The URL can be used to link to this page

2004 10 12 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California OCTOBER 12, 2004 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2004-076 Beginning Minute Motion 2004-015 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 for the Regular Meeting of September 28, 2004. B. Department Report G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.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 ................ CONTINUED - SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004- 811 Applicant.......... Rich Boureston Location........... Southeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive Request............ Consideration of development plans to construct a 42,000 square foot medical office building on 3.44 acres. Action .............. Resolution 2004- B. Item ................ CONTINUED - VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-019 Applicant.......... Dr. John Dixon Location........... Northeast corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Cadiz Request............ Consideration of development plans for construction of a 4,494 square foot addition to an existing 1,450 square foot building, for general office use. Action .............. Resolution 2004- C. Item ................ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-086 Applicant ......... Wal-Mart Super Center Location .......... 78-950 Highway 1 1 1, within the Centre at La Quinta Request ........... Consideration of a request to allow 62 metal containers for the temporary storage of holiday merchandise from October 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 on the south and east sides of the existing Super Center Store. Action ............. Application withdrawn - no action needed (See Business Item "A") G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc D. Item ................ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 1 ST TIME EXTENSION Applicant.......... T D Desert Development Location........... Southwest corner of Cabrillo Way and Mission Drive west within Rancho La Quinta Request............ Consideration of a time extension for a subdivision of approximately 3.62 acres into seven single- family residential lots, one open space lot, and a well site. Action .............. Resolution 2004- E. Item ................ CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-521 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-102 Applicant.......... City of La Quinta Location........... City-wide Request............ Consideration of certification of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact and an Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element update. Action .............. Resolution 2004- and Resolution 2004- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Item ................ MINOR USE PERMIT 2004-536 Applicant ......... Wal-Mart Super Center Location .......... 78-950 Highway 1 1 1, within the Centre at La Quinta Request ........... Consideration of a request to allow 62 metal containers for the temporary storage of holiday merchandise from October 13, 2004 through December 31, 2004 on the south and east sides of the existing Super Center Store. Action .............. Minute Motion 2004- B. Item ................ SIGN PERMIT 2004-786, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant.......... Thomas Enterprises/Signarama Location........... Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street, within Pavilion at La Quinta project Request............ Consideration of an Amendment to an existing sign program for The Pavilion at La Quinta project. Action .............. Minute Motion 2004- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None G:\WPDOCS\PC MinutesTCAgendaW.doc Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 26, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. 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, August 10, 2004, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, the bulletin board at the La Quinta Post Office, Chamber of Commerce, and Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Friday, October 8, 2004. DATED: October 8, 2004 BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, 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 777-7025, 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 777-7025. 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\PCAgendaW.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 28, 2004 7:00 P.M. I. 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 Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill, and Chairman Tom Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to excuse Commissioner Krieger. C. Staff present: Oscar Orci, Interim Community Development Director, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit, Martin Magana, 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 corrections to the Minutes of the regular meeting of September 14, 2004. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to approve the minutes as submitted. B. Department Report. None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 2004-516 and Site Development Permit 2004-81 1; a request of Rich Boureston for consideration of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and development plans to construct a 42,000 square foot medical office building on 3.44 acres for the property located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a continuance to October 12, 2004. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to continue the project to September 28, 2004. Unanimously approved. B. Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1, Specific Plan 2004-073, and Tentative Tract Map 31874; a request of Stonefield Development, Inc. for consideration of establishing development principles, guidelines and programs to allow the subdivision of 40 acres into 102 residential lots for the property located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 53, 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff asked that a condition be added per the request of the Coachella Valley Unified School District regarding providing a bus turnout on Monroe Street. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked what was happening in area 3 in the southeast section. Staff stated it was the retention basin and the other area is a park. 3. Commissioner Quill asked staff to explain the process for the annexation of this site and the environmental impacts. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci explained the process and the environmental determination. 4. Chairman Kirk asked about the Mitigation Monitoring Report in regard to temporary power. Staff explained they were required to have temporary power poles to avoid onsite generators. Chairman Kirk asked if these were mitigation measures that went beyond what the Code requires. Staff explained the mitigation measures are based on CEQA, not Code requirements. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if the cul-da-sac in the northwest corner would go to the adjacent property. Staff stated no. The property to the west is a private development and there is no G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 intention to join the two. Commissioner Daniels asked if they could pull the cul-de-sacs back to allow more landscaping area. Staff stated this would be a question for the applicant. Commissioner Daniels asked why they submitted a Specific Plan. There does not appear to be an advantage to having the Specific Plan. What is the advantage in this project. Staff stated they have provided an enhanced multi -use trail. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Peroni, The Keith Companies, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He also explained the cul-de-sac would be landscaped so it does not appear to be a dead-end street. This cul-de-sac setback from the property line is 17 feet and the other is ten feet. The setback where the equestrian facility on the north side has been increased to 30 feet wide has been enhanced for the equestrian users. In regard to the common recreation area, they have three zones of activity. Shade structure, play area, and a basketball court. 7. Commissioner Ladner asked if the City maintains the trails. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that for the most part they are maintained by the homeowners' association. Commissioner Ladner asked whose responsibility was it to insure the trail. Staff stated the HOA. Commissioner Ladner stated it will be difficult for the HOA to insure the trail area. 8. Commissioner Quill stated this may need to be answered at the staff level. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated it is not in right of way and therefore the responsibility of the HOA. 9. Commissioner Ladner stated the insurance carriers do not want to carry them so it may not be possible for the HOA to get the necessary insurance. City Attorney Kathy Jenson asked if an easement is to be dedicated for public use. As a basic rule there is a provision that if the City owns or controls it, it can be a responsibility of the City. If there is a cause of action the City will be liable. There could be a shared liability issue. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated it is a privately maintained system. Some of these details have not been worked out. 10. Commissioner Ladner stated it is easier for the City to insure the trail. In the instances where she has worked with an HOA to G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 obtain insurance, the HOA has not been able to obtain the insurance. 11. Mr. Art McCaul, Stonefield Development, stated they have done a lot of developments that have horse trails. This is a lettered lot and will be dedicated to the City. In other instances it has always been a part of the Master Trail System and the City has taken the liability. From a practical manner, they want it maintained by the City. This has been an understanding they have had from the beginning. 12. Chairman Kirk asked for an explanation of Exhibit 9, on the east/west road, as the drainage does not appear to be headed toward the drainage system. Is this a subsurface system? Mr. Doug Franklin, engineer for the project, stated there will be a storm drain. The drainage will be split between Lot R and Lot U. The low points will have a catch basin. Chairman Kirk asked if they have seen the Vista Santa Rosa design guidelines. Mr. Peroni stated yes. Chairman Kirk asked if something was developed across the street in the County, will this be a compatible with this development. Mr. Peroni stated the goal is to have a rural atmosphere. 13. Commissioner Daniels asked if the two western cul-de-sacs were shortened, would there be any repercussions? Is there way to shorten the cul-de-sac without losing a lot? Mr. Peroni stated they would need to work with it to see if this could be done. Mr. McCaul stated there will be a perimeter wall and landscaping to buffer the cul-de-sacs. 14. Commissioner Daniels asked if they have any issue with the conditions. Mr. Doug Franklin stated they have a concern with the deceleration lane because with the enhanced trail, it does not appear there will be enough room. Mr. McCaul stated the property owner to the south would have more room for the deceleration lane. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated it has more to do with where Sunline and the School District want their bus turnout to be located. They pick the locations and staff works with them to ensure they are safe locations. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci stated the condition stated a bus turn will be required if Sunline determines the need. Staff can add the school district to that condition. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 15. Commissioner Quill suggested staff obtain a master bus turnout map from the school district that showed their preferred locations. 16. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 17. Commissioner Daniels asked about the lot configuration. 18. Commissioner Quill stated the only way to accomplish what they want on the cul-de-sacs is to have flag lots. Staff stated the adjoining project proposes a well site at this location. Following discussion, Commissioner Daniels stated he would still like to see the cul-de-sac moved back. 19. Chairman Kirk commended the applicant on their Specific Plan. 20. Commissioner Quill stated that if the lot is deeded to the City the HOA can maintain the trail. 21. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. McCaul stated they would be happy to maintain the trail. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated there is no expressed condition that requires them to maintain the trail. She assumes the City will have an easement, but the maintenance will be on the developer and should be set out in the conditions. It is strange to have the City own the property in fee and another entity maintain it. This project will go the City Council and staff can review the issue with the applicant. 22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-070, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-51 1, as recommended: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-071, recommending approval of Specific Plan 2004-073, as recommended: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/ to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-074 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 31874, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: The applicant shall work with staff to redesign the cul-de-sac to increase the landscape setback. b. Condition added: Show subterranean drainage on Exhibit "A" of the Specific Plan. C. Condition added: If the site is critical to Sunline and/or CVUSD then a bus turnout shall be provided as approved by the Public Works Department. Staff shall obtain a copy of the Coachella Valley Unified School District's master plan of bus turnouts. d. Condition added: Staff shall work with the applicant to clarify the subject parcel for the multi -purpose trail, will be maintained by the developer or HOA. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. C. Village Use Permit 2004-019; a request of Dr. John Dixon for consideration of development plans for construction of a 4,494 square foot addition to an existing 1,450 square foot building for medical office uses for the property located at the northeast corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Cadiz. 1. Chairman Kirk excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest due to the location of his home. 2. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a continuance to October 12, 2004. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 3. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to continue the project to September 28, 2004. Unanimously approved with Commissioners Kirk and Krieger being absent. Chairman Kirk rejoined the Commission. D. Development Agreement 2003-006, Amendment #1; a request of the City for consideration of an Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of La Quinta and CP Development La Quinta, LLC, the property located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff and no public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 3. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-073, approving Development Agreement 2003-006, Amendment #1, as recommended: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. E. Environmental Assessment 2004-521 and General Plan Amendment 2004-102; a request of the City for consideration of adopting a Negative Declaration of environmental impact and Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Colin Drukker, The Planning Center, who gave a presentation on the Housing Element. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 2. Commissioner Daniels asked if the figures presented were the percentages for this region as provided by SCAG. Mr. Drukker stated yes. Six percent of the new construction growth anticipated by SCAG was the figure given to La Quinta. 3. Chairman Kirk asked what was the most cost effective program, in different cities, for diversifying housing stock. Mr. Drukker stated the use of Redevelopment funds as the State mandates the 20% set -aside for housing. The most cost effective is using these funds in a partnership with a non-profit builder. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Arturo Rodriguez, CVRLA, stated his comments were based on an earlier copy of the Housing Element and found out today they were reviewing an older version and would request additional time to review and prepare comments. In regard to the staff report, reference was made to their letter of May 101h letter, but no mention to their August 1 1 th letter which expanded on their comments stated in the May 101h letter. They have not had any communication with staff on either letter. 5. Chairman Kirk asked staff's response. Mr. Drukker stated the draft Housing Element June copy was the same as this version. The Negative Declaration has been out for review and the comment period has ended. Staff has responded to the August 1 1 th letter. Chairman Kirk asked if this correspondence had been given to the Commission. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated the Draft Element has been in its third review with the State. The State asked that the Draft Element be distributed to seven agencies with a response within ten days. Staff has been in the process of responding the comments that were received from those agencies. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any ramifications to continuing this for two weeks. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to continue this item for two weeks. Unanimously approved. Chairman Kirk excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest and left the dais for the next two agenda items. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 F. Site Development Permit 2004-813; a request of Desert Cheyenne for consideration of architectural plans for three prototypical floor plans, common area and perimeter landscape plans for a 128 single-family subdivision on ± 80 acres, for the property located at the southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe Street. 1. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Pedalino, Desert Cheyenne, gave a presentation on the project. 3. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. There being no other public comment, Vice Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 4. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was any submittal on the Ehline property. Staff stated no. When it is submitted, the Commission will have to review the site plan as well as its compatibility with the adjoining residences. 5. Commissioner Ladner informed the Commission she had assisted the applicant on obtaining some real estate figures and did not believe this was a conflict. City Attorney Kathy Jenson agreed. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-074, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-813, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, and Vice Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Kirk and Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. G. Village Use Permit 2004-024; a request of Kristi W. Hanson, Inc. for consideration of architectural plans for a two-story, 6,354 square foot commercial building on a 0.40 acre site for the property located at the southwest corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Barcelona. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 1. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Martin Magaria presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if they would have fewer parking spaces in order to maximize the building space and if those parking spaces would be covered. 3. Commissioner Ladner stated she was concerned with the amount of parking being provided. Staff explained the parking issues in the Village. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Kristi Hanson, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project and explained the reason for the 24-foot drive aisle was to have the extra landscaping. They are in the process of coming up with the design for the parking lot. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked why not have a 28-foot aisle. Ms. Hanson stated the aisle is required to be 26 feet and asked why would they need a wider opening. Staff explained. 6. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. There being no other public comment, Vice Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 7. Vice Chairman Quill stated he understands the parking issue but prefers the reduction. He does not mind on -street parking where it is adequate. He really likes the design of the project and he is in favor of granting the concession in parking spaces. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-075, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-072, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, and Vice Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Kirk and Krieger. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Application 2004-794; a request of Image Point for Torre Nissan for consideration of new signs for the existing Torre Nissan auto dealership located at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Auto Center Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted the main wall signs are not limited to 40 square feet as stated in the report. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Quill asked if the assumption could be made that if the "Torre Nissan" sign is approved the banner will go away. Staff stated no, the banners are allowed to remain at the discretion of the dealers. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the sign program approved 40 square feet for the main signs. Staff stated there is no maximum except for height. 4. There be no further questions of staff and no other public comment, the public participation portion was closed and open to Commission discussion. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Quill/Ladner to adopt Minute Motion 2004-014, approving Sign Application 2004- 794, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci reviewed the information given to the Commission on temporary tent provisions. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on October 12, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:54 p.m., on September 28, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-28-04.doc 12 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2004 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-81 1 APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 42,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON A 3.44 ACRES. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE ENGINEER: WATSON & WATSON DSIGN DEVELOPMENT, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516; BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT; HOWEVER, MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON THE PROJECT TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ADOPTED A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516 ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 2004- 064. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)/ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: RESTAURANT (OMRI & BONI) SOUTH: VACANT LAND EAST: SINGLE-FAMILY RESDIDENTIAL (LAKE LA QUINTA) WEST: LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION/ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI CHURCH PAReports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt3 .doc BACKGROUND: This project was presented to the Planning Commission on September 14, 2004. At that meeting the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-516 by adoption of Resolution 2004-064. However, The Planning Commission continued Site Development Permit 2004-81 1 for the project due to concerns regarding architectural details and the two-story configuration of the building. The Planning Commission continued the project to the September 28, 2004 meeting. At the September 28, 2004 meeting the applicant requested that this project be continued to the October 12, 2004 meeting to allow additional time to address the Planning Commission's design concerns. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The site is approximately 3.44 acres in size and located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive (Attachment 1). Under the original proposal, the applicant proposed a partial two story, 42,000 square foot medical office building with the first floor consisting of 25,600 square feet and the second floor with 16,400 square feet (Attachment 2). The main and rear building entries were centered along the western and eastern elevations with covered metal overhead canopies supported by stone columns. The site plan showed the western entry with a long covered metal overhead canopy and the eastern side had a short covered metal overhead canopy. A third entry is at the northern side of the building. However, the applicant has revised the building configuration. The revised project consists of a full two-story, 42,000 square foot medical office building with 21,000 square feet of floor space for each level (Attachment 3). The main and rear building entries are offset along the western and eastern elevations with short covered metal overhead canopies supported by stone columns. The revised project provides two pedestrian walkways that lead to the building from Caleo Bay as opposed to a single walkway under the original proposal. Also, one drop off area is proposed at the western side of the. The patio that was previously proposed at the southeastern portion of the site near the parking lot is now proposed just north of the building. This patio is accessed from the northern entry. Parking & Circulation The Zoning Code requires one parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area for the first 2,000 square feet with an additional space for every 175 square feet PAReports - PC\10-12-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt3 Am of gross floor area over 2,000 square feet. At 42,000 square feet of gross floor area, the total parking requirement is would be 239 spaces, which the applicant provides under the revised plan. There are seven handicap spaces. Vehicular access to the site is provided at two locations both on Caleo Bay, a local street with a 60 foot wide right-of-way (two-lane undivided). The applicant will be required.to stripe Caleo Bay to accommodate the turning movements in and out of the project site at the two locations. With regard to the northbound deceleration lane on Washington Street, the applicant will dedicate the additional six fleet needed for the required 66 foot half street width for street improvements. The applicant has been conditioned to install the deceleration lane per City standards (Condition 33.A.1.a.). Carports The Zoning Code requires all office and health care uses to provide covered parking either by a trellis or a carport structure for at least 30% of the parking spaces. Under the original proposal, the applicant provided seventy-two (72) covered parking stalls. Under the revised proposal, the applicant provides seventy-four (74) covered spaces, which complies with the Code. The stalls are proposed to be covered by a metal carport structure, approximately eight and a half feet in height. Staff has added a condition to have the applicant paint the metal carport structures to match the building colors (Condition 59). Lighting The applicant proposes a metal halide, shoe -box type fixture, twenty-five (25) feet in height. The height of the standards exceeds the Zoning Code standards. The Zoning Code requires that parking lot lighting standards be no more than 18 feet in height. Staff requests that the Planning Commission approve the lighting standard design, but limit the height to the 18 foot maximum height allowed by the Zoning Code. Staff also requests that the lighting standards have shields on any fixtures located along Caleo Bay and Washington Street so as to reduce glare that could be potentially projected onto the adjacent residential area. The applicant has been conditioned to comply with the lighting requirements (Condition 53). Architecture The architecture for the revised flat roof building is a Classic Modern style. The building is proposed at 35 feet in height with architectural elements at the building entries at 38 feet in height with stone accents and metal canopies. Additional P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt3 .doc architectural features consist of a combination of concrete walls with score line reveals, recessed windows on both floors, window trim with projected sills, glazed windows, parapet roof, foam roof cornices, foam window header projections, floor line cornices, architectural elements at the building entries with stone accents and desert colored finishes. Exterior colors proposed are light tan to a dark terra cotta. The maximum building height in the Community Commercial Zoning District is 40 feet, with further restrictions for buildings located along Major Arterials. Buildings located along Major Arterials (Washington Street) are restricted to a maximum height of 22 feet within 150 feet from the right-of-way. Under the original proposal, the first story was seventeen 0 7) feet in height, which is less than the maximum height of 22) feet within 150 feet from the right-of-way. The second story, which was outside the twenty (22) foot height restriction, was thirty-three (33) feet in height. Therefore, the building was consistent with the Zoning Code in terms of building height. The current proposal consists of a two story building entirely outside the 22 foot height restriction area. The building is proposed at thirty-five (35) feet in height. This proposal is also consistent with the building height requirements. The original building proposed a painted metal mechanical enclosure on the roof -top of the second story that would bring the building to 40 feet in height. The applicant has indicated that the mechanical equipment area will no longer be needed and that the proposed parapet would be sufficient to screen the mechanical equipment on the roof- top within the proposed 35 foot height. Landscaping The building is setback far enough from all the property lines to allow landscaping within the site's setback area. Minimum building setback requirements include 30 feet from Washington Street, 20 feet from Lake La Quinta Drive and Caleo Bay, and zero feet from the interior property lines. The original building was setback 92 feet from the Washington Street, 202 feet from Lake La Quinta Drive and 20 feet from Caleo Bay rights -of -way. The revised project is setback 150 feet from the Washington Street, 240 feet from the Lake La Quinta Drive and 20 feet from Caleo Bay rights -of -way. Landscape setbacks include 20 feet from Washington Street right-of-way and ten feet from Lake La Quinta Drive and Caleo Bay rights -of -way. Although there is no setback requirement from interior property lines, the applicant is proposing a seven foot landscaped setback from the adjoining property to the south. P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt3 Am I The conceptual landscape plan for the revised project will consist of a wide variety of drought tolerant trees, shrubs and ground covers as those proposed on the original project. The western frontage along Washington Street is partially landscaped with some palm trees, turf and a meandering walkway. This will remain as part of the project. Additional landscaping will be installed along the remaining site boundaries as well as within the parking lot and building entries. Signs Currently, there are no signs proposed. The applicant will be required to submit a separate application to be processed under the appropriate Zoning Code regulations. Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee The Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee reviewed the original project at the September 1, 2004 meeting. At the meeting, the Commission adopted Minute Motion 2004-026 recommending approval to the Planning Commission with the following recommendations: 1. Increase tree wells to 8' x 8' wherever possible. 2. Lower mechanical screen walls on roof as much as possible. 3. Substitute the stone veneer for some other material that is more of an institutional style (i.e., brick). 4. Provide a stronger architectural enhancement on the Caleo Bay elevation. PUBLIC NOTICE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 2, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, one letter has been received and is attached (Attachment 4). Any additional written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this revised request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, approving Site Development Permit 2004-81 1, subject to findings and the attached Conditions of Approval. P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC StfRpt3 Am Attachments: 1. Site Location Map 2. Original Plan Set (Planning Commission only) 3. Revised Plan Set (Planning Commission only) 4. Letter received regarding project Prepared by: Martin Maga Associate Planner P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04 811 PC $tfRpt3 .doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ALLOW A TWO-STORY, 42,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON A 3.44 ACRE SITE CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-811 APPLICANT: BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of September, 28' and day of September, and 12' day of October, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Boureston Development for approval of a two-story, 42,000 square foot medical office building, generally located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive, more particularly described as follows: APN: 643-200-004, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit 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 Community Development Department completed Environmental Assessment 2004-516, and based upon this Assessment, determined that the project may have significant adverse effects on the environment; however, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. On September 14, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2004-064, which approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2004-516. 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 make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project as proposed is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the land use, design and density of the project is compatible with the Community Commercial Land Use designation. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the Community Commercial Zoning District, including but not limited to, setbacks, architecture, building heights, building mass, lighting, parking, circulation, and landscaping. PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04-811 PC Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2004-811 — Boureston Development October 12, 2004 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that Environmental Assessment 2004-516 was prepared and determined that although the project may have significant adverse effects on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level; therefore, Resolution No. 2004-064 was adopted by the Planning Commission on September 14, 2004 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the proposed building, including, but not limited to, architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, is suited for in this commercial area, which encourages a variety of architectural variation. 5. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, screening of equipment, trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements such as scale, mass, appearance, and landscaping, as conditioned, are compatible with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code. 6. Landscape Design: The landscaping plan for the proposed project, including but not limited to, the location, type, size, and coverage of drought tolerant plant materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the building, screen undesirable views and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual appearance of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the surrounding area in that the variety of drought tolerant trees, shrubs and ground covers provide an aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping space. 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 Site Development Permit; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2004-811 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; P:\Reports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 PC Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Site Development Permit 2004-81 1 - Boureston Development October 12, 2004 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12'h day of October, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04-811 PC Reso.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-811 - BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED OCTOBER 12, 2004 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to 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 • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall PAReports - PC\10-12-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2► Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMP's shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. 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 PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) - The standard 66 feet from the centerline of Washington Street for a total 132-foot ultimate developed right of way. The existing 20-foot landscape setback owned by the Commercial Property Owners Association shall be maintained along the Site Development Permit boundary requiring the existing property line established with Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 27892 to be moved 6 feet to the east. 2) Lake La Quinta Drive (Collector, 72' ROW Option) - No additional right of way dedication is required. 3) Caleo Bay (Local Street, 60' ROW) - No additional right of way dedication is required. 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-ways as follows: A. Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) - The landscape setback shall be reconfigured as needed to reflect the new right of way configuration. B. Lake La Quinta Drive and Caleo Bay - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. PAReports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes. 10. 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. 11. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive is restricted. Direct vehicular access to Caleo Bay is restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved Site Development Permit, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. 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. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. A. Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. ADA accessibility to public streets, adjacent buildings and existing handicap parking shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans at a scale to be determined by the Public Works Department. 15. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 16. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans, on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS PAReports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 17. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 18. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 19. 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. 20. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 21. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or P:\Reports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc 6 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 22. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 23. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan submitted with this Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. r)PAlNAr-,F "Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Lake La Quinta Drainage Report or as modified for this Site Development Permit. Nuisance water shall be disposed of on site and in an approved manner. 25. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 26. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. UTILITIES P:\Reports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 27. 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. 28. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. 29. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 30. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. 31. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 33. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial — 132' R/W): No widening of the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit is required for its ultimate width as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: PAReports - PC\10-12-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Lake La Quinta intersection. The east curb face shall be located sixty-six feet (66') east of the centerline of Washington Street and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 03-08. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned. Other required improvements in the right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. 2) Lake La Quinta Drive (Collector - 72' R/W Option): No widening of the south side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit is required. 3) Caleo Bay (Collector - 60' R/W Option): No widening of the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Site Development Permit is required. Other required improvements in the right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: P:\Reports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 a) The applicant shall contribute fair share cost to re -stripe Caleo Bay from Lake La Quinta Drive to the southerly property line to accommodate the left turn lanes at the driveways and the Lake La Quinta Drive intersection. B. TRAFFIC SIGNAL — The applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement and post security for an amount not to exceed 25 % of the cost to design and construct the traffic signal at the Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Intersection prior to issuance of an onsite grading permit; the security shall remain in effect until the signal is warranted. 34. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Caleo Bay 1) North Entry (Relocated 150 feet from Lake La Quinta Drive measured curb return to curb return): Full turn movements are permitted. 2) South Entry: Full turn movements are permitted. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 35. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Collector 4.0" a.c /5.0" c.a.b. Major Arterial 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 36. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the P:\Reports-PC\10-12-2004\SDP04-811 Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. A. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 37. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. PARKING LOT AND ACCESSWAYS 38. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and especially the parking stall and accessway widths and the parking stall striping design. CONSTRUCTION 39. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 40. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 41. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\SDP 04-811 Boureston\SDP 04-811 COA.doc 1 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 42. Drought tolerant landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit the drought tolerant landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of Coachella valley Water District and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 43. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 44. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 45. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 46. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 47. 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. PAReports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 48. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 50. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 51. 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. 52. 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). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 53. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.100.150 and 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code. The applicant shall limit the height of the parking lot lighting standards to a maximum of eighteen (18) feet. The applicant shall also install shields on fixtures located along Caleo Bay to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director so as to reduce glare that could be potentially projected onto the adjacent residential area. 54. The mechanical equipment on the roof top shall be screened entirely by the roof parapet. PAReports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Conditions of Approval -Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-811-Boureston Development October 12, 2004 55. The tree wells shall be increased to 8' x 8' wherever possible. 56. The applicant shall provide a more enhanced connection from the rear of the building to Caleo Bay. 57. The applicant shall comply with all of the mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Environmental Assessment 2004-516 for the project. 58. The stone veneer shall be replaced with a material that is more of an institutional style (i.e., brick). 59. The applicant shall paint the metal carport structures to match the building colors. P:\Reports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\SDP 04-81 1 Boureston\SDP 04-81 1 COA.doc 14 ATTACHMENT HIGHWAY 111 AVENUE 48 I WACH u OUWTA COMM asp AVENUE 49 AVENUE 50 u' � m� w 0 c a cnmz COUREF INDIO TT�T�i'�z LA Q �J I 1 A z a AVENUE 51 1 AVENUE 52 i SITE LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT 1, September 8, 2004 Martin Magana Associate Planner City Of La Quinta Hand Delivered Re: SDP: 2004-811/Public Works Conditions of Approval Dear Mr. Magana: W 144NOMW Nr DECSEP � c � D MMnFPryoE.v� ry AgT jV�p'U, As I am certain you are aware, I was quite surprised to discover some of the conditions of approval found in your recommendation primarily resulting from public works issues. As you may know, I have been involved with the overall development of Lake La Quinta, nearly since its inception. For your benefit, I would like to offer a brief history of the project, hoping that it may influence your decision or at the very least, help you understand our perspective. A.G. Spanos Companies originally developed the entire Lake La Quinta property in the late eighties and as conditioned on the final map, delivered finished "super pads" for residential and commercial uses fully developed and ready for vertical construction. The commercial pads, which were subsequently divided into smaller pads, included all utility distribution, sidewalks, curb and gutter, paving, storm retention, signage, signalization and offsite street improvements necessary to accommodate regional commercial uses, as zoned. You may be interested to know that, prior to Spanos the entire property was shown on the general plan as regional commercial. Spanos actually down -zoned the property thereby diminishing the traffic impact to the city from the onset. Even though the impact was less, the final map specifically prohibited direct vehicular access from the commercial pads to Washington, Lake La Quinta Drive, 47th and 48th. All traffic was intended to access Caleo Bay, which was designed as a collector street feeding 47th 48th and Washington via Lake La Quinta Drive. As conditioned, Spanos was required to nearly fully develop Lake La Quinta Drive, (formerly Via Marques), Adams, Caleo Bay, 47th, 48th and a realigned Washington Street, to the final build out condition. The public street improvements included sidewalks, curb and gutter, paving, storm retention, signage, and signalization. These improved streets were dedicated to and accepted by the City as public streets. Subsequently, as you well know, Spanos subdivided the larger commercial pads to accommodate smaller developments, which has resulted in the commercial development we see today. More recently, Spanos requested a signal at Lake La Quinta Drive, which staff would not support, and subsequently changed the application for a left -in. While he gained unanimous approval from the Planning Commission, he was unanimously rejected at City Council. The City then became the applicant for a left -in and not so surprisingly, gained approval. . RB/La Quinta September 9, 2004 Page 2 of 2 In summation we believe the conditions requiring additional right-of-way and improvements to Washington Street including a turn pocket and a signal are not warranted by our development for the following reasons: > City has already accepted the fully improved public streets as conditioned on the final map including Washington, Adams, 47th, 48th , Lake La Quinta Drive and Caleo Bay which were designed to accommodate regional commercial uses on all of the parcels. > Ultimate trip generation for the entire Lake La Quinta development had been already reduced by the original down zoning, as well as the more recent down zoning of the commercial on the Lake to low density residential. > Even if you ignore the down zoning and the additional curb cuts the existing improvements easily accommodate this project. > We are not requesting direct access to Washington or Lake La Quinta Drive. > You can not ignore an approved and improved development entitlement when a less intense use is contemplated, in order to benefit another project altogether. I trust you will come to the same conclusion that quite simply all we are doing is developing a "pad", with a less intense use than the original general plan, zoning, and development permit allows, in an already approved and improved development. Should you require additional information in order to make your evaluation, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bartlett Commercial a California corporation By: Timothy R. Bartlett, President BARTLETT COMMERCIAL bartlettc(a-aol.com 73-382 Salt Cedar St., Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone: (760) 776-4141 Fax: (760) 779-0714 PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2004 CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT (VUP) 2003-019 APPLICANT/OWNER: DR. JOHN DIXON REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,494 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ± 1,450 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, FOR GENERAL OFFICE USE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND CALLE CADIZ (ATTACHMENT #1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW UNDER GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (EXISTING FACILITIES) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL)1 ZONING: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site Background The 0.41-acre project site is located on the easterly limits of the Village Commercial district, on the east side of Desert Club Drive at Calle Cadiz. The site is developed with a 1,450 square foot structure, originally built as a single-family residence, but now occupied as an office use for Dr. Dixon's medical practice. In November 2003, Dr. Dixon applied for a VUP to remodel and occupy the structure. During the processing of the VUP, the modifications were made to the structure and a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued, conditioned upon approval of the VUP. Subsequently, Dr. Dixon requested his application be placed on hold, to allow time to add the proposed additional building area to his plans for the VUP. The site is a corner parcel, with existing curb and gutter along its frontages on Calle Cadiz and Desert Club Drive; an existing five-foot sidewalk runs along the Desert Club Drive frontage. Properties adjacent to the site are developed with residential uses to the east, vacant commercial land to the north and south, and commercial uses to the west, across Desert Club Drive. Project Proposal The applicant proposes a one-story, t 4,494 square foot commercial office addition to the existing building (Attachment #2). The building is sited near the center of the property, with separate parking areas on the west and south portions of the site. The total project, with the addition, will provide 17 parking spaces, but would require a total of 25.3 (26) spaces. The proposed parking lot does not comply with the minimum design requirements as stated in the Zoning Code, and therefore, the applicant is requesting deviations from the parking standards. The Village Commercial zoning district allows variations to any parking standard, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.65.030.3.a. The building architecture uses Spanish -Colonial elements to integrate the existing structure with the new building area. The entire building will be covered in a stucco texture. The roof utilizes hip and gable end designs, and is covered with a barrel S- tile to replace the existing concrete tiles. The ridgelines of the roof structure will use a mudded the treatment. The front and side building entries are flanked by a series of arched windows, with ornamental columns and pop -outs. The proposed one-story building height is 16.5 feet from finish grade. The Village Commercial (VC) district allows building heights of two stories, up to 35 feet. This project was originally scheduled for Planning Commission review on September 28, 2004. Staff requested a continuance from that meeting due to a concern that the proposed parking reductions may not be feasible in an as -built condition, and to allow the applicant to revise the parking area design. This involved changes to meet ADA requirements for handicapped parking access, and to increase aisle widths and stall sizes to a more workable and supportable condition. The Public Works Department has reviewed the revisions and is able to support the design for the parking areas. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) On September 8, 2004, the ALRC reviewed the project landscaping and building architecture (Attachment #3, minutes). After discussion of the project, the ALRC took action to recommend approval of the project, subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional shade trees shall be provided within the parking lot areas. Design of hardscape within the parking lot areas shall incorporate the use of turf block, pavers and similar materials, in order to soften the appearance associated with standard parking areas. 2. The trash enclosure shall be relocated away from the property line, with landscaping incorporated around the trash enclosure. 3. An effective landscape screening material shall be located along the eastern property line, adjacent to residential properties. Said material shall be called out in final landscape plans submitted to Community Development Department for plan checking. 4. The revised landscape plans shall include enhanced landscaping at the project's corner yard area at Desert Club and Calle Cadiz. A central landscape feature shall be considered. 5. Access to the rear of building areas shall be restricted by gating, which shall be designed and finished to complement the new building complex. 6. The lighting bollard design shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and shall comply with the City's lighting requirements. These items have been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for this project. Public Notice This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 17, 2004. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a public hearing notice as required. No comments have been received to date. Any correspondence received before the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning Commission. Public Agency Review Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all responsible public agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development Department, and have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. STATEMENT OF ISSUES: 1. Consistency with Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines - In regard to site and building design, the Guidelines suggest that corner building sites "shall attempt to orient pedestrian entryways to the corner, providing an opportunity for a small entry court or plaza, water feature location, etc. This also allows for better intersection visibility." (Guidelines II.C.1.). The building siting appears consistent with this Guideline, as it is away from the corner, and with the ALRC recommendation, would be required to provide a landscape feature as an attractive focal point, which could incorporate a seating area to afford pedestrian accessibility. The ALRC also recommended enhanced landscaping to provide shade for pedestrian and parking areas; screening of parking and service areas, and relocating and screening the trash enclosure. 2. Parkinq — Under the current parking standards, the site requires 25.3 total spaces (existing medical office use of 1,450 s.f. and 4,494 s.f. addition as general office). The applicant has provided 17 on -site parking spaces, and is requesting credit for on -street parking along the Desert Club Drive frontage. The applicant has not submitted a parking demand analysis. The applicant's parking area design also does not meet Code requirements for end stall width, parking stall depth/width and parking aisle widths. However, the VC district allows an applicant to submit such designs and receive consideration for them. The applicant, based on his redesigned site plan, is requesting the following deviations from the parking standards as follows: Development Standard Required Requested Parking aisles (Section 9.150.080.B.3) 26' wide 24' wide Parking stall width/depth (Section 9.150.080.B.1) 9'/17' 2' overhang 8.5'/18' 1' overhang Parking spaces required (per Table 9- 12 of Chapter 9.150) 25.3 17 End parking stall (stalls 10 and 12) (Section 9.150.080.B.3) 11' wide 8.5' wide Section 9.65.030 of the Village Commercial zoning district requires that projects comply with the City's parking requirements of Chapter 9.150. However, this section also grants authority to the Planning Commission to reduce parking requirements and their associated development standards through the Village Use Permit process. The intent of the Village zoning regulations is to allow for variable development standards based on the merits of a given project — this is why there is no setback, lot area, or other typical zoning requirements. There is no requirement for the applicant to justify a reduction in parking development standards. Chapter 9.150 requires general adherence to the parking standards. For the most part, the provisions of this Chapter would not apply to Village Commercial, for the reasons indicated above. In regard to a reduction in required spaces, other uses, such as Andrew's Bar & Grille, which have more intensive parking requirements, have been approved at lower parking ratios, and permitted use of on -street parking. Andrew's was granted a reduction from 26 to 6 spaces, allowing a 77% parking reduction. The Old Town project was permitted with a 34% parking reduction. The Coronel project has 58% parking reduction. Lori Abdelnour's insurance business, operating from a converted single family house, was allowed 100% of the required guest parking spaces to be off -site, on Calle Amigo. The project before you now would have a 32% reduction in parking. In consideration of this application, staff referred to information submitted for the Hanson -Kelly project (VUP 2004-024). According to the information submitted (Attachment 4), the most often quoted standard is one space per 333 sq. ft. of gross floor area. If applied to this project, which includes a total of 4,494 square feet as general office, and retaining the medical office standard for the existing floor area of 1,450 square feet, then a total of 21 spaces would be required. Based on this, 81 % of the required parking would be provided on site. There is on -street parking availability on Desert Club Drive for four cars along the site frontage, based on the required parallel parking stall length of 24 feet. However, there will also be daytime demand for this parking from Andrew's and Paula's Caf6 during a.m. and lunch hours. Staff recommends that the proposed variations to parking requirements be accepted, with the exception of any handicapped spaces, due to their specific need to comply with ADA standards. This approval would be conditioned based on the new floor space of 4,494 being limited to general office use only. The City's parking standards also require that 30% of the required spaces for all office uses be covered by a trellis or carport structure. As the approval would require the 17 spaces, five covered spaces will be necessary. Staff is requiring that one of the two five -space rows, in the north parking area, be covered. The applicant may extend the proposed patio cover to achieve this. 3. Proposed Monument Sian - The applicant has requested review of a monument sign for tenant ID, although a sign program application has not been submitted. The existing sign includes Dr. Dixon's name, title and address on the upper south facing wall, within an area of about ten square feet. There is also a double-faced monument sign along Desert Club Drive, which is an irregular, routed -letter flagstone sign, with a six foot base and a peak height of four feet. It is approximately 15 square feet in area. As this will no longer be an individual office, the freestanding ID sign is no longer permissible, as Dr. Dixon's office is now one of the tenant spaces and not a stand alone use. Staff recommends the sign not be reviewed as part of this application, and that the issue be addressed when a sign program in more detail is submitted for review. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, findings necessary to approve this proposal can be made as noted in the attached draft Resolution to be adopted for this case. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , affirming the environmental determination of the Community Development Director, and granting approval of Village Use Permit 2003-019, subject to the conditions of approval as recommended. I Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Project plans 3. ALRC minutes of September 8, 2004 4. Parking Demand Survey submitted for VUP 2004-024 R PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDICAL OFFICE AND A ±4,494 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-019 DR. JOHN DIXON WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28' day of September, 2004 and 121h day of October, 2004 consider Village Use Permit 2003-019 for a ±4,494 square -foot commercial/office building addition to an existing building, located at the northeast corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Cadiz, more particularly described as: LOT 10, BLOCK 6, PER MB 019/075, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #1 WHEREAS, said Village Use Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has determined that this Village Use Permit is exempt from CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15301 (Additions to Existing Structures) and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Village Use Permit: 1. The proposed Village Use Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as the site is developed and the addition will be consistent with the Village Commercial General Plan land use designation in terms of density, and use. 2. The proposed Village Use Permit is consistent with the requirements and /or intent of the La Quinta Zoning Code, as the project contemplates commercial land uses that are permitted under the existing zoning. Parking as provided is consistent with parking reduction allowances authorized in the Zoning Code. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 — Dr. Dixon Adopted: October 12, 2004 3. The proposed Village Use Permit complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that said Village Use Permit is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15301 (Additions to Existing Structures) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, and that a Notice of Exemption shall be filed. 4. Approval of the proposed Village Use Permit will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, nor injurious to or incompatible with, other properties or land uses in the vicinity. All immediately surrounding properties are zoned for Village Commercial Development, and existing properties to the south and west are developed as residential and commercial, respectively. Development of office uses immediately adjacent to residential uses in the area will not significantly impact quality of life for area residents. 5. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Village Use Permit, including but not limited to, architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural detailing, roof style and other elements, are compatible with surrounding development and quality of design illustrated in the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City, with the recommended conditions of approval. 6. The site design aspects of the proposed Village Use Permit, including but not limited to project entries, parking provisions, interior circulation, pedestrian access and amenities, screening and other elements, are compatible with surrounding development and quality of design illustrated in the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. The ratio of required -to -provided parking spaces is in line with previous Village use approvals, in consideration of alternative parking demand standards reviewed by staff and utilized for other office projects, and available on -street parking for this project. 7. The project landscaping for the proposed Village Use Permit, including but not limited to location, size, type and coverage of plant materials, has been conditioned to insure it is designed to provide visual relief, complement the building, unify and enhance visual continuity of the site with surrounding development, and is consistent with the concepts in the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 — Dr. Dixon Adopted: October 12, 2004 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 hereby approve Village Use Permit 2003-019 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 City Planning Commission, held on this the 12" day of October, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR W. ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- EXHIBIT „A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-019 DR. JOHN DIXON OCTOBER 12, 2004 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Village Use Permit 2003-019 (VUP 2003-019) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions and all approved site plan, elevation, color, materials and other approved exhibits submitted for this application, and any subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts, these conditions shall take precedence. 2. This approval shall expire one year after its effective date, if construction of the addition has not begun, as determined pursuant to Section 9.200.060.0 of the Zoning Code, unless extended pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.200.080. Approval of this Use Permit includes those improvements necessary for permanent occupancy of the medical office use currently established on the site. Any existing temporary CO outstanding for the medical office will expire as part of this Use Permit and its provisions. 3. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Building and Safety Department • La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading/ Improvement/Encroachment Permits) • La Quinta Community Development Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Southern California Gas Company • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\VUP 01 9\coapcvup01 9.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Village Use Permit 2003-018 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED September 23, 2003 • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Waste Management of the Desert The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls) and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. 6. All parking area civil plans and improvements shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in applicable portions of Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code, except where the approved plans shall take precedence. Handicap access and facilities, including both handicapped parking stalls, shall be provided in accordance with Federal (ADA), State and local requirements. The following revised parking standards are approved for VUP 2003-019: A. Parking stall dimensions of 8 feet wide and 18 feet depth, with one a foot overhang, for all standard parking stalls, including end stalls. B. Total parking area count of 25 stalls, including handicap stalls. C. Parking aisle width of 24 feet. D. One row of five parking stalls, in the north parking area, shall be covered by a shade structure to provide shaded parking. The applicant may meet this requirement by extension of the building patio trellis, if such extension is preferred by the applicant and is feasible. Final design for the shade structure shall be approved by the Community Development Department. PROPERTY RIGHTS 7. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include coapcvup019 Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED October 12, 2004 irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 8. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas shown on the Village Use Permit and conditioned hereafter. The applicant shall provide easement for the two City of La Quinta Street Lights conditioned in STREETS AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. The easement shall be a 2.5' by 2.5' square for each light as approved on the precise grading plan. 9. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 10. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property, between the date of approval of this Village Use Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on -site and off -site improvements for this Village Use Permit, unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer", "surveyor", and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 11. 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. 12. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. 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 Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED October 12, 2004 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. On -Site Precise Grading Plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, sidewalks, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements for the parking lot and access to the building; and showing the existing street improvements out to at least the center lines of adjacent existing streets including ADA accessibility route to surrounding buildings, parking facilities and public streets. 13. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plans, construction notes and/or detail sheets from the City. 14. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans FIRE PROTECTION 15. Specific fire protection requirements will be determined when final building plans are submitted for review. Building plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check. Submittals are the responsibility of the owner. All questions regarding the meaning of the Fire Department conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff (c/o Dale Evenson, Fire Safety Specialist) at (760) 863-8886. GRADING 16. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\VUP 019\coapcvup019.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED October 12, 2004 17. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A precise grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, 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. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 18. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. All such land shall be planted with interim landscaping or stabilized with other erosion control measures as were approved under the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 19. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification, stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. DRAINAGE 20. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain nuisance water surges totaling the following: 3.43 gph/2,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, 3.43 gph per residential unit, 416.7 gallons per hour per well site and off -site street nuisance water. The sand filter design shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow. UTILITIES 21. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\VUP 01 9\coapcvup01 9.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED October 12, 2004 valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 22. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 23. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 24. No additional street improvements are required, except for: Desert Club Drive 1) Two (2) City of La Quinta Decorative Street Lights. The applicant shall pay to the City, 100% of the cost for installation and materials of two (2) City of La Quinta Decorative Street Lights. Calle Cadiz 1) Construct a 6-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to curb and perimeter landscaping along the Calle Cadiz boundary. The sidewalk and landscaping design shall be approved by the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department. 25. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards. P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\VUP 019\coapcvup019.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED October 12, 2004 PARKING LOTS AND ACCESS POINTS 26. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking), particularly drive isle and access drive widths, parking stall dimensions, and parking stall marking design requirements, except where these conditions specify exceptions. 27. Design of hardscape within the parking lot areas shall incorporate the use of block, pavers, stamped concrete and/or similar materials, in order to soften the appearance associated with standard parking areas. All materials, design construction and improvements proposed shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Department, and shall be shown on the civil plans for precise grading review. 28. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. 29. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 30. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the existing access points. 31. The applicant shall provide adequate sight distance at the proposed access driveways on Desert Club Drive and Calle Cadiz. The design shall be approved prior to precise grading and landscaping improvement plans submittal to the Engineering Department and/or Community Development Department. QUALITY ASSURANCE 32. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\VUP 01 9\coapcvup01 9.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED October 12, 2004 33. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 34. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods employed comply with plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 35. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City revised to reflect the as -built conditions. FEES AND DEPOSITS 36. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 37. Provisions shall be made to 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. 38. Permit(s) issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time said permit(s) are issued. MISCELLANEOUS 39. The applicant shall submit a detailed project area lighting plan, in compliance with the standards of the City's outdoor lighting requirements (Section 9.100.150, LQMC). Under canopy lighting for building areas shall incorporate flush lens caps or similar recessed ceiling lighting. All proposed lighting on the building, walkways and parking lots (bollard lighting fixtures) shall be shielded so that light is projected downward and not onto adjacent properties or streets. The complete lighting plan shall be submitted for review at the time construction plan check for the permanent building permit is made to Building and Safety. P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\VUP 01 9\coapcvup01 9.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED October 12, 2004 40. A sign approval application, based on the extent and type of signing to be proposed, shall be submitted for review and approval for any new signing as shown on the site plan. Sign program provisions, if required, shall be in compliance with applicable sections of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code. 41. The applicant shall submit drought -tolerant landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), which shall include on and off -site landscape, landscape lighting and irrigation plans. Plans shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual landscaping as approved for the project by Planning Commission. The plans shall incorporate the following revisions: A. Additional shade trees shall be provided within the parking lot areas. B. The trash enclosure shall be relocated away from the property line, with an effective landscape screen incorporated around the trash enclosure. C. An effective landscape screening material shall be located along the eastern property line, adjacent to residential properties. Type and quantities specified shall be subject to CDD acceptance. D. The revised landscape plans shall include enhanced landscaping at the project's corner yard area at Desert Club and Calle Cadiz. A central landscape feature shall be considered. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for final acceptance by the CDD. Final approval by CDD shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit for the main structural addition. Landscaping plans for the building shall comply the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (Chapter 8.13) for this project, as in effect at time of plan submittal. Required plans shall include a complete irrigation system showing location and size of water lines, valves, clock timer, type of sprinkler, etc. 42. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be designed to be internal to and completely enclosed by the roof structure, so as not to 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 the construction plan submittal for building permits. Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Village Use Permit 2003-019 Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED October 12, 2004 The method and design must be approved by the Community Development Department, prior to any issuance of the main structural building permit. 43. Access to the rear of building areas shall be restricted by gating, which shall be designed and finished to complement the new building complex. 44. This Village Use Permit allows the construction of a one-story, 4,494 square foot commercial office building addition on a 0.41-acre site with 17 on -site parking spaces. This addition space shall be limited to general office uses, and not be used for any retail or medical office space. No permanent Certificate of Occupancy for the existing medical office will be issued until all temporary improvements, associated with said medical office conversion, have been completed. ATTACHMENT 1 ENIDA W _ _BERMUDAS-� 0 \a � S3�• �� Go =, Ilia — —G 20� 60 BB A }j, m Neat a t 39.37 I Si..! t2G.97 as as G N 1 A O 1 •t 41 V ——149.33 — _ I20 0G v N O N 100.59 W o W O N u V V 0 f• m A a b m OI W b m _ — 1 100.77 127.08 141.53 '(RA toLn 1 ao 0 D I 100.E � o t63.79 1 100- 0 o No c lIID b m O N N Saa p _ v' 60 20 m W `^3 m m 20 � a3 132 GO 1 t �- DE'SER- - _ GWE3H00-OS-OOV DRIVE N 77.2G 77 ?6 162.60 162.60 ?5 _ CD 25 N I � b N �p� m L m 12 m m d C T- CAs 01 N 1 O N N N p N O W N W � L m w f t2G 72 151.9E Y _ N O coN to O p z pNod�a_ m T � W � D 1{{-31 N t t]5 a m o _ N +• O � I � O `' a a' O m m n 1 m ATTACHMENT 2 I 10 11INNN's Wo.. mmimmmmi.c.hR lei n &I I COMMERCIAL BtUDING PLAN CXAV& neSOWILD + n.womm cLm �n.m.. IAOMMd.MD DIXON Y�fyf�f71Y r•s�rre��r sew l�ATI BUDDm Al�1[CMt C09r6t�UC�fa1 ATTACHMENT 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Rescheduled meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 8, 2004 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, and David Thorns. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members. Bobbitt/Thoms to excuse Committee Member Christopher. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked if there were any changes to' the Minutes of August 4, 2004. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Village Use Permit 2003-019; a request of Dr. John Dixon for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 4,306 square foot one-story office building in the Village located at the northeast corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Cadiz. 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 Skip Lench, project representative, who gave a presentation on the project. GAMDOMALM9-8-04 WD.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee September 8, 2004 2. Committee Member Thorns stated he applauded the applicant for being sensitive to keeping the look of the original house. He suggested the ground surfaces be upgraded. The parking area could be a different material than asphalt. Upgrade the project in other areas than on the building. Mr. Lench stated they were going to replace the tiles and columns to match. Discussion followed regarding suggestions. 3. Committee Member Thorns asked that the trash dumpster be moved. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff about their recommendation for a treatment on the corner. It does need an upgrade on the landscaping to create more interest. He asked about the requirement for parking lot trees. He would like to see at least two more trees around the parking area. Staff asked for a suggested species. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested Lysaloma, sycamore, or an oak species. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if wood will be used for the trellis. He suggested a wood substitute be used. 6. Committee Member Thorns asked the color. Mr. Lench stated it would be a softer white. Committee Member Thorns asked the roof material. Mr. Lench stated it would be a three color the mix roof with mudding at the ridgelines only. 7. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2004-025 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2003-019, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Condition added: Paving surface treated differently. Introducing a different material to make a statement. b. Condition added: Two additional shade trees C. Condition added: The corner shall be given a landscape treatment. d. Condition added: Relocate trash enclosure and screen e. Condition added: Restrict rear access with aesthetic gates f. Condition added: bollard lights to be reviewed with landscape plans Unanimously approved. G:IWPDOCSIALRC19-8-04 WD.doc 2 ATTACHMENT # Kristi W. Hanson, Inc. Architect 72-185 Painter's Path Suite A Palm Desert, CA 92260 May 11, 2004 David Belson, Ph.D. 9117 Monte Mar Drive Los Angeles, CA 90035 310 839 2568 310 839 9009 (fax) david@belson.org �CEBVFEE JUL - 12004 _ COMMUNITYQE r PMENT DEPAttnw�TMEN Subject: Parking Demand Study for the Kelly Construction Co. Commercial Building Dear Kristi: Pursuant to your request, I am pleased to submit this parking demand study for the Kelly Construction Company's Commercial Building at Old Town La Quinta on Desert Club Drive. I have reviewed the design plans, related data and the applicable La Quinta Municipal Code. As discussed below, the analysis shows how the planned parking meets expected demand levels based on the City of La Quinta's regulations for parking. Introduction This report consists of calculations of the parking required by subject property for the planned office building. Parking demand is normally determined based on the expected type of tenants and the size of the building. The calculation is based on the current design documents and utilizes the current municipal code requirements from the City La Quinta. Parking Computation The total parking requirement is determined based on the interior or gross floor area (GFA) in the building's design. The categories of use are identified within the La Quinta Municipal Code, 9.150.060. The parking demand is then determined based on the parking spaces required per the La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 9 on Zoning. The GLA for the subject building is 6,354 square feet for this 2-story commercial office building. It should also be noted that there are several engineering sources of recommended levels of off street parking. These include the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), American Planning Association (APA) and various other publications and consultants. Thus, there are a variety of Page I opinions regarding the appropriate ratio of parking spaces to building size and these various viewpoints should be considered. Regarding parking for office space, the Urban Land Institute is the organization most often quoted and it recommends 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends 2.8 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Many cities use 3 spaces and the American Planning Association in a study of 127 city parking ordinances found values ranging from 1.3 to 5 spaces. Table 1 Parking Demand Study for the Kelly Construction Co. Commercial Building 6,354 Total interior of La Quinta office bldg. Parking Spaces per 1,0000 sq. ft. Required Parking Source 2.8 17.8 Institute of Traffic Engineers 2.9 18.4 Common city ratio, such as San Diego 3 19.1 Urban Land Institute 3.3 21.0 Common city ratio, such as Carlsbad 4 1 25.4 1 La Quinta Municipal Code Therefore, the set of values in Table 1 describe the range of possible results and a ratio of 3 per 1,000 is a responsible estimate for this particular property. Of course, the specific tenants will have an impact on the requirements and timing of parking requirements. The tenants have not been set for the La Quinta project. However, there is nothing to indicate that parking demand will exceed typical amounts. Based on this information, a total demand of 19 parking spaces seems to be a reasonable conclusion. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this report or if you need any additional information. Sincerely, David Belson, Ph.D. Page 2 PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2004 CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-086 APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: WAL-MART SUPER CENTER REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW 62 METAL CONTAINERS FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF HOLIDAY MERCHANDISE FROM OCTOBER 1, 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004, ON THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE EXISTING SUPER CENTER STORE LOCATION: 78-950 HIGHWAY 1 1 1, WITHIN THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4) IN THAT THE STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TEMPORARY AND WILL HAVE NO PERMANENT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has withdrawn the Conditional Use Permit application due to last year's Condition of Approval for the Wal-Mart Super Center that required approval of a Minor Use Permit for the use of storage bins (Attachment 1). This item is a public hearing and was advertised prior to the applicant's withdrawal. No Planning Commission action is needed. Attachments: 1. Letter from Mickey Anderson, manager of Wal-Mart dated October 4, 2004. Prepared by: ,t Martin Magang Associate Planner Page 2 of 2 PC stfrpt cup 02-071.wpd ATTACHMENT Mickey Anderson Store Manager 79-295 Highway 111 La Quinta, CA 92253 760-564-3313 Mr. Martin Magana- Associate Planner P.O. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 October 04, 2004 The Community Development Department has received My application for requesting 62 temporary metal storage containers for the storage of holiday merchandise from October 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 on the south and east sides of our Wal-Mart Supercenter. The above -mentioned application was filed as a conditional use permit on August 31, 2004. 1 would like to withdraw this application as a conditional use permit and change the status of this request to a minor use permit. The same criteria will apply as it pertains to number of containers, requested dates, aracesibility for emergency services and no need for utilities. Please assist in my request to push this process through as quickly as possible, as the holiday freight is already upon us, as is the daily increase in my store's layaway balance. Both of these opportunities will be overcoMe by the placement of temporary storage units. Thank you for your help and support, Mickey Anderson PH #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2004 CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 1 ` TIME EXTENSION APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: T D DESERT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A TIME EXTENSION FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 3.62 ACRES INTO SEVEN SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE OPEN SPACE LOT AND A WELL SITE LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CABRILLO WAY AND MISSION DRIVE WEST WITHIN RANCHO LA QUINTA ENGINEER: WATSON & WATSON ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90 WAS PREPARED AND CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1984 UNDER RESOLUTION 84-77, FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 (THE GROVE) WHICH INCLUDED THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF RANCHO LA QUINTA. TTM 30185 IS PART OF SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 AND THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT WOULD TRIGGER ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15162 OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS NECESSARY. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND GOLF COURSE (GC)/ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) AND GOLF COURSE (GC) BACKGROUND: This project was presented to the Planning Commission on September 3, 2002. At that meeting the Planning Commission voted 5-0, by adopting Resolution 2002-086, recommending to the City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map. On September P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC Stfrpt TTM 30185 Ext 1.doc 17, 2002, the project was presented to the City Council who voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution 2002-132 to approve the Tentative Tract Map. In 1984, the City Council approved Specific Plan 84-004 (Rancho La Quinta) and Environmental Impact Report No. 90, under Resolution 84-77. The plan allows up to 1,500 homes with two championship golf courses on approximately 700 acres. Since 1993, several tentative tract maps have been approved and recorded under SP 84-004 and Environmental Impact Report No. 90. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension to finalize this Tentative Tract Map. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an applicant has two years from the date of approval to submit a Final Map for recordation. If the applicant cannot finalize the map within the two years, three separate one-year extensions can be granted if the applicant applies for the extension prior to the date of the map's expiration. The expiration date for the Tentative Tract Map was September 17, 2004, but the applicant applied for the extension on August 4, 2004. The proposed subdivision is located at the southeast corner of Cabrillo Way and Mission Drive West, within the Rancho La Quinta development (Attachment 1). The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 3.62 acres into seven single-family residential lots, one open space lot and a well site (Attachment 2). The residential lots range in size from ± 9,180 to ± 11,600 square feet. Access to the residential lots will be taken from Mission Drive West, a private street within the Rancho La Quinta development. The open space and well site lots are 1.49 acres and 0.54 acres in size, respectively. Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 1, 2004, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters have been received. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request for a time extension can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending approval of a one- year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map 30185, subject to findings and the attached Conditions of Approval. P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC Stfrpt TTM 30185 Ext 1.doc Attachments: Site Location Map Tentative Tract Map (Planning Commission only) Prepared by: Martin Magana— Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO SUBDIVIDE ± 3.62 ACRES INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE OPEN SPACE LOT AND A WELL SITE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CABRILLO WAY AND MISSION DRIVE WEST WITHIN RANCHO LA QUINTA CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185 - 1 ST TIME EXTENSION APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 12" day of October, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by TD Desert Development for a one-year time extension to subdivide ± 3.62 acres into seven single-family residential lots, one open space lot and a well site, located at the southwest corner of Cabrillo Way and Mission Drive West within Rancho La Quinta, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 646-331-028 and 649-460-022, WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map 30185 has complied with the requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental Impact Report No. 90 for Specific Plan 84-004 (The Grove) was prepared and certified by the City Council on November 20, 1984, under Resolution 84-77, for the development of Rancho La Quinta. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90 is still valid and binding on this development request. There are no changed circumstances or conditions and no new information has been provided which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; 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 make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 30185: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan 84-004 in that the property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) which permits single-family residential uses. The density and design for the tract is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Specific Plan. PAReports - PC\10-12-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC RESO TTM30185 Ext 1.doc F PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 1- TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan and Specific Pan 84-004 in that all lot configurations, streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards as designed. All streets will be private which is consistent with Specific Plan 84-004. Access for the single-family lots will be provided from an existing internal north/south street. 3. The design of the subdivision of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat in that this project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures were imposed at the time the site was disturbed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels as required by Specific Plan 84-004 and Environmental Impact Report No. 90. Also, the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. Development currently exists to the north, east, and south of the site. 4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the applicant of the subdivision, as conditioned, will be required to install urban improvements based on City requirements and be consistent with Specific Plan 84-004. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that there is an existing street that will provide direct access to each single-family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. 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 Tentative Tract Map time extension; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusions of Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90, as certified by the City Council on November 20, 1984; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 30185 (1 St Time Extension for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PAReports - PC\10-12-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC RESO TTM30185 Ext 1.doc g PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 1s4 TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 121h day of October, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC RESO TTM30185 Ext 1.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 18t TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 r4:1,11:1.-TAN 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain 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 • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (11D) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District -Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 1" TIME EXTENSION TO DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. 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. 6. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right- of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 7. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 8. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. 9. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 10. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 11. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing road, public utilities, and pipeline easement shown in Parcel Map 25187, and open space and drainage easement shown on Lot E per TM 28640, which will diminish the rights to the property owned by others, the recordation of the tract map is subject to the Applicant providing an alternate road, public utilities, pipeline, open space and drainage easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners. PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 18t TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 12. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 13. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -image file of such Final Map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM 10 Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP: 1 " = 40' Horizontal D. Storm Drain Plans: 1 " = 40' Horizontal The following plans shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building & Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 1" TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. E. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1- foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 15. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 16. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 17. Prior to the conditional approval of any Final Map, or the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on -site 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. 18. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 4 a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 13t TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 19. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 20. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 21. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 18t TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 GRADING 22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 23. 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. 24. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, 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. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 25. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 26. Grading within perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform to LQMC 9.60.240(F). The maximum slope shall not exceed 4:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, and shall not exceed 8:1 in PAReports - PC\10-12-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, V TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 the first 6 feet adjacent to the curb in the right of way. 27. Building pad elevations shall conform substantially as shown in the approved tentative map. 28. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. nRAINAGF Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Rancho La Quinta. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 30. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 )Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and State Water Resources Control Board's No. 99-08-DWQ. 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 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. PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 1't TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 A. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in the relation to this project. B. 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. C. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control) 2. Temporary Sediment Control. 3. Wind Erosion Control. 4. Tracking Control. 5. Non -Storm Water Management. 6. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. D. 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. 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. 31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. No on -site drainage will be allowed to drain to La Quinta Evacuation Channel unless otherwise approved by CVWD. 32. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 1" TIME EXTENSION TO DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 33. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City Engineer. Said water is defined as non- stormwater from landscaped area nuisance water, off -site street nuisance water, residential unit nuisance water and well site blow off water. 34. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 35. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 36. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall not exceed six feet and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1. 37. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 38. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 39. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 40. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 41. When an applicant proposes discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City - or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 1" TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 executed and furnished to the City prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative tract map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the final development for CC&Rs for meeting this potential obligations. UTILITIES 42. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 43. 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, sewer and water laterals for the optimum placements for practical and aesthetic purposes. 44. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing 'improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. LANDSCAPING 45. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 46. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 47. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 13t TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 48. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs. QUALITY ASSURANCE 49. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 50. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 51. 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. 52. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 54. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30185, 13` TIME EXTENSION TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 12, 2004 FEES AND DEPOSITS 55. 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. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 56. Any areas adjacent to the channel that are below 50 feet are subject to flooding in the standard project flood. The District will require an easement for flooding for any areas adjacent to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel below the 50 foot elevation. 57. Final grading plans shall be submitted to the district for review with regard to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. 58. A portion of this project area is adjacent to the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The applicant shall be required to install suitable facilities to maintain District access and to prohibit outside access to this right-of-way. 59. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, including but not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping, and roadways. 60. The applicant will be required to pay the District any fees associated with the project in accordance with the current regulations for service to the site. 61. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the District for review to ensure efficient water management practices. PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\TTM 30185 TD Desert\PC COA TTM30185 Ext 1.doc 12 ATTACHMENT #1 LOCATION MAP 3ENHOWER DI r ATTACHMENT � p cr Wl PH #E STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2004 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-521 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-102 REQUEST: 1) CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITYWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-521 WAS PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS AMENDMENT. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed this item on September 28, 2004 and continued it to October 12, 2004, and asked staff to provide all comment letters. Staff has provided the following as Attachment 1: • A copy of a letter sent to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 7tn; • City letters sent to agencies asking for comments; • All comment letters received; and • As requested by HCD, and the City's Response to the comments received on the Draft Housing Element ( PAReports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\Housing Element\cond PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc I. OVERVIEW OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROCESS & REQUIREMENTS A. Background on Housing Element Process The Housing Element is one of seven State required parts of the City's General Plan and represents the City's policy document for meeting all of its housing needs, including housing affordable to low- and moderate -income families. Every city and county in California is required by State law to periodically update its Housing Element. Additionally, the law requires the Housing Element be reviewed and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element is the only Element of the City's General Plan that must be certified by the State. The main purpose of the Housing Element is to determine how the City will try to handle increased demand for housing. To ensure that cities do not overlook their responsibilities to provide housing for households of all income levels, each city is assigned a "fair share" number of new housing units for various income levels that it needs to try to accommodate. This "fair share" number is called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA originates at the HCD, which determines a State-wide growth number and then assigns a proportion of the State-wide number to each regional planning agency, which for La Quinta, is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG then allocates a proportional share to each jurisdiction within the SCAG region. The City of La Quinta received a RHNA of 913 total units. The update of a Housing Element generally occurs through a five -step process: 1. Assessment of existing Housing Element; 2. Evaluation of housing needs: existing needs (e.g., overpayment), growth needs (e.g., RHNA), and special needs (e.g., elderly); 3. Analysis of Housing Resources and Constraints; both governmental (e.g.,development standards) and non -governmental (e.g., endangered species habitat); 4. Refinement of goals, policies, and objectives in the context of housing needs, resources, and constraints; 5. Creation of a Five-year Action Plan, which details the schedule, actions, and responsible parties needed to implement the goals, policies, and objectives of the Housing Element. After the City develops a draft of the revised Housing Element, a copy is sent to the HCD for review. The State then has 60 days to review and comment on the Element for compliance with State law. After modifying the Element to respond to the State's comments, the City re -submits a second revised draft P:\Reports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\Housing Element\cond PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc Housing Element for another 60-day review period. At this stage, the State typically grants certification to the City's Housing Element. B. BACKGROUND ON ADOPTION OF HOUSING ELEMENT The City's 2004 Housing Element ( Attachment 2) covers the planning period of 1998-2005. Normally, the City would expect to have begun the update process in 1998 and complete the update by 2000. However, four events transpired to cause the City to delay the update and certification until now. First, the assignment of housing growth needs, the central theme of the Housing Element, was not distributed by SCAG to their jurisdictions until October 2000. The delay was caused by infighting between cities and counties over the amount of growth allocated. The dispute rose to such levels that jurisdictions within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties sued the State and SCAG, arguing that the housing unit goals assigned to the Inland Empire were unrealistically and inequitably large. A decision was not handed down until April 2003, at which point a court ruled that the State could not withhold funding based on a jurisdiction's failure to accommodate SCAG's RHNA allocations. Accordingly, the City could not receive a final confirmation of the RHNA figures until early 2003. A second event was the 2000 Census. Although the Census is conducted in April of 2000, the results are not tabulated and released for many of the city - level population and housing statistics until late in 2002. To ensure that the Housing Element represents the most up-to-date information possible, the update of a significant portion of the housing profile and needs data was delayed until after the release of the 2000 Census data. The use of 2000 Census data will aid future updates of the Housing Element and ensure consistency between the Housing Element and the other elements of the General Plan. The update of the City's General Plan represents the third event that delayed update of the Housing Element. In 2000, the City began to update the Land Use Element as part of a full General Plan update. Accordingly, the City decided to halt the Housing Element update until the completion of the revised Land Use Element in order to produce a more accurate and functional Housing Element. The revised Housing Element is now consistent with the City's General Plan. The City submitted the first draft of the revised Housing Element on November 6, 2002 and responded to the State's comments with a second submittal on March 1, 2004. This second submittal was the result of several discussions with State staff person assigned to review the City's Housing Element, and was expected to receive certification. PAReports - PC\10-12-2004\Housing Element\cond PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc The fourth event is the main reason for the delay in certification of the City's Housing Element. After the second submittal, the State did not grant certification to the City's Housing Element, citing that the City had still not shown a diligent effort to achieve an adequate level of public participation. A conversation with State Staff confirmed that the reason for the State's reluctance to grant certification was based on a letter from the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA). CRLA raised questions on public participation, farm worker housing, the Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park, and constraints to building affordable housing in La Quinta. The City and its consultant held several conversations with the State on the concerns of CRLA and public participation. The City prepared a response letter on June 7, 2004 that included substantial text detailing the outreach efforts of the City during the preparation of the General Plan update and Housing Element update. The City and its consultant then held explicit conversations confirming the adequacy of text. After several weeks of additional review, the State decided the City had still not demonstrated diligent efforts to achieve public participation and requested the City mail copies of the Housing Element to: Martha's Village & Kitchen, Catholic Charities, Coachella Valley Rescue Mission, Desert AIDS Project, Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment, Habitat for Humanity of the Coachella Valley, and the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside. On August 23, 2004, the City distributed copies of the Housing Element to these organizations and received public input up until September 14, 2004. The City also distributed copies of the Housing Element's draft Negative Declaration to local and State agencies on August 25, 2004 for a 30-day public review period. The City received responses on the Housing Element from the County Housing Authority, Coachella Valley Rescue Mission and the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition. As previously stated, the City has responded to their concerns. The comments are attached (Attachment 1). If. LA QUINTA'S REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ("RHNA") ALLOCATION The 1999 RHNA proposes that La Quinta construct 913 new housing units to accommodate housing needs for all income groups during the planning period January 1998 through June 2005. According to SCAG, 178 new units are needed to accommodate very low-income households, 103 new units to accommodate low-income households, and 196 new units to meet the needs of moderate -income households. Approximately half of the new units (436) cited by the RHNA to accommodate growth will be for above moderate -income households, which can be provided through market -rate housing. PAReports - PC\10-12-2004\Housing Element\cond PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc The RHNA is calculated by factoring projected population, vacancy rates, housing market removals and existing housing units, adjusted by income categories to reflect income distribution in the community. The City's 913 unit future housing need represents 4.4 percent of the Coachella Valley's future housing need, though La Quinta households constitute 6.2 percent of the Valley's total number of households. III. AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS A. Land resources and development potential Land Resources: Future residential development in the City of La Quinta will take place throughout the City, primarily in areas for which specific plans and tract maps have been approved. These properties include vacant and undeveloped lands presently within the City of La Quinta and its Sphere of Influence area that is adjacent to, or within service hook-up distance from public sewer, water, and street systems; as well as scattered infill sites in the Cove and Village. The 2002 General Plan designates 5,839 vacant acres for residential development which could result in 13,195 units in the City. This includes 86.7 acres of High Density, which accommodates multi -family and potential sites for housing affordable to lower -income households (with assistance). Although land designated for High Density Residential is limited, it is the City's policy that land will continue to be re -designated to Higher Density Residential or Mixed -use designations on a case -by - case basis in order to accommodate projects that propose inclusion of affordable units. Another significant land use designation resource for development of Higher Density Residential is within the Mixed Regional Commercial, as well as recently amended Commercial Park designation, both of which allow for residential development of up to16 du's/ac. There is a potential for over 500 infill lots in the Cove, which could provide market -rate moderate and low income new housing potential. It is important to note that only lands within City boundaries can be considered for the purposes of accommodating the RHNA allocation. This can include lands recently annexed, or will be annexed into the City and likely to develop during the planning period. Such development includes 101 units at the Village at the Palms, two to three tracts of approximately 100 units each in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, and 100 units within the Trilogy by Shea Homes, for 500 market -rate units. Development Potential within the Planning Period, assuming development continues at a similar rate as it did between 1989 and 2003, it can be PAReports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\Housing Element\cond PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc expected that up to 9,204 new units will be completed during the 1998- 2005 planning period. This significantly exceeds the RHNA in all income categories. There is sufficient land designated at appropriate designations to accommodate the number of units allocated by the RHNA for the very low- and low-income households. In all cases, any new projects that propose inclusion of affordable units have, or will require involvement of the City and the RDA for assistance. B. Significant Governmental and Non -Governmental Constraints Constraints on the construction and affordability of housing include: land costs, financing, development standards, local permitting procedures, and impact fees. The City has given close consideration to ways in which the City can mitigate possible constraints. For example, processing time and fees can add to the cost of development of housing, which is often passed on in rents or purchase price. The City will continue to prioritize processing for projects with affordable housing components. Additionally, to facilitate the availability of second units as a housing resource, the City will consider the reduction of garage or parking requirements on a case -by -case basis. As an incentive to an affordable or senior housing project, the City will consider paying particular fees on a case -by -case basis based on the analysis of the attributes of a project such as: Fringe -toed Lizard fee; school assessment fees; and water and sewer hook up fees. The City will also consider payment, waiver, or reduction of certain City fees such as Development Impact fees, Art in Public Places fees, select permit processing fees, and building inspection and plan check fees. IV. POLICIES AND ACTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. A. Quantified Objectives - new construction, assistance, rehabilitation In housing markets of the past, land designated for high density typically could accommodate housing affordable to lower income households. In the present housing market, however, products developed as mixed use or high density residential can only be sold/rented at market -rates if they receive some form of assistance and/or incentives in order to provide affordable housing units. Accordingly, the Redevelopment Agency has been incredibly proactive in working with developers and non -profits to provide enough units affordable to low and very low income households to the extent that the RHNA numbers are actually exceeded in both categories. Moreover, the types of projects with affordability components incorporate a wide range of housing products, including: senior apartments, senior P:\Reports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\Housing Element\cond PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc detached units; traditional family apartments; cluster homes; detached single-family units; and mobile home park rehabilitation and replacement with manufactured or site built housing. This variety allows a larger proportion of the population to gain access to affordable housing. As part of the Housing Element, the City sets forth quantified objectives for new construction, financial assistance, and rehabilitation activities during the planning period. The City's new construction objectives (a combination of existing, in the pipeline or under construction, and proposed under negotiations which count towards the RHNA) total over 9,200 units, of which 7,872 are planned for above moderate -income households. New construction objectives in the lower three income categories exceed the RHNA allocations. The City also plans on preserving or providing financial assistance to 919 households and rehabilitating 155 housing units during the planning period. The majority of preservation and assistance activities will occur through the Assessment Subsidy Program (427 units) and La Quinta Silent Second Trust Deed Program (229 units). Rehabilitation efforts will be focused in the older residential areas of the City as well as the existing mobile home stock. Funds and activities will occur through programs such as the La Quinta Rehabilitation Program, Riverside County Senior Housing Grants, and Redevelopment Set -Aside funds. Public Notice The proposed Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment, and Housing Element Update were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 2, 2004. The public hearing notice was published as 1 /8 page display advertisement. Public Agency Review On April 27, 2004 a joint Planning Commission and City Council study session was held to review the Draft Housing Element. On November 6, 2002 the Draft Element was first submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment; the Draft Element is now at HCD for a fourth review. Environmental Assessment Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) 2004-521 for the draft Element. Staff recommends certification of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. PAReports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\Hou sing Element\cond PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council certification of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2004-521; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment 2004-102, Housing Element Update. Attachments: 1. City letter to HCD City letter requesting comments Comment letters received City's Response to Comments 2. La Quinta Draft Housing Element and Negative Declaration Prepared by: r Q—rr—e-ffaker, Pr clpal Planner P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\Housing Element\cond PCstaffrpt Housing Element.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-102 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-521 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - HOUSING ELEMENT APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 28" day of September, 2004, and continued to the 12th day of October, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California previously adopted Resolution 2002-44 as a comprehensive update of the General Plan for the City pursuant to Sections 65350 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report (SCH #20000991023) has been prepared, adopted under City Council Resolution 2002-43, and certified for the General Plan as prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act and identifies various mitigation measures to a level of insignificance and identifies certain impacts which cannot be so mitigated with a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Negative Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment due to the mitigations measures required in the General Plan EIR and incorporated herein by this reference and that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, does recommend to the City Council certification of the Environmental Assessment; and, WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on the 14th day of September, 2004 to the Riverside County Clerk; and PAReports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\Housing Element\cond PC RESO EA 2004-509 Housing Element.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-521 General Plan Housing Element Adopted: October 12, 2004 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City published a Public Hearing Notice to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 2, 2004, such notice was also mailed to concerned agencies, and all public entities entitled to such notice; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the Project, and based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, and finds that there are no significant environmental effects resulting from this project. 2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-521. 3. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory. 4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 5. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\Housing Element\cond PC RESO EA 2004-509 Housing Element.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-521 General Plan Housing Element Adopted: October 12, 2004 Page 3 6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the Project. 7. The Project will not have the 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. 8. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon. 9. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. 10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based upon, are located in the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. 11. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2. 13. The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). 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 a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2004-521 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental P:\Reports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\Housing Element\cond PC RESO EA 2004-509 Housing Element.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- Environmental Assessment 2004-521 General Plan Housing Element Adopted: October 12, 2004 Page 4 Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12th day of October, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\Housing Element\cond PC RESO EA 2004-509 Housing Element.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT UPDATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-102 HOUSING ELEMENT APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 281h day of September, 2004, and continued to the 12" day of October, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California previously adopted Resolution 2002-44 approving a comprehensive update of the General Plan for the City pursuant to Sections 65350 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law; and, WHEREAS, it is recognized that the current General Plan Housing Element requires revisions and update to assure compliance with current State laws and regulations, WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element contains an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints to meeting the needs as required by Section 65583(a) of the Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element contains a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies to achieve the objectives of the element as required by Section 65583 (b) of the Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element contains a program which sets forth a yearly schedule of actions to implement the policies and achieve the objectives of the Housing Element as required by Section 65583 (b) of the Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the City's unique population characteristics, economic conditions, housing conditions, residential density objectives and Redevelopment Agency financial resources were considered in the preparation of the General Plan Housing Element update; and, PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\Housing Element\cond PC RESO GPA 2004-102 Housing Element.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- General Plan Amendment 2004-102 Housing Element October 12, 2004 WHEREAS, a General Plan Housing Element was submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment; and, WHEREAS, the City has considered the findings made by the Department of Housing and Community Development and other entities and persons that have provided written and oral comment to the City and the Department of Housing and Community Development; and, WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment 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 Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2004-521), and determined that the Housing Element will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of environmental impact is recommended for certification; 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 to justify a recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment updating the Housing Element : 1. The General Plan Housing Element is internally consistent and consistent with the other Elements of the General Plan, and reflects updated statistics and information regarding the City's current and anticipated conditions. 2. The General Plan Housing Element is compatible with land use designations in the Land Use Element and other Elements of the General Plan. 3. The General Plan Housing Element will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting programs and policies improve the preservation and development of housing. 4. The General Plan Housing Element addresses changes in specific circumstances and changes in general conditions since the adoption of the previous Housing Element. P:\Reports - PC\1 0- 1 2-2004\Housing Element\cond PC RESO GPA 2004-102 Housing Element.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- General Plan Amendment 2004-102 Housing Element October 12, 2004 5. The City is required by State laws and regulations to update the Housing Element in a five year cycle and the General Plan Housing Element achieves this mandatory requisite. 6. The City has considered all comments made by the Department of Housing and Community Development and has made revisions to the draft General Plan Housing Element to respond to the comments received from the Department of Housing and Community Development. 7. The updated General Plan Housing Element substantially complies with the provisions of California's Planning and Zoning Law, codified at California Government Code section 65580 et seq. 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 approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment, Housing Element request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of October, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\Housing Element\cond PC RESO GPA 2004-102 Housing Element.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2004- General Plan Amendment 2004-102 Housing Element October 12, 2004 TOM KIRK, Chairman City of LaQuinta, California ATTEST: OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\10-12-2004\Housing Element\cond PC RESO GPA 2004-102 Housing Element.doc ATTACHMENT #1 T4, 4 4 4 a" P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 October 7, 2004 Ms. Cathy Cresswell, Deputy Director Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 Sacramento, CA 94252-2643 SUBJECT: CITY OF LA QUINTA DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Dear Ms. Cresswell: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 Thank you for your letter of August 13, 2004 providing comments on the Draft La Quinta Housing Element. With the third review of the Draft Housing Element completed by your staff, including telephone discussions with the La Quinta Planning staff, the City's consultant, your staff indicated that only a few questions remained for compliance with State Housing Law. On review of the Draft Housing Element your office requested, in order to bring the Element into compliance with State Housing Element Law, additional review by specific organizations and individuals. Your letter also notes the need to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community (Government Code 65583 (c) (6) (B). Based on this letter, staff sent the Draft Housing Element to agencies for review and comment in order to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community for a two week period (Attachment 1). The City also invited the agencies to attend a public hearing before the Planning Commission on the Housing Element on September 28, 2004 (Attachment 2). Following discussions during this meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to October 12, 2004. The City received comments from four agencies: California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), the Coachella Valley Rescue Mission (CVRM), Housing Authority of the County of Riverside, and the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition (CVHC) (Attachment 3). The City prepared a response document for all comments received PAFRED\Housing Element\HCD Itr 10-7-04.doc �� Ms. Cathy Cresswell Department of Housing and Community Development October 7, 2004 Page 2 from these agencies and sent the response document to these agencies. (Attachment 4). As noted in the response document, staff considered and incorporated appropriate comments from these agencies into the Draft Housing Element. Finally, please find enclosed the September, 2004 Draft Housing Element (Attachment 5). I hope this information is helpful in your evaluation. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Cs OSCAR W. ORCI, Interim Community Development Director OWO:FB:bjs Attachment \\CLQADMFS1\PLANNING\FRED\Housing Element\HCD Itr 10-7-04.doc Martha's Village & Kitchen Attn: Gloria Gomez 83791 Date Avenue Indio, CA 92201-4737 (760) 347-4741 Catholic Charities Attn: Linda Salas 35325 Date Palm Drive, Suite 153 A Cathedral City, CA 92234 (760) 202-1222 Coachella Valley Rescue Mission Attn: Mr. Jim Lewis 47518 Van Buren Street Indio, CA 92202 (760) 347-3512 Desert AIDS Project Attn: Mr. Warner Engdahl 1695 N. Sunrise Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 (760) 323-2118 Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment Attn: Mr. Jess Hayes 53-990 Enterprise Way, Suite 1 Coachella, California 92236 (760) 391-5050 Habitat for Humanity of the Coachella Valley P.O. Box 11738 Palm Desert, CA 92255 (760) 342-2243 Housing Authority of the County of Riverside 5555 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92504-2506 (909) 351-0700 Arturo Rodriguez, Attorney at Law California Rural Legal Assistance P.O. Box 35 1460 Sixth Street Coachella, CA 92236-0035 PAFRED\Housing Element\Targeted Organizations.doc t Y f P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 20, 2004 Gloria Gomez Martha's Village & Kitchen 83-791 Date Avenue Indio, California 92201-4737 Dear Ms. Gomez: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 The City of La Quinta is currently updating its Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies and establishes the City's policies relative to the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. It also establishes policies that will guide City decision making, and sets forth an action program to implement housing goals through 2005. A draft has been prepared and is enclosed for your review and comment. The City also invites you to attend a Planning Commission public hearing on the Housing Element on September 28, 2004 (public hearing notice enclosed). So that we may incorporate your input prior to the public hearing, please return your comments to us by September 10, 2004. You may also direct your comments to Fred Baker, Principal Planner at the City of La Quinta's Community Development Department prior to September 28, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Baker at (760) 777-7125. We thank you for your insight. 61-11� c,,- e55�,,- OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director f P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 20, 2004 Linda Salas Catholic Charities 35325 Date Palm Drive Suite 153 A Cathedral City, California 92234 Dear Ms. Salas: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 The City of La Quinta is currently updating its Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies and establishes the City's policies relative to the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. It also establishes policies that will guide City decision making, and sets forth an action program to implement housing goals through 2005. A draft has been prepared and is enclosed for your review and comment. The City also invites you to attend a Planning Commission public hearing on the Housing Element on September 28, 2004 (public hearing notice enclosed). So that we may incorporate your input prior to the public hearing, please return your comments to us by September 10, 2004. You may also direct your comments to Fred Baker, Principal Planner at the City of La Quinta's Community Development Department prior to September 28, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Baker at (760) 777-7125. We thank you for your insight. OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director +� N 'WAR �. r P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 20, 2004 Jim Lewis Coachella Valley Rescue Mission 47518 Van Buren Street Indio, California 92202 Dear Mr. Lewis: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 The City of La Quinta is currently updating its Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies and establishes the City's policies relative to the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. It also establishes policies that will guide City decision making, and sets forth an action program to implement housing goals through 2005. A draft has been prepared and is enclosed for your review and comment. The City also invites you to attend a Planning Commission public hearing on the Housing Element on September 28, 2004 (public hearing notice enclosed). So that we may incorporate your input prior to the public hearing, please return your comments to us by September 10, 2004. You may also direct your comments to Fred Baker, Principal Planner at the City of La Quinta's Community Development Department prior to September 28, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Baker at (760) 777-7125. We thank you for your insight. OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TASIPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 20, 2004 Warner Engdahl Desert AIDS Project 1695 N. Sunrise Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Dear Mr. Engdahl: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 The City of La Quinta is currently updating its Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies and establishes the City's policies relative to the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. It also establishes policies that will guide City decision making, and sets forth an action program to implement housing goals through 2005. A draft has been prepared and is enclosed for your review and comment. The City also invites you to attend a Planning Commission public hearing on the Housing Element on September 28, 2004 (public hearing notice enclosed). So that we may incorporate your input prior to the public hearing, please return your comments to us by September 10, 2004. You may also direct your comments to Fred Baker,. Principal Planner at the City of La Quinta's Community Development Department prior to September 28, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Baker at (760) 777-7125. We thank you for your insight. OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director 1f 4 P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 20, 2004 Jess Hayes Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment 53-990 Enterprise Way Suite 1 Coachella, California 92236 Dear Mr. Hayes: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 The City of La Quinta is currently updating its Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies and establishes the City's policies relative to the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. It also establishes policies that will guide City decision making, and sets forth an action program to implement housing goals through 2005. A draft has been prepared and is enclosed for your review and comment. The City also invites you to attend a Planning Commission public hearing on the Housing Element on September 28, 2004 (public hearing notice enclosed). So that we may incorporate your input prior to the public hearing, please return your comments to us by September 10, 2004. You may also direct your comments to Fred Baker, Principal Planner at the City of La Quinta's Community Development Department prior to September 28, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Baker at (760) 777-7125. We thank you for your insight. OSCAR ORC1, Interim Community Development Director F P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 20, 2004 Habitat for Humanity of the Coachella Valley P 0 Box 11738 Palm Desert, California 92255 Gentlemen: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 The City of La Quinta is currently updating its Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies and establishes the City's policies relative to the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. It also establishes policies that will guide City decision making, and sets forth an action program to implement housing goals through 2005. A draft has been prepared and is enclosed for your review and comment. The City also invites you to attend a Planning Commission public hearing on the Housing Element on September 28, 2004 (public hearing notice enclosed). So that we may incorporate your input prior to the public hearing, please return your comments to us by September 10, 2004. You may also direct your comments to Fred Baker, Principal Planner at the City of La Quinta's Community Development Department prior to September 28, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Baker at (760) 777-7125. We thank you for your insight. OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director i P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLF TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 20, 2004 Housing Authority of the County of Riverside 5555 Arlington Avenue Riverside, California 92504-2506 Gentlemen: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 The City of La Quinta is currently updating its Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies and establishes the City's policies relative to the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. It also establishes policies that will guide City decision making, and sets forth an action program to implement housing goals through 2005. A draft has been prepared and is enclosed for your review and comment. The City also invites you to attend a Planning Commission public hearing on the Housing Element on September 28, 2004 (public hearing notice enclosed). So that we may incorporate your input prior to the public hearing, please return your comments to us by September 10, 2004. You may also direct your comments to Fred Baker, Principal Planner at the City of La Quinta's Community Development Department prior to September 28, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Baker at (760) 777-7125. We thank you for your insight. OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CAL.LF TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 20, 2004 Arturo Rodriguez, Attorney at Law California Rural Legal Assistance Post Office Box 35 1460 Sixth Street Coachella, California 92236-0035 Dear Mr. Rodriguez: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 The City of La Quinta is currently updating its Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies and establishes the City's policies relative to the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. It also establishes policies that will guide City decision making, and sets forth an action program to implement housing goals through 2005. A draft has been prepared and is enclosed for your review and comment. The City also invites you to attend a Planning Commission public hearing on the Housing Element on September 28, 2004 (public hearing notice enclosed). So that we may incorporate your input prior to the public hearing, please return your comments to us by September 10, 2004. You may also direct your comments to Fred Baker, Principal Planner at the City of La Quinta's Community Development Department prior to September 28, 2004. if you have any questions, please contact Mr. Baker at (760) 777-7125. We thank you for your insight. <i OSCAR ORCI, Interim Community Development Director CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, Inc. MIGRANT FARM WORKER PROTECT, Coachella Regional Office 5 Street California 92236-0035 (760)398-7261 398-1050 lalnfoirt+crla.org ;rrero Rey ra(Acrla.ore iguez mezPw1a or4 os-Castro wcrla.om Benitez ,rker ra)crla.ore tinez '-crla.ork z-Rodriguez Legal Secretary uczri.Krla orR 1FFICE met., Suite 300 ;A 94105 5) 777.2752 .2752 @handsnet.org .b. —%,, crla nr4 :tor 0 r Abascal el :rger tigation Adw acy & Tmining EGIONAL OFFICES (661)854.5993 (805) 725A350 (760) 353-0220 (559) 441-8721 (831)847-1408 (209) 674-5671 (530) 742.5191 (209)577.3811 (831) 375-0505 (760) 966-0511 mt) (805) 486-1068 (805)483.8083 (805) 239.3708 (831)757-5221 w (805) 544-7997 (805)963-5981 (831)458-1089 (805) 922A563 (707) 528-9941 (209) 946-0605 (831)724-2253 SC September 9, 2004 Mr. Oscar Orci Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: City of La Quinta's Draft Housing Element Dear Mr. Orci: Pursuant to your letter of August 20, 2004 inviting input on the City of La Quinta's housing element, enclosed please find comments which we submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development on August 11, 2004. A copy of our comments were also sent to the City on the same date. We want to insure that our comments are available to the City prior to the public hearing set for September 28, 2004. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Arturo Rodricruez l Attorney at Law / enclosure as stated `i CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, Inc. MIGRANT FARMWORKER PROJECT, Coachella Regional Office ix 35 xth Street Ila, California 92236-0035 ine: (760) 398-7261 60)398-1050 tehellalnfapnla.orG Guerrero ,rtorney crrm,y crla.orR odriguez '. :xlrieuez(werb orc vanos-Castro er stma,crla org V. Benitez Worker nhernLerla or¢ fartinez Worker tnbtcz @crla.ortz )pez-Rodriguez Ive Legal Secretary drigueegtcrla org L OFFICE Street., Suite 300 o, 94105 (415)777-2752 $43-2752 N7Qhandsnet.org Web: www.crb org Ila hector ru710 ctor go Abascal rnsel 7) loerget bs Lirigarion Adwcacy & Training REGIONAL OFFICES (661) 854-5993 (805)725-4350 (760) 353-0220 (559)441-8721 ('31)47-1408 (209):74-5671 (530)742-5191 (209)577-3811 (831) 375-050A (760) 966-0511 rang (805) 486-1068 ic) (805) 483-8083 (805)239-3708 .(831) 757-5221 spo (805)544.7997 'a (805)963-5981 (831)458.1089 (805) 9224563 (707)528-9941 (209)'46-0605 (831) 724.2253 Isc August 11, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION and Is'CLASS U.S. MAIL (916) 327-2643 i Mr. Mario Angel Housing Policy Analyst Department of Housing & Community Development Division of Housing Policy D;;vclopment 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 RE: Draft Housing Element — City of La Quinta June 2004 Revised Draft Dear Mr. Angel: We have had the opportunity to review the June 2004 Revised Draft which the City of La Quinta (City) has submitted for your review and submit these comments to express our concerns that the revised draft fails to comply with state law. First, we would like to note that, except for an extended discussion of Public Participation, included as Appendix B, none of the concerns and suggestions raised in our comments of May 10, 2004 have been addressed. In fact, the revisions to the Public Participation discussion only serve to buttress our contention that there was little, if any, effort by the City to include meaningful public participation in the drafting of its revised housing element. Each of the concerns raised by our May 101h letter and the City's response are addressed herein. Furthermore, and as more fully described below, we raise additional concerns regardjng the Revised Draft Housing Element. Among other things, these concerns involve comments on Housing Needs & Housing Objectives, Redevelopment, Housing Preservation and Housing Resources and Programs Summary. 1. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort (Section 65583(c)). As stated in our letter of May 10`h, our concern was that the City had failed to identify the organizations and public agencies which it claimed were involved in Letter to Mario Angel August 11, 2004 the development of its draft housing element. We note that at page 181 of Appendix B, the City lists the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition (CVHC) , and only CVHC, as one of the "non -profits" involved in the process. CVHC is a highly respected non-profit which has built and rehabilitated hundreds of low income and farmworker housing units in the Coachella Valley. The organization's expertise would indeed have been invaluable in assisting in the development of La Quinta's housing element, particularly in identifying needs for very low and low income housing in the City. We note that the information CVHC allegedly provided was in regards to the "needs for migrant and resident farm workers in the Coachella Valley" and the "urgent need to rehabilitate and improve conditions in mobile home parks,",presumably in unincorporated areas of Riverside County where CVHC is actively involved. (Revised Draft at page 181.)' It would have been helpful if the City had identified the information that CVHC provided which it found useful in examining and responding to the housing needs of the City of I.a Quinta, particularly in area of the City's need for affordable housing. We note that the Special Needs Analysis pertaining to farmworkers is void of any mention of CVHC and its alleged input. (Pages 49-50.) Indeed, this analysis concludes that affordable housing for farmworkers is unnecessary because La Quinta is an "urban area" and the current agriculturally developed land in La Quinta is being converted to "low -density" (and therefore, unaffordable) residential use. Since this conversion will "terminate any [future] demand for seasonal and permanent farm workers in the City", the City concludes that it is "unlikely that any migrant farm worker households reside in La Quinta". (Page 50.) The conclusion by the City that affordable housing for farm workers is unnecessary is unfounded and unsupported. The two public agencies which are also identified as having provided input on the draft housing element, the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) and Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) provided information which "identified County housing programs and its responsibility for accommodating housing demand in the County areas (including the City's sphere of influence)." (Page 181.)[ Emphasis added.] Again, it would have been helpful if the City had identified the information that DPSS and the EDA provided which it found useful in examining and responding to the housing needs of the City of La Quinta, particularly in area of the City's need for affordable housing. Moreover, in an effort to quantify public input on its housing element, the City lists 19 public meetings and hearings held between October 8, 1998 and April 27, 2004 during which it claims it received public input in the development of its housing element. It is interesting that only one, the joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session held on April 27, 2004 specifically concerned the draft housing element. While we understand that the Housing Element is in fact interrelated with the other elements of its General Plan, meeting and public hearings held to discuss General Plan do not, in our view, address the City's statutory requirement that it "make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element.." Finally, the City states that it contacted a number of organizations and agencies that provide housing, or housing related services, to its residents. We bring to HCD's attention that the City failed to contact our office even though we have first hand knowledge of both the housing and social welfare needs of lower income households in La Quinta including but not limited to common causes for eviction, unmet needs of people who are disabled, elderly or poor, credit issues, etc. All future references to page numbers are to the June 2004 Revised Draft Housing Element Update. 7 Letter to Mario Angel August 11, 2004 It is our opinion that the City's inability to provide specific and concrete examples of public participation by agencies and individuals representing low income segments of the community is due to the fact it did not solicit such participation. 2. Farm Worker i-lousing and the Homeless Analyze any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farm workers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter (Section 65583(a)(6)). a Farmworker Housing In our comments of May 10, 2004, we provided factual information contrary to the City's self- serving conclusion that "[b]ased on an analysis on farm labor and the diminishing amount of farm land in the City of La Quinta and surrounding rural areas, the need for farm worker housing has declined." As cited in the September 2003 article in the Desert Sun newspaper, agricultural output for crops grown in the Coachella Valley in the year 2002 was valued at $425 million. 1n a more recent Desert Sun article published on August 1, 2004, the crop yield for the year 2003 was valued at $405 million, with the decline due to lower prices, not level of production. While the article does cite a decline in the number of valley acres harvest from 50,095 in the year 2002 to 49,733 in 2003, such a slight decline does not support the City's conclusion that the need for farmworker housing is declining and therefore violates Govt. Code §65583(c)(1)(A). See also our comments above under public participation. At a minimum, we would expect that the City's analysis on the issue of farmworker housing should address its borders which are contiguous with those of both Thermal and Coachella, areas which remain heavily dependent on agricultural production. b. Housing for Homeless Persons or Near Homeless Persons We noted in our comments of May 10`h that we were highly skeptical of the City's conclusion that "[n]o homeless, however, were found within the City of La Quinta." Again, the City's reliance on a single census conducted during March 11-14, 2003 seems a bit self-serving for a city of over 32,000 residents. (Page 9.) We believe that such short sighted and self-serving analysis of special needs housing is due in large part on the City's failure to actively seek input from social service agencies which provide services to these special needs groups. For example, in the neighboring city of Indio, Martha's Village and Kitchen, a $3.2 million private social service agency, provides shelter and other services to the area's homeless. We are confident that the City's conclusion that there are no homeless in the City of La Quinta would be far different had it sought information and guidance from Martha's Village or Indio's other homeless shelter, the Coachella Valley Rescue Mission. While we commend the City for amending its Zoning Code to address zoning for emergency shelters and "transitional facilities", we are concerned that the City's zoning amendments do not, in fact, intend to address the housing needs of homeless or near homeless persons. (See pages 50-51.) First, it is not clear 3 Letter to Mario Angel August 11, 2004 what the City means by "transitional facilities". We assume that such facilities are intended to be transitional housing for formerly homeless persons but this term should be clarified to mean "housing" and not "services" only. Second, we are concerned that the City limits emergency shelters by right to only.non-residential "zones" and limits "transitional facilities" to Regional Commercial and Major Community Facilities districts subject only to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City's intention to prevent homeless persons from living in residential neighborhoods, or to require an extensive public hearing process to obtain approval for development, fails to meet the requirement to identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the City's need for emergency shelters and transitional housing. [Govt. Code §65583(c)(1)(A).1 In addition, the City's zoning requirements are discriminatory and violates applicable state and federal fair housing law. For example, in California, the City cannot discriminate and engage in discriminatory practices against certain protected classes, including race, ethnicity, disability and source of income. Homeless persons often fall into these protected classes. In addition the City is prohibited from discriminating against certain persons in the exercise of their land use and zoning powers. (Govt. Code § 65008.) Those protected under this law includes the traditional classes protected under both state and federal housing law as well as developers and occupants of low and moderate income housing, transitional housing and emergency shelters. We see no effort of the City to affirmatively encourage or promote the development or creation of emergency shelters and transitional housing for the homeless. (See also Hoffinaster v. City of San Diego (1997) 55 CA 4`' 1098) 3. Mobile Homes and Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park Since submitting our previous comments, we have since learned that the City's Redevelopment Agency attempted to purchase La Quinta's only other mobile home park, Dune Palms Mobile Estates, for the purpose of closing the park. It is our understanding that the Dune Palms' owner refused to sell. Closure of both Dune Palms and Vista Dunes by the City would result in the loss of 195 of the City's 258 mobile homes and the loss of both its mobile home parks. As you know, mobilehome parks have traditionally been a source of affordable housing, and perhaps most importantly, serve as a basic entry level for home ownership for low income families. The recent attempts to close its mobilehome parks raises serious concerns that the City is merely going through the legal motions in submitting a housing element and that the City has no intention of establishing and following policies "that will guide the City decision making" to preserve, improve and develop housing for every La Quinta household. It is a stated objective of the Revised Housing element to allow and maintain mobilehome parks in order to "[p]reserve low-cost housing options for City residents." We fail to see how the removal of 195 of its 258 mobilehomes, which at present serve primarily low income Latino families, is consistent with the stated objective. State redevelopment law requires that the City replace all of the 93 extremely low, very low and low income units that will be lost as a result of the closure of the Vista Dunes Mobilehome Park. These 93 replacement units do not count towards the RHNA needs for the City. Again, we remain of the opinion that the City would be better served by helping the residents of Vista Dunes to rehabilitate or replace their mobile homes and constructing 82 units of additional low income housing at some other site within the City. 4 Letter to Mario Angel August 11, 2004 4. Housing Needs & Housing Objectives In addition to the housing needs of farm workers and homeless persons, we have the following concerns about the Draft Housing Element and its failure to adequately address the housing needs of ALL of its residents: (1) The Draft Element contains several misleading tables. For example, Table H-26 includes a housing cost percentage definition of "30% or above". Under this definition, over 35% of the households earning less than $35,000 pay "30% or above" for housing cost. However, without separating out the number of households that are paying more than 30% of its income for housing, the City is evading disclosure of how many of the 35% lower income households are actually overpaying for their housing. (See page 37.) Table H-29, disclosing overcrowding in the City, is also misleading to the extent that it attempts to correlate a lack of overcrowding with housing affordability. The Table declares that overcrowding in the City is low and that 7,926 of its households are not overcrowded (529 households are overcrowded at a standard of one person per room -- not bedroom). (Page 43.) This conclusion is not surprising since the development of four bedroom units increased by 300% over the past decade. Indeed, 9,057 of the City's housing units are 3 or more bedrooms. (Page 25-26). The City also admits that its "smaller" bedroom stock is steadily decreasing. At the same time, the number of households earning $60,000 or more has almost doubled while the number of households earning less than $15,000 was reduced in half. (Page 13.) It is clear that the City's emphasis on higher income units is forcing lower income residents from the community, or ultimately will cause more families to double up, and thus become overcrowded, because they cannot afford the housing. (2) The City declares that since interest rates have fallen, low and very low income households may be able to afford a limited number of homes. It states that a low income family can purchase a $108,000 home in La Quinta but it provides no evidence that any single family homes, townhomes or condos are available at that amount. (Pages 40-41.) In fact, no ownership opportunities are available to very low income households "although mobile home resales may fall under $90,000 should one become available." (Page 41.) Again, the City provides no evidence that any mobilehomes are available for purchase or that a very low income household could afford to purchase a mobilehome sold for $90,000. (3) The City affirmatively states that there is a need for senior housing. (Page 45.) In fact, this is the only special needs population that it declares to be in need of housing. In truth, the special needs analyses reveal that senior housing is the only need that is being met. Indeed, and in addition to the unmet housing needs of its farm worker and homeless population described above, -the City is not meeting the needs of its disabled residents, large families or female -headed families and none of the housing programs set forth in the Draft Element are geared toward meeting these needs. We further submit that the City's proposed program to "permit" emergency and transitional shelter for the homeless is meaningless without mitigation of existing constraints described herein. (A) There is a substantial need for housing for people with disabilities, including 5 Letter to Mario Aingel August 11, 2004 group or board and care homes --- yet only 42 beds in the County that provide "housing" for people with disabilities (including 25 beds for persons with HIV or AIDS) (Pages 45-46.) The City sets forth no policy or program, including a reasonable accommodation policy specifically for people with disabilities, that is designed to encourage or facilitate group 'housing situations. (B) In his May 2001 letter, Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, explained that local governments have an affirmative duty under fair housing laws to provide reasonable accommodation and "[i]t is becoming increasingly important that a process be made available for handling such requests that operates promptly and efficiently." The State Attorney General, in rejecting local governments' use of the variance or conditional use permit process to evaluate requests for reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws, explaining that reliance on alternative procedures (such as the granting of "variances" with different criteria, serves at least in some circumstances to encourage community opposition to projects involving desperately needed housing for the disabled.) (C) Accordingly, we urge the City to adopt fair housing reasonable accommodation procedures as one way of addressing barriers in land use and zoning regulations and procedures, and to take a comprehensive approach to eliminating discrimination and furthering housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities. (D) The City states that there is a need for adequate housing for large families and that larger families often face income limitations. (See pages 47-48.) There are 269 large households renters in the city but the census only tabulated 119 four and five bedroom occupied rental units (110 four bedroom and 9 five bedroom units.) It is unclear where the remaining 150 large renter households are residing but presumably they are in smaller units with overcrowded conditions. (The City also alludes to the possible availability of an additional 560 vacant units without any support or identification.) In any event, the City claims that the needs of larger families can be augmented by three bedroom units that represent over 50% of the rental stock --- without any consideration as to affordability and family size. (E) Similarly, the City is vague with regard to the housing needs of female headed households. (Pages 48-49.) First, it states that female -headed households with children (or 410 households) earn an average income of $19,577 compared to female households without children (at $34,156.) The City states that the average poverty threshold for a family of four is $17,960, declaring that the poverty level for female headed households with children is "low". However, based on the City's own statistics, one-half (approximately 200 households with children) earn incomes at the poverty level or slightly above (within $1600 per year --- or $135 per month). At an average income of $19,577, female headed households with children should n Letter to Mario Angel August 11, 2004 only be paying approximately $488 per month for rent. As demonstrated on Table H-24 (See page 33), there are only 60 three bedroom rental units that rent for less than $500, and the majority of three bedroom rentals have rents at $750 or above (776 units). Since it appears that the housing needs of approximately 350 female headed families (410 - 60 = 350) are not being met, the City should also focus on the development of affordable housing to meet these needs. 5. Constraints to Building Affordable Housing Include program actions to address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583(c)(3)). La Quinta acknowledges that since it is "largely dependent on tourism, a high percentage of [low- income] employment is being generated ... [without housing available at prices affordable to accommodate the maximum monthly housing [cost of these] employees. (Page 61.) Yet, the City continually refuses to address constraints that limit the availability of much needed affordable housing. We remain disturbed about the City's refusal to address affordable housing constraints. In our letter of May 10`h, we raised a concern that the City's maximum density range which allows a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre serves as a City imposed constraint to the development of affordable housing. (Page 63.) This issue is not adequately addressed in the Revised Housing Element. As previously stated, we believe that the City of La Quinta needs to further analyze its land inventory, density restrictions and other cost factors necessary for the development of affordable housing for very low and low income households and special populations and should have a program to revise its maximum density substantially upward in order to ensure that their policies do not inhibit housing development Also, the City needs to further analyze the need for minimum density for multifamily sites so that they are not used for single family subdivisions and take similar appropriate corrective measures. The City's attempts to justify its zoning densities fail. The City argues that it can produce affordable housing at densities lower than 16 d/u per acre but its examples are to housing that was developed in the 1980s and early 1990s. However, the, City also admits that land and construction costs do not make affordable housing economically feasible and redevelopment assistance is necessary to obtain affordability for lower income households. The more recent housing developed at less than 16 d/u (without RDA assistance) are admittedly market rate or high cost or otherwise not affordable to lower income households. The City further concedes that some of its newer affordable housing developments are at higher than 16 d/u densities. By limiting its highest density in such a restrictive manner, the City fails to encourage and facilitate the development of lower income housing without RDA subsidy in violation of state law. The City's sole reliance on the RDA assistance to develop affordable housing is misplaced as these funds are limited and alone will not enable the City to meet its affordable housing needs. The City needs to encourage such development through other avenues, including the increase in density. We also believe that the City's density requirements raises fair housing implications (housing element law refers to equal opportunity) because of the potential impact on protected classes who are often 7 Letter to Mario Angel August 11, 2004 lower income and often in the special needs categories. We do commend the City for encouraging a City imposed density bonus but are concerned about the City's apparent disregard of the state -imposed density bonus (which should be the minimum standard.) (See page 69 and Housing Programs.) We are also concerned that the local density.bonus appears to be substantially utilized for "resort condominiums" and other related housing types and promoted less for the production of affordable housing. Similarly, we commend the City for recognizing that its untimely processing and permit procedures, high development fees and high density and non-residential zoning conditions pose a constraint on the development of affordable and/or special needs housing, single room occupancy units (SROs) and residential uses in non-residential designations such as homeless shelters and transitional housing, among other types of housing. (Pages 72-82.) We further acknowledge that the City's "promise" to grant some "variances", expedite processing and reduce fees for selected types of housing is promising. (See pages 148-150.) However, we have strong concerns that such concessions will be made on a "case -by -case" basis, or apparently only for selected types of affordable and/or senior housing. It is unclear who will be making these decisions, what standards must be met and how the requests for "case by case" concessions will be made. Without specific standards and procedural guidance, "case by case" consideration is meaningless. Furthermore, by presumably subjecting variance requests or CUPS to the public hearing process, the City is essentially inviting project opponents to shut down the proposed development. In fact, we query why the City would want to follow the public hearing process --- instead of specifically requiring such concessions --- when it admits that NIMBYism is a significant "non -City constraint." (Page 59.) We are also concerned that the City appears to ignore any concessions necessary for the development of group or care housing for people with disabilities. As noted above, without a specific reasonable accommodation for development accommodating people with disabilities, the City's zoning practices are discriminatory. We are also concerned that reductions in onerous parking requirements will be selectively and arbitrarily granted. 6. Redevelopment At pages 84-85 of the revised draft, the City states that it has six redevelopment projects in the planning stage with developers for the construction of six residential projects with affordable components. It would be helpful if the City identified the six projects with particular emphasis on describing the "affordable" components of each of the projects. Also, the City cites that the Redevelopment Agency `s Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides loans up to $25,000.00 for rehabilitation yet it offers no information about the success of the program or if any City residents even applied for the loans. Thus, in addition to identifying specific projects, the City should also confirm that it is complying with state - mandated recorded affordability restrictions of 55 years for rentals and 45 years for homeownership units, including those units rehabilitated under the Housing Rehabilitation Program. 7. Housing Preservation Currently, there are six "at -risk" rental units in La Quinta. The City should reassess and reconfirm Letter to Mario Angel August 11, 2004 with project -based project owners that it is still their intention to maintain affordability subsidies beyond 2008. Since the City's data is old, and the market rents have increased substantially over the past few years, the data relied upon in the revised draft housing element may be obsolete. Although these housing units represent a minimal number of rental units overall, it is essential to maintain the affordability of these units and maintain compliance with Govt. Code §65583(a)(8)(A) through (D). Throughout its Element, the City relies on the presence of Section 8 vouchers to help meet the housing needs of its lower income population. However, since the federal governmgnt is proposing significant cut -backs in funding for Section 8 vouchers, the City should analyze its need for affordable housing without the assistance of Section 8 subsidies and should further assess its "plan" if it does lose all or most of the vouchers used in La Quinta. 8. Resources and Programs Summary The City produces an extensive Houses Resources and Programs Summary as Appendix A which lists numerous Federal, State, County and City housing programs and funding sources. It would be extremely helpful if the City would provide information, particularly for non City housing programs and funding sources, as to which of the housing programs and funding sources are actually utilized by the City. Our understanding from the revised draft is that all affordable housing programs in the City are being funded solely with City redevelopment funds, including its 20% set aside funds. If this should be the case, we strongly encourage the City to supplement its redevelopment funds with Federal, State and County funds earmarked for affordable housing. (See also comments above). Due to its proposed redevelopment of land with existing affordable housing, including its proposed residential development of agricultural land, the City must include a program for relocation assistance to all residents displaced by the actions undertaken by the City. The City fails to include such a program. Finally, while it is essential that the City comply with state mandated inclusionary requirements for redevelopment projects, we encourage the City to expand its local inclusionary requirement beyond residential development in only commercial zones. Given the recent and proposed build out of the City, its inclusionary requirements would have a significantly greater impact if enforced in both residential and commercial zones. 9. Conclusion Housing element law requires the City to promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin and color and further requires affirmative steps concerning special needs categories such as farmworkers, large households and the disabled. Each of the flaws which we have identified in the revised draft housing element appear to part of a larger pattern evidencing the City's failure to promote housing opportunities for these protected groups. Moreover, we believe that housing element law also requires the City to conserve and improve the condition of existing affordable housing stock which includes a duty to to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public action. Instead, the City is using its Redevelopment Agency to unnecessarily deplete the inventory of existing affordable housing stock in the Vista Dunes Mobilehome Park, and possibly, the Dune Palms 0 Letter to Mario Aiigel 4 ugust 11, 2004 Mobile Estates mobilehome park. We hope that these comments are helpful. Please feel free to contact us for additional information. 5inc( Arty, Rita Attoi __ cc: Mr. Fred Baker, City of La Quinta (via U.S. mail only) 10 OIZ% HOUSING AUTHORITY ce Ma5Arlin 5555 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92504-2506 ¢.��, Of the COun`_ Of R��v�rsld a: (951) 351-0700 Admin FAX (951) 688-6873 f. Housing FAX (951)354-6324 TDD (951) 351-9844 igust 25, 2004 Indio Office 44-199 Monroe, Ste. B ;d Baker, Principal Planner f\�o �y� Indio, CA 92201 (760) 863-2828 y of La Quinta (760) 863-2838 FAX 1 Box.1504 TDD (760) 863-2830 Quinta, CA 92253 Website:harivco.org ar Mr. Baker: ave reviewed the Housing Element for the City of La Quinta as requested by Mr. Oscar Orci. On Page 9 of the document, left columns, paragraphs two ii � u ie discussion of Section 8 rental, assistance, there is a itement about the allocation of HOME funds from the County of Riverside to the Housing Authority to Ip reduce the waiting list. There is no allocation of HOME funds for that purpose at this time or expected 2005. Just as an update of information, as of August 25, 2004 there are 135 families living in the City of Quinta that are receiving rental assistance in the form of Housing Choice Vouchers. There are 271 nilies on the Section 8 waiting list that give an address in La Quinta. paragraph 3 of Page 139 there is a discussion of Section 8 Voucher use. While it is true that the City of Quinta cannot directly influence the number of Housing Choice Vouchers available to the residents of City, the La Quinta Rental Housing Program goes a long way toward making affordable units available the residents that hold Housing Choice Vouchers. The Housing Authority finds that with the current using market rents increasing at alarming rates, many of the Voucher holders are unable find a unitwith r✓illing owner and rent at a level that will work within the Federal Regulations. Thirty percent of those ;ued Vouchers are unable to find a unit to lease under the program rules and the Voucher expires without ing used by a needy family. The Housing Authority would like to encourage the City of La Quinta to irchasing more homes for use by those holding Section 8 Vouchers. ie Housing Element Appendix A, Page 160, Section 1 discusses the La Quinta Rental Housing Program. he program description discusses the sale of the units at the expiration of the Section 8 Voucher. The ogram makes use of tenant -based Housing Choice Vouchers and those Vouchers do not have expiration ites. Can you clarify under what circumstances the houses are sold to lower income households? How any of the original 50 units have been sold? The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program allows @sing with an option to purchase. A review of the lease used by the management company handling the i Quinta Rental Housing Program indicates that no provision is made for the purchase of a unit. iith the exceptions listed above, we concur with your analysis. We look forward to working with the City La Quinta in furthering affordable housing in the County of Riverside. ncerely, J� ary Riservato ssistant Director %11/2E104 11:34 7603478073 CV RESCUE MISSION PAGE 01 CaachEila Valley Rescue Mission September 11, 2004 Oscar Orci, Interim Community Development Director City of La Quinta PO Box 1505 La Quinta CA 92253 Mr. Orci, Thank you, for the f the Palmopportunity As a member o Desert General Plan Advisory Committee, I fully understand he ask in which you are involved. A quick overview revealed needed corrections to section 6.5-Special Needs, page 50, Homeless: I . The last line of the first paragraph should read, "... facilities in the County, City of Indio, or Palm Springs for assistance." The CV Rescue Mission in the county, not Indio. 2. The last line of the forth paragraph is erroneous. CVRM was a pai-ticipant in the valley -wide homeless census and services survey. As much as a city would like to think it has no homeless population to deal with, that is almost never the case. Some homeless gather in the area around the Circle K at Tampico. Others are quite transient and are difficult to track; but they are there and identifiable. 3. Table H-34 needs to be corrected as follows: Change: O CVRM number of beds to read 80 (not 30 as listed) — this has yet to be corrected in the County General Plan as well. o CVRM Clientele are men, women and families. o I also believe Nightengale Manor has 30 beds, but you should check with them. o Martha's Village & Kitchen is missing -- they have 120 transitional beds for men, women and families. Sincerely James K. Lewis CEO/Executive Director 47.518 Van Buren / P.O. Box 514 / Indio, Caliiornia 92202 / (760) 347-3512 / Fax (760) 347-8073 -24-2004 FRI 02:29 PM FAX NO. P. 02 Coachella Vall Thomas P. Genovese City Manager The City of La Quints 78-495 Celle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 �V► Housin Coalition or 1 45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G, Plaza , Indio, 2201 TEL: V60) 347-3157 PAX: V60 42-6466 Re Revised June 2004 Draft Housing Element Update for the Clt of La Uinta Dear W. Genovese: The intent of this letter is to express the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition's (CVHC) concerns over the inadequacy of efforts made by the City Planning Department of La Quints to garner public participation in the drafting and revision of their June 2004 Housing Element Update- California Housing Element Law states that each jurisdiction "shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element "1 CV purpose is to help low-income families improve their living conditions through advocacy, research, construction, and operation of housing and community development projects. CVHC is cited throughout the Housing Element Update as a local housing advocate, and a source of important i ,formation on area housing needs. The City Planning Department, however, chose not to seek out CVHC's expert opinion once the draft was distributed to community groups both during the first round and second round of comments. CVHC has been actively involved in meeting housing needs in the Coachella Valley for 22 years and has developed more than 100 single-family self-help homes within the City of La Quints since 1998. Despite our long term efforts to improve housing in the City, CVHC has faced resistance from City government in the past. In 1998 the City proposed a change in single-family zoning laws that would have prevented CVHC from building a scattered site Self -Help Housing development in the Cove area. In a June 15th, 1998 letter, our legal representative, Attorney William J. Davis, submitted a letter to the City in response to the proposed changes stating, "It is legally improper for the City to impose design or construction requirements in response to constituent pressure in an effort to exclude affordable housing." I also went before the City Council to further express the need for affordable housing in the City and urged the Council not to move forward with the proposed zoning law. In response to our action, the City agreed to withdraw the proposed change in zoning. Through advocacy and development within the City of La Quints, CVHC has demonstrated a vested interest in ensuring the City meets its affordable housing needs. We have had the opportunity to review a copy of the June 2004 Draft of the La Quints Housing Element Update provided to us by Arturo Rodriguez of California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA). e. We were reviewed the Housing Element Update we found that we were unable to eference what thtwice and our projects were referred to several times in the Housing Element e ' section 65583(c) Vi a www.cvhc.org' 24-2004 FRI 02:29 PM FAX NO. P, 03 source of information was for our quotes. We contacted a City of La Quinta representative by phone on September 2nd to request citation for the quotes. We are frst referred to on Page 49 as having conducted a survey of farmworkers in the Coachella Valley. According to the city rcpresentative, the City's Housing Element Consultant stated that the information from this survey was found in a September 2000 issue of Rural Migration News. Had CVHC been contacted directly we could have provided information specific to our knowledge of affordable housing needs within La Quinta. The Rural Migration News article is a five -year -old second-hand source that references the needs of a different community within the Coachella Valley. This information should not have been used to represent the affordable housing needs in La Quinta. CVHC is again referenced on Page 181 in the Public Participation section. Here the document states "organi=tions related to low-income housing were contacted during the update of the Housing Element to gain further insight into the affordable housing needs facing La Quinta." According to our records, we were never contacted by the City or their consultant regarding the Revised Draft of the June 2004 Housing Element Update. Also, on page 181, the document states, "the CVHC identified an urgent need to rehabilitate and improve conditions in mobile home parks" According to the city representative, the consultant obtained the information for this quote in a May 1, 2001 phone conversation with Sergio Carranza, a former CVHC employee. It is our understanding that this was a casual conversation and that Mr. Carranza's statement did not refer specifically to the housing needs of the City of La Quinta. During his time at CVHC, Mr. Carranza was actively involved in providing advocacy and housing for displaced residents of closed - down illegal mobile home parks in rural areas east of Coachella. -Our involvment with development in La Quinta has been centered on attempting to acquire sites for multi -family housing projects and on the development of Single -Family Self -Help homes, because we saw these as the most pressing needs in that community. Currc=ntly, the City is being sued over its attempt to close Vista Dunes Mobile -Home Park within its city limits and replace the mobile -homes there with single-family modular rental homes for very low-income households. While residents of the mobile home park will be given priority placement within the new development, there are only 82 new units proposed as compared to 92 mobile homes existing. This guarantees that at least ten existing households will be displaced permanently and likely forced to move outside La Quinta to find affordable housing? Whether or not they are able to return to the new development, many of the current Vista Dunes residents, whose housing costs are only for a space in the mobile home park, are likely to end up with higher housing costs if they are required to move into rental housing. Not only will housing costs rise on average for the current residents, but the closure and rehabilitation of Vista Dunes Mobile -Home Park will actually decrease the number of affordable units available. Sergio Carranza's comments on Page 181 refer to a need for improved mobile -home park conditions in Eastern Coachella Valley. Used in the Housing Element Update, Mr. Carrartza's comments appear to indirectly support the City's efforts to replace the Vista Dunes Mobile -Home Park with lower density housing. While we wish to support the City's efforts to improve the quality of affordable housitig, we believe that this can be done at the site of Vista Dunes Mobile -Home Park without' displacing residents. 2 vivanco, Leonor. "Suit filed over low-income resident relocation" The Desert Sun. August 30, 2004 www. cvhc. org -24-2004 FRI 02:29 PM FAX NO. P. 04 returned to the City with instructions to increase public participation. We understand that the Housin Element Update was returned to the City in part because of a letter written by Mr. Rodriguez and Rita Luevanos-Castro of CRLA to HCD regarding the legality of the document. This letter stated that "there was little, if any, effort by the City to include meaningful public participation in the drafting of its revised housing element" (page 1). As Mr. Baker stated in a phone conversation, the City redistributed copies of the June 2004 draft to community groups for a two week commenting period, per HCD's instructions. Despite the fact that we are prominently mentioned in the Housing Element Update and that CRLA highlighted in their letter to HCD that the City never sought comment from CVHC during the initial preparation of their Housing Element Update, we were again not solicited for comment in the second round. The City of La Quinta apparently recognizes us as an important force in developing affordable housing as CVHC was referenced six times in the La Quinta Housing Element as a past provider of affordable housing within the City and a source of vital housing information. Because of this we should have been asked to provide comments germane to the June 2004 Revised Draft of the Housing Element Update, Had we been formally contacted when the City consultant was preparing the Housing Element Update, our insight could have been used to accurately describe the area housing needs and we would have reacted to the current conditions of growth in the City. Instead, the City, chose to use a secondary source and a 3 ycar- old phone conversation not specifically applicable to the current housing needs in La Quinta, as their evidence that CVHC was contacted for comment. The City's failure to appropriately solicit information from us during the entire process of drafting and review of their Housing Element is inexcusable and fails to comply with HCD's statutory requirement for public participation. It is imperative that Housing Elements of every local government general plan seek to meet local and regional needs and are effectively implemented. Housing elements are the main mechanism through which state law and state housing goals are met. Comments from the public are reviewed by HCD as significant factors in the decision to approve the element. We recommend that public participation be heightened to allow for the most accurate analysis of housing needs and resources for development. We are very interested in working with the City in order to help it meet its housing needs. We look forward to meeting with you and your staff to discuss this further. Sincerely, o F. ea ey C e Valley Housing Coalition Cc: Mario Angel, California Department of Housing and Community Development wivrv.Mmorg Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEAGUE ASSISTANCE (CRLA 1. Public Participation Comment: As stated in our letter on May 10", our concern was that the City had failed to identify the organizations and public agencies which it claimed were involved in the development of its draft housing element. We note that at page 181 of Appendix B, the City lists the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition (CVHC), and only CVHC, as one of the "non -profits" involved in the process. CVHC is a highly respected non- profit which has built and rehabilitated hundreds of low income and farm worker housing units in the Coachella Valley. The organization's expertise would indeed have been invaluable in assisting in the development of La Quinta's housing element, particularly in identifying needs for very low and low income housing in the City. We note that the information CVHC allegedly provided was in regards to the "needs for migrant and resident farm workers in the Coachella Valley" and the "urgent need to rehabilitate and improve conditions in mobile home parks," presumably in unincorporated areas of Riverside County where CVHC is actively involved. (Revised Draft at page 181.)" It would have been helpful if the City had identified the information that CVHC provided which it found useful in examining and responding to the housing needs of the City of La Quinta, particularly in area of the City's need for affordable housing. We note that the Special Needs Analysis pertaining to farm workers is void of any mention of CVHC and its alleged input (Pages 49-50.) Indeed, this analysis concludes that affordable housing for farm worker is unnecessary because La Quinta is an "urban area" and the current agriculturally developed land in La Quinta is being converted to "low -density" (and therefore, unaffordable) residential use. Since this conversion will "terminate any [future] demand for seasonal and permanent farm workers in the City", the City concludes that it is "unlikely that my migrant farm worker households reside in La Quinta". (Page 50) The conclusion by the City that affordable housing for farm workers is unnecessary is unfounded and unsupported. The two public agencies which are also identified as having provided input on the draft housing element, the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) and Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) provided information which "identified County housing programs and its responsibility for accommodating housing demand in the County areas (including the City's sphere of influence)." (Page 181) [Emphasis added] Again, it would have been helpful if the City had identified the information that DPSS and the EDA provided which it found useful in examining and responding to the housing needs of the City of La Quinta, particularly in area of the City's need for affordable housing. 2 PAFRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 Moreover, in an effort to quantify public input on its housing element, the City lists 19 public meetings and hearings held between October 8, 1998 and April 27, 2004 during which it claims it received public input in the development of its housing element. It is interesting that only one, the joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session held on April 27, 2004 specifically concerned the draft housing element. While we understand that the Housing Element is in fact interrelated with the other elements of its General Plan, meeting and public hearings held to discuss General Plan do not, in our view, address the City's statutory requirement that it "make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element" Finally, the City states that it contacted a number of organizations and agencies that provide housing, or housing related services, to its residents. We bring to HCD's attention that the City failed to contact our office even though we have first hand knowledge of both the housing and social welfare needs of lower income households in La Quinta including but not limited to common causes for eviction, unmet needs of people who are disabled, elderly or poor, credit issues, etc. All future references to page numbers are to the June 2004 Revised Draft Housing Element Update. All future references to page numbers are to the June 2004 Revised Draft Housing Element Update. City Response: The City mailed a copy of the June 2004 Revised Draft Housing Element to a number of additional organizations associated with affordable housing requesting they review and respond to the Revised Draft Housing Element. The City has incorporated changes into the Housing Element in response to the organizations' concerns and provides this letter to inform all commenting organizations of the resulting changes. These changes occurred in Appendix B as reproduced below. Appendix B - Public Participation Public participation in examining and responding to the housing needs of the City of La Quinta took place over the past five years through the preparation and update of several planning documents: the Housing Element, the General Plan (especially the Land Use Element), the Consolidated Plan, and the Economic Development Plan. Due to the Housing Element's focus on the provision of affordable housing, organizations related to low-income housing were contacted during the update of the Housing Element to gain further insight into the affordable housing needs facing 3 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 La Quinta. These organizations included non -profits, such as the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition; public agencies, such as the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) and Department of Public Social Services (DPSS); and private organizations, such as Fred Sands Desert Realty. The Coachella Valley Housing Coalition provided information on the available programs and needs for migrant and resident farm workers in the Coachella Valley. Specifically, the CVHC identified an urgent need to rehabilitate and improve conditions in mobile home parks. The Riverside County EDA and DPSS identified County housing programs and its responsibility for accommodating housing demand in the County areas (including the City's Sphere of Influence). Fred Sands Desert Realty provided detailed information on existing and new housing prices, as well as remaining development potential. Additionally, in direct response to a request from the HCD on August 20, 2004 the City submitted the Housing Element to the following organizations for their review and comment: Martha's Village & Kitchen, Catholic Charities, Coachella Valley Rescue Mission, Desert AIDS Project, Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment, Habitat for Humanity of the Coachella Valley, California Rural Legal Assistance, Housing Authority of the County of Riverside, Planning Department of the County of Riverside, City of Indio, City of Indian Wells, and the City of Coachella. Three of these entities responded: CRLA, the Riverside County Housing Authority and the Coachella Valley Rescue Mission. The comments of these entities highlighted the importance of public participation, the provision of homeless resources throughout the Coachella Valley, and the reduction of constraints to affordable housing. Public input was also actively encouraged during the preparation of the remaining Elements of the adopted La Quinta General Plan Update. As this Housing Element is interrelated with the other Elements of the updated 2002 La Quinta General Plan, the public participation process undertaken during the development of the General Plan update is considered relevant to this Housing Element. The following list identifies and describes public meetings and public hearings the City conducted during the three and one-half year process to update the General Plan in which ample opportunity was provided for public comment. October 8, 1998 A joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting on the General Plan was held to discuss land use, retail and commercial development, the expansion of the housing stock, and circulation issues. 4 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 October 26. 1999 A General Plan meeting was held to discuss General Plan Land Use Alternatives for the General Plan update, and to receive public comment. Discussion of land use, retail and commercial development, the expansion of the housing stock, and circulation issues ensued. A summary of proposed changes was presented. November 16, 1999 The City Council conducted a public hearing on General Plan Land Use Alternatives and received public comment. The Council continued the public hearing to January 4, 2000. January 4, 2000 A continued public hearing was held on General Plan Land Use Alternatives and received public comment. Discussion regarding neighboring jurisdictions resulted. The Council continued the public hearing to March 7, 2000. At this meeting, the City Council agreed to meet with the Thermal Community Council at Coachella Valley High School. March 7, 2000 A continued public hearing was held on the General Plan Land Use Alternatives and received public comment. The Council continued the public hearing to April 4, 2000. April 4, 2000 A continued public hearing was held on General Plan Land Use Alternatives and received public comment. The Council continued the public hearing to May 16, 2000. May 16, 2000 A continued public hearing was held on General Plan Land Use Alternatives and received public comment. Council continued the public hearing to June 20, 2000. June 20, 2000 A continued public hearing was held to take comment on the General Plan Land Use Alternatives and to receive public comment. Council continued the public hearing to August 15, 2000. P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc 5 Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 August 15, 2000 A continued public hearing was held on General Plan Land Use Alternatives and received public comment. Council continued the public hearing to October 17, 2000. October 17, 2000 A continued public hearing was held on the General Plan Land Use Alternatives to receive public comment. Council continued the public hearing to November 21, 2000. November 21, 2000 A continued public hearing was held on the General Plan Land Use Alternatives to receive public comment. Council continued the public hearing to December 19, 2000. December 19, 2000 A continued public hearing was held on the General Plan Land Use Alternatives to receive public comment. After discussion it was determined to close the public hearing and re -notice the public hearing. January -August 2001 Several City Council meetings were conducted, including a special City Council meeting to discuss and review annexation interests with potential residents and property owners, and to receive public comment. August 7, 2001 At a regular City Council meeting, the Council scheduled a Joint City Council and Planning Commission public hearing for September 19, 2001 regarding the General Plan update. September 19, 2001 A joint public hearing between the City Council and Planning Commission was held on the General Plan to receive public comment. Discussion included land use, retail and commercial development, the expansion of the housing stock, and circulation issues ensued. 6 PAFREMHousing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 December 5, 2001 A joint public hearing was held between the City Council and Planning Commission on the General Plan to receive public comment. Discussion included land use, retail and commercial development, the expansion of the housing stock, and circulation issues ensued. February 27, 2002 A special Planning Commission public hearing was held to consider a recommendation to adopt the General Plan and to receive public comment. The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the General Plan. March 20, 2002 A special City Council public hearing was held to consider adoption of the General Plan and to receive public comment. The City Council adopted the General Plan. April 27, 2004 A joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session was held to discuss the General Plan Draft Housing Element. Moreover, as part of the Consolidated Plan process, which contributes toward the preparation of the Housing Element Update, a number of organizations and agencies that provide housing, or housing -related services were contacted. These organizations included senior services, HIV (AIDS) services, business development agencies, and first-time homebuyer groups. These organizations were contacted through mailed surveys and at community meetings in La Quinta and neighboring jurisdictions. Overall responses indicated a need for the rehabilitation of older rental apartments, consumer credit concerns, overcrowding in multifamily units, and a lack of financial resources for the elderly or disabled. Responses from these groups helped guide the Housing Needs Assessment portion of the Housing Element, as well as the action plan. Public input was also solicited on housing needs in the City's Economic Development Plan. A series of community forums inviting the residential and business communities took place to determine the resources, opportunities, liabilities, and needs of La Quinta. These discussions included redevelopment activities which form the heart of the City's affordable housing efforts. 7 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 Further, the Housing Element Update involved a joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop on April 27, 2004, a publicly noticed Public Hearing before both the Planning Commission and City Council, and a Notice of Availability of the documents for public review at City Hall during the public review process. The Draft and Final Housing Element were circulated to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment. Finally, prior to final adoption of the Housing Element update, the City will hold two public hearings as required by the City's Municipal Code. The first public hearing will be in front of the La Quinta Planning Commission. Following a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council will hold at least one public hearing at which time it will consider whether to adopt the Housing Element update. Presently, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 28, 2004 and continued the public hearing scheduled to October 12, 2004. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on October 19, 2004 to consider adoption of the Housing Element update. 2a. Farm Worker Housing CRLA Comment: In our comments of May 10, 2004, we provided factual information contrary to the City's self serving conclusion that "[biased on an analysis on farm labor and the diminishing amount of farm land in the City of La Quinta and surrounding rural areas, the need for farm worker housing has declined." As cited in the September 2003 article in the Desert Sun newspaper, agricultural output for crops grown in the Coachella Valley in the year 2002 was valued at $425 million. In a more recent Desert Sun article published on August 1, 2004, the crop yield for the year 2003 was valued at $405 million, with the decline due to lower prices, not level of production. While the article does cite a decline in the number of valley acres harvest from 50,095 in the year 2002 to 49,733 in 2003, such a slight decline does not support the City's conclusion that the need for farm worker housing is declining and therefore violates Govt. Code §65583(c)(1)(A). See also our comments above under public participation. At a minimum, we would expect that the City's analysis on the issue of farm worker housing should address its borders which are contiguous with those of both Thermal and Coachella, areas which remain heavily dependent on agricultural production. 8 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 City Response: The City has reviewed farm worker housing needs and has done so based on evidence contained in the record, including the City's General Plan and this Housing Element. The conclusions and analysis of the City are based on its independent review of evidence and comments received by it and are supported by substantial evidence. Notably, the Farm Bureau estimates and press reports cited by the CRLA are County -wide aggregates and do not specifically relate to farmland within the City of La Quinta. The General Plan Land Use Element contains two "Planning Areas" which are outside the corporate limits of the City. The City has assigned General Plan Land Use designations to these areas as the State law requires each City to adopt a General Plan "for the physical development of the city and land outside its boundaries which... bears relation to its planning." (Government Code 65300.) The 8,495 acres of land utilized as rural, low density, and agriculture are located in Planning Area One and Two, within the County of Riverside. However, it is important to understand that the County of Riverside is the responsible jurisdiction for addressing housing needs in unincorporated territory. The Sphere of Influence and area of interest are not within the City borders and fall under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside's Housing Element. Likewise, surrounding cities with agricultural land are the responsible jurisdictions for addressing housing needs within their own city limits. The comment by CRLA does not provide specific evidence that the City of La Quinta's conclusions on page 50 of the draft Housing Element update lack support. The City's conclusion, in fact, is a reasonable and supportable one in that converting agriculturally developed land to residential uses will eliminate the demand for seasonal and permanent farm workers because there will not be farmland to drive a demand for farm workers in the City of La Quinta. Thus, CRLA's response in this regard is unsubstantiated opinion and does not address the City's conclusion with additional specific evidence to contradict the City's conclusions. Additionally, text from page 50 of the Revised Draft Housing Element speaks further on the activities surrounding farm worker housing: "Most Coachella Valley farm workers live in mobile home parks, often in substandard or overcrowded conditions. Under the direction of a taskforce created by the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, the County in 1999 embarked on an aggressive campaign to improve conditions in these mobile home parks. Under the program, the County offers park owners low interest loans to upgrade general conditions, as well as provide residents home -improvement grants up to $3000. In P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc 9 Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 some instances residents can receive loans up to $20,000 at minimal interest rates. This program will also help the County and municipalities bring up to Code the sometimes problematic mobile home parks, as well as help with the delivery of health and social services to these farm workers. Responsibility for providing housing for farm workers originally lay with the growers that employed the workers. This practice was discontinued, however, due to high costs for liability insurance and maintenance. In La Quinta, it was reported in 2000 that only four farm workers reside in dormitory farm worker housing. Low-income groups often need housing in close proximity to work. For farm workers, this means that housing is needed in rural, agricultural areas rather than urban areas. In the Coachella Valley, the principal housing options for regular and local seasonal farm workers are family -owned homes, private rental houses, apartments and mobile homes. The 2000 Census identifies one migrant farm worker housing structure in the City housing four persons. In 1999, a new apartment complex for migrant workers opened in Mecca, with 88 units and a low- cost/free health clinic. There is also potential for the 93 motor home coaches in the Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park to be sold to provide migrant worker housing in agricultural areas in the Coachella Valley. The disposition for potential re -use of the coaches has not yet been determined. 2b. Housing for Homeless Persons or Near Homeless Persons CRLA Comment: We noted in our comments of May 10th that we were highly skeptical of the City's conclusion that "(nlo homeless, however, were found within the City of La Quinta." Again, the City's reliance on a single census conducted during March 1 1- 14, 2003 seems a bit self-serving for a city of over 32,000 residents. (Page 9.) We believe that such short sighted and self-serving analysis of special needs housing is due in large part on the City's failure to actively seek input from social service agencies which provide services to these special needs groups. For example, in the neighboring City of Indio, Martha's Village and Kitchen, a $3.2 million private social service agency, provides shelter and other services to the area's homeless. We are confident that the City's conclusion that there are no homeless in the City of La Quinta would be far different had it sought information and guidance from Martha's Village or Indio's other homeless shelter, the Coachella Valley Rescue Mission. 10 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 While we commend the City for amending its Zoning Code to address zoning for emergency shelters and "transitional facilities", we are concerned that the City's zoning amendments do not, in fact, intend to address the housing needs of homeless or near homeless persons. (See pages 50-51.) First, it is not clear what the City means by "transitional facilities". We assume that such facilities are intended to be transitional housing for formerly homeless persons but this term should be clarified to mean "housing" and not "services" only. Second, we are concerned that the City limits emergency shelters by right to only non-residential "zones" and limits "transitional facilities" to Regional Commercial and Major Community Facilities districts subject only to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City's intention to prevent homeless persons from living in residential neighborhoods, or to require an extensive public hearing process to obtain approval for development, fails to meet the requirement to identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the City's need for emergency shelters and transitional housing. [Govt. Code §65583(c)(1)(A).] In addition, the City's zoning requirements are discriminatory and violates applicable state and federal fair housing law. For example, in California, the City cannot discriminate and engage in discriminatory practices against certain protected classes, including race, ethnicity, disability and source of income. Homeless persons often fall into these protected classes. In addition the City is prohibited from discriminating against certain persons in the exercise of their land use and toning powers. (Govt. Code 5 65008.) Those protected under this law includes the traditional classes protected under both state and federal housing law as well as developer sand occupants of low and moderate income housing, transitional housing and emergency shelters. We see no effort of the City to affirmatively encourage or promote the development or creation of emergency shelters and transitional housing for the homeless. (See also Hoffmaster v. City of San Diego (1997) 55 CA 41'' 1098.) City Response: The City may increase its participation in future homeless census efforts, however, it was determined that the 2003 effort conducted by the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services was reliable and indicative of the City's experience with homelessness. The City has not witnessed homelessness in the City and has not received reports or complaints about homeless persons within the City. The commentator does not provide any specific evidence to substantiate the opinions provided in the comment. The City recognizes the transient nature of homeless persons and believes that its Zoning Code does not discriminate against the homeless or near homeless. In fact, the Zoning Code permits emergency shelters by right in all non-residential zones 11 PAFREMHousing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 and transitional facilities in the Regional Commercial and Major Community Facilities Districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Code defines transitional shelters as "a shelter for homeless persons or victims of domestic abuse which provides accommodations for persons on a transient basis, i.e., for a continuous period of two weeks or less." The commentator's opinions relating to the alleged discriminatory nature of the City's Zoning Code are unsupported legal conclusions that the commentator is not properly qualified to make. As such, this comment is based on unsupported opinion and does not constitute evidence of any discrimination. Regardless, in response to this comment, the City notes that it does not engage in discriminatory conduct in its housing and Zoning Code, nor has there been any adjudication by a court supporting the commentator's opinion. The commentator does not cite to any specific evidence to support its opinion and on this basis this portion of the comment is speculative and unsupported. 3. Mobile Homes and Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park CRLA Comment: Since submitting our previous comments, we have since learned that the City's redevelopment Agency attempted to purchase La Quinta's only other mobile home park, Dune Palms Mobile Estates, for the purpose of closing the park. It is our understanding that the Dune Palms' owner refused to sell. Closure of both Dune Palms and Vista Dunes by the City would result in the loss Of 195 of the City's 258 mobile homes and the loss of both its mobile home parks. As you know, mobile home parks have traditionally been a source of affordable housing, and perhaps most importantly, serve as a basic entry level for home ownership for low income families. The recent attempts to close its mobile home parks raises serious concerns that the City is merely going through the legal motions in submitting a housing element and that the City has no intention of establishing and following policies "that will guide the City decision making" to preserve, improve and develop housing for every La Quinta household. It is a stated objective of the Revised Housing element to allow and maintain mobile home parks in order to "[plreserve low-cost housing options for City residents." We fail to see how the removal of 195 of its 258 mobile homes, which at present serve primarily low income Latino families, is consistent with the stated objective. State redevelopment law requires that the City replace all of the 93 extremely low, very low and low income units that will be lost as a result of the closure of the 12 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park. These 93 replacement units do not count towards the RHNA needs for the City. Again, we remain of the opinion that the City would be better served by helping the residents of Vista Dunes to rehabilitate or replace their mobile homes and constructing 82 units of additional low income housing at some other site within the City. City Response: The Redevelopment Agency purchased and is redeveloping the Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park because the site constitutes urban blight and a majority of the coaches, and all of the site utility infrastructure, are dilapidated and need to be replaced. The Agency determination with respect to Project Area 2 is in conformity with the City's findings that Project Area 2, within which the Vista Dunes development is located, is blighted. This determination is conclusive against all parties and reflects the reasoned judgment of the City and the Agency. The Park is 36 years old and the water and electrical systems have not been improved or replaced since they were originally installed. Further, there is severe overcrowding with many coaches using plywood structures as bedrooms. These structures often do not have heating or air conditioning units. As a result, the City determined these structures were not safe. The Agency explored ways of refurbishing the Park and replacing the existing coaches, but given the interconnects between site utility systems and the narrow, rectangular shaped parcel, the utility systems could not be replaced without shutting down all utilities, and construction access could not be provided without creating dangerous safety problems. Given these constraints the Agency elected to work to vacate the Park of all occupants and then proceed to redevelop the site with single-family dwellings that will be rented to very low-income family households because rehabilitation was not a viable option. These dwellings will feature 55-year covenants that will restrict annual rent increase to costs affordable to very low-income households. The Agency is also reducing the number of units in order to increase on -site parking, and provide on -site recreation and open space areas. The new project is planned to have 80 new units at Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency recently purchased other land to be used for additional Affordable Housing. Thus, the 10 referenced units that CRLA alleges are going to be lost will receive first priority in this development as well as the newly acquired affordable housing site. The objective of the City is that the project will contain sufficient units to accommodate the current park residents. The City notes that the Community Redevelopment Law (Cal. Health & Safety Code section 33410 et seq.) does not require the City to provide each resident new housing at that same location. Rather, the Community Redevelopment Law requires that the City identify comparable replacement housing, and offer first priority in the new development to current residents. (Cal. Health & Safety Code P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc 13 Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 § 33411.3) The City will comply with this legal requirement and other applicable requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law. 4. Housing Needs & Housing Objectives CRLA Comment: In addition to the housing needs of farm workers and homeless persons, we have the following concerns about the Draft Housing Element and its failure to adequately address the housing needs of ALL of its residents: 1 . The Draft Element contains several misleading tables. For example, Table H- 26 includes a housing cost percentage definition of "30% or above". Under this definition, over 35% of the households earning less than $35,000 pay "30% or above" for housing cost. However, without separating out the number of households that arc paying more than 30% of its income for housing, the City is evading disclosure of how many of the 35% lower income households are actually overpaying for their housing. (See page 37.) Table H-29, disclosing overcrowding in the City, is also misleading to the extent that it attempts to correlate a lack of overcrowding with housing affordability. The Table declares that overcrowding in the City is low and that 7,926 of its households are not overcrowded (529 households are overcrowded at a standard of one person per room - not bedroom). (Page 43.) This conclusion is not surprising since the development of four bedroom units increased by 300% over the past decade. Indeed, 9,057 of the City's housing units are 3 or more bedrooms. (Page 25-26). The City also admits that its "smaller" bedroom stock is steadily decreasing. At the same time, the number of households earning $60,000 or more has almost doubled while the number of households earning less than $1 5,000 was reduced in half. (Page 13.) It is clear that the City's emphasis on higher income units is forcing lower income residents h m the community, or ultimately will cause more families to double up, and thus become overcrowded, because they cannot afford the housing. 2. The City declares that since interest rates have fallen, low- and very low- income households may be able to afford a limited number of homes. It states that a low-income family can purchase a $108,000 home in La Quinta but it provides no evidence that any single family homes, townhomes or condos are available at that amount. (Pages 40-41.) In fact, no ownership opportunities are available to very low income households "although mobile home resales may fall under $90,000 should one become available." (Page 41.) Again, the City provides no evidence that any mobilehomes are available 14 PAFREMHousing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 for purchase or that a very low income household could afford to purchase a mobilehome sold for $90,000. 3. The City affirmatively states that there is a need for senior housing. (Page 45.) In fact, this is the only special needs population that it declares to be in need of housing. In truth, the special needs analyses reveal that senior housing is the only need that is being met. Indeed, and in addition to the unmet housing needs of its farm worker and homeless population described above, the City is not meeting the needs of its disabled residents, large families or female -headed families and none of the housing programs set forth in the Draft Element are geared toward meeting these needs. We further submit that the City's proposed program to "permit" emergency and transitional shelter for the homeless is meaningless without mitigation of existing constraints described herein. (A) There is a substantial need for housing for people with disabilities, including group or board and care homes --yet only 42 beds in the County that provide "housing" for people with disabilities (including 25 beds for persons with HIV or AIDS) (Pages 45-46.) The City sets forth no policy or program, including a reasonable accommodation policy specifically for people with disabilities, that is designed to encourage or facilitate group housing situations. (B) In his May 2001 letter, Attorney General, Bill Lockyn; explained that local governments have an affirmative duty under fair housing laws to provide reasonable accommodation and "Lilt is becoming increasingly important that a process be made available for handling such requests that operates promptly and efficiently." The State Attorney General, in rejecting local governments' use of the variance or conditional use permit process to evaluate requests for reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws, explaining that reliance on alternative procedures (such as the granting of 'variances" with different criteria, serves at least in some circumstances to encourage community opposition to projects involving desperately needed housing for the disabled.) (C) Accordingly, we urge the City to adopt fair housing reasonable accommodation procedures as one way of addressing barriers in land use and - zoning regulations and procedures, and to take a comprehensive approach to eliminating discrimination and furthering housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities. 15 PAFRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 (D) The City states that there is need for adequate housing for large families and that larger families often face income limitations. (See pages 47-48.) There are 269 large households renters in the city but the census only tabulated 119 four and five bedroom occupied rental units (1 10 four bedroom and 9 five bedroom units.) It is unclear where the remaining 150 large renter households are residing but presumably they are in smaller units with overcrowded conditions. (The City also alludes to the possible availability of an additional 560 vacant units without any support or identification.) In any event, the City claims that the needs of larger families can be augmented by three bedroom units that represent over 50% of the rental stock — without any consideration as to affordability and family size. (E) Similarly, the City is vague with regard to the housing needs of female headed households. (Pages 48-49.) First, it states that female -headed households with children (or 410 households) e m an average income of $19,577 compared to female households without children (at S34.156.) The City states that the average poverty threshold for a family of four is $17,960, declaring that the poverty level for female headed households with children is "low". However, based on the City's own statistics, one half (approximately 200 households with children) earn incomes at the poverty level or slightly above (within $1600 per year--- or S135 per month). At an average income of $1 9,577, female headed households with children should only be paying approximately $488 per month for rent. As demonstrated on Table H- 24 (See page 33), there are only 60 three bedroom rental units that rent for less than $500, and the majority of three bedroom rentals have rents at $750 or above (776 units). Since it appears that the housing needs of approximately 350 female headed families (410 - 60 - 350) are not being met, the City should also focus on the development of affordable housing to meet these needs. City Response: 1. Overpayment refers to renters and homeowners who must pay more than 30 percent of their gross incomes for shelter. Table H-26 accurately represents the overpayment figures as presented in the 2000 Census as to the number and percentage of households that spend 30% or more of their gross income on housing costs. As defined by the U.S. Census, an overcrowded household is one with greater than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Rates of overcrowded conditions are considered to be a good gauge of housing 16 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 affordability as these rates can indicate whether families are being forced to "double -up" due to a lack of adequately sized units. The City's increase in the number of multiple -bedroom units is not considered to be detrimental to the provision of affordable housing stock. 2. The City understands that the Southern California housing market does not generally produce housing affordable to very low-income households. The City does not claim that new homes will be constructed that will be affordable to very low-income households. Rather, the City states that falling interest rates in 2003-2004 may have increased the affordable purchasing prices for very low income households to. Table H-28 indicates that $108,000 was the lowest price recorded for a resale home and $135,000 was the lowest price for a new home as of June 2002 3. (A-C) The City will adopt a reasonable accommodation ordinance to ensure that the City's development standards and processes do not pose a barrier for affordable housing for disabled residents. A draft version of this ordinance is attached hereto for your review. 3. (D-E) The City's affordable housing efforts strive to generate housing affordable to all special needs groups, including large families and female - headed households. 5. Constraints to Building Affordable Housing CRLA Comment: La Quinta acknowledges that since it is "largely dependent on tourism, a high percentage of [low-income] employment is being generated. . . [without housing available at prices affordable to accommodate the maximum monthly housing [cost of these] employees. (Page 61.) Yet, the City continually refuses to address constraints that limit the availability of much needed affordable housing. We remain disturbed about the City's refusal to address affordable housing constraints. In our letter of May 101h, we raised a concern that the City's maximum density range which allows a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre serves as a City imposed constraint to the development of affordable housing. (Page 63.) This issue is not adequately addressed in the Revised Housing Element. As previously stated, we believe that the City of La Quinta needs to further analyze its land inventory, density restrictions and other cost factors necessary for the development of affordable housing for very low and low income households and special populations and should have a program to revise its maximum density 17 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 substantially upward in order to ensure that their policies do not inhibit housing development Also, the City needs to further analyze the need for minimum density for multifamily sites so that they are not used for single family subdivisions and take similar appropriate corrective measures. The City's attempts to justify its zoning densities fail. The City argues that it can produce affordable housing at densities lower than 16 d/u per acre but its examples are to housing that was developed in the 1980s and early 1990s. However, the City also admits that land and construction costs do not make affordable housing economically feasible and redevelopment assistance is necessary to obtain affordability for lower income households. The more recent housing developed at less than 16 d/u (without RDA assistance) are admittedly market rate or high cost or otherwise not affordable to lower income households. The City further concedes that some of its newer affordable housing developments are at higher than 16 d/u densities. By limiting its highest density in such a restrictive manner, the City fails to encourage and facilitate the development of lower income housing without RDA subsidy in violation of state law. The City's sole reliance on the RDA assistance to develop affordable housing is misplaced as these funds are limited and alone will not enable the City to meet its affordable housing needs. The City needs to encourage such development through other avenues, including the increase in density. We also believe that the City's density requirements raises fair housing implications (housing element law refers to equal opportunity) because of the potential impact on protected classes who are open lower income and often in the special needs categories. We do commend the City for encouraging a City imposed density bonus but are concerned about the City's apparent disregard of the state -imposed density bonus (which should be the minimum standard.) (See page 69 and Housing Programs.) We are also concerned that the local density bonus appears to be substantially utilized for "reason condominiums" and other related housing types and promoted lass for the production of affordable housing. Similarly, we commend the City for recognizing that its untimely processing and permit procedures, high development fees and high density and non-residential zoning conditions pose a constraint on the development of affordable and/or special needs housing, single room occupancy units (SROs) and residential uses in non- residential designations such as homeless shelters and transitional housing, among other types of housing. (Pages 72-82.) We further acknowledge that the City's "promise" to grant some "variances", expedite processing and reduce fees for selected types of housing is promising. (See pages 148-150.) However, we have 18 PAFREMHousing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 strong concerns that such concessions will be made on a "case -by -case" basis, or apparently only for selected types of affordable and/or senior housing. It is unclear who will be making these decisions what standards must be met and how the requests for "case by case" concessions will be made. Without specific standards and procedural guidance, "case by case" consideration is meaningless. Furthermore, by presumably subjecting variance requests or CUPS to the public hearing process, the City is essentially inviting project opponents to shut down the proposed development. In fact, we query why the City would want to follow the public hearing process — instead of specifically requiring such concessions --- when it admits that NIMBYism a significant "non -City constraint." (Page 59.) We are also concerned that the City appears to ignore any concessions necessary for the development of group or care housing for people with disabilities. As noted above, without a specific reasonable accommodation for development accommodating people with disabilities, the City's zoning practices are discriminatory. We are also concerned that reductions in onerous parking requirements will be selectively and arbitrarily granted. City Response: The City agrees that the development of affordable housing at any density, without assistance, is extremely difficult. Based on the City's independent review of available information, it has concluded that the Southern California housing market has shown that high densities do not necessarily generate affordable housing. The State, however, has updated its guidelines on affordable housing to remove a reference equating higher densities with lower income housing, although the State and City recognize that higher densities can require less costly subsidies. Accordingly, the City's Redevelopment Agency actively subsidizes and generates the construction of affordable housing projects such as Miraflores and Hadley Villas. In addition, the Silent Second Trust Deed Program enables lower -income households to achieve homeownership. Pursuant to this program the Agency makes no -interest loans, secured by second -priority deeds of trust, to low-, very - low, and moderate -income households to aid them in acquiring homes. Pursuant to State law, these properties are subject to a deed restriction requiring the property to be maintained as affordable housing. Presently, the Agency has funded approximately 321 of these Silent Second Trust Deed loans for very low-, low- and moderate -income households. By relying upon financial support as opposed to increased densities, the City is able to satisfy the needs of lower -income households without changing the lower density character of the City. Moreover, by ensuring that the City's affordable housing falls within current density levels, the City minimizes discriminatory feelings towards affordable housing by blending the affordable developments into the current housing product range. 19 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 This strategy is proven in the City's ability to repeatedly satisfy its RHNA responsibility. The City exceeded its 1989-1994 RHNA allocation of 206 units affordable to Very Low-income households by 34 units, and its RHNA allocation of 200 units affordable to Low-income households by 85 units. The City also expects to exceed its 1998-2005 RHNA allocation for lower -income households. As stated on Page 148 of the Housing Element, "The decision to assist a project with partial payment or waiver of selected fees is determined on a case by case basis and negotiated with the project proponent as part of the application, review and approval procedure." The construction of affordable housing projects is often more complicated than other types of development due to the inherent inability of the market to cover the costs associated with such development. Each project has different needs and faces different constraints. By tailoring the City's approach on a case -by -case basis, the City is able to better facilitate the construction of such housing projects. Moreover, the City provides priority processing for low and moderate -income housing projects, potentially reducing the costs of entitlement. Further, while the City has made significant efforts, as described above, to provide assistance to make affordable housing available, the crux of this comment made by CRLA relates to questioning the density of residential land uses as adopted in the General Plan Land Use Element. The City approved the Land Use Element on March 20, 2002 (City Council Resolution 2002-042). As a result, the density and conclusions reached by the City relating to residential density are conclusive and binding against all parties pursuant to California Government Code section 65009. 6. Redevelopment CRLA Comment: At pages 84-85 of the revised draft, the City states that it has six redevelopment projects in the planning stage with development for the construction of six residential projects with affordable components. It would be helpful if the City identified the six projects with particular emphasis on describing the "affordable" components of each of the projects. Also, the City cites that the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides loans up to $25,000.00 for rehabilitation yet it offers no information about the success of the program or if any City residents even applied for the loans. Thus, in addition to identifying specific projects, the City should also confirm that it is complying with state - mandated recorded affordability restrictions of 55 years for rentals and 45 years for homeownership units, including those units rehabilitated under the Housing Rehabilitation Program 20 PAFRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 City Response: The City provides a description of the residential activity in redevelopment project areas on Pages 91-93 of the Housing Element. The Agency maintains a "Silent Second Trust Deed" Program. Pursuant to this program the Agency makes no -interest loans, secured by second -priority deeds of trust, to low-, very -low, and moderate -income households to aid them in acquiring homes. Pursuant to State law, these properties are subject to a deed restriction requiring the property to be maintained as affordable housing. Presently, the Agency has funded approximately 321 of these Silent Second Trust Deed loans for very low-, low- and moderate -income households. In addition, the Agency has assisted private developers with building dwellings that are either sold or rented to very low-, low- and moderate -income households. This assistance includes purchasing land at market rates and selling it for $1.00, and underwriting some of the subsequent construction costs. These efforts have produced an additional 741 dwellings that will remain affordable to very low-, low- and moderate -income households for 30 to 55 years. Finally, the Agency is pursuing new affordable housing development projects that will generate an additional 340 dwellings that will be available for occupancy by very low- and low-income households within the next 48 months. 7. Housing Preservation CRLA Comment: Currently, there are six "at -risk" rental units in La Quinta. The City should reassess and reconfirm with project -based project owners that it is still their intention to maintain affordability subsidies beyond 2008. Since the City's data is old and the market rents have increased substantially over the past few years, the data relied upon in the revised draft housing element may be obsolete. Although these housing units may represent a minimal number of rental units overall, it is essential to maintain the affordability of these units and maintain compliance with Govt. Code §65583(a)(8)(A) through (D). Throughout its Element, the City relies on the presence of Section 8 vouchers to help meet the housing needs of its low income population. However, since the federal government is proposing significant cut -backs in funding for Section 8 vouchers, the City should analyze its need for affordable housing without the assistance of Section 8 subsidies and should further assess its "plan" if it does lose all or most of the vouchers used in La Quinta. 21 PAFREMHousing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 City Response: The City's communication with the owners indicated the units will continue to be offered as affordable and will not terminate in 2008. The commentator's remark that "the City's data is old and the market rents have increased substantially over the past few years, the data relied upon in the revised draft Housing Element may be obsolete" is pure unsubstantiated opinion and is not supported by any specific facts that suggest it is improper for the City or Agency to rely on the information contained in this report. In fact, the City and Agency have specifically made determinations that the information contained in its communication with the owners is reliable. 8. Resources and Programs Summary CRLA Comment: The City produces an extensive Housing Resources and Programs Summary as Appendix A which lists numerous Federal, State, County and City housing programs and funding sources. It would be extremely helpful if the City would provide information, particularly for non City housing program and funding sources as to which of the housing programs and funding sources are actually utilized by the City. Our understanding from the revised draft is that all affordable housing programs in the City are being funded solely with City redevelopment funds, including its 20% set aside funds. If this should be the case, we strongly encourage the City to supplement its redevelopment funds with Federal, State and County funds earmarked for affordable housing. (See also comments above). Due to its proposed redevelopment of land with existing affordable housing, including its proposed residential development of agricultural land, the City must include a program for relocation assistance to all residents displaced by the actions undertaken by the City. The City fails to include such a program. Finally, while it is essential that the City comply with state mandated inclusionary requirements for redevelopment projects, we encourage the City to expand its local inclusionary requirement beyond residential development in only commercial zones. Given the recent and proposed build out of the City, its inclusionary requirements would have a significantly greater impact if enforced in both residential and commercial zones. 22 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 City Response: The City has had some success in accessing Federal, State and other local housing revenue due to the amount of 20% Housing Set Aside Tax Increment Revenue the Redevelopment Agency annually receives. During Fiscal Year 2004-2005, the Agency will deposit over $9,000,000 into its affordable housing fund. With this amount of revenue being annually generated locally, the City has had limited success in securing Federal and State housing revenue. However, the Agency has secured some Federal and State funding to facilitate the preservation or development of affordable housing. Section 8 funds provided through the County of Riverside assist 43 very low-income family households to rent 43 single family dwellings in the Cove. The Agency invested $3,000,000 of redevelopment housing funds to preserve these units as Section 8 eligible homes when the developer who initially included these dwellings in the County's Section 8 Program declared bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court elected to sell these units. HUD 202 loan funds were used to underwrite the development of 80 senior housing units of which 40 are affordable to very low-income, and 40 affordable to low-income households. The Agency assisted the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition (CVHC) to secure Federal and State funding that generated ten single-family dwellings that are owned by five very low- and five low-income households. Further, the Agency has participated in 9% and 4% tax credit developments that generated 80 very low-, and 118 low- to moderate -income senior rental units. Finally, the City facilitated the issuance of mortgage revenue bonds; bond proceeds funded the development of 118 multifamily units located in the Villa Cortina apartment complex of which 58 units are affordable to very low-income and 58 units affordable to low-income family households. If the City or Agency undertakes projects that would displace residents, regardless of income, relocation assistance will be provided per Federal and State statutes. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1. Home Funding There is no allocation of HOME funds for this purpose [to help reduce Section 8 waiting list] at this time or expected in 2005. City Response: The reference has been removed on Page 139. 23 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 2. Update of Information on Housing Choice Vouchers Housing Authority Comment: Just as an update of information, as of August 25, 2004 there are 135 families living in the City of La Quinta that are receiving rental assistance in the form of Housing Choice Vouchers. There are 271 families on the Section 8 waiting list that give an address in La Quinta. City Response: This information has been incorporated into the Element on Pages 39 and 139. Page 39: Other sources for estimating overpaying rental households are the waiting lists for Housing Choice, formerly Section 8 Housing programs. Due to demand for Housing Choice Voucher units, only Federal preference applicants are placed on the waiting list. One of the criteria for Federal preference is if the applicant household is paying more than 50 percent of monthly income for rent plus utilities. According to the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside, 122 units in the City were leased and occupied by Housing Choice tenants in 2002. This number has increased to 135 in 2004. Additionally, 271 families on the Section 8 waiting list provide an address within the City of La Quinta. The majority of units leased are three bedrooms, followed by one bedroom units. The majority of assisted households are families with children, followed by the elderly and disabled. Page 139: The Riverside County Housing Authority administers the Housing Choice Voucher Program for Riverside County, including La Quinta. The demand for voucher assistance is high in Riverside County. According to the Housing Authority, approximately 122 households in La Quinta received rental assistance vouchers in 2002. The number of households has increased to 135 in 2004. Additionally, 271 families on the Section 8 waiting list provide an address within the City of La Quinta. The majority of vouchers are redeemed at rental units in the Cove and Village areas. 3. Influencing Housing Choice Vouchers Housing Authority Comment: While it is true that the City of La Quinta cannot directly influence the number of Housing Choice Vouchers available to the residents of the City, the La Quinta Rental Housing Program goes a long way toward making affordable units available to the residents that hold Housing Choice Vouchers. The Housing Authority would 24 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 encourage the City of La Quinta to purchase more homes for use by those holding Section 8 Vouchers. City Response: On page, 123 and 124 of the Housing Element, the plan objective for the La Quinta Rental Housing Program has been updated to encourage additional unit acquisitions using sufficient set -aside funds. Page 123: RDA shall offer the potential for qualified Very Low-income households to purchase the 43 single-family units in the Cove acquired by the RDA from Coachella Valley Land in 1995. Target sale of two units per year. Target the acquisition and rehabilitation of ten additional units (located throughout the City), and sell them to low-income households. If funding becomes available, the number of units acquired should be increased to offset increasing housing costs in La Quinta. Page 124: Continue to provide rental opportunities to 43 Very Low-income households in single-family units in the Cove purchased from Coachella Valley Land in 1995. Sell units to qualified home -buyers as market supports. Utilize Housing Choice vouchers to assist renters. If funding becomes available, the number of units acquired should be increased to offset increasing housing costs in La Quinta. Page 139: The City cannot directly influence the number of Housing Choice vouchers available to residents, however the City should support efforts of the Housing Authority to obtain additional funding from HUD to provide subsidies. The City can, however, if sufficient funding sources are available acquire homes to offer affordable housing to those with Section 8 Vouchers through the City's Rental Housing Program (see discussion on Page 137 and Table H-48 on Page 123 and 125). 1. Homeless Facilities Location CVRM Comment: The last line of the first paragraph should read, "...facilities in the County, City of Indio, or Palm Springs for assistance." The CV Rescue Mission in the County, not Indio. City Response: The sentence has been revised. PAFRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc 25 Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 Page 50: If a person or family find themselves homeless they must go to regional facilities in the County, City of Indio, or City of Palm Springs for assistance. 2. Homeless Survey CVRM Comment: The last line of the fourth paragraph is erroneous. CVRM was a participant in the valley -wide homeless census and services survey. As much as a city would like to think it has no homeless population to deal with, that is almost never the case. Some homeless gather in the area around the Circle K, at Tampico. Others are quite transient and are difficult to track; but they are there and identifiable. City Response: The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services Homeless Census from May 2003 does not indicate the presence of any homeless persons in La Quinta. Additionally, consultation with the City of La Quinta Police Department indicates that the persons around the Circle K are not necessarily homeless and appear to be waiting for work. However, the City recognizes the transient nature of homeless persons and has amended its Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters by right in all non-residential zones and transitional facilities in the Regional Commercial and Major Community Facilities Districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This will permit shelter resources to be constructed in La Quinta. Page 51: This information indicates a need for a minimal number of shelter beds. However, homeless persons and families are often transient and may find themselves in need of shelter in any given jurisdiction in the County. Accordingly, the Zoning Code was amended to permit emergency shelters by right in all non- residential zones and transitional facilities in the Regional Commercial and Major Community Facilities Districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit." 3. Homeless Facilities Information CVRM Comment: Table H-34 needs to be corrected as follows: Change: ❑ CVRM number of beds to read 80 (not 30 as listed) — this has yet to be corrected in the County General Plan as well. 26 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 ❑ CVRM clientele are men, women, and families. ❑ I also believe Nightengale Manor has 30 beds, but you should check with them. ❑ Martha's Village & Kitchen is missing — they have 120 transitional beds for men, women, and families. City Response: The table has been revised. Page 51: See Table below. Nightengale Manor has indicated that it has the ability to provide housing for as many as 50 family members. TABLE H-34 HOMELESS SHEL TER RESOURCES RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1999 Type of Clientele or Needs Number Shelter Name Shelter City Served of Beds ABC Recovery Center Emergency Indio Women & children 78 Armory Emergency Indio General 125 Coachella Valley Rescue Emergency Indio Men, women, & 80 Mission families Colorado River Emergency Blythe General 12 Community Action Nightengale Manor Emergency Palm Families 50 Springs Richard Allen Community Emergency Blythe General 8 Services Shelter from the Storm Emergency Palm Women & children 30 Springs ABC Recovery Center i Transitiona Indio Substance Abuse 16 Episcopal Community Transitiona Cathedral HIV/AIDS 34 Services I City Martha's Village & Transitiona Indio Men, women, & 120 Kitchen I families Cathedral City HIV/AIDS Permanent C tity edral HIV/AIDS 25 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc 27 Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 TABLE HOMELESS SHEL TER RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1999 H-34 RESOURCES Type of Clientele or Needs Number Shelter Name Shelter City Served of Beds ' Persons With Shelter Plus Care TBRA Permanent Indio Disabilities/ Mentally III 17 ' A total of 473 full-time beds are available in the County. Some of the beds are double counted in this table as some shelters provide emergency, transitional, and/or permanent shelter beds. Source: Riverside County Consolidated Plan 1999-2004 and The Planning Center, 2004. COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION (CVHC 1. Public Participation [From Page 1 of the Letter.] The intent of this letter is to express the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition's (CVHC) concerns over the inadequacy of efforts made by the City Planning Department of La Quinta to garner public participation in the drafting and revision of their June 2004 Housing Element Update. California Housing Element Law states that each jurisdiction "shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. ' "CVHC's purpose is to help low-income families improve their living conditions through advocacy, research, construction, and operation of housing and community development projects. CVHC is cited throughout the Housing Element Update as a local housing advocate, and a source of important information on area housing needs. The City Planning Department, however, chose not to seek out CVHC's expert opinion once the draft was distributed to community groups both during the first round and second round of comments. [From Page 4 of the Letter] Additional text in CVHC letter is partially missing between pages 3 and 4]:... returned to the City with instructions to increase public participation. We understand that the Housing Element Update was returned to the City in part because of a letter written by Mr. Rodriguez and Rita Luivanos-Castro of CRLA to HCD regarding the legality of the document. This letter stated that "there was little, if any, effort by the City to include meaningful public participation 1 Section 65583(c) 28 PAFRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc 1 Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 in the drafting of its revised housing element" (page 1). As Mr. Baker stated in a phone conversation, the City redistributed copies of the June 2004 draft to community groups for a two week commenting period, per HCD's instructions. Despite the fact that we are prominently mentioned in the Housing Element Update during the initial highlighted in their Housing Element Update, we were again not solicited for comment in the second round. The City of La Quinta apparently recognizes us as an important force in developing affordable housing as CVHC was referenced six times in the La Quinta Housing as a past provider of affordable housing within the City and a source of vital housing information. Because of this we should have been asked to provide comments germane to the June 2004 Revised Draft of the Housing Element Update. Has we been formally contacted when the City consultant was preparing the Housing Element Update, our insight could have been used to accurately describe the area housing needs and we would have reacted to the current conditions of growth in the City. Instead, the City chose to use a secondary source and a 3 year -old phone conversation not specifically applicable to the current housing needs in La Quinta, as their evidence that CVHC was contacted for comment. The City's failure to appropriately solicit information from us during the entire process of drafting and review of their Housing Element is inexcusable and fails to comply with HCD's statutory requirement for public participation. It is imperative that Housing Elements of every local government general plan seek to meet local and regional needs and are effectively implemented. Housing elements are the main mechanism through which state law and state housing goals are met. Comments from the public are reviewed by HCD as significant factors in the decision to approve the element. We recommend that public participation be heightened to allow for the most accurate analysis of housing needs and resources for development. City Response: CVHC contacted the City regarding the preparation of the Housing Element and asked and then advised the City that CVHC was not a part of the initial group that received and commented on the June 2004 Revised Draft Housing Element (see response to Public Participation in comment letter from CRLA). However, CVHC had not specifically requested that it be included prior to this letter. The CVHC informed the City that it preferred not to prepare comments in conjunction with the reviewing group and would reserve its comments for the September 28, 2004 Planning Commission hearing. At this time CVHC questioned the references to CVHC as a source of information for the Housing Element (see 3 below "Citation of CVHC"). On September 24, 2004, the City received the subject comment letter on the Housing Element. P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc 29 Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 2. 1998 Single -Family Zoning CVHC Comment: CVHC has been actively involved in meeting housing needs in the Coachella Valley for 22 years and has developed more than 100 single-family self-help homes within the City of La Quinta since 1998. Despite our long term efforts to improve housing in the City, CVHC has faced resistance from City government in the past. In 1998 the City proposed a change in single-family zoning laws that would have prevented CVHC from building a scattered site Self -Help Housing development in the Cove area. In a June 151h, 1998 letter, our legal representative, Attorney William J. Davis, submitted a letter to the City in response to the proposed changes stating, "It is legally improper for the City to impose design or construction requirements in response to constituent pressure in an effort to exclude affordable housing." I also went before the City Council not to move forward with the proposed zoning law. In response to our action, the City agreed to withdraw the proposed change in zoning. Through advocacy and development within the City of La Quinta, CVHC has demonstrated a vested interest in ensuring the City meets its affordable housing needs. City Response: The comment is noted. The commentator's opinions relating to the alleged unlawful nature of the City's Zoning Code are unsupported legal conclusions that the commentator is not properly qualified to make. The City's determination to not adopt design and construction requirements does not necessarily demonstrate that the City Council agreed with Mr. Davis' commentary or the commentary of the commentator presented at the City Council meeting. As such, this comment is based on unsupported opinion and does not constitute evidence of any unlawful activity. The commentator does not cite any specific evidence to support its opinion and on this basis this portion of the comment is speculative and unsupported. 3. Citation of CVHC CVHC Comment: We have had the opportunity to review a copy of the June 2004 Draft of the La Quinta Housing Element Update provided to us by Arturo Rodriguiez of California Rural Legal Assistance, Ino, (CRLA). We were quoted twice and our projects were referred to several times in the Housing Element Update. When we reviewed the Housing Element Update, we found that we were unable to reference what the 30 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 source of information was for our quotes. We contacted a City of La Quinta representative by phone on September 2"d to request citation for the quotes. We are first referred to on Page 49 as having conducted a survey of farmworkers in the Coachella Valley. According to the city representative, the City's Housing Element Consultant stated that the information from this survey was found in a September 2000 issue of Rural Migration News. Had CVHC been contacted directly we could have proved information specific to our knowledge of affordable housing needs within La Quinta. The Rural Migration News article is a five -year -old second-hand source that references the needs of a different community within the Coachella Valley. This information should not have been used to represent the affordable housing needs in La Quinta. CVHC is again reference on Page 181 in the Public Participation section. Here the document states "organizations related to low-income housing were contacted during the update of the Housing Element to gain further insight into the affordable housing needs facing La Quinta." According to our records, we were never contacted by the City or their consultant regarding the Revised Draft of the June 2004 Housing Element Update. Also, on page 181, the document states, "the CVHC identified an urgent need to rehabilitate and improve conditions in mobile home parks" According to the City representative, the consultant obtained the information for this quote in a May 1, 2001 phone conversation with Sergio Carranza, a former CVHC employee. It is our understanding that this was a casual conversation and that Mr. Carranza's statement did not refer specifically to the housing needs of the City of La Quinta. During his time at CVHC, Mr. Carranza was actively involved in providing advocacy and housing for displaced residents of closed -down illegal mobile home parks in rural areas cast of Coachella. Our involvement with development in La Quinta has been centered on attempting to acquire sites for multi -family housing projects and on the development of Single -Family Self -Help homes, because we was these as the most pressing needs in that community. Sergio Carranza's comments on Page 181 refer to a need for improved mobile - home park conditions in Eastern Coachella Valley. Used in the Housing Element Update, Mr. Carranza's comments appear to indirectly support the City's efforts to replace the Vista Dunes Mobile-Home2 Park with lower density housing. While we with to support the City's efforts to improve the quality of affordable housing, we believe that this can be done at the site of vista Dunes Mobile -Home Park without displacing residents. 31 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 City Response: Page 49 in the latest version of the Housing Element no longer references the CVHC on the subject of farmworkers in the Coachella Valley. The City and its consultant cited information found in the September 2000 issue of Rural Migration News. The City considers Rural Migration News (RMN) to be a valid source of information. RMN is affiliated with the University of California at Davis as part of the Migration Dialogue Project. The City concluded that this source was credible and the evidence contained in the report was credible and supportable. The commentator has not presented any specific evidence that contradicts the City's conclusion to rely on this information. The City did contact the CVHC in regards to the June 2004 Housing Element. (See response to Public Participation above.) The conversation with Mr. Sergio Carranza was interpreted as factual and reliable and the conversation explicitly concerned the housing needs of La Quinta. A closer evaluation of the project's records indicated that the phone conversation actually took place on October 26, 1999. The City shares and appreciates CVHC's concern for generating additional affordable housing in La Quinta. The City's redevelopment activities are geared towards generating both multi family and single family affordable units. 4. Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park CVHC Comment: Currently, the City is being sued over its attempt to close Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park within its city limits and replace the mobile -homes there with single- family modular rental homes for very low-income households. While residents of the mobile park will given priority placement within the new development, there are only 82 new units proposed as compared to 92 mobile homes existing. This guarantees that at least ten existing households will be displaced permanently and likely forced to move outside La Quinta to find affordable housing (Vivanco, Leonor "Suit filed over low-income resident relocation" The Desert Sun, August 30, 2004). Whether or not they are able to return to the new development, many of the current Vista Dunes residents, whose housing costs are only for a space in the mobile home park, are likely to end up with higher housing costs if they are required to move into rental housing. Not only will housing costs rise on average for the current residents, but the closure and rehabilitation of Vista Dunes Mobile - Home Park will actually decrease the number of affordable units available. 32 PAFRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 City Response: The Redevelopment Agency purchased and is redeveloping Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park because the site constitutes urban blight and because a majority of the coaches, and all of the site utility infrastructure, are dilapidated and need to be replaced. The Agency determination with respect to Project Area 2 is in conformity with the City's findings that Project Area 2, within which the Vista Dunes development is located, is blighted. This determination is conclusive against all parties and reflects the reasoned judgment of the City and the Agency. The Park is 36 years old and the water and electrical systems have not been improved or replaced since they were originally installed. Further, there is severe overcrowding with many coaches using plywood structures as bedrooms. These structures often do not have heating or air conditioning units. As a result, the City determined these structures were not safe. The Agency explored ways of refurbishing the Park and replacing the existing coaches, but given the interconnects between site utility systems and the narrow, rectangular shaped parcel, the utility systems could not be replaced without shutting down all utilities, and construction access could not be provided without creating dangerous safety problems. Given these constraints the Agency elected to work to vacate the Park of all occupants and then proceed to redevelop the site with single-family dwellings that will be rented to very low-income family households because rehabilitation was not a viable option. These dwellings will feature 55-year covenants that will restrict annual rent increase to costs affordable to very low-income households. The Agency is also reducing the number of units in order to increase on -site parking, and provide on -site recreation and open space areas. The new project is planned to have 80 new units at vista Dunes Mobile Home Park. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency recently purchased other land to be used for additional Affordable Housing. Thus, the ten referenced units that CRLA alleges are going to be lost will receive first priority in this development as well as the newly acquired affordable housing site. The objective of the City is that the project will contain sufficient units to accommodate the current park residents. The City notes that the Community Redevelopment Law (Cal. Health & Safety Code section 33410 et seq.) does not require the City to provide each resident new housing at that same location. Rather, the Community Redevelopment Law requires that the City identify comparable replacement housing, and offer first priority in the new development to current residents. (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 33411.3) The City will comply with this legal requirement and other applicable requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law. The comments by the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition regarding the Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park do not provide specific evidence (other than quoting a newspaper source) that the City of La Quinta conclusions in the draft Housing P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc 33 Housing Element Response to Comments October 7, 2004 Element update are unsupported. The City's conclusions are reasonable and supportable since the City will comply with applicable State codes and requirements and the Community Redevelopment Law. Thus, CVHC's statements in this regard are unsubstantiated opinion and do not address the CRLA lawsuit with additional specific evidence. 34 P:\FRED\Housing Element\Final Response Letter HsngElement Comments 6.doc STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2004 CASE NO: MINOR USE PERMIT 2004-536 APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: WAL-MART STORE #1805 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW 62 METAL CONTAINERS FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF HOLIDAY MERCHANDISE FROM OCTOBER 1, 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004, ON THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE EXISTING WAL-MART SUPER CENTER STORE LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: BACKGROUND: 78-950 HIGHWAY 1 1 1, WITHIN THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4) IN THAT THE STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TEMPORARY AND WILL HAVE NO PERMANENT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) The new Wal-Mart Super Center opened in early 2004 and is located at the southeast corner of Auto Center Drive and La Quinta Drive (Attachment 1). In the past four years, the Planning Commission approved Wal-Mart's Conditional Use Permits to allow the use of metal storage containers during the holiday season at their previous facility within the One -Eleven at La Quinta Shopping Center. The following is a list of the previous approvals: PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\MUP 04-536 Wal-Mart\PC Stfrpt MUP 04-536 Wal Mart.doc Date CUP # Permit Time # of # of Resolution # Period Containers Containers Requested Approved 1 1 /28/00 CUP 2000-052 09/01 /00 to 35 35 Resolution 2000-085 01 /15/01 08/28/01 CUP 2001-065 09/01 /01 to 43 43 Resolution 2001-107 01 /15/02 09/03/02 CUP 2002-071 09/05/02 to 55 43 Resolution 2002-084 01 /15/03 09/09/03 CUP 2002-080 09/15/02 to 55 55 Resolution 2003-073 01 /15/03 During the review of plans for the Wal-Mart Super Center, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2002-026 recommending to the City Council approval of the Site Development Permit (SDP 2002-728) with Conditions of Approval (Attachment 2). Condition No.88 stated that storage and storage containers can be permitted along the rear of Building "B" (See Attachment 3) provided a Minor Use Permit is granted by the Planning Commission as a business item. The City Council adopted Resolution 2002- 41, approving said permit with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Use Permit to allow the placement of 62 temporary metal storage containers on the south and east sides of the new Wal- Mart to store holiday merchandise from October 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 (Attachment 4). Due to the timing and scheduling of this application, it is before the Planning Commission after the requested date of October 1, 2004; therefore, the effective date will changed to October 13, 2004 (Condition No. 2). The containers will be removed by January 7, 2005 (Condition No. 2). Each metal storage container measures 10 feet wide, by 40 feet long, by eight feet high. Staff evaluated the aesthetic impact of these storage containers along the southern side of the building from Avenue 48, Aventine Apartments and the Lake La Quinta residential development. A block wall along the southern boundary of the site is approximately eight feet in height on the Wal-Mart side. With the storage containers at eight feet in height, there will be minimal visual impacts from the storage containers from Avenue 48 and the residential development. The Riverside County Fire Department has requested the applicant maintain a 20-foot minimum drive aisles for emergency/fire access at all times to the rear and sides of the P:\Reports - PC\ 10- 1 2-2004\MUP 04-536 Wal-Mart\PC Stfrpt MUP 04-536 Wal Mart.doc building and that any storage containers that block a required fire access lane to existing commercial buildings shall be relocated within 24 hours of a written notice from the Fire Marshal. This has been added as a condition of approval (Condition No. 3). Public Notice: Under the Zoning Code, Business Items are not subject to the Public Notice requirements, therefore, no notices were sent out regarding this Minor Use Permit. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request per Section 9.210.020 (Minor Use Permit) of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained below. 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the property is designated Regional Commercial which permits the temporary use proposed by this applicant. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in Section 9.100.120 (Outdoor Storage and Display) of the Zoning Code because merchandise will be stored in enclosed metal containers placed immediately outside of the building. 3. Compliance with CEQA: The proposed project is in compliance with CEQA in that the project the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304 (Class 4) in that the storage containers are temporary and will not have an effect on the environment. 4. Surrounding Uses: Approval of the Minor Use Permit will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or be injurious to, or incompatible with, other properties or land uses in the vicinity in that the storage bins are placed in areas away from customer traffic and public view. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2004-_, approving Minor Use Permit 2004-536, subject to Findings and the attached Conditions of Approval. PAReports - PC\10-12-2004\MUP 04-536 Wal-Mart\PC Stfrpt MUP 04-536 Wal Mart.doc Attachments: 1. Site Location Map 2. February 26, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes 3. March 19, 2002 City Council Conditions of Approval 4. Wal-Mart Site Plan 5. Storage Container Location Map Prepared by: Martin Magan Associate Planner PAReports - PC\1 0-1 2-2004\MUP 04-536 Wal-Mart\PC Stfrpt MUP 04-536 Wal Mart.doc , i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MOTION 2004- MINOR USE PERMIT 2004-536, WAL-MART CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED OCTOBER 12, 2004 GENERAL 1. The storage containers shall be located as illustrated on the site plan, unless otherwise amended by the Conditions of Approval. 2. This Minor Use Permit shall allow a maximum total of 62 temporary metal storage containers to be located on the site to be used for the storage of holiday merchandise between October 13, 2004 and December 31, 2005. The storage containers shall be removed by January 7, 2005. 3. A minimum 20 foot wide drive aisle for emergency/fire access shall be maintained at all times to the rear of the building. Any storage containers that block a required fire access lane to existing commercial buildings shall be relocated within 24 hours of a written notice from the Fire Marshal. 4. Recycled cardboard and excess shopping carts shall be stored within the appropriate designated areas on the south and east sides of the building. The outdoor storage area shall be cleaned daily of debris and litter. 6. Nothing shall be stored on top of the metal storage containers. All storage shall be within the enclosed metal storage containers. 7. The City reserves the right to add Conditions to this application request to mitigate any problems that arise not previously addressed herein. 8. The applicant/property owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 9. No sign are allowed on these containers. NIS MA/ WAS PREP% FOR ASSESSMENT PIIpPOSFf OML1. NO LIABIll11 '1pI I, 5S, r R,,E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ATTACHMENT S ASSUMED FOR IN IACIAIRICY 01 THE OAIA SHWN. ASS[SSOP'S IARCCL �Itt OF INdI LA OUINTA AT R71 LURPLT WI 0 ML LOT -SPLIT 0[ BOI i SI1[ OROIMMY[S. _ I 1 02 APART L4, R �� — - __ _ =- - %m - " A•----� V LS rAS iAei 6 8d ,oAc "I 943 ,.�' ,• �' uAc SS a 37 s r �.Yi,.l -,80 y' $ PAR v / 17 SB soe Ac I.A F ' 17 16 88 81 �1O o 22 s B.BI AC AWL B.B AC INL R.09 ACML 0.62 ACML ACML ^0 ]B)AC 2 100AC � n I 24 40 i � zol Ac rr- � PWB z 7 'A:d hat 1rt neR I L� mq •• 810 AC PAR BOND I ses ms. YNA M134 IX [ 111' +R � O 3++ LA QUIMA CRY LIMR9 �'• I e 34 IX ronAC ]RA 01P/9I ,5 71 pa O A R'P J WXIAC " 19.BBAC R 2fi.]BAC 9 k � 1R71AC 41 — —T-- I 12.BRAC JO ILe T , PM 193/50-51 PM 29084 PM 193/85-81 PM 28525-1 ASBESSDR'S YAP Pc.a3 - \ f� 1 PM 190/8142 PM 28422 Jon 2004 Bire T. Counly, WII1. � s s � 1 r I ATTACHMENT #d' Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 or letter of credit, and the proceeds shall be utilized to the extent needed to correct the landscaping deficiencies. If, after five years, the landscaping has been properly maintained, the City shall release the bond or letter of credit. If, in the determination of the Community Development Director, the landscaping has not been properly maintained, the bond or letter of credit shall be renewed and maintained for an additional five year period. 2. For the entire Planning Area III, the landscaping and irrigation system shall be well maintained and any dead plant material shall be promptly replaced. If the landscaping is not properly maintained, and if the condition is not cured within 30 days of the notice of the deficiencies, the City shall have the right to cause the correction of the deficiencies in the landscaping, and the applicant/owner agrees that the costs of the correction shall be recorded as a lien against the property. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedies the City has by law." H. Conditions #82-83: eliminated and replaced with a condition to require all signs to come back to the Planning Commission at a future date as a Business Item. I. Condition #86.A.b: "M an option agreement, satisfactory to the City..." J. Add a new Condition #88: "No outdoor storage or outdoor storage containers will be permitted on the vacant area of Phase 11 for Building "B". However, storage and storage containers can be permitted along the rear of Building "B" provided a Minor Use Permit is granted by the Planning Commission as a business item review process." K. Add a new Condition #89: "The rear elevations of Buildings "A" and "B" shall include visual interest as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director." L. Add a Condition regarding the right -in off Highway 111 to be properly signed as a one-way. M. Add all conditions received from the Coachella Valley Water District ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 13 • 4 ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. 2002-41 Conditions of Approval - Approved Site Development Permit 2002-728 Stamko Development Co. Adopted: March 19, 2002 Page 21 87. Once the business locating in Retail Building "B" is fully operational, noise monitoring shall be conducted on one to two occasions, at the Applicants expense, under the supervision of the City, to ensure that the typical operational noise does not violate the City's noise ordinance standards. The monitoring shall be conducted at one or more locations chosen by the City at the perimeter of the property. 88. No outdoor storage or outdoor storage containers will be permitted on the vacant area of Phase II for Building "B". However, storage and storage containers can be permitted along the rear of Building "B" provided a Minor Use Permit is granted by the Planning Commission using the business item review process. 89. The rear elevations of Buildings "A" and "B" shall include visual interest as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director. 90. The developer shall pay all fees and charges associated with providing domestic water and sanitation service in accordance with the current regulations of the District. Such fees and charges are subject to change. 91. The developer shall provide land on which a well site will be located. This site shall be shown on the tract map as a lot to be deeded to the District for such purpose. 92. Additional domestic water pipelines shall be installed by the subdivider in order for the District to provide service to all parcels. 93. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the District for sanitation service. ATTACHMENT i SETBACK RIGHT 1.11 AIII ENTR,.'M1jNLmEN7 G RIGHT SS CT' 50 AVERAGE LANCSCAPE OPOS, ETaACK Err RIGHT IN ONLY 'A PROPOSED Bus STOP HWY III ENTRY MONUMB.1, SIGN (WEST) J: GAS ST"TIOP4 P-ACEL 8 lilt I hill, III], GI:t89 AC - FU$01RE bEVLOPMENT. PARCE, 7 EA I . 46 AC I I I I I 1 IT &.11 It EXISTING AUTO CENTRE j r - L :Y A'T LA, C-UNTA SHOPS Fy C EL 9 fl.ILL",n�IwilIHIP, :!i HIP; 19 2W SF CAS ETA TIDN' 0.71 A C U I I Nf ''FUTURE " LUPMENT u : A PARCEL 5I A V:'III I t C, I T- F��E 10 - I 4864 AC RETAIL 'A' B6,584 3� 1T Rno eN PARCEL. n 1147 AC PARCEL12 -7 •FL V AVERASE �N- 4 P.-'-Z- L I S0. PA"' Us Ac. 44TAC F= -4- FUTURE DEVELOPMEN- AREA Ell PARCEL 3 PARCEL 14 W AC . . Ck . . ......... AJT____ PARCEL 2 IM AC . ................ 4�L (1 ■ T RETAIL 'E' .RETENTION . ...... 149551 SF PHASE 2':' LOT A PHASE 1 7aw W. 199 AC -j ATTACHMENT paw LA a. dim *,Smm% 1 163 0 0 bill o o o o o 0 0 6 0 I.ft7o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4�.,,,,, kl A o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 b, 0 0 0 o 0 • 0 0-1 010 • bi ec o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F_rpl�l 7 11 VIM, __ - - - 0 0 o o o o lo i i i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2004 CASE NOS.: SIGN PERMIT 2004-786, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: THOMAS ENTERPRISES SIGN COMPANY: SIGNARAMA (ROBERT DUARTE) LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND ADAMS STREET, THE PAVILION AT LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR THE PAVILION AT LA QUINTA PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS 'DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-481, PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-066, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 7, 2003. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, NOR ANY NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: CP / MINI STORAGE FACILITY AND CR / POST OFFICE (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) AND GYM SOUTH: CR / AUTO CENTER EAST: CR/VACANT WEST: CR / ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER P:\stan\sp 03-066 thomas\sdp 2004-807 pc rpt.doc BACKGROUND: The 17.48-acre property is located along the Highway 111 Commercial Corridor east of Adams Street (Attachment 1). Specific Plan 2003-066 was approved for this property on October 7, 2003 and allows the construction of a 175,200 square foot traditional Mediterranean Tuscany village style shopping center, including four detached pads. The sign program for the entire Center was approved in June, 2004, at which time architectural and landscaping plans for the first phase, which consists of three major tenants (Henry's Market, Bed, Bath and Beyond), and Shops 1 and 2 (Catherine's), and Pads 1 and 3 were also approved. EXISTING SIGN PROGRAM: The approved sign program for the Center includes business and Center identification signs. In general, the program allows a variation of business sign types including halo illuminated channel letters, standard acrylic -faced channel letters, exposed neon on a limited basis, and push-thru faced cabinets with creatively shaped cabinets (not flat plane rectangles) and materials.. Sizes are based on the one square foot per linear foot of store frontage to a maximum of 50 square feet as allowed by the Zoning Code. Sign colors and heights are not specified, but widths are limited to 75% of the business frontage width. Corner tenants are allowed a maximum of two signs with not more than one per building side. Single tenant freestanding buildings (with four frontages) are allowed one sign per frontage. Signs are to be placed either on the fascia of the storefront arcade or a tower structures. Businesses with trademarked designs and colors are permitted to use them in their signs. A three square foot blade (under canopy) sign is allowed with the stipulation that it have creative colors and materials. They are to be mounted to the building wall and project a maximum 3'-6" from the wall. The program includes shopping center identification monument signs and tenant identification monument signs. Two shopping center identification signs are allowed on Highway 1 1 1, with one at the east end entry and one at the corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street. Two tenant identification monument signs are allowed with one to be at one of the entrances to the Center on Highway 111 and one at the entry on Adams Street. The shopping center identification monument signs proposed are shown at 8-feet high by 18-feet long (144 square feet) with slightly shorter 3-feet by 4-feet pillar supports at each end. These signs would be faced with a stone veneer and painted with a flat concrete cap to match the Center. These signs would read "The Pavilion at La Quinta" on metal backing and internally illuminated halo -lit reverse channel letters. p \stan\sp 03-066 thomas\sa 2004-786 amend 1 pc rpt.doc A maximum of four major tenants would be identified on these shopping center identification monument signs with the same type of channel letters. The three tenant identification monument signs are rectangular monument style signs 6-feet high by 8-feet long. These signs will use the same materials as the Center identification signs with each sign having two tenants based. The name of the shopping center will not be on these signs. PROPOSED SIGN AMENDMENTS: Requested is an amendment to the sign program to permit larger wall signs for major tenants and a design change to the monument signs (Attachment 2). The existing sign program permits one square foot of wall sign per linear foot of business frontage up to a maximum of 50 square feet. This applies to all businesses regardless of size. In other words, it applies to the inline store, with 30 feet of frontage and major tenants, such as Henry's Market that have 27,000 square feet and 155 feet of frontage facing Highway 111. The applicant is proposing the following amendment to the program which would apply to large tenants: The maximum sign area shall not apply to a single business tenant who has over 15,000 square feet of contiguous floor space, provided the sign layout is reasonable for the facade and the request is approved by the landlord and the City of La Quinta Community Development Department. This amendment would permit signs larger than 50 square feet for Henry's Market (Major A), Bed, Bath and Beyond (Major B), and Majors F and G. Sign plans for Henry's Market and Bed, Bath and Beyond have not yet been submitted. Staff believes a maximum square footage for these signs should be set at 100 square feet. This is acceptable based on other approval along Highway 111. Following are sizes of similar signs approved: Marshall's Marshall's 157 square feet Staples 82 Stater Brothers 180 Big 5 66 Ross Dress for Less 115 Walmart Super Center 230 Target 186 The second amendment will change the lettering of all of the monument signs from internally illuminated halo -lit reverse channel lettering to internally illuminated p \stan\sp 03-066 thomas\sa 2004-786 amend 1 pc rpt.doc acrylic letters pushed-thru on opaque aluminum panels. The design, size, colors and general appearance will remain the same. The sign program amendments will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and will be in harmony and visually related to the proposed architecture of the buildings, with the approval of the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2004- , approving Sign Application 2004-786, Amendment #1, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Submit five copies of revised final sign programs to the Community Development Department for final approval prior to issuance of the first sign permit for the project. 2. Signs shall be a maximum 100 square feet, based on how sign fits in proposed wall mounting area. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Sign program with proposed amendments Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner p \stan\sp 03-066 thomas\sa 2004-786 amend 1 pc rpt.doc I I MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2004 SUBJECT: VUP 2003-019 — DR. JOHN DIXON Staff requests that the following corrections be incorporated with the recommended action on this case. A. Incorporate the conditions of the Riverside County Fire Department, per the attached letter received this date. B. Revise Condition #6, as shown in bold font: 6. All parking area civil plans and improvements shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in applicable portions of Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code, except where the approved plans shall take precedence. Handicap access and facilities, including both handicapped parking stalls, shall be provided in accordance with Federal (ADA), State and local requirements. The following revised parking standards are approved for VUP 2003-019: A. Parking stall dimensions of -8 8.5 feet wide and 18 feet depth, with a one -foot overhang, for all standard parking stalls, including end stalls. B. Total parking area count of 25 17 stalls, including handicap stalls. C. Parking aisle width of 24 feet. D. One row of five parking stalls, in the north parking area, shall be covered by a shade structure to provide shaded parking. The applicant may meet this requirement by extension of the building patio trellis, if such extension is preferred by the applicant and is feasible. Final design for the shade structure shall be approved by the Community Development Department. oft UT W C In coo,Ueration with tint, k F Calitornia heportinew ol'Forestrt, and hire Protection 210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 • (909) 940-6900 • Fax (909) 940-6910 ?y September 10, 2004 FD, IF To: Wally Nesbit. Associate Planner E� T ; 209 : I g Anthony CIS ppTTYYF LAOIN7f. -e chief From: Dale A. Evenson. Fire Safety Specialist °Mnn OEPA C) ILN PMFM f ly serving the The following conditions are requested for VUP 2003-019a )rporated of Riverside y and the Approved super fire hvdrants. shall be spaced even, 330 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet nor more of: than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along outside travel ways. ng Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to nont identify fire hydrant locations. esa The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 gpm and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 1500 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating pressure. �n Lake City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA ella 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire Department. Hot Springs Fire Department connections (FDC) shall be not less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant Wells and shall be located on the front street side of the buildings. FDC's and PIV's may not be located at the rear of buildings. Note also that FDC's must be at least 25 feet from the building and may not be blocked by landscaping, parking stalls or anything that may restrict immediate access. 3lsirtore Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City plan check. inta to Vallev Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 3esert The required water system, including fire hydrants. shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. o Mirage Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the Ist. floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. Minimum road width is 20 feet clear and unobstructed with a vertical clearance of 13 cinto �/2 feet clear. Turning radiuses shall be no less than 38 feet outside. ;ula The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a of Supervisors height of 13"6" clear and unobstructed. ester, Install a KNOX key box on each commercial building and/or suite. (Contact the fire department for an District I application) tvaglione, District 2 Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. nable, Any submissions to the fire department are the responsibility of the applicant. District 3 ilson, District 4 Ashley District 5 EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION • PLANNING SECTION • INDIO OFFICE 82-675 Highway 111, 2nd Fl., Indio, CA 92201 • (760) 863-8886 • Fax (760) 863-7072 October 11, 2004 T City of La Quinta 4` r Planning Commission cirr pF�AaUiN'^ coMMUpE A�EM�LOPMEll Re: October 12, 2004, Item #13, Dr. John Dixon's Request Dear Planning Commissioners: I am generally supportive of John Dixon's request but offer some comments and suggested recommendations for your consideration. John Dixon's property is directly adjacent, east, of my home. • Reduction in Parking Requirements. Street parking on Desert Club is available. Creating large parking lots for each individual property in the Village is counter -productive to the urban village we are creating in the Village. In fact, I am concerned there may actually be too much parking on -site. However, I suggest you consider including a condition that this site cannot be used for retail uses, which would likely overtax the parking areas. • Noise. The applicant inherited a very noisy Air Conditioning Compressor (A/C) from previous owners. It appears that the existing unit may be moved closer to my home, and an additional 4 units will be placed even closer to my home. I request that you condition this applicant to mitigate the noise of the new and existing A/C units noise with a wall and move the units from next to my property to next to the existing structure. • Landscaping. Please support ALRC's recommendations (shade trees, softening of parking areas, landscaping along my property line, etc.). Since it is proposed that the landscape plan would not be available for public review prior to approval by City staff, I request that the staff make the draft landscape plan available for review and comment to any interested party prior to staff approval. • Architecture. While generally impressed by the architecture of Skip Lench, I found the computer generated architectural elevations lacking in detail and expression. An exhibit depicting the elevations and landscaping should be a minimum requirement for development requests of this size or larger in the Village. It is not clear how this design relates architecturally with recently approved offices, one under construction, just south on Desert Club. • Lighting. Please permit only bollard type (less than 40" high) lighting for the rear parking area next to my house. This should have been a requirement of the parking area for Arnold Palmer's restaurant that has created light pollution for other neighbors along Calle Cadiz, our street. • WaIJ. I suppqrt the applicant's plan to construct a wall along the southern half of our joint property line. I am concerned about the impact the footings of a wall will have on the seemingly shallow root system of two massive Eucalyptus trees at the south end of our shared property line. I request that the app4rant confirm that the wall syste% w jl not create a potential hazard associated with the EqF#lyptus, remove the Eucalyptus, And/or find some other mutually acceptable solution. Thanks for your consideration of these recommendations and questions, Sincerel Tom K.Tjs cc: John Dixon Skip Lench 78-150 CALLE CADIZ • LA QUINTA, CA • 92253 PHONE: 7600564-1452