot wall on top of a one foot berm on the southern boundary of lots70 and 69. The wall shall be complete prior to occupancy of the houses on these lots. 3. The applicant shall construct a 6 foot wall on top of a 1.5 foot berm on the southern boundary of lots 67 and 68. The wall shall be complete prior to occupancy of the house on this lot. 4. The applicant shall construct a 6 foot wall on top of a 1.5 foot berm on the southern and eastern boundary of lot 66. The wall shall be complete prior to occupancy of the house on this lot. 5. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided to the homes constructed on lots 1, 66 through 70, inclusive. Noise will also be generated on the site during construction. Sensitive receptors are located to the north, west and east of the site. These homes could be impacted by noise levels generated by project construction. Walls currently occur on the property lines of these tracts, which will help to lower the noise levels generated on the site. Further, the noise during construction will be temporary and periodic, and primarily associated with grading. In order to assure that construction impacts are reduced to the greatest extent possible, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 6. Construction activities shall be limited to those hours prescribed in the La Quinta '.Municipal Code. 7. All construction vehicles and equipment shall be mufflered and kept in good operating condition. 8. All equipment and materials storage areas shall be located in the south central portion of the site, as far from existing homes as possible. The property is not located within the influence area of an airport or airstrip. With the implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, the impacts associated with noise on and from the project site will be less than significant. Potentially Less Than Significant Significant w/ Impact Mitigation XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) i or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of — replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X km XII. a)-c) The proposed project consists of the construction of 70 single family homes. The homes will be absorbed into the market based on normal population growth in the City. The project will not induce substantial population growth. The site is currently the location of an unoccupied single family home. The development of the site will therefore not displace any people or housing. Impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be insignficant. -22_ r V � Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: — Fire protection? (General Plan MEAp. 57)ttti X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? General Plan; Recreation and Parks .Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, �— X p. 46 ff.) — — XIII. a) The ultimate construction of 70 single family homes on the project site will have less than significant impacts on public services. The project will be required to contribute the required development impact fees, which include police and fire service facilities improvements, as well as park maintenance. In addition, the property tax and sales tax generated from the homes and residents, respectively, of the proposed project will help to offset costs associated with the provision of public safety services. The proposed project will also be required to contribute Quimby fees for the purchase of park lands in the City. The project proponent will be required to pay the school fees in place at the time of development to mitigate potential impacts to schools. -23- Potentially Significant Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) Less Than I Less Than No Significant w/ Significant Impact Mitigation Impact KI X XIV. a) & b) The project proponent will be required contribute Quimby and development impact fees to mitigate for potential impacts associated with parks and recreation. No impacts are expected. j Potentially Significant Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. 111-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM 34243) e) Result in inadequate emergency access?(TTM 34243) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (TTM 34243) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) Less Than Less Than No Significant w/ Significant Impact Mitigation Impact 01 0 0 10 X X i X XV. a)-g) The proposed project will generate approximately 670 average daily trips. The project is consistent with the land use designation applied to the parcel in the General Plan. The General Plan EIR, therefore, considered the density of the proposed project in its traffic analysis. The roadways surrounding the proposed project were found to operate at acceptable levels at General Plan build out, and this project is not anticipated to alter that condition. -25- The proposed project will include a single access point on Avenue 58, which will be improved to City standards to assure traffic safety. A secondary access is provided for emergency vehicles to the east of the primary access. The City Engineer will continue to review the project to assure that the interior design of streets provides for efficient and safe circulation, within City standards. The proposed project will be required to meet the City's parking requirements. The proposed project will have no impact on transit facilities. Overall impacts associated with traffic and circulation are expected to be less than significant. -26- r 1, � . Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: X a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)_ b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) X i d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves X or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) I) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) The project is served by CVWD for water and wastewater treatment. The District has developed plans for service based on General Plan land use designations. This project _27_ r, , is consistent with the land use designation on the property. Therefore, the project will not generate a need for additional facilities. The City will require that the project retain the 100 year storm on site, to limit the potential impacts to the City's streets during a storm event. Waste '.Management of the Desert is the City's franchisee for solid waste. Waste disposal occurs at several regional landfills which have capacity to serve the proposed project. All utility providers structure connection and service fees to include expansion of services as growth occurs. The proposed project, and future residents, will be required to pay these connection and service fees, to offset the cost of service. Overall impacts associated with utilities are expected to be insignificant. -28- r. - V l Potentially Less Than Significant Significant w/ Impact Mitigation XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have em ironmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X 0 XVII. a) Impacts associated with biological and cultural resources were found to be less than significant, due to the conditions of approval and City standards imposed on the proposed project. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan, and will not affect the City's General Plan goals. XVII. c) The project's density was considered in the General Plan EIR. Cumulative impacts are expected to he consistent with those identified in that document. XVII. d) The proposed project will have impacts on human beings from noise generation. The mitigation measures required in this Initial Study, however, assure that impacts will be -29- 1` reduced to less than significant levels. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 30 r 1 C O !V N M W F Q W � V Q� a� iW Ox fy O O_ O O O O O O F n v cr v n n v V: V T T T T T O O O u U V U U O O O O O COi U OU O O O O O to `o q a` a` Pi a a a a a x OV W a� C YC C G C G F �r I ¢' v v v uC' aPi aCi a¢i a a a a a a s a .� oa w aqq� m ra x ro � z O m u y W u p '� O bq Ld .v+ w T w O vi O :— � 0 v t. cr .-. O o N ,_, o N ^. o ,.. v v 7 > u a g C I ✓7 � Q. <G� <C� itl t r, ro R A. t0 E O C •b C U 70 Ei o E ua,7 5 � \� (; \\ \\ \) \3 \\ \\ \ \ } / )) CIO=\/o -cl�a )rl8 �—g!)& §§)\2)\/; �\2§ /\\aj[ m-2a®= (/\)(§)/`%\\\�`\ �\/\t )\k};ƒ»/\) ' \S$ (\2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF TWENTY ACRES INTO 70 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 281" day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Innovative Communities for the subdivision of twenty acres into 70 single-family residential lots and other miscellaneous lots, located on the north side of Avenue 58, approximately 1,000 feet west of Madison Street, more particularly described as: APN 763-240-014 WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2005-557 for this Tentative Tract Map in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 34243: 1 . The Tentative Tract Map and its improvement and design are consistent with the General Plan in that its street design and lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size, and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision and its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because mitigation measures and conditions have been incorporated into the project approval to mitigate impacts where needed. P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative IMasquel\tt 34243 pc res.doc (' , y r Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Tentative Tract Map 34243 Innovative Communities Adopted: 3. The design of the subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban infrastructure improvements are existing, or will be installed based on applicable local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the revised subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access is provided within the project and to adjacent public streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 34243 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23' day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Acting Chairman City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masque)\tt 34243 pc res.doc c . Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Tentative Tract Map 34243 Innovative Communities Adopted: ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masque)\tt 34243 pc res.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permittee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. r, March 23, 2006 Page 2 P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED rENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 3. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 3. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall not be construed as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following conditions of approval. 'ROPERTY RIGHTS 7. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 3. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 3. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Avenue 58 (Secondary Arterial with Class II Bike Lane, 94' ROW) — Provide 44 feet of right of way from the centerline of Avenue 58 consistent with right of way requirements on the north side of Avenue 58 except an additional variable right of way dedication at the proposed entry measured 54 feet north of the centerline of Avenue 58 and deceleration length of 132 feet plus a transition length of 120 feet to ':\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc C March 23, 2006 Page 3 of 'LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- :ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED 'ENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 NNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) \DOPTED: accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 10. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of- ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 11. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 36-foot travel width with parking allowed on both sides of the street. 2) Dead end residential streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 28-foot travel width with street parking is prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. 12. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement 13. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of- ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 4 r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Avenue 58 (Secondary Arterial) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 16. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 17. Direct vehicular access to Avenue 58 from lots with frontage along Avenue 58 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 18. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 19. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. =1NAL MAPS ?0. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard ':\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 5 of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster - image file of such Final Map. The Final Map shall be of a 1 " = 40' scale. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 21. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 22. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM 10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1" = 40' Horizontal I117 L Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical 1 " = 40' Horizontal The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 6 of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: F. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical NOTE: A through F to be submitted concurrently. The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. G. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 23. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering Library at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Online Engineering Library hyperlink. 24. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 25. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 26. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 27. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on - site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 8 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: 28. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the issuance of the 20 % Building Permit (add number when applicable). In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 29. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 9 t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: 30. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. (;RAKING 31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 32. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 33. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. E. Proof of retention of archaeological monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving or clearing permit. Monitors shall include a Ramona Band of Mission Indians designee. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. The final report on the archaeological monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. Any collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. r P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: F. Proof of retention of paleontological monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving or clearing permit. On- and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Any recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 34. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 35. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa doc March 23, 2006 Page 11 < PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1 .5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 36. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 37. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development unless there are pre-existing conditions such as existing perimeter walls and pad elevations on adjacent properties are not consistent with the lay of the land. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 38. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the approved preliminary hydrology report. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets and include any resulting uncaptured tributary stormwater flows. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: 41. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 42. For properties where sump conditions exist, the applicant must either define a diversion/overflow strategy or retain upstream stormwater as required for existing as - built conditions from all off -site tributary flow from the respective high points. The applicant must provide either on -site retention or alternative facilities of diversion/pass through, if selected. Historical flow paths should be identified and routing provided in the hydrology analysis equivalent to historical flow direction. As local topography allows, tributary areas may exceed limits of property lines adjacent to public roads. The 100-year storm shall be the governing event in the designer's evaluation. 43. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be zero as demonstrated by preliminary percolation tests. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be passed through a injection/dry well system or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The injection/dry well system or equivalent system shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. The injection/dry well system shall be designed to contain nuisance water surges from landscape area, residential unit, and off -site street nuisance water. Flow from adjacent well sites shall be designed for retention area percolation by separate infiltration system approved by the City Engineer. 44. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 45. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 46. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. 47. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: 48. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 49. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 50. Due to the unique length to width ratio of the proposed retention basin, the applicant or his design professional shall provide the following as approved by the City Engineer: A. To prevent undermining during a storm event, the applicant shall redesign the wall where it will be beneath the water surface during storms to a single reinforced concrete retaining wall with decorative face or other design approved by the City Engineer or comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. B. Provide for secondary overflow on the internal street system with a one foot freeboard during design storm events. C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. UTILITIES 51. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 52. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 53. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 14 o, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: 54. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 55. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 56. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 11 Avenue 58 (Secondary Arterial with Class II Bike Lane): Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the north side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The north curb face shall be located thirty two feet (32') north of the centerline. Other required improvements in the Avenue 58 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Primary Entry. The north curb face shall be located forty two feet (421 north of the centerline and length per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. The deceleration length shall be 132 feet with a transition length of 120 feet. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. d) A Class II Bike Lane along the north curb face along the Tentative Tract Map boundary. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above. The development is eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program. The cost of improvements expended by the applicant from the centerline of Avenue 58 to within 20 feet of the outer curb face is eligible for reimbursement. The applicant is responsible for the remaining cost of the improvements. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Construct full 36-foot wide travel width measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line where the residential streets are double loaded. And construct a 28-foot wide travel width measured gutter flow line to gutter flow line where parking is prohibited and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and Community Development Department prior to recordation. 2) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the curb return and away from the intersection when possible. 57. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry. Pursuant to said condition, there shall be a minimum of twenty feet width provided at the turn -around opening. Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 58. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Secondary Arterial 4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 59. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 60. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: Primary Entry (Avenue 58): All turn movements are permitted. 68. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 17 � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: 69. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. CONSTRUCTION 70. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 71. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 72. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 73. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 74. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Public Works Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 75. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 76. Typical preliminary -level common area and front yard landscaping plans for the residences shall be submitted for review by the ALRC and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of first production home permit. Turf use in retention basins shall be limited to basin entries and exits where they meet the meandering walkway. In the turf's place, decomposed granite and accent plants P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: should be provided. Retention area wall design, heights, materials, colors, etc. shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Commission during review of architectural and landscaping plans for the residences. 77. Delete following plants from the plant palette: A. Pinus canaiensis Canary Island Pine B. Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite C. Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw D. Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass E. Ficus pumila Creeping Fig F. Bracchychiton populneus Bottle Tree PUBLIC SERVICES 78. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 79. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 80. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 81. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 82. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (MASQUE DEVELOPMENT) ADOPTED: MAINTENANCE 83. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 84. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 85. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 86. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). MISCELLANEOUS 87. The perimeter wall along Avenue 58 shall meander or jog in and out along the property line. Decorative pilasters shall be provided approximately 75' on center along Avenue 58 perimeter wall. The Tentative Tract Map (TTM 34243) shall be conditioned to be revised to reflect this and be approved by the Community Development Director. 88. The residences adjacent to the east -west green belt (with walkway) shall be constructed with a setback 10' ± larger than the minimum of 5' (flipping residence as shown on submitted landscape plan). The east and west ends of the green belt shall be flared out. This flare will require revision to the adjacent single-family lots. This revision and final setbacks shall be subject to Community Development Director approval. 89. The entry gate shall be re -studied and redesigned to provide an attractive and creative gate consistent with the theme and architecture of the project. 90. Prior to Final Map approval, the City Fire Marshall shall review and approve Map. P:\stan\ttm\tt 34243 pc coa.doc March 23, 2006 Page 20, ATTACHMENT #1 z 0 Of Ld LiN Ld w THE HIDEAWAY AVENUE 54 Qf cn w 0 ril w O w PGA WEST AIRPORT BLVD. z 0 56) (AVENUE cn a PROJECT SITE AVENUE 58 CASE MAP CASE No. TTM 34243 MASQUE DEVELOPMENT (INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES) ORT SCALE: NTS z ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY ATTACHME � COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711 DIRECTORS JOHN W McFADDEN. PRESIDENT PETER NELSON, VICE PRESIDENT TELLIS CODEKAS RUSSELL KITAHARA PATRICIAA LARSON Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Gentlemen: November 21, 20005 Subject: Environmental Assessment 2004-557 and Tentative Tract Map 34243 OFFICERS STEVEN B ROBBINS. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER MARK BEUHLER. ASST GENERAL MANAGER JULIA FERNANDEZ. SECRETARY DAN PARKS, ASST TO GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS File: 0163.1 _E 0 NOV D 3 0 2005 NTA COMMUNITY DECITY OF LA VELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This area is protected from regional stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need to review drainage design further. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Additional domestic water and sewer pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider in order for the District to provide service to all parcels. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of the District for sanitation service. There are existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities not shown on the development plans. There may be conflicts with these facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the approval of a tract map until utility clearances have been completed with the District. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY r Planning Commission City of La Quinta 2 November 21, 2005 Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. The groundwater basin in the Coachella Valley is in a state of overdraft. Each new dwelling unit contributes incrementally to the overdraft. The District has a Water Management Plan in place to reduce the overdraft to the groundwater basin. The elements of the Water Management Plan include supplemental imported water, source substitution and water conservation. The elements of this plan should be incorporated in the environmental mitigation plan for this development to reduce its negative impact on the Coachella Valley groundwater basin. If you have any questions please call Tyme Fruscella, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2229. 4i:--- Director of Engineering cc: Jeff Johnson Riverside County Department of public Health 82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209 Indio, CA 92201 TF:cb\-9\sw\OS\nov\®v &uwM 04-557 060721-3 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT C� BI #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 CASE NO.: MINOR USE PERMIT 2006-763 APPLICANT: MARK LADEDA REQUEST: CONSIDEPLACEMENT OF A MANUFACTURED HOME ONTION OF E A RESIDENTIALLY -ZONED PROPERTY LOCATION: 55-075 MONROE STREET APN: 767-580-014 GENERAL PLAN: LDR: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: RL: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: APPTING SINGLE-FAMILY S SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES HOMES (GRIFFIN RANCH) APPROVED RANCH) SOUTH: EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES (NORMAN ESTATES) EAST: VACANT LAND (VILLAGE BUILDERS) WEST: EXISTING GOLF COURSE (NORMAN ESTATES) BACKGROUND: The manufactured home site is located on a 4.19-acre parcel west of Monroe Street, approximately halfway between Avenue 54 and Airport Boulevard (Attachment 1). Access to the site is through a 40-foot access easement, with the driveway spanning approximately 1,300 feet, connected to Monroe Street. Currently, the driveway is unpaved, with initial landscaping on both sides of the path. The northwest corner of the property is the proposed location of the manufactured home (Attachment 2). Currently, the land is vacant, but the foundation area for the home has been excavated. The remainder of the property consists of three fully landscaped and fenced pastures, and vacant land which the applicant states will be the future sites of a parking area, a multi -car garage, and an indoor horse -riding arena. The property is currently connected to water and power utilities, and utilizes a septic tank. They are the same utility lines that were connected to the now -demolished single- family house that used to be on the property. The applicant is currently in contact with the developers of Griffin Ranch to the north in negotiating another water connection. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a Minor Use Permit to install an approximately 2,000 square foot manufactured home on the 4.19-acre property. The home is 68 x 30 feet, 12.16 feet in height, and will be placed on the northwest corner of the property. The applicant intends on adding stucco treatments and tile roofing to the home (Attachment 3). The driveway leading to the property will be covered with colored decomposed granite. The parking area inside of the property gate will be covered with interlocking pavers. There is no garage on the property at this time, as the applicant plans on building a multi -car garage at a later time. ANALYSIS: 1. Section 9.60.180 of the La Quinta Municipal Code states that individual manufactured homes may be permitted as a permanent or temporary dwelling on single-family lots within the RVL, RL, RC, RM, and RMH zoning districts. 2. Section 9.60.180 of the La Quinta Municipal Code requires Planning Commission review and approval of any application to place a manufactured home on any individual parcel of land through the Minor Use Permit process. The unit must meet the development standards of the underlying zoning district (Attachment 5). 3. In accordance with Section 65852.3 of the California State Government Code, except with respect to architectural requirements such as roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material, a city shall only subject a manufactured home and the lot on which it is placed to the same development standards to which a conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject (Attachment 6). 4. Based on the development standards of the RL zoning district, the proposed manufactured home can be placed on the subject property in accordance with the provisions of the RL zone. 5. The proposed decomposed granite covering for the driveway does not comply with City standards. A paved driveway shall be provided. 0. 6. To comply with the RL zoning district standards, a two -car garage shall be provided. There is no garage on the property at this time. FINDINGS: Findings as required under Section 9.60.180 of the La Quinta Municipal Code can be made as set forth below: Minor Use Permit 2006-763 is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as the home would be developed in a manner consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential. 2. Minor Use Permit 2006-763 is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code, as the land use of the home are substantially equivalent to those permitted under existing Low Density Residential zoning. Minor Use Permit 2006-763 is architecturally compatible with and visually related to the surrounding developments. Adjacent properties are either vacant or have single-family homes, and approval of this manufactured home would be consistent with the existing conditions in the area. 4. Minor Use Permit 2006-763 is appropriate with and visually related to the surrounding developments, as it would not adversely affect the surrounding land uses or be out of character with the surrounding area. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2006 approving Minor Use Permit 2006-763, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: Prepared by: i JAY WUYI, Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Map 3. Building Elevations 4. Site Photos 5. LQMC Section 9.60.180 6. State Government Code 65852.3 f" , PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MINOR USE PERMIT 2006-763 MARK LADEDA MARCH 28, 2006 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this site development plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Watei Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwatei Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use it their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any or PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MINOR USE PERMIT 2006-763 MARK LADEDA MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 2 or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. Additionally, the applicant shall have recorded reciprocal access agreements and easements for its connection to Monroe Street. I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MINOR USE PERMIT 2006-763 MARK LADEDA MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 3 IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 6. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 7. The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department and Public Works Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan V = 30' Horizontal Note: Pursuant to the above condition, the applicant shall include egress and ingress driveways for connection to Monroe Street for approval by the City Engineer. GRADING 8. Within 5 days after the approval of this Minor Use Permit, the applicant shall pay all fines associated with the unpermitted grading of the site. Additionally, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC for any future precise grading work as applicable for issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 9. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. DRAINAGE 10. Stormwater handling for the site shall be as approved with the precise grading plar check application. Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via ar underground percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer. 11. The applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24.12( (Drainage), sub -section "K.", LQMC. Individual lot basins or other retention concept: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MINOR USE PERMIT 2006-763 MARK LADEDA MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 4 may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2 '/2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by the City Engineer to be impracticable. If individual lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all individual lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. UTILITIES 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 13. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 14. Underground utilities shall be installed as approved by the perspective utility purveyors such as IID and CVWD. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. 15. As required by all applicable agencies listed in Condition 2, the applicant is required to provide all required new facility or connection to existing utilities to include but not limited to water, sewer, and electrical. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 17. The applicant shall be allowed a single access point to Monroe Street at the north east corner of APN 767-580-014 as proposed on the Site Plan. If required by the Fire Marshal, the applicant shall construct a secondary emergency access to be e minimum of 20 feet in width as approved by the Fire Marshal and the City Engineer The applicant shall place a paved driveway from the subject property surface tc Monroe Street as approved by the City Engineer. LANDSCAPING 18. The applicant shall provide landscaping as required by the Community Developmen Department and the LQMC. U PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MINOR USE PERMIT 2006-763 MARK LADEDA MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 5 QUALITY ASSURANCE 19. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 20. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 21. The applicant shall arrange procedures not included in evidence that construction and applicable regulations. MAINTENANCE and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing the City's inspection program but required by the City as materials and methods comply with plans, specifications 22. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, and access drives. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 23. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 24. This approval is for the location of a manufactured home only. It does not allow the establishment of any fencing, equipment storage/staging areas, additional trailers, etc. 25. The applicant shall meet the same development standards as provided for single- family homes in the RL: Low Density Residential zone, including setbacks, structure height, etc. 26. The applicant shall provide a minimum two -car garage per LQMC 9.150.060. 27. The applicant shall add a minimum 24-inch roof overhang on all sides of the home and solar control/overhang on the ends. 28. The applicant shall only use the following exterior colors and materials: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MINOR USE PERMIT 2006-763 MARK LADEDA MARCH 26, 2006 PAGE 6 A. Roof Material: Redlands Clay Tile Company Red #2210 Brown #2218 B. Stucco Material: La Habra Stucco Company Santa Barbara Smooth Finish —Alamo C. Wood Trim/Beams: Dunn Edwards Chestnut Brown Douglas Fir Roughsawn E. Windows White Vinyl Stone: Eldorado Stone Field LedgeNeneto Meseta Milano Mix G. Entry Doors: Southwest Door Company Alder Medium Distress — Chestnut Brown H. Gates: Cedar House Doors Clear Cedar with Rod Iron G� ATTACHME m GAG rnm A rn z V� DON t0 v o T+ Q r a"- O � y N,I 0 n IL � N m � m x z m W Z m m � 9 v PINEHURST c g" > 4 �y U m RIVIERA v Z PutERIOPa' VIA PORTOFWo A Co VIA PESSARO C D t, W T N � y O OAK TREE SOUTHERN HILLS U� F 54TH AVE Project Location 11 MOUNTAIN VIEV% `> KINGSTON HEATH a 8RGY'N DEEP. AR Ga m U p O TIBURCN PR m � NATIONAL pR A A rn AIRPORT SLV c° &JUIRFIELO VLG c a GOLF VIEVd OR SELLERIVE COLUMBINE F fS OPP w z O cn � a C� z HERM" TAGS ua ;' w C O FW.. q N FG- 58TH AVE > > m a I.EGENOS 'f'V ^s r3 O � J_ > > Z COUPLE G m U) m N n � c z O O m Q O A U a! G� VIA PORTOFWo A Co VIA PESSARO C D t, W T N � y O OAK TREE SOUTHERN HILLS U� F 54TH AVE Project Location 11 MOUNTAIN VIEV% `> KINGSTON HEATH a 8RGY'N DEEP. AR Ga m U p O TIBURCN PR m � NATIONAL pR A A rn AIRPORT SLV c° &JUIRFIELO VLG c a GOLF VIEVd OR SELLERIVE COLUMBINE F fS OPP w z O cn � a C� z HERM" TAGS ua ;' w C O FW.. q N FG- 58TH AVE > > m a I.EGENOS 'f'V ^s r3 O � J_ > > Z COUPLE G m U) m N n � c z O O m Q O A U a! G� U� F 54TH AVE Project Location 11 MOUNTAIN VIEV% `> KINGSTON HEATH a 8RGY'N DEEP. AR Ga m U p O TIBURCN PR m � NATIONAL pR A A rn AIRPORT SLV c° &JUIRFIELO VLG c a GOLF VIEVd OR SELLERIVE COLUMBINE F fS OPP w z O cn � a C� z HERM" TAGS ua ;' w C O FW.. q N FG- 58TH AVE > > m a I.EGENOS 'f'V ^s r3 O � J_ > > Z COUPLE G m U) m N n � c z O O m Q O A U a! G� SELLERIVE COLUMBINE F fS OPP w z O cn � a C� z HERM" TAGS ua ;' w C O FW.. q N FG- 58TH AVE > > m a I.EGENOS 'f'V ^s r3 O � J_ > > Z COUPLE G m U) m N n � c z O O m Q O A U a! G� a I.EGENOS 'f'V ^s r3 O � J_ > > Z COUPLE G m U) m N n � c z O O m Q O A U a! G� ATTACHME tfi! "MEN nalmLat land � Itill. k:09 j At U) E I ti O LU 0. LU CO) ATTACHMEI SITE PLAN 6-A,E I==,-P SCALE 3/18 1"-0' Tally Kanch •,' CQL Jif 0'JV C'V114"il CA 9 El . i>a.CLINTCA 1 1 ,,: }= 55'`W j�'iq �, ��. A'y.. ` `:t j ` .. � �+u' � � ja _a it t (r � 4 yty ,. 1 v �`,is{F �� �_ ri.__ w 2'` ... ,. � r` �.. i �� �� r 1�' p eyr _ � � _' 4 R � � � O' 4 \ a y �, ' ' `4 it .- �.,,. ,. 2 � , y � d. l7j , t �+ir " IMIU14L Lll10U LIVUbIllg 611u 111vullu Iuffics. nup:owww.gcocie.us/codes/laquinta/view. hp?topic-9-9_6t ACHMF La Quinta Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Title 9 ZONING* Chapter 9.60 SUPPLEMENTAL RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS 9.60.180 Manufactured housing and mobilehomes. Search Print A. Purpose. This section is intended to provide standards and criteria for the placement, design, and construction of manufactured, modular and mobilehomes in residential districts consistent with Section 65852.3 et seq. of the State Government Code. B. Definition. For the purposes of this zoning code, the terms "manufactured home" "modular home" and I'mobilehome" shall mean the same thing, that is: a residential building transportable in one or more sections which has been certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. For purposes of simplicity, the term manufactured home is used in this section. C. Mobilehome Parks. In accordance with Section 65852.7 of the State Government Code, mobilehome parks are permitted in all residential districts if a conditional use permit is approved. Development standards for such parks shall be as follows: minimum thirty percent common open area and minimum perimeter setbacks of twenty feet at any point and twenty-five feet average over the entire perimeter. D. Individual Manufactured Homes. In accordance with Section 65852.3 et seq. of the State Government Code, individual mobilehomes may be permitted as permanent or temporary dwellings on single-family lots within the RVL, RL, RC, RM, and RMH districts. E. Minor Use Permit Required. Approval of a minor use permit by the planning commission shall be required prior to the placement of a manufactured home on a single-family lot subject to the provisions of Section 9.210.020. The permit shall not be approved unless the community development director finds that the dwelling meets the same development standards as provided for single-family homes for each district as set forth in Chapter 9.50 and elsewhere in this code in addition to the standard findings for approval of a site development permit per Section 9.210.010. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 3/21 /200 ATTACHME untitled 55852.3. (a) A city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, shall allow the installation of manufactured homes certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 u.s.C. Secs. 5401 et seq.) on a foundation system, pursuant to section 18551 of the Health and safety code, on lots zoned for conventional single-family residential dwellings. Except with respect to architectural requirements, a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, shall only subject the nanufactured home and the lot on which it is placed to the same levelopment standards to which a conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject, including, but lot limited to, building setback standards, side and rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, access, and vehicle parking, aesthetic requirements, and minimum square footage requirements. Any architectural requirements imposed on the manufactured home structure itself, exclusive of any requirement for any and all additional enclosures, shall be limited to its roof overhang, roofing naterial, and siding material. These architectural requirements may )e imposed on manufactured homes even if similar requirements are lot imposed on conventional single-family residential dwellings. iowever, any architectural requirements for roofing and siding naterial shall not exceed those which would be required of :onventional single-family dwellings constructed on the same lot. At the discretion of the local legislative body, the city or county may )reclude installation of a manufactured home in zones specified in this section if more than 10 years have elapsed between the date of nanufacture of the manufactured home and the date of the application For the issuance of a permit to install the manufactured home in the affected zone. In no case may a city, including a charter city, :ounty, or city and county, apply any development standards that will lave the effect of precluding manufactured homes from being installed as permanent residences. Page 1 n t' Cf'y OF TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND PLANNING OMMISSIONERS FROM: LES JOHNSON, PLANNING MANAG� DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — SDP 2006-857 Staff is recommending modifications to conditions of approval No's 29, 36, 46, 72, 73, and a new condition of approval No. 77. Addition of text is in italics while removal of text has been straeI. The aforementioned conditions are listed in their entirety as follows: 29. The developer shall abandon any existing wells within the project area boundaries as approved by CVWD and the City Engineer. 36. The applicant shall revise proposed retention basins to comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, the 100 year stormwater shall be retained within the interior street right of way. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets and include any resulting uncaptured tributary stormwater flows. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. Note: If this option is implemented a revised Site Development Permit may be required. 46. The Applicant is hereby notified that future site modifications may be necessary including, but not limited to lot and street reconfiguration. Verification of the proposed storm water retention system is subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. If in the event, the proposed retention capacity or pass through storm water flow is found to be inadequate during final design, the Applicant shall revise what is currently proposed in the preliminary hydrology study and make adjustments to the site layout as needed to accommodate the increased retention/detention or pass through capacity required to satisfy safety issues of the Public Works Department and CVWD. Pursuant to the afore mentioned, the applicant may be required to construct additional Page 1 underground and aboveground drainage facilities to convey on site and off site stormwater as well as stormwater from adjacent mountainous terrain that historically flows onto and/or through the project site. Any proposed channels that convey stormwater shall be lined to protect against erosion as required by the Public Works Department and CVWD. Note: if this option is implemented a revised Site Development Permit may be required. 72. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan, for the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee and Planning Commission approval, as a business item that includes plant quantities and plant locations as well as material and color details for the enhanced paving and wall designs. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit for Planning Commission approval as a business item a revised landscape plan that identifies all trees be a minimum 1.5 inch caliper and a 36 inch box, all trees proposed within 150 feet of the Avenue 48 frontage shall be a minimum 48 inch box, and add additional hedges and trees to fully screen from each view fef—both ffojeets era along the west property line. 73. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit for Planning Gernmissien staff approval as a buSiRes6 item a revised Site Plan creating a traffic calming "choker" design curbing or a speed table along the main driveway, and add a high quality pedestrian access to Dune Palms Road next to the CVWD well site to be approved by the Public Works Department. 77. The project shall comply with all terms and conditions incorporated into the Disposition and Development Agreement regarding project operation, maintenance, rental programs, and all other terms for the life of the project. Page 2