2005 12 27 PCcFM OF Tt�
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
dal 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
DECEMBER 27, 2005
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2005-066
Beginning Minute Motion 2005-017
I. 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
A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13,
2005.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc
V. PUBLIC HEARING:
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 La Quinta 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 ................ 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
Location .......... Between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus Golf Courses,
immediately south of PGA Boulevard, within PGA West
Request ........... Consideration of: 1) A Negative Declaration of
environmental impact; 2) A General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change from Golf Course to Low Density
Residential; 3) A Specific Plan to allow the conversion of
2.3+ acres of existing golf course/common area to
residential use; and 4) Review of a Parcel Map to
subdivide 2.3 + acres into three single-family lots .
Action ............. Resolution 2005-_, Resolution 2005- , Resolution
2005- , Resolution 2005- , Resolution 2005-
B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-846
Applicant ......... Toll Brothers, Inc.
Location .......... Within Tract 30834, on the north side of Avenue 58,
t 1 /2 mile west of Madison Street
Request ........... Consideration of a residential tract development for seven
single-family prototypes, each with two different
elevation treatments, and typical landscape design plan.
Action ............. Minute Motion 2005-
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7 AgendaW.doc
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
A. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 2005-941
Applicant ......... Signtech Electrical for Cingular
Location .......... North side of Highway 111, within the One -Eleven La
Quinta Shopping Center, west of Adams Street
Request ........... Consideration of a deviation to an approved Sign Program
to permit non -conforming corporate signs for a business.
Action ............. Minute Motion 2005-
B. Item ................ CONSIDERATION REGARDING HOOKAH BARS
Applicant ......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... City-wide
Request ............ Consideration whether to allow Hookah Bars as a
permitted use, prohibited use, or conditional use in the
Non -Residential Zoning Districts
Action .............. Provide staff with direction
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report of Council action on a General Plan Amendment in the Village
B. Review of City Council meeting of December 20, 2005.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular
Meeting to be held on January 10, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaMdoc
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare
that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of
Tuesday, December 27, 2005, was posted on the outside entry to the Council
Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post
Office, on Friday, December 23, 2005.
DATED: December 23, 2005
d
ETTY, J. A YER, Executive Secretary
City of Latuinta, California
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 material 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.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaMdoc
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
December 13, 2005 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Richard Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul
Quill and Chairman Kirk.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal
Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of the
November 22, 2005 regular meeting. There being no changes to the
minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to
approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved with
Commissioner Alderson Abstaining.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2004-812; a request of Chick-Fil-A for
consideration of screening provisions for a restaurant with a drive-thru
lane located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, east of Adams Street, in
The Pavilion at La Quinta.
1 . Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan
Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which was on file in the Community Development
Department.
0:\WPD0CS\PC Minutes\12-13-05.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Alderson questioned why we were asking the
applicant to provide the screening when this portion of the site is
actually the responsibility of the master developer. Staff explained
how the responsibilities for the area were determined.
3. Commissioner Daniels asked who was responsible for
maintenance. Staff stated the master developer was responsible
for the maintenance. In addition, there is a condition that the
plants be allowed to grow to maturity and that they be maintained
at the proper height for screening.
4. Commissioner Quill asked if the Commission had previously
requested the retaining wall be used. Staff stated it was not a
condition.
5. There being no further questions of staff Chairman Kirk asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Greg
Lawless, representing the applicant, explained the project. He
explained the entire site belongs to Chick-Fil-A, but the master
developer is responsible to see that the landscaping theme is
carried out through the entire site frontage. The master developer
is also responsible for the maintenance. In regard to retaining
walls, this is not something they would want due to the lane width
required to keep a vehicle from driving into the wall.
6. There being no further public comment the matter was opened to
Commission discussion.
7. Commissioner Quill stated he does not believe the height of the
berm and plant material is enough to hide the cars and headlights
from the traffic on Highway 1 1 1.
8. Commissioner Alderson asked if the master developer has a
grading plan with these elevations and if so how did the elevations
change from 75 to 74 feet. Staff clarified other berming was
proposed earlier in the project's grading plans. The engineer could
be requested to redesign with a continuous berm to reach the
height desired in some of the areas.
9. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any concerns in maintaining the
slope and grade. Staff stated they had no objections, but it would
be up to the Public Works Department. Community Development
Director Doug Evans suggested it be a berm and/or low stem wall.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\12-13-05.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005
10. Commissioner Quill stated the berm needs to hide the cars up to
the top of the car. Mr. Lawless stated he does not know of any
other drive-thru in the City that has this requirement. He would
recommend the Texas Ranger be planted at the top of the berm to
hide the drive-thru. This would essentially be seven feet in height.
11. Commissioner Quill stated he does not want to rely on plant
material to hide the drive-thru. He wants the berm to hide the
cars. The site line from Highway 1 1 1 should not see the cars.
12. Commissioner Daniels stated he does not want the dike look with
a continuous berm.
13. Commissioners Ladner and Alderson stated 75 feet with some
undulation would be acceptable.
14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to
adopt Minute Motion 2005-016, approving the drive-thru plans for
Site Development Permit 2004-812, as recommended and with
the berm constructed to a height where the site line from Highway
1 1 1 hides the vehicle to the roof of a standard vehicle. A stem
wall could be used in conjunction with the berming. Unanimously
approved.
B. Consideration as to whether to allow vinyl fencing as an alternate
material for residential fences; a request of City for direction in regard to
fence material within the City.
1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Les
Johnson presented the information in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Kay
Wolff, P. 0. Box 1016, La Quinta, asked if staff had considered an
alumna wood material. Staff stated no; they were specific to the
vinyl material as this was the specific request brought to staff.
3. Commissioner Ladner stated it was her experience the vinyl is a
better quality material than the wood. Her only concern would be
the quality of the product used.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\12-13-05.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005
4. Commissioner Alderson asked if the vinyl fencing proposed by the
resident who brought this up, is an imitation wood material. Staff
stated it is a smooth finish, but that most manufacturers offer a
simulated and smooth fence.
5. Commissioner Quill stated it has been his experience that it is a
good product and superior to wood. He would only want it to be
allowed where wood is allowed.
6. Chairman Kirk stated he is more concerned with quality than
material.
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to
interpret the Code to allow the alternative material to wood
fencing in the Cove, and directing staff to address the particulars
at a later date with a Code Amendment. Unanimously approved.
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Community Development Director Doug Evans informed the Commission
that on December 201" at 4:00 p.m. there will be a presentation by Lowe
International on the hotel and conceptual design of the SiiverRock Resort
project.
B. Review of City Council meeting of December 6, 2005.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Daniels/Ladner to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on December 27, 2005, at 7:38 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7: p.m. on December 13,
2005.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\12-13-05.doc 4
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 27, 2005
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;
2) A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FROM
"GOLF COURSE" TO "LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL";
3) A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF
2.3+ ACRES OF EXISTING GOLF COURSE/COMMON AREA TO
RESIDENTIAL USE; AND
4) REVIEW OF PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 2.3+ ACRES INTO
THREE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS.
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-550 WAS PREPARED
FOR THIS SPECIFIC PLAN 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.
ZONING: GC (GOLF COURSE)
P:\Reports - PC\2005\12-27-05\Shaffer sp at al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt.doc
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: G (GOLF COURSE)
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
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is within PGA West south of PGA Boulevard, between Jack
Nicklaus and Weiskopf Streets (Attachment 1). A specific plan was approved in
1984 to allow the original development. The subject site was approved as part of
the golf course/common area improvements. 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 land
owner, KSL Land Corporation, is selling the property to Mr. Shaffer for the
proposed development.
The project site consists of two common area parcels and a 37 foot wide private
road parcel connecting Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus that was never constructed
(Attachment 2). The common area lot to the west contains a portion of this
unconstructed private street that ties in to Jack Nicklaus.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval to construct three single-family residences on
three proposed lots. This requires changes to the General Plan, Zoning Map, and
PGA West Specific Plan, and approval of a Tentative Parcel Map. The development
applications and a brief description are as follows:
General Plan Amendment:
The General Plan currently designates the subject property as Golf Course (G). The
applicant is requesting a Low Density Residential (LDR) designation to permit the
proposed residential use. This designation would not be inconsistent with the
surrounding residential uses in PGA West.
Zone Change:
The Zoning Map currently designates the subject property as Golf Course (GC).
The applicant is requesting a Low Density Residential (RL) designation to permit the
proposed residential use. This zoning would not be inconsistent with the
surrounding residential uses in PGA West. }
PAReports - PC\2005\12.27-05\Shaffer sp at al\sp 83-002 amend N5 at al pc rpt.doc
Specific Plan Amendment:
The Specific Plan for PGA West currently designates the subject property as Golf
Course area. The applicant is requesting an amendment to designate the site Low
Density Residential to permit the proposed residential use. The specific plan
incorrectly shows the easterly portion of the site as Low Density Residential. The
entire site is General Plan designated and zoned as "Golf Course".
Tentative Parcel Map:
The proposal is to subdivide the 2.3+ acre project site into three single-family lots
containing 24,300 square feet, 25,000 square feet and 52,450 square feet. 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 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 easement through the common area lot
between the subject property and Jack Nicklaus.
The golf cart path that runs through the subject property and provides access
between the 18th hole and the 1" hole will be relocated to the south outside of the
subject area. The practice green will be removed.
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 running north -south across
the east side of Parcel 1 . Additionally, various 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 for your review (Attachment 4).
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on December
17, 2005. 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.
To date, we have received two letters. The letters are from property owners
adjacent to the south side of proposed Parcel 3 who live on Weiskopf. One owner
is objecting to the project and requesting a continuance to a later date with the
second requesting a continuance to January 10, 2006 (Attachment 5).
11
P:\Reports - PC\2005\12-27-05\Shaffer sp et al\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt.doc
DISCUSSION:
Under the existing General Plan, Zoning and Specific Plan, the original intent of this
area was for it to be planted and maintained for recreation and passive use. The
original surrounding homeowners purchased their property upon these conditions
and assumed they would extend into the future. The existing planted area has
existed for approximately 10 years. The existing land use is consistent with the
intent of the original project design and there is no compelling reason to change the
existing General Plan, Zoning, and Specific Plan other than the applicant has
determined that up to three new single family residential lots could be developed
while maintaining the existing golf cart path. Based upon these conditions the
Planning Commission could outright deny the proposed General Plan amendment,
Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Parcel Map, citing
inconsistency with the existing land use designations and entitlements.
OPTIONS:
The following options are available to the Planning Commission:
1) Continue consideration to a date specific as requested by the letter received.
2) Recommend approval.
3) Deny the project based on inconsistency with the General Plan.
dIJ101IJRTS
The Environmental Assessment, General Plan, Zone Change, Specific Plan and
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 you wish to recommend approval of this request, as noted in the
attached Resolutions with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the request and determine if
approval is in the best interest of the community. Should the Commission
determine it is acceptable, the following actions should be taken:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the
City Council certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the
City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2005-106.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- recommending to the
City Council approval of Zone Change 2005-126.
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend N5 at al pc rpt.doc
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the
City Council approval of Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #5, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the
City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 32752, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Specific Plan Document
3. Tentative Parcel Map
4. Conceptual plan showing development of proposed lots
5. Letters received
Prepared by:
' cS4)A X
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
It
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend #5 at al pc rpt.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
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 GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 2005-106, ZONE CHANGE 2005-126,
SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #5 AND
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 27T" day of December, 2005 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2005-550 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2005-
106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #5 and 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 General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Specific Plan Amendment and 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 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
2005-550.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan
Amendment and Tentative Parcel Map because the site is presently planted
primarily in turf will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
U
P:\Reports - PC\2005\12-27-05\Shaffer sp at aksp 83-002 amend 5 ea 2005-550 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005
Environmental Assessment 2005-550
Ray Shaffer
Adopted: December 27, 2005
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.
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 General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan
Amendment and 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 General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan
Amendment and 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 General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan
Amendment and 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.
P:\stan\sp\sp 83-002 amend 5 ea 2005-550 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005
Environmental Assessment 2005-550
Ray Shaffer
Adopted: December 27, 2005
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 2005-550 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 27" day of December, 2005, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\stars\sp\sp 83-002 amend 5 ea 2005-550 pc res.doc
r
L
Environmental Checklist Form — Environmental Assessment 2005-550
Project title: General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Change of Zone 2005-126, Specific Plan
83-002, Amendment #5, Tentative Parcel Map 32752
Lead agency name and address:
3. Contact person and phone number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
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 sponsofs name and address: Ray Shaffer
55-770 Cherry Hill Drive
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General plan designation: Existing: Golf 7. Zoning: Existing: Golf Course;
Course; Proposed: Low Density Residential Proposed: Low Density 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 General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are required to change the land use and
zoning designations on 2.3 acres of land within the PGA West Specific Plan from Golf
Course to Low Density Residential.
The Specific Plan Amendment is requested to amend the document's land use designations,
development standards and guidelines to allow the development of three homes in an area of
the plan that had previously been designated for golf course.
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, of
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
13
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
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 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.
'95Gnenw l Za - ! Lo - O
Signature Date
,J
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)
I. 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
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 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 Use Map; Site Inspection)
11.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.
,4
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. 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
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 PM10 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 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.
t
The proposed subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
W. 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
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.)
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.)
0 Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
'u
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.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impa
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? (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.)
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.
13
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
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)
ii) 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) 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 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.
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
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
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.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impa
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General Plan
EIR p.1II-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 granted)? (General Plan EIR p. II1-187 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? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
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? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
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 runoM(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
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? (General Plan EIR p. II1-187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
_
Assessment
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.
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)
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.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will result in the
conversion of 3 acres currently designated for Golf Course use to Low Density
Residential use. The PGA West Specific Plan was approved with both these land
uses, so that the proposed amendments represent a shift in land use, not a change
in the overall goals of the Specific Plan. Further, the Specific Plan was approved
to allow up to 5,000 residential units, and has built out to 3,996 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
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
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 ff.)
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
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
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
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
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.)
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.
111 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 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
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
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 substantia=construction
X
people, necessitating treplacement
housing ePlan,
p 9 ff., application m
XII. 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.
13
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
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
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.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. 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
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
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Wou'd 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. III-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)? (TPM 32752)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (TPM 32752)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TPM 32752)
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 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, 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
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 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.)
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.)
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 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/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
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)?
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 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.
Environmental Impact Report 83-009 (SCH #83062922), 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 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM GOLF COURSE TO LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN
WEISKOPF AND JACK NICKLAUS, IMMEDIATELY SOUTH
OF PGA BOULEVARD WITHIN PGA WEST
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2005-106
RAY SHAFFER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 27`" day of December, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of Ray Shaffer for approval of a General Plan Land Use Amendment from
Golf Course to Low Density Residential 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 General Plan Amendment application 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, the Community Development Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on December 17, 2005 for the Planning
Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were
also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; 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 to the City Council for approval of said General Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan in that the General Plan Amendment
results in promoting residential development in a controlled and logical manner.
2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the resulting
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend #5 gpa 2005-106 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
General Plan Amendment 2005-106
Ray Shaffer
Adopted:
General Plan designations will result in a project that is required to provide
adequate setbacks, be well designed and landscaped, and comply with all
applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements.
3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with adjacent properties in that the
resulting projects will be single-family residences that are the same as the
surrounding single-family residences.
4. The General Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the property in that
it will allow expansion of the residential uses.
5. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because the use is an
expansion of uses approved on adjacent properties within PGA West.
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 approval of General Plan Amendment 2005-106 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as shown in the attached exhibit "A";
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27`" day of December, 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
�5
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend #5 gpa 2005-106 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
General Plan Amendment 2005-106
Ray Shaffer
Adopted:
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend #5 gpa 2005-106 pc res.doc
CASE No.
CASE MAP
G PA 2005-106
RAY SHAFFER
EXHIBIT "A"
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE
FROM GOLF COURSE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN WEISKOPF AND JACK
NICKLAUS, IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF PGA BOULEVARD
WITHIN PGA WEST
CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2005-126
RAY SHAFFER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 27' day of December, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of Ray Shaffer for approval of a zone change from Golf Course to Low
Density Residential 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 Zone Change application 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, the Community Development Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on December 17, 2005, for the Planning
Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were
also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, 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 and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of said Zone Change.
1. This Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and
policies of the General Plan and associated Specific Plan in that the Zone
Change will be consistent provided the associated General Plan and Specific
plan is approved.
14
P-1CTAkRQ — PiJV19 >m>nd HR yr f1F_19R — roc d—
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_
Zone Change 2005-126
Ray Shaffer
Adopted:
2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses require compliance
with the Zoning Code and associated Specific Plan which ensures that the
resulting residences will be well designed.
3. The new zone designation is compatible and the same as the designations on
adjacent residential properties.
4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved
because they will be designed to be compatible with adjacent properties and
reduce potential impacts due to its location at the north end of the fairway.
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
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the associated Negative Declaration
of environmental impact;
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change
2005-126 as shown on the attached exhibit "A";
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 27`n day of December, 2005, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend N5 zc 05-126 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_
Zone Change 2005-126
Ray Shaffer
Adopted:
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
�,j
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend N5 zc 05-126 pc res.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A CHANGE IN LAND USES FROM GOLF
COURSE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN WEISKOPF AND JACK
NICKLAUS, IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF PGA BOULEVARD
WITHIN PGA WEST
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #5
RAY SHAFFER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did, on the 27" day of December, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Ray Shaffer for approval of a Specific Plan
Amendment amending land uses from Golf Course to Low Density Residential 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, the Community Development Department published the
public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on December 17, 2005, for the
Planning Commission meeting 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 General Plan Amendment application 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 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 a
recommendation to the City Council for approval of said Specific Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the existing Specific Plan and General Plan
in that it will result in promoting commercial development in a controlled and
logical manner that is compatible with the neighborhood.
P:\Repo•ts - PC\2005\12-27-05\Shaffer sp at al\sp 83-002 amend 6 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Specifw Plan 83-002, Amendment #5
Ray Shaffer
Adopted:
2. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions
materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that
the resulting project will provide adequate setbacks, be well designed,
landscaped, and will comply with all applicable City, County, State and
Federal requirements.
3. The Specific Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the property in
that it will allow expansion of the residential component of the project.
4. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment is warranted because the uses are
an expansion of uses approved on adjacent properties within PGA West.
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
said Planning Commission in this case; and
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan
83-002, Amendment #5 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 271h day of December, 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\2005\12-27-05\Shaffer sp at al\sp 83-002 amend 5 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Zone Change 2005-126
Ray Shaffer
Adopted:
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
0, j
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend #5 zc 05-126 pc res.doc
Manning Commission Resolution 2005-
:onditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #5
lay D. Shaffer
kdopted:
3ENERAL
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.
?. Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #5 shall comply with the requirements and
standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, unless
modified by the following conditions or the Specific Plan.
3. The Specific Plan text on file in the Community Development Department, shall be
revised to incorporate in the appropriate chapter and section the following conditions
with a minimum of five copies of the revised final approved texts submitted to the
Community Development Department within 30 days of final approval by the City
Council or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first.
4. The exhibits related to this request shall be revised to reflect approved General Plan
and Zoning designations as approved in GPA 2005-106 and ZC 2005-126.
5. A fee of $1,314.00, payable to Riverside County, is due to the Community
Development Department within 24 hours of any City Council approval. This is
required by the County to post the Notice of Determination for EA 2005-550 and
offset costs associated with AB 3158 (Fish and Game Code 711.4).
P:\sfan\sp 03-002 amend 5 pc coa.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA OUINTA, 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 27`h day of December, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing 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.
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend #5 tpm 32752 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Tentatrve 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 27`n day of December, 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend #5 tpm 32752 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Tentative Parcel Map 32752
Ray Shaffer
Adopted:
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\STAN\SP\sp 83-002 amend N5 tpm 32752 pc res.doc '
Manning Commission Resolution 2005-
;onditions of Approval - Recommended
'entative Parcel Map 32752
lay D. Shaffer
ldopted:
3ENERAL
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.
_j
PAsfan\sp 83-002 amend 5 q)m 32752 pc coa.doc
'tanning Commission Resolution 2005-
:onditions of Approval - Recommended
.entative Parcel Map 32752
lay D. Shaffer
ldopted:
t. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES storm
water 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.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).
21 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:\staMsp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 2 of 7
'fanning Commission Resolution 2005-
-onditions of Approval - Recommended
rentative Parcel Map 32752
lay D. Shaffer
4dopted:
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
S. 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 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.
B. 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.
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.
12. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of
P:\stan\sp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 3 of 7
anning Commission Resolution 2005-
onditions of Approval - Recommended
antative Parcel Map 32752
ay D. Shaffer
dopted:
utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
3. 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.
INAL PARCEL MAP
4. 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.
MPROVEMENT PLANS
Ns used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
'surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
•espective 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. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal
C. SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal
NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently.
P:\stanlsp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 4 of 7
Manning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
tentative Parcel Map 32752
day D. Shaffer
4dopted:
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.
23. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
P:\stanlsp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 5 of 7
'fanning Commission Resolution 2005-
,onditions of Approval - Recommended
-entative Parcel Map 32752
iay D. Shaffer
adopted:
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
24. 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.
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.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
29. 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
PAstaosp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 6 of 7
'fanning Commission Resolution 2005-
.onditions of Approval - Recommended
.entative Parcel Map 32752
lay D. Shaffer
kdopted:
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.
-EES 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 711.4).
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.
FIRE MARSHAL
37. 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 may be approved by Community Development and Public
Works Departments.
PAstaMsp 83-002 amend 5 tpm 32752 pc coa.doc 7 of 7
PGA WEST
.KiI=
CASE
ATTACHMENT #1
52nd 1 AVENUE
54th AVENUE
58th AVENUE
MAP
- RUITA i
i;
CASE No. -I \N O R T
LOCATION MAP
RAY SHAFFER
SCALE:
NTS
n
Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 are large exhibits
ATTACHMENT #!
LETTERS RECEIVED
r
MEN
80-355 Weiskopf La Quinta, CA 92253 1 9
Dr, and Mrs. Myron Mintz
Phone:760-771-0402 Faz:760-771-1154 CITYOFLAQUINTA
DesertMintz@aol.com COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
December 19, 2005
Mr. Tom Kirk
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 Mr. Kirk:
It is our understanding that Mr. Ray D. Shaffer is applying for a zone change in
the aforementioned Tentative Parcel Map 32752.
When we moved to PGA WEST in December of 2000 we were told by the
developer of the Masters Homes on Weiskopf, that the adjacent land to lot # 1
(our home, 80-355 Weiskopf) same parcel map, was open space and served as a
catch basin for the Weiskopf Golf Course. We confirmed this with the city of La
Quinta.
We are aware that KSL recently sold the 3 parcels to Mr. Shaffer, and we are
aware that KSL recently sold the Golf Course to CNL. We have heard nothing
regarding CNL giving permission to Mr. Shaffer to build on these 3 parcels and
we have heard nothing about any of the 3 PGA WEST Associations annexing the
parcels into their respective Associations. We know for a fact that Mr. Shaffer has
not applied for annexation into the Fairway's Association which is the Association
most likely to be involved in this matter. We also question if Mr. Shaffer has full,
legal ownership of these parcels.
Given all of the above, we have numerous objections to this application for
rezoning.
• City of La Quinta has told us the land in question is open space and is needed
as a catch basin for the Golf Course.
• Our views will be severely obstructed. One of our main motivations to .
purchase our property was the guarantee of adjacent open space.
• We question the feasibility of Emergency Vehicles able to access the 3
proposed homes.
• We question the full legal ownership of the land in question.
• We question the lack of movement by Mr. Shaffer to have this land annexed
into the Fairways Association of PGA WEST.
Given our parcel of land and home will be the most affected by this proposed
zoning change, we request a postponement of the December 27, 2005 Public
Hearing until your regularly scheduled January Meeting when we can attend in
person to state our oppositions. It is unfortunate for us we cannot attend the
December 2r Hearing because of a prior commitment. We will be out of town at
our daughter's rehearsal dinner in conjunction with her Wedding on December
28tn Additionally, many of our neighbors have informed us that the December
27tn Meeting is at an awkward And very inconvenient time for them falling
between The Holidays.
Thank you for your consideration.
)4v- - L. V4.
Myron and Joanne Mintz
Mr. Tom Kirk
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Sir:
MICHAEL HERMAN
@PGA West
80-690 Weiskopf
La Quinta, CA,
RE: PGA West
[EC[Ep V L�
Way
92253 DEC 2 2 2005
CITY OF LA QUINTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
December 20, 20WARTMENT
I request that you postpone the December 27
consideration of the re -zoning application concerning parcel
map 32752 until January 10, 2006. The proposal for three
new housing sites is an important issue affecting the
thousands of homeowners who live at PGA West. Many of these
taxpayers are otherwise involved with the holidays and
will be unable to attend the scheduled meeting. Your
cooperation is most appreciated.
Respectfully,
PH #E
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 27, 2005
CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-846
APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
PROPERTY OWNER: TOLL BROTHERS, INC
REQUEST: RESIDENTIAL TRACT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF SEVEN
SINGLE-FAMILY PROTOTYPES, EACH WITH TWO
DIFFERENT ELEVATION TREATMENTS, AND TYPICAL
LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN
LOCATION: WITHIN TRACT 30834, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
AVENUE 58, ±'/Z MILE WEST OF MADISON STREET
(ATTACHMENT 1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-457, FOR TT
30834, WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
NOVEMBER 5, 2002). NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE
PREPARATION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION.
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
Tentative Tract 30834 (Stone Creek Ranch), was originally approved by the City
Council on November 5, 2002, incorporating 76 single-family lots within ±29
acres (Attachment 2). Madison Estates, LLC followed through on the final map,
and all perimeter walls, common area/street improvements, and parkway
landscaping along Avenue 58, have been completed.
Architecture and landscaping plans were originally approved for Stone Creek Ranch
on August 12, 2003, by the Planning Commission. The approval allowed three unit
plans; a fourth was subsequently added administratively. Currently, five units have
been built, using three of the four approved plans. All five existing units are single
story. The Stone Creek Ranch project has recently been sold to Toll Brothers, Inc.
who wishes to use their existing floor plans to develop the remainder of the tract.
Toll Brothers has used some of these plans at PGA West and Mountain View
Country Club. As this tract has an existing approved Site Development Permit for
three floor plans, all subsequent requests to build additional unit plans must be
reviewed and approved against the existing approved plans for this tract, under the
Compatibility Review provisions of the Municipal Code.
Proiect Background
The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for seven unit designs. Each plan is
designed with two elevation treatments. The first six plans utilize two elevations
referred to as Spanish Colonial and Tuscan styles, and vary in size from 2,779 to
4,188 square feet in area, based on livable floor area without optional space. Plan
7, the Piedra, utilizes two elevations as well, referred to as Tuscan and Santa
Barbara styles. Each unit has the following characteristics:
Plan 1: Pasillo plan, 2,779 s.f.: 1-story, 3 BR + den/media room, 2-car garage (1
car side -entry).
Plan 2: Entrada plan, 3,615 s.f.: 2-story, 3 BR with office and upstairs guest
unit/living room, 3-car garage (2 tandem spaces).
Plan 3: Montana plan, 3,774 s.f.: 2-story, 3 BR with den and upstairs game room
or guest unit option, 2 + 1 car garages (both side entry).
Plan 4: Mollino plan, 4,188 s.f.: 2-story, 3 BR with den, 2 + 1 car garages.
Second floor has 2 guest rooms and deck.
Plan 5: Quintana plan, 3,412 s.f.: 1-story, 3 BR with den, 2 car+ golf cart
garages.
Plan 6: Santolina plan, 2,794 s.f.: 1-story, 3 BR, 2-car garage, with entry
courtyard (NOTE: This plan was submitted to ALRC for review after
preparation of the staff report).
Plan 7: Piedra plan, 3,285 s.f.: 1-story, 3 BR with bonus room/casita option off
open courtyard, 3-car garage. This plan incorporates a Santa Barbara
elevation scheme in lieu of the Spanish Colonial scheme used with the
other five plans.
The applicant's proposed model location will showcase Plans 3 and 4. The plant
palettes and landscape improvement layouts for these two plans will be the typical
design employed for each of the six plan types. Planting plans for all common and
perimeter areas of the entire tract, including the entry gatehouse and perimeter
walls, have already been approved and constructed. The model parking lot
landscaping incorporates Chilean Mesquite trees, which the ALRC has discouraged
ti
in past projects. In general, the landscape palettes presented are acceptable;
however, staff recommends that front yard turf/sod areas as shown be reduced or
eliminated. The applicant will be required to present water calculations to show
compliance with Chapter 8.13, LQMC.
Applicable Approval Conditions
Existing tract conditions that apply to this request are:
Condition #68 — Trees shall be staked with lodge poles to protect against damage
from gusting winds.
Condition #69 — Prior to building permit issuance, a front yard landscape plan shall
be prepared for each homesite to include a minimum of two shade trees 0 5-gallon
with 0.75 caliper►, five ten-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. No more than 50% of
the front yard area shall be devoted to lawn.
Condition #82 — The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.48
(Park Dedications), LQMC.
Condition #96 — Design guidelines for each housing product shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission per Section 9.60.330 (Tract Development)
or Section 9.60.340 (Custom Homes) of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to building
permit issuance, all required RL Zoning District requirements shall be met.
Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) Action - On December 7,
2005, the ALRC reviewed these prototype architectural plans, and unanimously
recommended approval of the Site Development Permit by Minute Motion 2005-
(Attachment 3), subject to incorporation of the following:
• Removal of Chilean Mesquite species from the landscape palette
• More architectural detailing of staircase railings, blank wall areas and other
features, particularly on the two-story elevations.
The applicant presented a new plan, the Santolina (Plan 6), after the ALRC packet
had been prepared. This plan was incorporated into the ALRC review and approval
for this case. The main concern of the ALRC was that a comparable level of
material quality and detailing be provided in comparison to the prior approved units.
The proposed units provide less detail and architectural depth than the originally
approved Stone Creek units, but are consistent in massing and basic appearance.
Residential Tract Development Review Requirements - Each prototype plan and
elevation meets the standards as specified by Section 9.60.330.D of the Zoning
I
Code. The landscaping as conditioned is required to be consistent with the
requirements specified in Section 9.60.330.E.
Use of 2-Story Plans — Plans 2, 3 and 4 will be restricted in their location relative
to the five existing units in Stone Creek. They may not be located on any lot
adjacent to a one-story unit, pursuant to compatibility requirements (Section
9.60.300.1.1). As one of the model lots is adjacent to an existing single -story unit,
that lot, and other similar lots are required to comply with this provision. In
addition, it is recommended that the Planning Commission look at limiting tract
perimeter lots to single -story, as there are existing PGA West units to the north,
the Avenue 58 maintenance facility for PGA West along the west boundary, and
approved TT 32279 along the easterly property boundaries (this tract has no
limitations on height or number of stories in its approval conditions, and no unit
approval has been applied for).
The original tract approval did not restrict location of two-story units. However,
with the significant increases in property values and concerns with building heights
and privacy issues as the City receives more infill development, the Planning
Commission should consider these cocerns
The applicant has a concern with this requirement for several reasons:
1. The applicant points to the fact that the upper floors of the two-story units
have limited visibility out to the rear of the lot, and the upper floors are at
the front or center of the unit. They have considered the maintenance facility
and surrounding units, with the opinion that the design will not impact future
and existing residents.
2. There are no applicable requirements to limit height in the perimeter areas, as
there are no tract conditions in this regard, and the compatibility
requirements that govern do not apply to any of the perimeter areas.
3. The unit plans are existing units plotted for the lots based on configuration
and lot size. It could be difficult to achieve the minimum house size under
the compatibility requirements on many lots if the height is limited to one
story.
Parkland Fee Requirements — The required fees in -lieu of parkland dedication have
not been paid to date. Staff had been in negotiation with the original developer of
the project prior to its sale to Toll Brothers. A condition has been incorporated with
this SDP to reiterate the fee requirement as still applicable to the underlying map.
No building permits will be issued until these fees have been paid (NOTE: The
developer has stated that these fees have been paid and is in the process of
obtaining the supporting documentation).
On
Landscaping — The applicant has provided a model plan, with two models sited and
associated landscaping improvements, which are planned as the basis for each unit
plan's typical landscape plan. While the plans are generally consistent with and
continue the theme of the common area improvements, staff has recommended
that the conditions require a minimum of three tree types to be provided for each
typical, to reflect the approved palette for the project common areas.
MANDATORY FINDINGS
As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning
Ordinance, findings to approve Site Development Permit 2005-846 are as follows:
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 surrounding development in the City and the existing tract
structures.
3. Compliance with CEQA - This request has been previously assessed in
conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2002-457 which was certified
by the City Council on November 5, 2002, 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 installed
and are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of
design prevalent in the City, and provided in compliance with the Zoning
Code requirements and the approved 30834 Tract Map.
5. Landscape Design — Only landscaping plans for the new home sites are
necessary, as all common area landscaping improvements are complete.
Typical front yard plans, based on two model unit landscape plans, were
submitted for review; plans for the remaining unit front yards will be
submitted for review and have been required to comply with City and
Coachella Valley Water District water efficiency requirements, ensuring
efficient water use.
6. Compliance with General Plan - The project is in compliance with the
General Plan and applicable Specific Plan in that the property to be
developed is designated and has been approved for residential development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2005- , approving Site Development Permit 2005-846,
subject to the recommended findings and conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tract 30834 layout
3. ALRC Minutes of December 7, 2005
Prepared by:
ce Nesbit, Associate Planner
6
MINUTE MOTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-846
TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
DECEMBER 27, 2005
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. 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.
3. SDP 2005-846 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation
measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for the following
related approvals:
• Environmental Assessment 2002-457
• Tentative Tract Map 30834
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.
4. 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, 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
F/
Planning Commission Minute Motion No. 2005-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2005-846
Toll Brothers, Inc.
December 27, 2005
Page 2
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.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
5. Applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the City's
adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of
building permits.
6. 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)
7. Prior to building permit issuance, the outstanding parkland dedication fees
associated with TR 30834 shall be paid.
8. The model home sales complex shall comply with the requirements of
Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a Minor Use
Permit approval and deposit, prior to establishing any of the model units or
temporary sales facilities.
LANDSCAPING
9. Applicant shall provide a typical landscape plan for each unit as part of
landscape plan check review, to be consistent with the plans presented for
Plans 3 and 4 as shown on the model landscape plans as approved. Front
yard turf/sod areas as shown shall be reduced or eliminated. Plans shall show
compliance with Chapter 8.13, LQMC. Each unit plan shall include at least
three tree options, consistent with the approved landscape palette for the
project's common area landscape improvements as installed.
10. Chilean Mesquite shall be removed and replaced in all plant palettes
employed for SDP 2005-846. Replacement trees shall be of a similar size and
type.
11. The final front yard landscaping plans for each of the seven plans shall be
prepared by a licensed landscape professional and submitted to the
Community Development Department, for review and approval prior to
issuance of any occupancy permit for the model units authorized by this
8
P:\Reports - PC\2005\12-27-05\Toll Bros SDP 846\pccoasdp846.doc
Planning Commission Minute Motion No. 2005-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2005-846
Toll Brothers, Inc.
December 27, 2005
Page 3
approval. Said plans shall be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water
Efficiency Provisions for New or Rehabilitated landscapes) of the Municipal
Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella
Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to
submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department.
12. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the CVWD. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along any streets.
Sprinkler heads shall be placed 18" from curbs with turf between heads and
curbs. However, if an 18" gravel strip is required adjacent to curb by CVWD
the strip shall be meandering with some ground cover plant material in the
widened gravel areas.
13. Front yard landscaping for each dwelling shall consist of, at minimum, two
24" box trees (i.e., a minimum 2.0 inch caliper measured three feet up from
grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Palms may
count as a tree if the trunk is a minimum six feet tall. Double lodge poles
(two-inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be
irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water conservation, no more
than 50% of the front yard landscaping shall be devoted to turf. Future home
buyers shall be offered a no -turf, desert landscape option in all front yards.
The landscape plan for this option shall be submitted for review and approval
along with the other front yard typicals for each plan.
14. Wildflower seed mixes susceptible to weed control problems shall not be
used in any hydro -seed operations on lots or other areas, as a dust control
method. Any alternative seed mix to achieve erosion/dust control, with
minimal weed growth, shall be approved by the Community Development
Department.
15. Any ground -mounted mechanical equipment located in view from any street
or common area shall be screened by dense landscaping, of a sufficient
height to fully screen such equipment above its horizontal plane.
BUILDING DESIGN
16. This approval is for seven (7) floor plans for TR 30834, as listed in the
Planning Commission staff report for SDP 2005-846, dated December 27,
2005. Any additional unit plans to be added will be subject to ALRC and
Planning Commission review as an amendment to this Site Development
Permit approval.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\12-27-05\Toll Bros SDP 846\pccoasdp846.doc
Planning Commission Minute Motion No. 2005-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2005-846
Toll Brothers, Inc.
December 27, 2005
Page 4
17. Final location of all structures submitted for plan check shall comply with all
setback standards of the RL zoning district. Developer shall submit a
preliminary unit siting plan to the Community Development Department prior
to issuance of any dwelling unit permits. Minor amendments to the
development plans (e.g., architectural details, house plotting, etc.) shall be
subject to approval by the Community Development Director.
18. All roof tile options shall be of a tri-color blend.
19. Plans 2, 3 and 4 (Entrada, Montana and Mollino) may not be sited on any lot
adjacent to, or sharing common lot boundary with, an existing single story
unit located within TR 30834. As part of building plan check review,
applicant shall provide a unit siting plan for the entire tract, or with each
building phase, as applicable.
20. Plan 4 (Mollina) shall be modified to reduce its floor area, from 4,188 to
4,138 square feet, maximum size, and to show only one guest room on the
2nd floor. This shall be verified during the building plan check process. Only
one guest unit/room, as defined by Section 9.60.100, is permitted on a
residential lot.
21. Additional detailing of architectural features shall be provided, generally to
address blank wall areas on the two-story plan elevations, and visible
staircase railings (notably, Plan 2). All staircase railings shall have decorative
detailing. The Spanish Colonial Scheme 1, and Piedra unit Santa Barbara
elevation, shall not be used for any home adjacent to an existing unit.
22. Front yard setbacks along streets where five or more homes have frontage,
shall be staggered at a range between 20 — 25 feet. The applicant shall
provide a siting plan with the plan check building plans for verification of all
setback issues.
23. Any structural spaces indicating a guest house/casita as an option combined
with a side -entry garage shall meet the zoning setback standard for the
respective option chosen, which shall be clearly identified on all precise
grading plans. All casita/guest house spaces, whether attached or detached,
shall be referenced on the precise grading plan.
24. All interior garage spaces shall maintain the minimum interior dimensions as
specified in Chapter 9.150 (Parking), LQMC. Single -car garage spaces shall
tl
P:\Reports - PC\2005\12-27-05\Toll Bros SDP 846\pccoasdp846.doc
Planning Commission Minute Motion No. 2005-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2005-846
Toll Brothers, Inc.
December 27, 2005
Page 5
maintain a minimum 10-foot x 20-foot interior clear dimension, otherwise
they will not be counted as an enclosed garage car space.
25. Guest houses, as defined in LQMC Section 9.60.100, are limited to one per
lot/primary dwelling. Any guest house/casita will require approval of a Minor
Use Permit, subject to the provisions of said Section as determined by the
Community Development Department. The Plan 2 one -car garage/optional
casita as shown shall eliminate the casita option, or make it part of the
adjacent guest unit.
26. 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.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\12-27-05\Toll Bros SDP 846\pccoasdp846.doc
°ROJECT S/TE �
ATTACHMENT 1
547H
AVENUE
�
W
W
AIRPORT
W.
cn
o
56TH
AVENUE
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT A
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
December 7, 2005
r" C. Site Development Permit 2005-846; a request of Toll Brothers, Inc. for
consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for the property
located on the north side of Avenue 58, west of Madison Street.
1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Allen
Janisch and Rick Blackshear who stated they were available to
answer questions.
2. Committee Member Christopher asked if any of the new plans
will be adjacent to the existing units. Staff stated yes, but no
two- story units will be permitted next to a single -story unit.
3. Committee Member Smith asked about the exterior entrances to
the upstairs unit. Staff noted that when they are designed with
the exterior doorway, it is considered a guest room. Committee
Member Smith noted there was a stairwell directly adjacent to
the driveway. Mr. Blackshear noted how you would enter the
unit. Half of the staircase would be seen from the street. He
noted the Plan 2 and Plan 4 staircases can be seen from the
street.
4. Committee Member Christopher asked if decorative detailing
could be added to the staircase. Mr. Blackshear stated it could
be added.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to define what detailing
that exists on the original units would not be carried over to
these units. Discussion followed regarding the differences
between the two elevations.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if they were exceeding any
height limitations. Staff noted they are all within the height
limitations.
7. Committee Member Christopher noted the Plan 2 second story
has too much blank wall and something simple such as wrought
iron detailing would help. Plan 1 needs something added to the
risers to add detail. The applicant should be sensitive to the
existing units to not construct something that is less than what
is there.
�c
0
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
December 7, 2005
6. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Smith to
adopt Minute Motion 2005-037 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2005-846, as recommended and as
follows:
a. On some of the gable -end second story areas,
additional architectural detailing shall be added.
b. Decorative treatment shall be provided on Plan 2
for the staircase that faces the street.
c. Railing detail shall be decorative and not a standing
vertical element.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There bin
no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members B bbitt/Christopher to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural
and Landsca tas
g Review Committee to a meeting to be held on January 4, 2006.
This meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. on December 7, 2005.
Respectfully s�bmitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER
Executive Secretary
5
t
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 27, 2005
CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2005-941
APPLICANT, SIGNTECH ELECTRICAL
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A DEVIATION REQUEST TO AN
APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM TO PERMIT NOW
CONFORMING COPORATE SIGNS FOR BUSINESS
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF 11, IN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA
QU NTA SHOPPING CENTER, GHWAY I CENTER,WEST OF ADAMS STREET
GENERAL PLAN: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA Q COMMUNITY
MENT
DEPARTMENT HASA DETERMINED THAT E THIS P SIGN
APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 15311 (CLASS 11) OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
BACKGROUND:
The One -Eleven La Quinta Center has an approved Sign Program, which requires 24 or
30 inch high internally -illuminated Helvetica-style channel letters for "Minor Tenant'
signs. As per the approved Program, sign length is permitted to be 75% of the
leasehold width and a maximum allowable sign area of 50 square feet. For corner
spaces, tenants may split the allowable sign area among two signs. A provision in the
Sign Program allows a regional or national tenant with five or more outlets to request
Planning Commission approval to deviate from the approved Sign Program when using
their corporate signage.
SIGN REQUEST:
The applicant has applied for a total five signs as part of the Sign Application. Three
signs are wall mounted and require Planning Commission approval as they exceed the
maximum allowable sign area, number of signs, and do not use the approved font for
the letters. The fourth sign is proposed for placement on one of the entry doors and
does not conform to the City of La Quinta Zoning Code standards. The fifth sign is
interior and exempt from the City's sign regulations and the Sign Program. The
landlord has approved the requested signs as submitted.
The three signs that require Planning Commission approval are proposed to be placed
on the north, east, and south building elevations. Two signs (north and south
elevations) are proposed to be approximately 27 inches in height and 146.25 inches
wide. Each sign is approximately 34 square feet. This exceeds the maximum letter
height, permitted length of 75% of the leasehold width and total area allowance (when
combined). The third sign (east elevation) is proposed to be approximately 35 inches in
height and 195 inches wide. The sign area is approximately 60 square feet. This sign
also exceeds the maximum letter height, permitted length, and sign area. The
doortwindow sign is proposed to exceed the 3 feet aggregate maximum area, as stated
in LQMC Section 9.160.020, as it will be approximately 7 square feet.
The three proposed corporate wall signs are comprised of internally -illuminated channel
letters. The logos on each of these signs are LED -illuminated. The signs are five
inches deep, and are proposed to be flush -mounted to the fascia. The proposed
window/door sign is vinyl that will be applied directly on to the glass.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
Issue 1:
National or regional tenants are permitted to use corporate or their standard signs with
Planning Commission approval. To date, a number of tenants have chosen to do this
within the One -Eleven La Quinta Center with some exceeding the Sign Program
allowances.
Issue 2:
The number of signs allowed for corner spaces is two. The applicant is proposing three
signs in order to obtain exposure on all three building elevations. A limited number of
tenants have been allowed to exceed this provision.
Issue 3:
The maximum area for door/window signs displaying business hours is three square
feet. The applicant is proposing a sign greater than three square feet.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2005-_, approving the requested signs, subject to the following
Conditions of Approval:
The total number of exterior wall mounted signs shall be limited to two. The sign
proposed for elevations "A" and "C", measuring 32.61 square feet in area, shall
be used. The applicant shall install one of the approved signs on the north
elevation and shall be limited to placement of the second sign to either the
proposed south or east elevation.
2. The sign area for the proposed window/door sign shall be reduced to not exceed
the 3 feet aggregate maximum area as stated in LQMC Section 9.160.020.
3. A building permit shall be obtained prior to any work on the sign being started.
4. Final plans shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department prior
to obtaining a building permit.
Attachments:
Sign Exhibits
Prepared bpi.
JAY WUU, Aaeis ant Planner
gm
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: DECEMBER 27, 2005
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: DISCUSSION ON WHETHER OR NOT HOOKAH BARS ARE A
PERMITTED USE, PROHIBITED USE, OR CONDITIONAL
USE IN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
LOCATION: CITY WIDE
BACKGROUND:
Staff received a request from Mr. Halum Abdo to open a hookah bar in the One -Eleven
La Quinta Center. Hookah smoking involves the smoking of flavored tobacco through a
hookah (a bong -shaped pipe). Smokers sit around the hookah, connect tubes to the
hookah, and smoke through their individual mouthpieces. The tobacco is heated in a
bowl using hot coals or water. Hookah bars typically consist of tables, chairs, sofas,
and multiple televisions. In addition, Mr. Abdo also plans on serving coffee, soft drinks,
and snacks at the hookah bar he is proposing.
Other cities with hookah bars have treated the use in various ways. The City of Palm
Desert treats hookah bars as coffee shops. They are not concerned so much about the
use, but rather the parking. The City of Anaheim previously treated hookah bars as
coffee shops. However, the use changed over time from a coffee shop -like
establishment to more of a nightclub atmosphere. Loud music would often be played
by a live DJ until the late hours of the night, and hours of operation extended well past
typical hours for a coffee shop or retail establishment. As a result, law enforcement
issues became a problem. Now, Anaheim has drafted an ordinance specifically
regulating hookah bars and smoking lounges that is currently under City Council review.
The State of California does regulate smoke shops and indoor smoking via Labor Code
6404.5 and Penal Code 308. There are a few exceptions within state law that would
allow hookah bars. One exception is if the bar is solely operated by the owner, with no
other employees. Another exception is if the hookah bar was a retail tobacco shop
whose main purpose is selling hookah -related products.
Hookah bars are not a listed use in LQMC Section 9.80.040 "Table of Permitted Uses."
In addition, the La Quinta Municipal Code also does not regulate smoke/cigar shops.
Per LQMC Section 9.80.040, "Other uses not listed in this table," the Community
Development Director or Planning Commission is to determine whether a use not
clearly defined by the Zoning Code is permitted.
ANALYSIS:
LQMC Section 9.20.040, "Land Uses Not Listed," states, "any determination on a
proposed unlisted use may be referred to the Planning Commission as a non -hearing
item if the Director determines on a case -by -case basis that the public interest would be
better served by such referral. After staff consideration, it was determined the
appropriate course of action was to forward the matter to the Planning Commission for
their consideration in order to determine whether a hookah bar should be allowed as a
permitted use or conditional use, and which zoning district(s) should they be allowed to
locate within.
Hookah bars have the ability to operate reasonably and without incident if the use is
carefully regulated. Issues associated with this activity that should be considered by the
Commission are:
1. The appropriate zoning district(s) that hookah bars would be permitted, either
conditionally or outright.
2. How the City would determine the parking requirement for hookah bars.
3. Hours of operation.
4. How to prevent hookah bars from evolving from a coffee shop -type setting to a
nightclub.
5. Limiting hookah bars to providing services, amenities and retail goods to those
associated with such an establishment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the option of allowing hookah
bars as permitted or conditional uses in the City of La Quinta and provide appropriate
direction to staff.
Attachments:
Letter from Mr. Abdo requesting determination
Prepared by;
JAY WUU, Aosistant Planner
ATTACHMENT #1
October, 5 2005
Dear Doug Evans,
I Halum Abdo, a La Quinta resident, interested in opening a Huka coffee shop in
the city of La Quinta on Adams and Highway 111. I have looked up the zoning codes for
the city and noticed that the Huka bar was not listed. The closest thing listed to a Huka
bar is live entertainment or a bar. I am requesting a regional commercial zoning code
interpretation.
In the Huka bar, I will be serving coffee, soft drinks, snacks and Huka. Huka is
tobacco smoking. It is smoked from a three feet pipe attached to a glass bottle containing
water. There are about twenty-five tobacco flavors. In this Huka bar, there will be tables,
chairs, sofas and TV's.
Sincerely,
Hal um Abdo